Hacker News Reader

Comment by citizenpaul | Hacker News Reader

> using only part of the machine for the chance that something new will come along seems wasteful.

Because it is. My brother works in industrial manufacturing machinery supplies. I can assure you the overwhelming majority of manufacturing machines on the planet are not only run constantly but as near to 99.999% as possible. So much that they are even loath to turn them off for critical maintenance rather preferring to let the machine break down so they don't get blamed for being the person to "ruin productivity"

This book sounds like one of those flights of fancy armchair generals are so found of going on.

Perhaps it works in small boutique shops making specialized orders but that is a slim minority of the overall manufacturing base. I could see why the advice would appeal to HN readers.

View on HN

It really depends on whether the capacity is fixed or not. If capacity is fixed and demand is unlimited (eg. because you just can't get more EUV light sources this year) then you should probably run as close to 100% utilisation as possible.

But if you can easily scale production capacity, you should not strive for 100% utilisation. You should expand capacity before you reach 100%, because if you are running at 100% you will not be able to take any more orders and lose the opportunity to grow your business.

Yeah it mostly only works for small boutique shops like the Toyota Production System or Ford’s manufacturing line.

And yes, a lot of manufacturing doesn’t behave this way. That’s the “counter” part of “counter-intuitive” revealing itself.

This comment is yet another of these excellent cases in point!

You really don’t see how “they’re afraid to turn them off even for critical maintenance” might be actually suboptimal behavior in the long run?

One of the most insightful things I heard someone say at Toyota (in an interview) was that they replace their tools (drill bits and the like) at 80% wear instead of letting them get to 100% and break.

Why waste that 20%?

Because if the tool breaks and scratches a $200K Lexus, then that might be a $20K fix, or possibly even starting from scratch with a new body! Is that worth risking for a $5 drill bit they buy in boxes of 1,000 at a time? No.

Then the interview switched to some guy in America looking miserable complaining how his bosses made him use every tool until breaking point. He listed a litany of faults this caused, like off-centre holes, distorted panels, etc...

And you wonder why Tesla panels have misaligned gaps. Or why rain water leaks into a "luxury" American vehicle!

Toyota uses price premium and reputation to achieve this. Its not something every company can do, and I don't mean in theory. I mean that economics don't support it. Most buyers cannot and will not pay extra premium for reliablity. The reality is letting them break/damage/fix/replace actually is cheaper overall otherwise it would not be the popular choice.

If tomorrow Ford decided to start this process it would be a decade before the market believed that hey had changed their ways. Would they survive this gap? IDK the new ford Mach-E is not selling so I doubt it but I"m not an economist. People don't buy fords because of the reliability. They buy it because it's cheaper and the risk of downtime is less important to them than the price premium. Don't forget that in order to achieve that lost resource return you must be disciplined all the time and most people/corps cannot achieve that.

Toyota’s strategy is cheaper, and their cars are very cost competitive.

PS: “It’s too expensive to save money with your methods!” Is the most common response I get from customers to this kind of efficiency improvement advice. Invariably they then proceed to set several million dollars on fire instead of spending ten thousand to avoid that error. It’s so predictable, it is getting boring.

I would really recommend coming into these conversations with more curiosity!

Toyota makes some of the cheapest and some of the most expensive cars on the market. They don't "use" their reputation to do this, their reputation is the result of excellent production.

You're missing the point with Ford, which is an example of another very successful manufacturer who uses similar techniques/philosophy as Toyota, which are not similar to what your brother's machine shop does.

Edit: Sry, missed your Poe's law. People buy fords because they are cheaper for the most part. People that have more money buy Toyota. This is just market segmentation of a couple of the biggest brands.

Companies that have hammered out an effective cost/production/time ratio are not something you can compete with without becoming the same thing as them. Which is why factory managers are literally afraid to turn them off for any reason.

My brother constantly tells me about how when they do repairs they will see something within 1-3 months of failing and tell the factory manager. He said almost without exception they always ask will it increase the repair time "TODAY" and of course the answer is yes. They always decline and deal with it when it breaks at a greater time/cost. I think this is more an effect of the toxic work relationship that has become forced on everyone by MBA's.

What are you arguing here exactly? Most production systems work the same way as your brothers', which is to say they suck. We're pointing to a methodology that has a very strong track record of making production systems that don't suck, such as Toyota's and Ford's (empirical disproofs of your claim that such an approach is only applicable to boutique shops).

>Toyota's and Ford's (empirical disproofs of your claim that such an approach is only applicable to boutique shops).

Where was this provided? I didn't see you or any poster provide claim or evidence that Toyota or Ford intentionally leave unused production capacity. I had a busy day so I may have missed it somewhere.

Far as I'm aware they also run their assembly as close to 99.999% of the time as possible.

My brother is not a mft. He works for an engineering company that makes and maintains manufacturing equipment. He has worked in nearly every major company you can name's manufacturing plants fixing their stuff or installing new stuff. Its a whole world I did not know about until he started. I'm just forwarding some stories he tells. Not sure why you think you know more than all the people involved.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com