The producer packs for dozens of local and national brands, with product distributed internationally to supermarkets and restaurants. To keep those commitments, it had to consistently meet production demand across two facilities located about three miles apart. Equipment and line unreliability put that consistency at risk, making output unpredictable and exposing the operation every time a machine went down without warning.
A Midwestern turkey producer turned over $2 million in annual savings out of a 22-week maintenance overhaul, lifting scheduled-work load 63% against the base period by running every shift to a plan instead of waiting for the next breakdown.
Midwestern Turkey Producer
Results at a Glance
$2M+
Annual Savings
63%
Maintenance Load Improvement
$1.225M
MRO Savings
Executive Brief
Equipment and line unreliability was making production unpredictable across two plants about three miles apart, and maintenance ran strictly on reaction: crews waited for breakdowns, the EAM system captured neither repair nor parts cost by asset, and managers did not assign the work. Over a focused 22-week engagement under its Advanced Maintenance Performance (AMP) program, POWERS installed a maintenance management operating system built on per-mechanic daily schedules, floor-level work assignment and follow-up, full capture of work into the EAM, and approval controls on parts and contracted services. The result was over $2 million in total annual savings, a 63% improvement in scheduled-maintenance load against the base period, and an 18% improvement in overtime.
The Situation
A grower-owned producer with the people and the demand to grow, run by a maintenance function that waited for things to break before it moved.
The producer packs for dozens of local and national brands, with product distributed internationally to supermarkets and restaurants. To keep those commitments, it had to consistently meet production demand across two facilities located about three miles apart. Equipment and line unreliability put that consistency at risk, making output unpredictable and exposing the operation every time a machine went down without warning.
The deeper problem was structural, not mechanical. Maintenance was strictly reactive, with mechanics waiting for breakdowns before responding. The EAM system was not recording repairs or parts costs by equipment, so no one could say what it actually cost to maintain an asset. Overtime was neither scheduled nor controlled, there was no approval process for parts or contracted services, MRO parts inventory accuracy was low, the preventive maintenance tasks in the system were vague, and maintenance managers did not assign work. Reliability was left to chance and to tribal knowledge.
Leadership did not need a single round of repairs. It needed a maintenance management operating system that could develop, manage, and sustain equipment reliability over time, drive accountability and continuous improvement, and convert better uptime into the capacity the business was trying to gain. A one-time fix would have faded the moment the next breakdown arrived.
The Diagnosis
Six structural gaps producing the same outcome from six directions.
Maintenance that only moved after a failure
Work was strictly reactive, with mechanics waiting for breakdowns before responding. Nothing was prevented because nothing was anticipated, so unplanned downtime set the pace of production.
An EAM that tracked no cost by asset
The system recorded neither repairs nor parts costs by equipment. With no maintenance history by asset, no one knew the cost to maintain a given machine or where reliability investment would pay off.
Overtime and spend with no controls
Overtime was neither scheduled nor controlled, and there was no approval process for purchasing parts or contracted services. Labor and MRO costs accumulated with nothing in place to govern them.
Low MRO inventory accuracy
MRO parts inventory accuracy was low. Mechanics could not trust that the part they needed was on hand, which stretched repairs and pushed work toward expedited buys and contractors.
Preventive tasks too vague to execute
The preventive maintenance tasks in the system were vague and lacked detail. Without clear instructions, PMs delivered inconsistent results and depended on whatever the individual mechanic happened to know.
Managers who did not assign the work
Maintenance managers did not assign work, leaving it to mechanics to decide what to do and when. Without assignment and follow-up, utilization went unmanaged and accountability had nowhere to land.
What POWERS Did
Turned reactive maintenance into a scheduled, accountable system that knows the cost to maintain every asset.
POWERS built the work back from the assignment forward. Task definition was established from work assignment to the mechanic, removing ambiguity and the dependence on tribal knowledge that had carried the PM program. Daily schedules were developed by mechanic to lift utilization and direct effort to value work, and managers were put in front of the work on the floor to assign it and follow up rather than leave it to chance.
In parallel, the engagement made the system the source of truth. All work was captured systematically into the EAM, which built a maintenance history and made the cost to maintain each asset visible for the first time. An approval process was created to control parts spend and contracted services, and the operating system was designed to develop, manage, and sustain equipment reliability rather than restore it once.
Run together across both plants over 22 weeks, the changes shifted maintenance from waiting for failures to executing a plan every shift. Scheduled work load rose against the base period, overtime came under control, utilization improved, and the producer gained the reliability and uptime it had been trying to secure, with the structure in place to keep it.
The Full Result
Five measurable results, all earned in 22 weeks across two plants without new lines or new equipment.
$2M+
Annual Savings
Combined labor and MRO savings earned across two plants in a 22-week engagement, as reactive maintenance gave way to a scheduled operating system with cost visibility by asset.
63%
Maintenance Load Improvement
Scheduled-maintenance work load improved against the base period as daily per-mechanic schedules and manager follow-up on the floor replaced waiting for breakdowns and raised mechanic utilization.
$1.225M
MRO Savings
Capturing all work into the EAM, building maintenance history by asset, and adding approval controls on parts and contracted services drove the MRO portion of the savings.
$845K
Labor Savings
Daily scheduling and floor-level work assignment lifted mechanic utilization, converting better-directed labor into the engagement's labor savings.
18%
Overtime Improvement
Scheduling and controlling overtime, where previously it was neither scheduled nor controlled, improved it against the base period.
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 · MOS · Supply Chain
A Midwestern turkey producer turned over $2 million in annual savings out of a 22-week maintenance overhaul, lifting scheduled-work load 63% against the base period by running every shift to a plan instead of waiting for the next breakdown.
Midwestern Turkey Producer
Executive Brief
Equipment and line unreliability was making production unpredictable across two plants about three miles apart, and maintenance ran strictly on reaction: crews waited for breakdowns, the EAM system captured neither repair nor parts cost by asset, and managers did not assign the work. Over a focused 22-week engagement under its Advanced Maintenance Performance (AMP) program, POWERS installed a maintenance management operating system built on per-mechanic daily schedules, floor-level work assignment and follow-up, full capture of work into the EAM, and approval controls on parts and contracted services. The result was over $2 million in total annual savings, a 63% improvement in scheduled-maintenance load against the base period, and an 18% improvement in overtime.
Results at a Glance
$2M+
Annual Savings
63%
Maintenance Load Improvement
$1.225M
MRO Savings
The Situation
A grower-owned producer with the people and the demand to grow, run by a maintenance function that waited for things to break before it moved.
The deeper problem was structural, not mechanical. Maintenance was strictly reactive, with mechanics waiting for breakdowns before responding. The EAM system was not recording repairs or parts costs by equipment, so no one could say what it actually cost to maintain an asset. Overtime was neither scheduled nor controlled, there was no approval process for parts or contracted services, MRO parts inventory accuracy was low, the preventive maintenance tasks in the system were vague, and maintenance managers did not assign work. Reliability was left to chance and to tribal knowledge.
Leadership did not need a single round of repairs. It needed a maintenance management operating system that could develop, manage, and sustain equipment reliability over time, drive accountability and continuous improvement, and convert better uptime into the capacity the business was trying to gain. A one-time fix would have faded the moment the next breakdown arrived.
The Diagnosis
Six structural gaps producing the same outcome from six directions.
Maintenance that only moved after a failure
Work was strictly reactive, with mechanics waiting for breakdowns before responding. Nothing was prevented because nothing was anticipated, so unplanned downtime set the pace of production.
An EAM that tracked no cost by asset
The system recorded neither repairs nor parts costs by equipment. With no maintenance history by asset, no one knew the cost to maintain a given machine or where reliability investment would pay off.
Overtime and spend with no controls
Overtime was neither scheduled nor controlled, and there was no approval process for purchasing parts or contracted services. Labor and MRO costs accumulated with nothing in place to govern them.
Low MRO inventory accuracy
MRO parts inventory accuracy was low. Mechanics could not trust that the part they needed was on hand, which stretched repairs and pushed work toward expedited buys and contractors.
Preventive tasks too vague to execute
The preventive maintenance tasks in the system were vague and lacked detail. Without clear instructions, PMs delivered inconsistent results and depended on whatever the individual mechanic happened to know.
Managers who did not assign the work
Maintenance managers did not assign work, leaving it to mechanics to decide what to do and when. Without assignment and follow-up, utilization went unmanaged and accountability had nowhere to land.
What POWERS Did
Turned reactive maintenance into a scheduled, accountable system that knows the cost to maintain every asset.
POWERS built the work back from the assignment forward. Task definition was established from work assignment to the mechanic, removing ambiguity and the dependence on tribal knowledge that had carried the PM program. Daily schedules were developed by mechanic to lift utilization and direct effort to value work, and managers were put in front of the work on the floor to assign it and follow up rather than leave it to chance.
In parallel, the engagement made the system the source of truth. All work was captured systematically into the EAM, which built a maintenance history and made the cost to maintain each asset visible for the first time. An approval process was created to control parts spend and contracted services, and the operating system was designed to develop, manage, and sustain equipment reliability rather than restore it once.
Run together across both plants over 22 weeks, the changes shifted maintenance from waiting for failures to executing a plan every shift. Scheduled work load rose against the base period, overtime came under control, utilization improved, and the producer gained the reliability and uptime it had been trying to secure, with the structure in place to keep it.
The Full Result
$2M+
Annual Savings
Combined labor and MRO savings earned across two plants in a 22-week engagement, as reactive maintenance gave way to a scheduled operating system with cost visibility by asset.
63%
Maintenance Load Improvement
Scheduled-maintenance work load improved against the base period as daily per-mechanic schedules and manager follow-up on the floor replaced waiting for breakdowns and raised mechanic utilization.
$1.225M
MRO Savings
Capturing all work into the EAM, building maintenance history by asset, and adding approval controls on parts and contracted services drove the MRO portion of the savings.
$845K
Labor Savings
Daily scheduling and floor-level work assignment lifted mechanic utilization, converting better-directed labor into the engagement's labor savings.
18%
Overtime Improvement
Scheduling and controlling overtime, where previously it was neither scheduled nor controlled, improved it against the base period.
POWERS|+1 678-971-4711|info@thepowerscompany.com|1801 Peachtree St NE, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 303091 / 1