ManufaturaEstudo de caso anonimizado — identidade do cliente confidencial.
Manufatura · Estudo de caso

Veja cada trabalho no chão — e encontre a verdadeira limitação.

Uma fábrica perde tempo procurando por portadores de WIP, ferramentas e carrinhos, e não consegue ver onde os trabalhos realmente estão na fila. O OEE estagna porque o verdadeiro gargalo é invisível.

ESTUDO DE CASOVisibilidade em WIP & OEEManufatura · Estudo de casoUWBPosição ao vivo · UWB99%+Localização do WIP+6–9 ptsGanho típico do OEE
Desfechos

O que o programa entregou.

−50–80%

Tempo gasto procurando por ativos / WIP.

99%+

Precisão de localização em andamento versus rastreamento manual.

+6–9 pts

Ganho típico do OEE ao eliminar o gargalo.

Composite worked example — figures are ranges from comparable programmes, not attributed named-client results. Named references available under NDA. We model your own numbers when you engage.

O desafio

O rastreamento de WIPs em papel e código de barras fica obsoleto no momento em que é registrado. Funcionários caminham para a busca; os gerentes adivinham a restrição; Rebalancear é lento.

Nossa abordagem

  • Marque operadoras em progresso, ferramentas e ativos móveis chave.
  • UWB, onde a precisão em zonas submétricas importa; BLE para zoneamento sensível a custos.
  • Análise de zonas em tempo real para expor o verdadeiro gargalo.
  • Progresso automatizado de ordens de trabalho a partir de eventos de localização.
  • Conecte-se ao MES para agendamento em loop fechado.

Tecnologia e integração

Stack implantada: UWB (10–30 cm, <100 ms) for precision zones, BLE for broad coverage, Passive RFID for read-points.

Integração: MES , ERP , SCADA / historian, quality systems.

Relacionado: RTLS para manufatura · UWB vs BLE · Fabricação de RTLS

Programme pattern for this vertical

WIP locating for discrete manufacturing ties carriers or units to stations for flow, ageing and OEE loss trees. UHF RFID and UWB both appear depending on metal and accuracy needs.

MES integration decides whether OEE moves or only dashboards multiply.

Governance, risk and what we refuse to claim

Composite example only. Your payback depends on adoption, integration quality and exception labour — not tag unit cost. Named references under NDA on engagement.

We challenge any vendor who asks you to accept demo-day averages as production truth.

Implementation sequence and change management

Agree the flow unit with supervisors. Tag it. Join MES. Change the daily meeting agenda to live queues. RF survey for metal. Reject accuracy theatre without meeting behaviour change.

KPIs: search minutes, ageing WIP, OEE loss credibility.

Buyer checklist, vendor challenges and engagement shape

For WIP/OEE, change the production meeting ritual in the pilot scope or do not expand.

Buyer checklist before you sign: (1) written system of record for events; (2) acceptance tests with 95th-percentile performance under real interference; (3) integration owner named in IT/OT; (4) privacy or labour consultation path if people are tagged; (5) cybersecurity zoning sketch; (6) five-year TCO including batteries, spares, recalibration and SLA escalations; (7) exit/export terms so you are not hostage to a cloud tenant; (8) a pilot that can fail without political punishment.

Vendor claims to challenge in this pattern: brochure accuracy without production load; 'compliance included' without artefacts; ROI that assumes perfect adoption in 30 days; references that cannot be called under NDA; install partners who have never worked your vertical's overlays; shared support accounts; and any design that dumps locating onto a flat plant or clinical VLAN.

How TRACIO typically engages: stage-1 architecture and measurement design; vendor-neutral shortlist and RFP language; pilot acceptance criteria; then optional implementation oversight or programme rescue if a prior pilot stalled. We stay independent of hardware margin. Composite pages like this one exist so you can prepare the workshop — your numbers replace every planning band when we model payback.

Risk register themes that recur: mute fatigue on alerts; shadow spreadsheets reappearing beside the platform; battery logistics understaffed; master data too weak to support identity; works-council or IG review starting too late; and success declared on demo day before night-shift reality.

Document baseline windows explicitly: what you measured, for how long, which shifts, and what you excluded. Investment committees and auditors both punish fuzzy before/after stories. If your baseline is weak, spend two to four weeks fixing measurement before ordering anchors or portals. That discipline is cheaper than a stranded deployment and is the difference between a locating programme and a technology souvenir.

Training and communications plan: who explains purpose to operators, how often refreshers run, how contractors are inducted, and how successes are fed back without turning safety systems into league tables. Budget a champion network on each shift. Platforms do not adopt themselves. Where unions or works councils exist, share the purpose statement and retention rules early — surprise monitoring is how programmes die. Finally, schedule a formal gate review against the written criteria; celebrate a no-go if evidence is weak. Expanding failure is not delivery.

Mesmo problema no seu andar?

Vamos analisar os números reais da sua operação.

Trinta minutos no seu caso de uso, ambiente e metas — neutro para o fornecedor, sem margem de revendedor.

Agende uma ligação gratuita de 30 minutosVeja o checklist de seleção de fornecedoresBaixe o guia do comprador

Última atualização: