The problem
A moulding plant we work with was growing. Orders came in fast, and sales entered each one in the order sheet as soon as the customer's purchase order arrived. Nobody checked the order before it was accepted. Was the mould available? Was there room on the machines in that period? Was the material in stock?
When the mould did not exist, the tooling team heard about the order only after it was booked. Their date came later, and it was often far beyond the date already given to the customer. So many of these dates were missed.
The managers were not careless. There was simply no step in the flow where the factory could say "yes", "no" or "yes, but later". The cost showed up everywhere: urgent calls, plans changed again and again, and managers spending their day explaining delays.
What we built
First, we walked the whole flow with the managers, from order to dispatch, and drew it as a process map. Each step shows the document used at it and the department that owns it. Next to the map we kept a gap table. One gap stood out: there was no technical approval between "order received" and "order accepted".
Then, together with the managers, we placed a short feasibility check before acceptance. We use the same six questions in every plant, one question to each department:
| Department | The one question it answers |
|---|---|
| Design | Is the drawing clear and complete? |
| Production and tooling | Does the mould exist, and what is the route? |
| Quality | Do we need a new gauge or a new test? |
| Purchase | Is the material available, and when? |
| Planning | Is there room on the machines in that period? |
| Accounts | Is the customer's payment record in order? |
The check is a short meeting or a round of calls. It is not a long study.
The managers' own idea made it fast for repeat work. Sales first looks at the list of drawings and the moulds in hand. If the mould exists, the order flows on. If not, the order moves to a "request for approval" stage, and the technical team replies within hours with the time it needs. On the process map this is drawn as two branches: mould available, and mould not available (a new mould made in-house or outside, which is a separate flow).
Two columns were proposed for the order sheet: "mould available, yes or no" and "technical approval", with its date. The date the factory agrees, the committed date, became a field on the order. On-time delivery is then counted against that date, and the person who gave it explains any miss.
The managers also wrote their problems in a four-part sheet: the problem, at least three solutions, the outcome of each, and why it must be solved now. The order-intake gap was one of the first problems on it.
A date given before the factory has answered is not a promise. It is a guess.
What changed
- The managers agreed where the check sits in the order flow: no date is to be promised until tooling, capacity and material have been looked at.
- Orders that need a new mould are separated on the first day, so the tooling time is known before the customer is told a date.
- With the committed date on the order, the question "who gave this date?" has a clear answer.
What other plants can take from this
- Map the flow from order to dispatch before you fix anything. The gaps show themselves.
- Put one short check between "order received" and "order accepted".
- Ask each department one question only, and get the answers in hours, not days.
- Treat "tooling not available" as its own branch, with its own date.
- Write the committed date on the order, and measure delivery against it.
Key points
- Orders entered first and checked later lead to missed dates, even with good people.
- A feasibility check is six short questions to six departments, before the price and the date.
- Repeat orders with tooling in hand flow straight on; new tooling goes to a separate approval branch.
- The committed date on the order makes delivery measurable and fair.
