First shift
An experienced crew and a lead who runs a daily tier meeting
- Right-first-time
- 79%
- Operators under six months
- 2 of 21
- Charges weighed
- 98%
Case study · Sample site assessment
Why the same batch came out different on second shift
A sealants and adhesives plant took on 22% more volume as its private equity owner consolidated production. First shift kept making good batches. Second shift's right-first-time fell from 77% to 64%. Our site assessment traced the gap to four steps on the floor and showed how to close it in 90 days.
Sample deliverable. This case study and report are a composite. Company names, people, locations, and figures have been changed to protect client confidentiality.
V1V2V3V4V5V6V7V8V9V10V11V12V13V14MonTueWedThuFri
Show data
| Category | Four-hour blocks |
|---|---|
| Productive mixing | 216 |
| Cleaning | 60 |
| Adds and re-tests | 50 |
| Waiting for QC | 36 |
| Waiting for materials | 28 |
| Idle | 30 |
- Right-first-time
- 71%to88%
- Today across all shifts, and the six-month target
- Annual cost of poor quality
- $2.1Mto$2.6M
- Order-of-magnitude estimate from operating data
- Vessel time freed in 90 days
- ~200 h
- A week, more than one and a half extra mixing vessels
The situation
A consolidation plan that leans on one plant
Calder Falls makes more than half of the platform's volume and took in two product lines from a closed site. The formulas, vessels, and instructions are the same on every shift. The results are not.
The same on every shift
- 210 formulasOne set of master batch instructions, 38% not updated since 2023
- 14 mixing vessels100 to 1,000 gallons, cleaned between batches by hand
- QC labTwo technicians on first shift, one on second, none on third
- VolumeUp 22% in a year as production moved in
Second shift
Lost its lead to retirement in January and 41% of its operators in a year
- Right-first-time
- 64%from 77%
- Operators under six months
- 9 of 23
- Charges weighed
- 60%
The brief
Why do the same formulas come out different from shift to shift?
Asked by the platform's COO, with three follow-on questions:
- What does the inconsistency cost in rework, scrap, capacity, and customers?
- Can the plant absorb the transferred product lines without adding vessels?
- What standard should the platform's other two plants adopt?
Plant profile
- Facility
- 168,000 sq ft
- People
- 182
- Shipments
- $7M a month
- Operating pattern
- Three shifts, Mon to Fri
- Our time on site
- 3 days, every shift
What we found
Same formulas, different results
Four views of the same plant, from the quality numbers back to the floor.
1 of 4
Second shift slipped
First shift held near 80% right-first-time all year. Second shift fell from 77% a year ago to 64% over the last quarter as volume rose and its lead retired. The plant tracked pounds produced, and a batch that needs an addition still ships, so the drop stayed hidden.
Second shift's right-first-time fell 15 points in a year while first shift held near 80%
QC release records. Values adjusted for confidentiality.
2 of 4
Where the vessel time goes
Each vessel is staffed 120 hours a week. About half goes to productive mixing. Cleaning, adds and re-tests, and waiting for QC take another third, and the largest vessels lose the most to adds.
Barely half of staffed vessel time goes to making good product
PLC logs on 6 vessels, shift logs on 8. Values adjusted for confidentiality.
3 of 4
Why batches fail
Three causes explain 72% of first-test failures. Fillers charged by bag count and scales out of calibration push viscosity out. Skipped catalyst checks and shortened mix and degas cycles move cure time. Dark-to-light changeovers bring color out.
Three causes explain 72% of first-time failures
QC results and batch records. Values adjusted for confidentiality.
4 of 4
Clean on paper
Cleaning takes 14% of vessel time and leaves vessels short of the standard. Only 3 of 14 passed a post-wash audit, and residue caused 49 failed batches. Sequencing light to dark would avoid 41% of full washes.
Only 3 of 14 vessels met the cleanliness standard after a wash
Post-clean audit of 14 vessels. Values adjusted for confidentiality.
Second shift's right-first-time fell 15 points in a year while first shift held near 80%
Batches passing QC on the first test, by shift, monthly
QC release records. Values adjusted for confidentiality.
Try the recovery
Lock the critical steps and watch first-pass quality
A simplified version of the batch-failure model in the report. Start from today's operation, then try the Phase 1 plan.
The rest are charged by bag count, mostly on second shift.
Share of the specified time actually run. Cycles get cut when a shift falls behind.
Out of 14. Residue from a poor wash contaminates the next batch.
No technician works third shift today.
Every addition verified before it goes in.
Batches run in color order within each product family.
Phase 2: drift on viscosity and cure is seen before a batch fails.
Right-first-time
Batches that pass their first QC test with no addition.
71%against a target of 88%
Off target. 29 of every 100 batches fail their first test.
Where the vessels' 1,680 staffed hours go each week
- Productive mixing
- 874 h
- Cleaning
- 235 h
- Adds and re-tests
- 202 h
- Waiting for QC
- 134 h
- Waiting for materials
- 118 h
- Idle
- 118 h
- Vessel time freed
- 0 h a week
- Cost of poor quality
- $2.4M a year
Based on 362 first-test failures in 1,248 batches over 13 weeks, 14 vessels staffed 120 hours a week, and about 7 vessel-hours per failed batch, including the re-test. Your plant's model is built from your own batch and QC records.
The plan
Make every shift run the same process
Each phase has a gate the plant must pass before the next one starts.
- Calibrate every floor scale and weigh every charge
- Second-person check on catalyst and pigment additions
- Minimum mix and degas times enforced by PLC, with a fixed sampling point
- Qualification matrix, an acting second-shift lead, and paired new operators
- Visual cleaning standard, a post-clean check, and light-to-dark campaigns
- QC coverage on third shift and tier meetings on every shift
Gate to Phase 2
80% right-first-time on every shift for four weeks, and batch records 95% complete at release.
The deliverable
What the 16-page report covers
Every site assessment ends with a report like this one: the evidence, the failure and capacity models, a 90-day plan with owners, and a 12-month roadmap.
- Executive summaryThe shift gap, what it costs, and what to do first.
- Background and contextThe platform, the sponsor's plan, the plant, and how we gathered evidence.
- Current stateQuality by shift, vessel time, failure causes, floor execution, cleaning, records, and leadership.
- 90-day action planEvery action with an owner, a timeline, and an expected outcome.
- 3 to 12 month initiativesMetrics, electronic batch records, process control, training, and a platform standard.
- Implementation roadmapThree phases, five workstreams, and the gates between them.
- AppendicesData sources, terms, methodology, metric specifications, and financial impact.
How a site assessment runs
About four to five weeks, start to finish
These are the Study and Outline stages of our S.O.L.V.E. framework.
- Step 1 · 2 weeks
Before the visit
You send QC results, batch records, vessel or shift logs, and staffing records. We code every failure by cause and build an interview plan for each shift.
- Step 2 · 3 days
On site
We follow batches from charge to release on every shift, audit cleaning and scales, sit in on tier meetings, and interview operators, leads, QC, and scheduling.
- Step 3 · 2 to 3 weeks
After the visit
We quantify each loss, build the failure and vessel-time models, and deliver the report with a 90-day plan and owners.
Sample deliverable. A composite, with names and figures changed to protect client confidentiality.