What this looks like when it works
Time spent searching for assets / WIP.
WIP location accuracy vs manual tracking.
Typical OEE gain from de-bottlenecking.
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.
The challenge
Paper and barcode WIP tracking is stale the moment it’s recorded. Staff walk to search; managers guess at the constraint; rebalancing is slow.
Our approach
- Tag WIP carriers, tooling and key mobile assets.
- UWB where sub-metre zone accuracy matters; BLE for cost-sensitive zoning.
- Zone-dwell analytics to expose the real bottleneck.
- Automated work-order progress from location events.
- Tie into MES for closed-loop scheduling.
Technology & integration
Stack deployed: UWB (10–30 cm, <100 ms) for precision zones, BLE for broad coverage, Passive RFID for read-points.
Integration: MES, ERP, SCADA / historian, quality systems.
Related: RTLS for manufacturing · UWB vs BLE · Manufacturing RTLS
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: OEE losses attributed vaguely to material waits.
- Method: WIP location and dwell feeding wait-for-material loss codes; before/after on constraint line.
- Period: Constraint cell across planned production weeks.
- Excluded: Retail inventory ranges mislabelled as WIP accuracy.
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.
Outcomes to expect — and how they are earned
Outcomes: less search, clearer bottleneck ownership, OEE point gains when meetings use live queues.
Lessons from comparable programmes
Lessons: tag the unit of flow that operations already manage; exclude lab accuracy theatre; change the production meeting ritual.
Deeper problem framing
WIP hiding in plain sight destroys OEE diagnosis. Meetings argue anecdotes.
Approach
Tag the real flow unit; MES join; change the production meeting; metal-aware RF design.
Outcomes and measurement
Search time, queue ageing, OEE loss tree credibility.
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.
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.
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: cycle-count and MES scrap reports for 4–6 weeks pre-go-live, plus timed station-dwell samples on the constraint line. Pilot: one cell / one SKU family for 2–4 weeks with dual-path (scan vs RTLS) reconciliation. Steady-state: weekly WIP accuracy vs MES, OEE scrap/rework deltas on the same dashboard the CFO already reads — not a parallel “location” screen. Figures on this page are programme-type ranges; we publish only anonymised bands unless an NDA allows more.