Customer Success Stories / Met Demand at Lower Cost
CASE STUDY · TIER 1 AUTOMOTIVE, SAFETY-CRITICAL PARTS
Met Demand at Lower Cost
A contractual deadline gave the plant two months to hit 95 units/hr. — with three prior studies already behind a second custom welder that hadn’t solved it. Here’s how dynamic analysis found capacity a fixed-bottleneck model couldn’t see.
105/hr.
Capacity increase, from a 68–78/hr. baseline
$2.5M
Operating cost savings over the contract
$661K
Net income increase — a 39% gain
The Situation
The math said the line couldn’t go faster. The contract said it had to.
Production was running 68–78 units/hr. against a required 87 — already enough of a gap to need weekend shifts just to keep up. Then the customer exercised a 15% over-plan clause in the contract, pushing the requirement to 95 units/hr., to be met within two months. The plant was already running 7 days a week; there were no more shifts left to add. It was also losing money at the negotiated price, and the OEM wouldn’t accept an increase.
Three prior studies, each built on steady-state analysis, had reached conflicting conclusions on almost everything — except where the bottleneck was. On the strength of that consensus, the plant had already ordered a second custom-designed welder. It didn’t sustainably improve throughput. Spot checks suggested the line could run faster, but labor couldn’t hold that pace: frequent operator switch-outs, rising fatigue and injury rates, climbing absenteeism, and a widening rift between labor and management over a target that looked achievable on paper and wasn’t in practice.
Before Vayoom
68–78 units/hr. against an 87 target, raised to 95
Losing money at the negotiated contract price
Rising fatigue-driven injuries and absenteeism
what was in the way
A 2-month deadline with no shifts left to add
Three conflicting studies that agreed on one thing — the wrong thing
A second custom welder already committed, without fixing the problem
Contract Deadline
95 units/hr. within 2 months
Diagnostic Method
Dynamic analysis of actual operating conditions
Investment
$35K in workstations, 2 added operators
Prior Approach
3 steady-state studies, 1 custom welder
The Diagnosis
Why the bottleneck kept moving
All three prior studies used steady-state analysis — treat the line as running at one average condition, find the single slowest station, call it the bottleneck. Despite disagreeing on nearly everything else, all three landed on the same station. That consensus is what justified a second custom-designed welder before Vayoom was ever engaged.
A dynamic analysis of the line’s actual operating conditions — not its theoretical average — showed there was no fixed bottleneck at all. The constraint moved, station to station, depending on how the upstream process happened to be performing at that moment. The welder wasn’t the wrong fix; it was a fix aimed at a target that wasn’t reliably there. On any given shift, the real limit on throughput could be somewhere else entirely — which is exactly what a steady-state model, by design, can’t see.
The Approach
Four steps, in this order
The fix wasn’t a better bottleneck model — it was recognizing that a single, fixed bottleneck was the wrong thing to look for in the first place.
01
Quantify actual operating conditions
Validated how the line was really running, rather than relying on the theoretical, steady-state model all three prior studies had used.
02
Run the dynamic analysis
Found there was no fixed bottleneck — the constraint shifted station to station depending on upstream performance, which is why a second welder aimed at one supposed bottleneck hadn’t solved it.
03
Redesign the workflow around real constraints
Incorporated the already-ordered welder into a redesigned workflow, added $35K in workstation investment and 2 operators, and raised sustainable capacity to 105 units/hr.
04
Rebuild the production schedule
Cut the production week from 7 days to 4½, meeting the 95 units/hr. requirement without weekend shifts.
“We got our weekends back, and a plant floor that’s actually safer for it. Now our people are the ones bringing us the next idea — not covering for the last one.”
— Plant Operations Leader
The Results
What changed on the floor — and on the P&L
Designing the workflow around the dynamic analysis — rather than more capital equipment — saved $2.5M in operating cost over the life of the contract, and made the $400K already committed to the second welder pay off instead of sitting stranded. Unit cost came down from $14.90 to $14.17, and the production week dropped from 7 days to 4½, taking labor cost with it.
$2.5M
Operating cost savings, over the contract
$661K
Net income increase — a 39% gain
105/hr.
Sustainable capacity, up from 68–78/hr.
$14.17
Unit cost, down from $14.90
4 1/2 days
Production week, down from 7
20%
Faster delivery time
3+ pts
Operating margin improvement
8X
Return on the cost of the solution
AUTOMOTIVE · DRIVETRAIN AXLES
Increased Flow & Flexibility
$752K in net operating cost savings, plus a 1,139% return across the project
AUTOMOTIVE · DRIVETRAIN COMPONENTS
Realign Flow for Growth
$1.6M+ in combined labor and opportunity-cost savings, ~$3M in near-term CapEx avoided
MANUFACTURING SME · POST-BANKRUPTCY
Bankruptcy to Profitable
90 days to cash-flow positive, late shipments cut from $1M to $92K
Every profit conversation starts with knowing where you stand.
No data required. No obligation. Just clarity.