An installation cabinet was designed in-house without specialized sheet-metal design expertise: around 200 engineering hours, numerous standard parts to be created in the system and extensive supplier coordination.
CASE STUDIES / INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE
REAL PROJECTS.
MEASURABLE IMPACT.
Different challenges. Different levers. One principle: engineering must create measurable value.
THREE LEVERS / ONE OBJECTIVE
The greatest potential rarely comes from a single measure. Product architecture, engineering, procurement, suppliers and manufacturing need to be considered as one system.
01
SPECIFICATION-BASED SOURCING
SPECIFY THE RESULT.
NOT THE DESIGN.
Use supplier expertise instead of carrying out every detail design task in-house.
Detailed drawings were replaced by a supplier-neutral specification. Requirements, installation dimensions, interfaces and acceptance criteria were defined, while detailed and manufacturing-oriented design became the supplier’s responsibility.
Detailed design was deliberately transferred to the specialized supplier. This enabled the use of the supplier’s standards, manufacturing methods and existing expertise while significantly reducing internal engineering effort, manufacturing cost and lead time.
BEFORECOMPLEXITY
IN-HOUSE DESIGN→DETAIL DRAWING→SUPPLIER BUILDS
AFTERCLARITY + RESPONSIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS→SPECIFICATION→SUPPLIER KNOW-HOW→VERIFIED SOLUTION
−30 %TCO
−75 %ENGINEERING
−3 WLEAD TIME
<1 %DEFECTS
<1 MO.ROI
02
STANDARDIZATION & MODULARIZATION
STANDARDIZE WHAT REPEATS.
ENGINEER WHAT MATTERS.
Control variants, simplify engineering and respond flexibly to customer requirements.
A high number of order-specific designs resulted in long onboarding times, recurring errors, high engineering effort and limited flexibility when taking on new orders.
Requirements and interfaces were systematically defined. Variants, materials and tolerances were standardized, a modular product architecture was created and the results were transferred into drawing structures and quotation processes.
More than 90 percent of orders could be implemented on the basis of the standard. Engineering effort, assembly time and design-related errors were substantially reduced.
BEFORECOMPLEXITY
CUSTOMER ORDER→INDIVIDUAL ENGINEERING→NEW VARIANT
AFTERCLARITY + RESPONSIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS→STANDARD MODULES→DEFINED INTERFACES→CONFIGURED SOLUTION
−500 k€MANUFACTURING COST / ORDER
−70 %ENGINEERING
−70 %DEFECTS
90 %STANDARD
<1 YEARROI
03
SYSTEM SOURCING
BUY SYSTEMS.
NOT 50+ PARTS.
Source complete assemblies instead of managing fragmented part structures internally.
More than 50 separate drawings, multiple suppliers and internal work steps created substantial coordination and inspection effort. Errors often became visible only during incoming inspection or assembly.
Scope of supply, bills of materials and responsibilities were restructured. A suitable supplier took responsibility for the complete assembly including painting, covers and piping. A quality plan and progress tracking moved inspection ahead of shipment.
More than 50 drawings were reduced to seven. Manufacturing status became transparent, issues could be resolved early and internal resources were significantly relieved.
BEFORECOMPLEXITY
50+ DRAWINGS→MULTIPLE SUPPLIERS→INTERNAL ASSEMBLY & INSPECTION
AFTERCLARITY + RESPONSIBILITY
7 DRAWINGS→1 RESPONSIBLE ASSEMBLY→QUALITY PLAN→PRE-SHIPMENT INSPECTION
500 k€SAVINGS P.A.
−50 %TCO
−50 %LEAD TIME
100 %TRANSPARENCY
<1 MO.ROI
REASCENTEC PERFORMANCE
DIFFERENT LEVERS.
SAME OBJECTIVE.
What potential is hidden in your products, processes and supply structures?
EXPLORE THE PERFORMANCE MODEL