Demand had outrun what the plant could ship. This multi-generation, family-owned meat processor, built on real ingredients, original recipes, and time-honored traditions, was unable to meet its historical demand levels and wanted a drastic increase in throughput to capture a market opportunity it could clearly see. Lead times had stretched on both ends, from receiving raw materials to filling orders, and the company had already pared back its product offerings just to keep throughput and efficiency from slipping further. The lines ran 24/7, and still the orders backed up.
A family-owned meat processor lifted throughput 47% on a high-value sliced-meats line in about eight weeks and cut direct labor cost 3.4% per pound, capacity it found not by adding equipment but by getting supervisors back on the floor and lost time out of hiding.
Family-Owned Meat Processor
Results at a Glance
47%
Throughput Increase
3.4%
Direct Labor Cost per Pound
0.41%
Yield Improvement
Executive Brief
A multi-generation, family-owned meat processor could no longer meet historical demand even while running 24/7, with extended lead times, trimmed product offerings, and burnout, absenteeism, and turnover draining critical production and maintenance roles in a tight, expensive labor market. POWERS analyzed the operation against accounting, scheduling, and observed-capacity standards, then installed a management operating system across Production and Maintenance: timely-startup and line-balancing discipline, a Production Loss Accounting System, corrected CMMS, rationalized PMs, defined KPIs, and a Power BI reporting build. Through a phased 12-week engagement (Production Loss Accounting live by week 5, Production MOS complete by week 8, Maintenance by week 12), throughput on a high-value sliced-meats line rose 47% in about eight weeks, yield improved 0.41%, inedible product fell 0.29%, direct labor dollars per pound dropped 3.4% below standard, and maintenance labor utilization climbed above 85%.
The Situation
Demand was booming and the lines were running around the clock, yet the high-value lines ran under half their capacity and the people meant to fix that were buried off the floor.
Demand had outrun what the plant could ship. This multi-generation, family-owned meat processor, built on real ingredients, original recipes, and time-honored traditions, was unable to meet its historical demand levels and wanted a drastic increase in throughput to capture a market opportunity it could clearly see. Lead times had stretched on both ends, from receiving raw materials to filling orders, and the company had already pared back its product offerings just to keep throughput and efficiency from slipping further. The lines ran 24/7, and still the orders backed up.
That schedule pressure carried a human cost. Burnout, absenteeism, and turnover left the company short-staffed in exactly the critical production and maintenance positions it needed most, and the skilled labor it wanted to backfill was in high demand locally and commanded increasingly competitive wages. Running harder was not a path out; it was the trap the operation was already in.
Underneath the staffing strain sat a structural problem. The high-value production lines ran at less than 50% of capacity, downtime reasons were unclear and not tracked in any standardized way, and reporting was too slow to allow effective follow-up. Excessive lost time, both obvious and hidden, was buried in poor startups, poorly sequenced setups and changeovers, production variances, and pacing. Most telling, supervisors believed they spent the bulk of their time supervising (29%) and about 11% solving problems, but direct observation found only 3% of their time in active supervision and 45% on administrative work, mostly off the production floor.
Leadership understood that solving throughput and lifting yield would unlock tremendous financial opportunity, and that the fix could not be a one-time push on an already exhausted workforce. What the operation needed was a durable operating system: the visibility, routines, and accountability to catch losses in time and hold gains across every shift. POWERS was engaged to analyze the issues, formulate and rapidly execute a turnaround plan, and capture the opening in the market.
The Diagnosis
Six structural gaps producing the same outcome from six directions.
Operators trained and qualified by chance, not by standard
On-the-job onboarding of operators and supervisors was ineffective, job qualifications to set up equipment were weak, skill-flexibility management was inadequate, and startup, setup, and end-of-shift expectations were unclear. People ran the lines without a consistent definition of right.
Supervisors buried off the floor
Supervisors pictured themselves spending 29% of their time supervising, but observation found only 3% in active supervision against 45% on administrative work, mostly away from the line. The role meant to drive performance was absent where performance is actually made.
KPIs with no floor-level visibility
KPIs were reviewed ineffectively, floor-level visibility did not exist, and reporting was too slow to allow follow-up. Production issues could not be caught and corrected in time, so losses compounded before anyone could act.
High-value lines hiding their own lost time
The capacity of high-value lines ran under 50%, with downtime reasons unclear and not tracked in a standardized way. That blind spot concealed excessive obvious and hidden lost time in startups, setups, and changeovers.
Maintenance running reactively
CMMS (Maximo) was misconfigured with its scheduler unused, most work orders were entered reactively by mechanics, KPI reports did not exist, backlog went unmanaged, and mechanics were self-directed, choosing what to work on and when. Maintenance responded to failures rather than preventing them.
No coordination, no criticality, no standard work
There was no formal maintenance-production coordination, asset criticality lived only in tribal knowledge, and standard work and root-cause review of downtime did not exist. With nothing to align or prioritize the work, the department stayed reactionary.
What POWERS Did
Got leaders back on the floor and made lost time visible, line by line.
POWERS started by identifying and quantifying the opportunity. Through detailed analysis and time with frontline leaders on the floor, the team compared actual performance against accounting standards, scheduling standards, and observed capacity, and evaluated which management operating system elements existed and were actually used. That discovery turned vague pressure into specific, sized losses in processes, systems, methods, and leadership behavior, and gave the turnaround a clear target.
Rather than attempt all eight departments at once, POWERS used the two high-value, high-volume production lines as a sandbox to develop the key MOS elements that would later install company-wide, then added a new department to the schedule every two weeks. Inside the first four to eight weeks came the Quick Wins: goal alignment, timely startups, adjusted start times and addressing early punches, pre- and post-shift meetings, shift hand-offs, and a cleanup of maintenance backlog and PMs. The pivotal Quick Win was setting timely-startup expectations alongside line-balancing changes, which produced significant productivity improvement within a few days.
The system was built in parallel with the wins. A Production Loss Accounting System went live by week five, selected with the client’s IT group from a third-party application, to track downtime sources and time lost and to feed performance reviews. A complete list of KPIs and definitions was developed, and a robust Power BI reporting tool was started to put real numbers in front of leaders fast enough to act on them. By week eight, all key MOS elements were installed in Production.
Maintenance was rebuilt on the same logic. CMMS (Maximo) was corrected and its scheduling function put to use, work intake and backlog were brought under management, PMs were rationalized, asset criticality was defined beyond tribal knowledge, and formal maintenance-production coordination and root-cause review of downtime were established, supported by supervisor training and a skills matrix. By week twelve, all key MOS elements were installed in Maintenance, with real-time maintenance KPIs in place. The cumulative effect was an operation that could see its losses, assign ownership, and hold the gains shift after shift rather than only on its best days.
The Full Result
Five measurable gains earned without new equipment or added headcount, from a workforce that was already running flat out.
47%
Throughput Increase
Throughput on a high-value sliced-meats line rose 47% in about eight weeks, driven largely by timely-startup expectations and line-balancing changes that delivered gains within days rather than months.
3.4%
Direct Labor Cost per Pound
Direct labor dollars per pound fell 3.4% below standard as hidden lost time and reactive habits gave way to standard work, floor-level KPIs, and consistent follow-up.
0.41%
Yield Improvement
Yield improved 0.41% as startup, setup, and changeover discipline tightened and accountability for inedible product took hold.
0.29%
Inedible Product Reduction
Inedible product fell 0.29% once expectations for handling cut-offs, waste, and inedible product were clear and ownership was real.
>85%
Maintenance Labor Utilization
Maintenance labor utilization rose above 85% after CMMS was corrected, PMs were rationalized, and real-time maintenance KPIs went live to direct the work.
Ready to builddisciplined execution in your operation?
Every POWERS engagement starts with our intensive Discovery Process. We work with everyone on your team, identify the gaps in the five disciplines that hold execution back, and build the partnership that closes them. The results stay built long after we’re gone.
Stronger Execution. Stronger Performance.
Equipment Reliability · Frontline Leadership · MOS
A family-owned meat processor lifted throughput 47% on a high-value sliced-meats line in about eight weeks and cut direct labor cost 3.4% per pound, capacity it found not by adding equipment but by getting supervisors back on the floor and lost time out of hiding.
Family-Owned Meat Processor
Executive Brief
A multi-generation, family-owned meat processor could no longer meet historical demand even while running 24/7, with extended lead times, trimmed product offerings, and burnout, absenteeism, and turnover draining critical production and maintenance roles in a tight, expensive labor market. POWERS analyzed the operation against accounting, scheduling, and observed-capacity standards, then installed a management operating system across Production and Maintenance: timely-startup and line-balancing discipline, a Production Loss Accounting System, corrected CMMS, rationalized PMs, defined KPIs, and a Power BI reporting build. Through a phased 12-week engagement (Production Loss Accounting live by week 5, Production MOS complete by week 8, Maintenance by week 12), throughput on a high-value sliced-meats line rose 47% in about eight weeks, yield improved 0.41%, inedible product fell 0.29%, direct labor dollars per pound dropped 3.4% below standard, and maintenance labor utilization climbed above 85%.
Results at a Glance
47%
Throughput Increase
3.4%
Direct Labor Cost per Pound
0.41%
Yield Improvement
The Situation
Demand was booming and the lines were running around the clock, yet the high-value lines ran under half their capacity and the people meant to fix that were buried off the floor.
That schedule pressure carried a human cost. Burnout, absenteeism, and turnover left the company short-staffed in exactly the critical production and maintenance positions it needed most, and the skilled labor it wanted to backfill was in high demand locally and commanded increasingly competitive wages. Running harder was not a path out; it was the trap the operation was already in.
Underneath the staffing strain sat a structural problem. The high-value production lines ran at less than 50% of capacity, downtime reasons were unclear and not tracked in any standardized way, and reporting was too slow to allow effective follow-up. Excessive lost time, both obvious and hidden, was buried in poor startups, poorly sequenced setups and changeovers, production variances, and pacing. Most telling, supervisors believed they spent the bulk of their time supervising (29%) and about 11% solving problems, but direct observation found only 3% of their time in active supervision and 45% on administrative work, mostly off the production floor.
Leadership understood that solving throughput and lifting yield would unlock tremendous financial opportunity, and that the fix could not be a one-time push on an already exhausted workforce. What the operation needed was a durable operating system: the visibility, routines, and accountability to catch losses in time and hold gains across every shift. POWERS was engaged to analyze the issues, formulate and rapidly execute a turnaround plan, and capture the opening in the market.
The Diagnosis
Six structural gaps producing the same outcome from six directions.
Operators trained and qualified by chance, not by standard
On-the-job onboarding of operators and supervisors was ineffective, job qualifications to set up equipment were weak, skill-flexibility management was inadequate, and startup, setup, and end-of-shift expectations were unclear. People ran the lines without a consistent definition of right.
Supervisors buried off the floor
Supervisors pictured themselves spending 29% of their time supervising, but observation found only 3% in active supervision against 45% on administrative work, mostly away from the line. The role meant to drive performance was absent where performance is actually made.
KPIs with no floor-level visibility
KPIs were reviewed ineffectively, floor-level visibility did not exist, and reporting was too slow to allow follow-up. Production issues could not be caught and corrected in time, so losses compounded before anyone could act.
High-value lines hiding their own lost time
The capacity of high-value lines ran under 50%, with downtime reasons unclear and not tracked in a standardized way. That blind spot concealed excessive obvious and hidden lost time in startups, setups, and changeovers.
Maintenance running reactively
CMMS (Maximo) was misconfigured with its scheduler unused, most work orders were entered reactively by mechanics, KPI reports did not exist, backlog went unmanaged, and mechanics were self-directed, choosing what to work on and when. Maintenance responded to failures rather than preventing them.
No coordination, no criticality, no standard work
There was no formal maintenance-production coordination, asset criticality lived only in tribal knowledge, and standard work and root-cause review of downtime did not exist. With nothing to align or prioritize the work, the department stayed reactionary.
What POWERS Did
Got leaders back on the floor and made lost time visible, line by line.
POWERS started by identifying and quantifying the opportunity. Through detailed analysis and time with frontline leaders on the floor, the team compared actual performance against accounting standards, scheduling standards, and observed capacity, and evaluated which management operating system elements existed and were actually used. That discovery turned vague pressure into specific, sized losses in processes, systems, methods, and leadership behavior, and gave the turnaround a clear target.
Rather than attempt all eight departments at once, POWERS used the two high-value, high-volume production lines as a sandbox to develop the key MOS elements that would later install company-wide, then added a new department to the schedule every two weeks. Inside the first four to eight weeks came the Quick Wins: goal alignment, timely startups, adjusted start times and addressing early punches, pre- and post-shift meetings, shift hand-offs, and a cleanup of maintenance backlog and PMs. The pivotal Quick Win was setting timely-startup expectations alongside line-balancing changes, which produced significant productivity improvement within a few days.
The system was built in parallel with the wins. A Production Loss Accounting System went live by week five, selected with the client’s IT group from a third-party application, to track downtime sources and time lost and to feed performance reviews. A complete list of KPIs and definitions was developed, and a robust Power BI reporting tool was started to put real numbers in front of leaders fast enough to act on them. By week eight, all key MOS elements were installed in Production.
Maintenance was rebuilt on the same logic. CMMS (Maximo) was corrected and its scheduling function put to use, work intake and backlog were brought under management, PMs were rationalized, asset criticality was defined beyond tribal knowledge, and formal maintenance-production coordination and root-cause review of downtime were established, supported by supervisor training and a skills matrix. By week twelve, all key MOS elements were installed in Maintenance, with real-time maintenance KPIs in place. The cumulative effect was an operation that could see its losses, assign ownership, and hold the gains shift after shift rather than only on its best days.
The Full Result
47%
Throughput Increase
Throughput on a high-value sliced-meats line rose 47% in about eight weeks, driven largely by timely-startup expectations and line-balancing changes that delivered gains within days rather than months.
3.4%
Direct Labor Cost per Pound
Direct labor dollars per pound fell 3.4% below standard as hidden lost time and reactive habits gave way to standard work, floor-level KPIs, and consistent follow-up.
0.41%
Yield Improvement
Yield improved 0.41% as startup, setup, and changeover discipline tightened and accountability for inedible product took hold.
0.29%
Inedible Product Reduction
Inedible product fell 0.29% once expectations for handling cut-offs, waste, and inedible product were clear and ownership was real.
>85%
Maintenance Labor Utilization
Maintenance labor utilization rose above 85% after CMMS was corrected, PMs were rationalized, and real-time maintenance KPIs went live to direct the work.
POWERS|+1 678-971-4711|info@thepowerscompany.com|1801 Peachtree St NE, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 303091 / 1