Demand for specialty product mixes was outpacing what two key production lines could deliver, and sales were growing 14% a year. To keep up, the operation needed to push capacity and inventory positions higher and higher, but the workforce behind those lines was already stretched thin. The plant was shorthanded and undertrained, with a substantial share of positions filled by temporary labor and supervisory coverage patched together by expanding the scope of other supervisors and lead hands. To hit volume, the plant ran six to seven days a week on the same crewing, a pace that was not sustainable, and elevated employee call-offs made every schedule harder to hold.
A premium nut and trail mix manufacturer lifted productivity 16% and on-time delivery 16% while cutting changeover downtime 25%, adding capacity on its two key lines through execution rather than headcount.
Premium Nut and Trail Mix Manufacturer
Results at a Glance
16%
Productivity Increase
16%
On-Time Delivery Improvement
99%
Schedule Attainment
Executive Brief
Demand for specialty product mixes was climbing against 14% annual sales growth, but two key production lines could not keep pace, and the plant was absorbing the strain with temporary labor, stretched supervisors, and six-to-seven-day weeks on the same crewing. Plant management was convinced that the only path to more capacity was more headcount and more supervisors, while the real constraint was how the operation ran every day. POWERS installed a comprehensive Management Operating System supported by 24 Standard Operating Procedures, applied SMED to changeovers, built sanitation, start-up, and equipment-centerline discipline, and coached front-line supervisors on standard work, KPIs, and root cause analysis. Within the first eight weeks, productivity rose 16% on an annualized basis (a 2.64% bags-per-minute gain), schedule attainment reached 99% against a 94.7% baseline, on-time delivery improved 16% as on-time-in-full climbed from 70.8% to 81.8%, and changeover downtime fell 25%, all without adding headcount.
The Situation
A plant chasing 14% annual growth was convinced it needed more people to make more product, when its real ceiling was the way it ran every shift.
Demand for specialty product mixes was outpacing what two key production lines could deliver, and sales were growing 14% a year. To keep up, the operation needed to push capacity and inventory positions higher and higher, but the workforce behind those lines was already stretched thin. The plant was shorthanded and undertrained, with a substantial share of positions filled by temporary labor and supervisory coverage patched together by expanding the scope of other supervisors and lead hands. To hit volume, the plant ran six to seven days a week on the same crewing, a pace that was not sustainable, and elevated employee call-offs made every schedule harder to hold.
Underneath the staffing strain sat a deeper operational problem. On-time-in-full delivery suffered from a combination of limited capacity, limited ingredient supply, and labor constraints, and there was no fixed schedule to steady the operation. Schedules changed constantly based on whatever ingredients and operators were available, and significant variation in the product mix made it nearly impossible to build trend data or set credible daily and weekly targets. Many elements of the management operating system, including shift handover meetings, had been eliminated during COVID-19 and never restored, so the routines that normally surface and resolve problems were simply not running.
The most costly issue, though, was a strategic misconception. Plant management believed the only way to add capacity and throughput was to increase headcount and staff up supervisory roles. That belief turned every capacity conversation into a hiring conversation and left the operation’s own proven capability untapped. What leadership actually needed was not another wave of temporary labor, but a system: a consistent operating cadence, standard work for supervisors, disciplined changeovers and start-ups, and reliable performance reporting that could lift output from the lines and people already in place.
The Diagnosis
Six structural gaps producing the same outcome from six directions.
Headcount mistaken for the only lever
Plant management was convinced the only way to add capacity and throughput was to hire more operators and staff up supervisory roles. The real constraint was execution, so every capacity gain was deferred to a hiring plan that could not keep pace with 14% annual growth.
Targets capped at historical performance
Production targets were set to match historical OEE rather than best-demonstrated or theoretical run times. The operation was effectively held below its own proven capability, with no target ever pulling it toward what the lines could actually do.
Schedules churning on whatever was available
No fixed schedule existed; schedules changed constantly based on available ingredients and operators. High product-mix variation made it hard to build trend data or set daily and weekly targets, so the operation ran reactively instead of to a plan.
No standard work for supervisors
With no standard work defined, supervisory approaches varied from shift to shift and no best practices were established. Front-line supervisors did not understand the Plan/Actual/Variance/Action cycle, so performance gaps went unmanaged across crews.
Changeovers and start-ups bleeding capacity
Poor sanitation before and during changeovers, plus parts-washer temperature and cleaning-cycle issues that failed quality inspections, stretched changeovers and start-ups well past plan. The result was significant unplanned downtime and recurring rework on the very lines that needed more output.
Problem-solving and reporting without discipline
KPIs were not well defined and weekly measures were frequently revised, while production issues went undocumented and unfollowed. Corrective actions were never closed in meetings, so the same losses recurred and drove waste, scrap, and a higher cost per pound.
What POWERS Did
Unlocked capacity on the existing lines through an operating system, not more headcount.
POWERS treated added capacity as an execution problem rather than a staffing one and built the operating system the plant had been missing. At the center was a comprehensive Management Operating System supported by 24 Standard Operating Procedures, with the team coached directly to them. The MOS reinstated the daily cadence the plant had lost: daily supervisor huddles, shift handover meetings, weekly performance reviews, Gemba walks, action logs, and performance standards, with action-log reporting installed in every meeting so issues were captured and driven to completion rather than forgotten.
In parallel, POWERS attacked the losses that were quietly consuming line time. Changeover downtime was cut 25% by identifying every changeover task, building a comprehensive changeover plan, and applying SMED. Sanitation checklists and SOPs were developed to raise first-time quality-inspection passes during changeovers, and start-up activities and first-hour throughput were improved with a start-up checklist, scorecards, and coaching. An equipment-centerline process was put in place to reduce variation and lift bags per minute, while POWERS worked alongside the Maintenance and Engineering Manager on equipment issues and Quick Wins drawn from shop-floor observation, monitoring the action log to closure. Issue-escalation processes were installed so production losses were identified and escalated quickly.
The third strand of work rebuilt how front-line leaders ran their shifts. POWERS developed standard work for supervisors and coached new expectations and inter-shift communication, then defined and reported KPIs and coached meeting behaviors so teams identified corrective and preventive actions for any underperforming measure. Supervisors and operators were trained in root cause analysis using fishbone and 5 Why, with POWERS modeling RCA, defining the triggers for it, and following up. Together, the operating cadence, the equipment and changeover discipline, and the upgraded supervisory standard work pulled more reliable output from the same two lines, proving that capacity could grow without growing the payroll.
The Full Result
Four measurable gains, all earned on the existing two lines through disciplined execution rather than added headcount.
16%
Productivity Increase
An annualized 16% productivity increase, measured as a 2.64% gain in average bags per minute over the first eight weeks, after an equipment-centerline process, SMED changeovers, and start-up discipline cut variation on the two high-volume lines.
16%
On-Time Delivery Improvement
On-time-in-full delivery improved 16%, climbing from 70.8% to 81.8%, as capacity, scheduling, and execution tightened together across the operation.
99%
Schedule Attainment
Schedule attainment reached 99%, up from a 94.7% baseline, as a fixed MOS cadence replaced the ingredient-and-operator-driven schedule churn.
25%
Changeover Downtime Reduction
Changeover downtime fell 25% after every changeover task was identified, a comprehensive changeover plan was built, and SMED was applied to compress 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 premium nut and trail mix manufacturer lifted productivity 16% and on-time delivery 16% while cutting changeover downtime 25%, adding capacity on its two key lines through execution rather than headcount.
Premium Nut and Trail Mix Manufacturer
Executive Brief
Demand for specialty product mixes was climbing against 14% annual sales growth, but two key production lines could not keep pace, and the plant was absorbing the strain with temporary labor, stretched supervisors, and six-to-seven-day weeks on the same crewing. Plant management was convinced that the only path to more capacity was more headcount and more supervisors, while the real constraint was how the operation ran every day. POWERS installed a comprehensive Management Operating System supported by 24 Standard Operating Procedures, applied SMED to changeovers, built sanitation, start-up, and equipment-centerline discipline, and coached front-line supervisors on standard work, KPIs, and root cause analysis. Within the first eight weeks, productivity rose 16% on an annualized basis (a 2.64% bags-per-minute gain), schedule attainment reached 99% against a 94.7% baseline, on-time delivery improved 16% as on-time-in-full climbed from 70.8% to 81.8%, and changeover downtime fell 25%, all without adding headcount.
Results at a Glance
16%
Productivity Increase
16%
On-Time Delivery Improvement
99%
Schedule Attainment
The Situation
A plant chasing 14% annual growth was convinced it needed more people to make more product, when its real ceiling was the way it ran every shift.
Underneath the staffing strain sat a deeper operational problem. On-time-in-full delivery suffered from a combination of limited capacity, limited ingredient supply, and labor constraints, and there was no fixed schedule to steady the operation. Schedules changed constantly based on whatever ingredients and operators were available, and significant variation in the product mix made it nearly impossible to build trend data or set credible daily and weekly targets. Many elements of the management operating system, including shift handover meetings, had been eliminated during COVID-19 and never restored, so the routines that normally surface and resolve problems were simply not running.
The most costly issue, though, was a strategic misconception. Plant management believed the only way to add capacity and throughput was to increase headcount and staff up supervisory roles. That belief turned every capacity conversation into a hiring conversation and left the operation’s own proven capability untapped. What leadership actually needed was not another wave of temporary labor, but a system: a consistent operating cadence, standard work for supervisors, disciplined changeovers and start-ups, and reliable performance reporting that could lift output from the lines and people already in place.
The Diagnosis
Six structural gaps producing the same outcome from six directions.
Headcount mistaken for the only lever
Plant management was convinced the only way to add capacity and throughput was to hire more operators and staff up supervisory roles. The real constraint was execution, so every capacity gain was deferred to a hiring plan that could not keep pace with 14% annual growth.
Targets capped at historical performance
Production targets were set to match historical OEE rather than best-demonstrated or theoretical run times. The operation was effectively held below its own proven capability, with no target ever pulling it toward what the lines could actually do.
Schedules churning on whatever was available
No fixed schedule existed; schedules changed constantly based on available ingredients and operators. High product-mix variation made it hard to build trend data or set daily and weekly targets, so the operation ran reactively instead of to a plan.
No standard work for supervisors
With no standard work defined, supervisory approaches varied from shift to shift and no best practices were established. Front-line supervisors did not understand the Plan/Actual/Variance/Action cycle, so performance gaps went unmanaged across crews.
Changeovers and start-ups bleeding capacity
Poor sanitation before and during changeovers, plus parts-washer temperature and cleaning-cycle issues that failed quality inspections, stretched changeovers and start-ups well past plan. The result was significant unplanned downtime and recurring rework on the very lines that needed more output.
Problem-solving and reporting without discipline
KPIs were not well defined and weekly measures were frequently revised, while production issues went undocumented and unfollowed. Corrective actions were never closed in meetings, so the same losses recurred and drove waste, scrap, and a higher cost per pound.
What POWERS Did
Unlocked capacity on the existing lines through an operating system, not more headcount.
POWERS treated added capacity as an execution problem rather than a staffing one and built the operating system the plant had been missing. At the center was a comprehensive Management Operating System supported by 24 Standard Operating Procedures, with the team coached directly to them. The MOS reinstated the daily cadence the plant had lost: daily supervisor huddles, shift handover meetings, weekly performance reviews, Gemba walks, action logs, and performance standards, with action-log reporting installed in every meeting so issues were captured and driven to completion rather than forgotten.
In parallel, POWERS attacked the losses that were quietly consuming line time. Changeover downtime was cut 25% by identifying every changeover task, building a comprehensive changeover plan, and applying SMED. Sanitation checklists and SOPs were developed to raise first-time quality-inspection passes during changeovers, and start-up activities and first-hour throughput were improved with a start-up checklist, scorecards, and coaching. An equipment-centerline process was put in place to reduce variation and lift bags per minute, while POWERS worked alongside the Maintenance and Engineering Manager on equipment issues and Quick Wins drawn from shop-floor observation, monitoring the action log to closure. Issue-escalation processes were installed so production losses were identified and escalated quickly.
The third strand of work rebuilt how front-line leaders ran their shifts. POWERS developed standard work for supervisors and coached new expectations and inter-shift communication, then defined and reported KPIs and coached meeting behaviors so teams identified corrective and preventive actions for any underperforming measure. Supervisors and operators were trained in root cause analysis using fishbone and 5 Why, with POWERS modeling RCA, defining the triggers for it, and following up. Together, the operating cadence, the equipment and changeover discipline, and the upgraded supervisory standard work pulled more reliable output from the same two lines, proving that capacity could grow without growing the payroll.
The Full Result
16%
Productivity Increase
An annualized 16% productivity increase, measured as a 2.64% gain in average bags per minute over the first eight weeks, after an equipment-centerline process, SMED changeovers, and start-up discipline cut variation on the two high-volume lines.
16%
On-Time Delivery Improvement
On-time-in-full delivery improved 16%, climbing from 70.8% to 81.8%, as capacity, scheduling, and execution tightened together across the operation.
99%
Schedule Attainment
Schedule attainment reached 99%, up from a 94.7% baseline, as a fixed MOS cadence replaced the ingredient-and-operator-driven schedule churn.
25%
Changeover Downtime Reduction
Changeover downtime fell 25% after every changeover task was identified, a comprehensive changeover plan was built, and SMED was applied to compress the work.
POWERS|+1 678-971-4711|info@thepowerscompany.com|1801 Peachtree St NE, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 303091 / 1