Case study · ManufacturingWorked example · not a named-client scorecard
Manufacturing · Global · 6 lines

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.

___BLOCK14___CASE STUDYWIP RFID trackingManufacturing · Global · 6 linesPassive RFIDlive position · Passive RFID99.2%WIP accuracy6Production linesReal-timeDock reconciliation

Case studies and programme figures on this page are composite worked examples — patterns from comparable deployments, not attributed results for a named client. Named references are available under NDA when you engage.

Request a named reference under NDA

The challenge

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.

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.

Our approach

Vendor-neutral, tied to a named KPI.

We designed a vendor-neutral Passive RFID architecture at cells and dock doors, and normalised reads into the MES through a vendor-neutral event bus so the radio layer stays replaceable.

How we solved it

What we 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

The typical range for a programme of this shape.

99.2%
WIP accuracy
6
Production lines
Real-time
Dock reconciliation
Audit
Grade traceability
Technology used

The stack behind it

Passive RFIDEvent bus / MQTTMES integration
How we measured it

Baseline, method, period — and what we excluded.

These pages are composite worked examples, not named-client scorecards. Figures are ranges from comparable RTLS/RFID programmes and 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 pattern for this vertical

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 to expect — and how they are earned

Outcomes: inventory accuracy uplifts, less emergency overtime for stock checks, cleaner FEFO where dates matter.

Lessons from comparable programmes

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

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

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 vendors quoting apparel retail accuracy as FMCG truth.

Buyer checklist, vendor 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.

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.

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.

Buyer checklist, vendor 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.

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.

Could this be your programme?

Tell us where you are stuck.

Thirty minutes on your use case, the numbers, and what would actually move your KPIs. Vendor-neutral, no platform pitch.

预约 30 分钟范围沟通Get the vendor selection checklistDownload the buyer’s guide

Last updated:

How TRACIO worked the problem

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. Bands are programme-type ranges.

Next step

Ready when you are.

Thirty minutes on the architecture, the technology and the numbers — no pitch deck.