Industrial facility layout study: target −33% lead time before building the new unit
Sector
Thermal equipment — brazed heat exchangers
Compagny profil
Fast-growing mid-sized industrial company: business doubled in 4 years
Mission
Factory Roadmap — the transformation roadmap for a site: a multi-lever diagnosis that designs the target factory, compares layout scenarios and prioritizes actions, from quick wins to structuring investments.
Challenge
Validate the layout choices for a new unit before committing to a €30–40M investment
Meet Our Product
Diagnostiquer la performance actuelle
Définir et prioriser l'usine cible
Chiffrer l'impact sur le P&L
Download this Use case's file
Summary
A thermal equipment manufacturer doubled its business in four years and is about to commit to a major investment in new equipment worth €30–40M — to expand its heat exchanger production. The client chose to run an industrial facility layout study upstream of the investment: flow mapping, comparison of two layouts based on objective criteria, a targeted automation plan and an Industry 4.0 roadmap.
Relevant result
A path to −33% lead time, quantified and validated on the plan — before the major investment, while choices are still reversible.
Meet Our Product
“To absorb growth, we're investing in a new unit. This layout study reassured us about our choices and allows us to target a 33% lead time reduction (from 133 to 84 days) and a drop in production costs from €12,300 to €10,600 per m³ brazed. Change management will be key.” |
— Site Director, manufacturer of high-performance thermal equipment
This case is for you if…
If the trajectory(ies) described here apply to you, then this case is relevant:
• Your business is growing fast (new programs, insourcing, higher volumes) and the organization keeps up by adding effort rather than method.
• A major investment is coming — new line, new building, new furnace — and you want to validate your choices before building.
• You need to increase capacity and you're hesitating: expand, or first find the real limits of the existing setup?
• Your flows are push-based and fragmented, performance depends mainly on teams' responsiveness, and your lead time grows with volume.
• You want to reduce your dependence on scarce know-how or on the availability of qualified labor.
Results you can expect
What this approach unlocks for your organization:
VALIDATE THE INVESTMENT BEFORE BUILDING
Compare several layout options using factual indicators, so you don't cement a bad decision into the building.
SHORTEN AND PACE THE LEAD TIME
Move from fragmented push flow to continuous, paced flow: less work-in-process, clearer circulation, and lead times you can meet.
INCREASE CAPACITY AND INVEST ONLY WHAT'S NECESSARY
Recover throughput via layout and scheduling before adding floor space or machines.
AUTOMATE WHERE IT MAKES SENSE
Size automation for the workstations that justify it, reduce unit cost and reliance on scarce know-how, and avoid automating for automation's sake.
Context: growth puts push flow under strain
If the trajectory(ies) described here apply to you, then this case is relevant:
• Your business is growing fast (new programs, insourcing, higher volumes) and the organization keeps up by adding effort rather than method.
• A major investment is coming — new line, new building, new furnace — and you want to validate your choices before building.
• You need to increase capacity and you're hesitating: expand, or first find the real limits of the existing setup?
• Your flows are push-based and fragmented, performance depends mainly on teams' responsiveness, and your lead time grows with volume.
• You want to reduce your dependence on scarce know-how or on the availability of qualified labor.
Objectives of the intervention
• Map and optimize the flows of the new unit: products, materials, people.
• Compare and objectively validate two layout scenarios before construction.
• Size a targeted automation plan for welding, avoid over-investing.
• Establish the design ↔ production link (Industry 4.0) to make execution more reliable.
• Provide quantified targets — lead time, cost, capacity — and a functional analysis to support the investment decision.
Results you can expect
Method: actions carried out
1. Industrial performance diagnosis: Highlighted push-based and fragmented flows, fragmented production control, and the lack of standard work, performance management routines and Team Leaders.
2. Target factory design: Defined guiding principles (continuous flow, Industry 4.0, performance management, supplies) and built two layout options.
3. Layout selection: Selected the version with more continuous flow and better robustness, despite heavy installation constraints.
4. Targeted automation: Automation plan and internal transports via AGV (Automated Guided Vehicle).
5. Operational excellence: End-to-end scheduling, standard work and implementation of performance management.
6. Digitization: Strong link between design data and production data.
These levers are prioritized in a single roadmap — that's the point of a Factory Roadmap: a sequenced path, from quick wins to structuring
See more…
Results of the industrial diagnosis
The numbers below provide a direction and order of magnitude to inform the decision:
• Lead time: target −33%, driven by the selected layout version, end-to-end scheduling and performance management.
• Production cost: target −14%, driven by welding workstation automation and optimization of material flows.
• Capacity: +17%, delivered by the new layout and automation.
• Labor: up to ×8 fewer operators on automated workstations — a cost and resilience lever in the face of scarce know-how.
This sequencing — validating the investment, pacing flows, automating in the right place — is what a Factory Roadmap structures for you: a roadmap prioritized by impact and effort.
MORE CASES
Assembly standardization: turning an assembly bottleneck into continuous flow
Standardization in assembly: a standard reduces variability without making the workshop rigid. A shop-floor approach involving tolerances and indicator-based management.
Doubling your production capacity without building a new site
Double production capacity without expanding: diagnose the bottleneck, test scenarios, and make decisions using flow simulation.
From modular cells to a flexible paced assembly line: produce more without expanding the factory
Designing a paced and flexible assembly line: takt time, pitch, cycle time, buffers, and digital twin validation.
Industrial diagnosis: absorb growth without suffering it
Modernizing a site without kidding yourself: an industrial assessment powered by data and automation.
What it means for each decision-maker
The same diagnosis doesn't read the same depending on where you sit.
LEADER / CEO
The issue is a €30–40M investment and the growth path it enables. Validating the layout before building helps avoid a near-irreversible mistake and de-risks the return on investment: you size the transformation while choices are still reversible.
INDUSTRIAL DIRECTOR
The topic is the trade-off between two layouts and the phasing of automation. Compare scenarios on objective criteria, then automate where it pays (welding) and, above all, avoid over-investing: knowing the sequence often matters as much as the actions themselves.
SITE DIRECTOR
When the new unit starts up, standard work, performance management and the design ↔ production link create a site you can run from day one — with less dependence on scarce know-how.
Misconceptions vs pitfalls avoided
THE ASSUMPTION | WHAT THE CASE SHOWS |
“It's already optimized, we don't really have a problem.” | A strong quality culture can mask push-based flows for a long time — and they become costly as volumes rise. |
“We can do it in-house.” | Mapping flows and comparing two layouts on objective criteria requires method and distance — rarely compatible with daily operations. |
“Let's build first; we'll optimize after.” | After construction, the window to redesign flows is limited. The building should follow the flow (so before investment), not the other way around. |
“Automation will be enough.” | Automating welding delivers performance, but the new model changes jobs: change management is what makes it work. |
See more…
Conclusion
An industrial facility layout study carried out upstream turns a major investment into a documented decision: two layouts compared objectively, automation sized where it pays, and quantified targets — lead time, cost, capacity — to arbitrate before building.
Performance then no longer relies only on teams' responsiveness, but on a prioritized trajectory, from quick wins to deeper change. The case is blunt about the real success factor: change management.
Frequently asked questions
HOW LONG DOES A LAYOUT STUDY TAKE?
It's a time-boxed intervention structured around the site's levers. The deliverable is a prioritized roadmap — not a theoretical report. The exact scope is defined with you depending on the size and complexity of the project.
DO WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL EVERYTHING IS BUILT?
No — it's the opposite. The approach makes the most sense upstream of construction, when layout and automation choices are still reversible.
HOW MUCH INVOLVEMENT IS REQUIRED FROM TEAMS?
Your teams' shopfloor knowledge is a key input: the diagnosis relies on on-site analysis and discussion with them. The effort remains punctual and time-boxed.
WHAT IF WE THINK WE ALREADY CONTROL OUR FLOWS WELL?
That's common when the quality culture is strong. The study is specifically designed to reveal flows you don't see day to day, and to confirm — or not — priorities before committing capital.