WIP visibility from blind to 99.2% across six production lines.
A multinational FMCG packaging plant had no real-time view of work-in-progress across six lines, and reconciled pallets by hand.
The programme and figures on this page come from an earlier work by our advisers. The client name is withheld under NDA. Figures are as reported at the time. Named references are available under NDA when you engage.
What they were up against.
No real-time WIP location
Six production lines ran with no live view of where work-in-progress actually was.
Manual dock reconciliation
Pallet-level dock-door reconciliation was a manual, error-prone process.
Traceability gaps
Gaps in traceability risked findings against IATF and customer audits.
Earlier work by our advisers. Client name withheld under NDA. Client name withheld under NDA; figures as reported at the time. Named references available under NDA. We model your own numbers when you engage.
Independent, tied to a named KPI.
We designed an independent Passive RFID architecture at cells and dock doors, and normalised reads into the MES through an independent event bus so the radio layer stays replaceable.
What the engagement delivered.
- Passive RFID WIP across six lines plus pallet-level dock reconciliation
- An event bus normalising reads into the MES
- Andon alerts and dwell analytics on the line
Results in this engagement
The stack behind it
Baseline, method, period and what we excluded.
This page describes an engagement our advisers led in earlier roles. The client name is withheld under NDA. Figures are as reported at the time, with published industry sources where noted.
- Baseline: WIP known at line start/end; mid-process location tribal.
- Method: RFID/RTLS on WIP carriers; dwell and rework-loop visibility; OEE inputs from wait-for-WIP.
- Period: One packaging hall through SKUs mix week.
- Excluded: Finished-goods inventory accuracy as a stand-in for WIP truth.
Programme context
FMCG packaging halls use RFID on totes/pallets for WIP and finished goods handoffs, often with washdown and high-speed constraints.
Focus on exception handling at case packers and palletisers.
Outcomes in this engagement and how they were earned
Outcomes: inventory accuracy uplifts, less emergency overtime for stock checks, cleaner FEFO where dates matter.
Lessons from this engagement
Lessons: moisture and product detuning; do not confuse case reads with each; integrate to WMS as SOR.
Deeper problem framing
High-speed packaging and washdown punish naive RFID. Emergency cycle counts burn overtime.
Approach
Tote/pallet focus; exception design at packers; WMS SOR; FEFO where dated.
Outcomes and measurement
Inventory accuracy, overtime for counts, exception ageing.
Governance, risk and what we refuse to claim
Figures from this engagement only. Your payback depends on adoption, integration quality and exception labour, not tag unit cost. Named references under NDA on engagement.
We challenge any supplier who asks you to accept demo-day averages as production truth.
Implementation sequence and change management
Pilot on one packaging hall; tune for moisture/product detuning; WMS exceptions; FEFO if dated. Measure overtime for counts and accuracy. Expand SKU classes deliberately.
Challenge suppliers quoting apparel retail accuracy as FMCG truth.
Buyer checklist, supplier challenges and engagement shape
For FMCG WIP, test product detuning and washdown survival before accepting apparel-retail accuracy analogies.
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.
Supplier 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; independent shortlist and RFP language; pilot acceptance criteria; then optional implementation oversight or programme rescue if a prior pilot stalled. We don't sell hardware, so our advice stays independent. 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.
Last updated:
Throughput and WIP
Independent advisory means the radio is chosen last. After the job, the constraints and the system of record are clear.
Where WIP actually stalls
Station dwell and buffer truth before any anchor plan.
Plant-fit selection
Metal, washdown and MES hooks decide the radio, not a logo.
OEE on the dashboard they already use
Location intelligence as a feed, not a new religion.
Measurement
Baseline: WIP accuracy vs MES, scrap/rework, and station dwell on the constraint. Pilot: one cell/SKU family with RFID/RTLS vs MES for 2-4 weeks. Steady-state: WIP match rate, dwell, and scrap deltas on the existing OEE view. Figures are as reported in this engagement.