Preview build. The flagship report and its exhibits are final; insights, other reports and their exhibits remain placeholders pending editorial review.

Flagship report · Edition 1

The capacity you already own

Why the next line should be found before it is funded, and how to price the one already standing.

  • 6 chapters
  • 14 exhibits
  • Data as of October 9, 2026
  • PDF
Isometric illustration of a production hall: three grey production lines and a fourth line drawn only as a blue outline, the line the plant already has.

Before you read

Check existing capacity before approving a new line

A request for a new line usually reaches the capital committee with one sentence doing most of the work: the plant is full. This report tests that sentence against public data, then gives the committee a way to test it inside its own plant before the money is committed.

The argument runs in three steps. National statistics show that American plants, on average, run below their own long-run utilization and operate well under half the hours in a week. Plants themselves report why: weak orders explain most of the gap, but some plants name limits inside the plant. And the hours lost inside scheduled time, to stops, changeovers, slow running and scrap, can be priced and set against the other ways of buying an hour.

Two levers run through every chapter. The first is unscheduled time: hours in the week the constraint is not planned to run. The second is losses in scheduled time: hours it is planned to run but does not produce good output. A new line competes with both, and which is cheapest depends on how many hours the plant actually needs.

Summary of findings

Claim Evidence The question to ask the sponsor
Most plants run well below their capacity Utilization 75.7% in August 2026, 2.5 points below the 1972–2025 average [CAP-001]; 14 of 19 industries below their own averages [TC-D-004]; the average plant runs 66 of 168 weekly hours [CAP-006] Is this line genuinely full, or is it full only on the scheduled days?
Some limits are inside the plant 67.1% of plants below capability cite weak orders, 22.2% labor, 11.5% equipment [CAP-005]; public data cannot say how many are bound by supply Does demand on this line exceed its output, and what proves it?
The lost hours can be priced Productivity growth of 0.5% a year this cycle against 2.1% long-term [CAP-024]; downtime of 7.8% of planned time in a NIST sample of 85 returned responses [CAP-012] How many hours does the constraint lose, what is one worth, and what would each option cost per hour actually needed?

Numbers carry a mark: a CAP or TC-V identifier for a published statistic, TC-D for our own arithmetic on one, and Illustrative for an output of the report’s model line.

Six numbers for the capital file

The evidence on one page

  • 75.7%

    Capacity utilization, US manufacturing, August 2026 (preliminary); 1972–2025 average 78.2%

    CAP-001

  • 66 hours

    Average plant hours per week in operation, US manufacturing, Q2 2026, of 168 in a week

    CAP-006

  • 22.2%

    Plants below full capability citing insufficient labor, Q2 2026; 11.5% cite equipment limitations

    CAP-005

  • 0.5% a year

    Manufacturing productivity growth in the current business cycle; long-term rate 2.1%

    CAP-024

  • $314.3 billion

    Capital spending on structures and equipment, US manufacturing companies, 2022, nominal

    CAP-017

  • 78.5%

    Share of full production capability used by US manufacturing plants, Q2 2026 (±2.4); Census flags low response coverage

    CAP-004

Data as of October 9, 2026. CAP marks a published statistic; the full source for each is in the report's notes.

01

Most plants run well below their capacity

On average, American plants run below their own history and leave most of the week unscheduled.

Manufacturing runs below its own long-run average

The Federal Reserve estimates that US manufacturing ran at 75.7% of capacity in August 2026, 2.5 percentage points below its 1972–2025 average of 78.2% [CAP-001] [CAP-003].

Exhibit 1

US manufacturing runs 2.5 points below its own long-run average

Capacity utilization, US manufacturing, selected readings, percent of capacity, seasonally adjusted

60%65%70%75%80%85%90%1988–89 high85.5%1994–95 high84.6%Long-run average, 1972–202578.2%1990–91 low77.2%August 2026 (preliminary)75.7%2009 low63.4%2.5 points
Show data table
US manufacturing runs 2.5 points below its own long-run average (Capacity utilization, US manufacturing, selected readings, percent of capacity, seasonally adjusted)
ItemValueUnitCite
1988–89 high85.5percent of capacityCAP-003
1994–95 high84.6percent of capacityCAP-003
Long-run average, 1972–202578.2percent of capacityCAP-003
1990–91 low77.2percent of capacityCAP-003
August 2026 (preliminary)75.7percent of capacityCAP-001
2009 low63.4percent of capacityCAP-003
Link to this exhibit

Note: August 2026 is a preliminary estimate. Manufacturing as defined by the Federal Reserve. Highs and lows are cycle readings shown in the release.

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, G.17 Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization, release of September 18, 2026, summary and summary table (CAP-001, CAP-003).

The average plant works 66 of the week’s 168 hours

In the second quarter of 2026, US manufacturing plants operated an average of 66 hours a week [CAP-006], or 39% of the calendar week [TC-D-002].

This is the bluntest capacity number in public statistics, and it describes the first lever: unscheduled time. It does not mean every plant could run around the clock. Continuous-process industries such as refineries and paperboard mills already report 168 hours [CAP-006], and many discrete plants are bound by demand, staffing or regulation.

Exhibit 2

The average plant operates 66 of the 168 hours in a week

Average plant hours per week in operation, US manufacturing, Q2 2026, hours; shift references assume 8-hour shifts, five days a week

1 shift2 shifts3 shifts, 5 days24 × 7Average plant,Q2 202666 hours operated102 hours not operated (TC-D-001)Reference: a 24 × 7continuous plant168 hours (reference, not data)024487296120144168Hours in a week
Show data table
The average plant operates 66 of the 168 hours in a week (Average plant hours per week in operation, US manufacturing, Q2 2026, hours; shift references assume 8-hour shifts, five days a week)
ItemValueUnitCite
Average plant, hours operated66hours per weekCAP-006
Hours in a week168hours per weekcalendar
Hours not operated102hours per weekTC-D-001
Link to this exhibit

Note: Standard error 0.9 hours. Continuous-process industries (for example petroleum refineries, paperboard mills) report 168 hours. Shift references assume 8-hour shifts, 5 days a week.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization, 2026 Quarter 2, Table 1 (CAP-006). Hours not operated: Trapped Capacity derived figure TC-D-001; shift references are arithmetic.

Utilization gaps differ across industries

In August 2026, 14 of 19 manufacturing industry groups ran below their own 1972–2025 averages and one ran at it [TC-D-004]. Furniture, printing and primary metals ran about 10 points below; machinery, electrical equipment and nonmetallic minerals ran above [CAP-026].

Exhibit 3

Fourteen of 19 industries run below their own long-run averages

Capacity utilization by manufacturing industry, August 2026 (preliminary) against each industry's 1972–2025 average, percent of capacity, seasonally adjusted

60%65%70%75%80%85%90%Gap, pointsFurniture−10.2Printing−10.1Primary metals−9.8Paper−8.5Plastics and rubber−6.4Motor vehicles and parts−5.4Textiles−5.2Chemicals−5.2Wood−4.5Apparel and leather−4.4Food, beverage and tobacco−2.9Computers and electronics−1.3Miscellaneous−0.9Fabricated metals−0.2Aerospace and other transportation0.0Petroleum and coal products+2.4Electrical equipment+4.1Machinery+5.2Nonmetallic minerals+8.51972–2025 averageAugust 2026, below averageabove average
Show data table
Fourteen of 19 industries run below their own long-run averages (Capacity utilization by manufacturing industry, August 2026 (preliminary) against each industry's 1972–2025 average, percent of capacity, seasonally adjusted)
ItemValueUnitCite
Furniture, August 202667.2percent of capacityCAP-026
Furniture, 1972-2025 average77.4percent of capacityCAP-026
Furniture, gap-10.2percentage pointsTC-D-005-01
Printing, August 202668.6percent of capacityCAP-026
Printing, 1972-2025 average78.7percent of capacityCAP-026
Printing, gap-10.1percentage pointsTC-D-005-02
Primary metals, August 202667.3percent of capacityCAP-026
Primary metals, 1972-2025 average77.1percent of capacityCAP-026
Primary metals, gap-9.8percentage pointsTC-D-005-03
Paper, August 202678.0percent of capacityCAP-026
Paper, 1972-2025 average86.5percent of capacityCAP-026
Paper, gap-8.5percentage pointsTC-D-005-04
Plastics and rubber, August 202675.2percent of capacityCAP-026
Plastics and rubber, 1972-2025 average81.6percent of capacityCAP-026
Plastics and rubber, gap-6.4percentage pointsTC-D-005-05
Motor vehicles and parts, August 202669.0percent of capacityCAP-026
Motor vehicles and parts, 1972-2025 average74.4percent of capacityCAP-026
Motor vehicles and parts, gap-5.4percentage pointsTC-D-005-06
Textiles, August 202672.1percent of capacityCAP-026
Textiles, 1972-2025 average77.3percent of capacityCAP-026
Textiles, gap-5.2percentage pointsTC-D-005-07
Chemicals, August 202671.7percent of capacityCAP-026
Chemicals, 1972-2025 average76.9percent of capacityCAP-026
Chemicals, gap-5.2percentage pointsTC-D-005-08
Wood, August 202672.2percent of capacityCAP-026
Wood, 1972-2025 average76.7percent of capacityCAP-026
Wood, gap-4.5percentage pointsTC-D-005-09
Apparel and leather, August 202671.3percent of capacityCAP-026
Apparel and leather, 1972-2025 average75.7percent of capacityCAP-026
Apparel and leather, gap-4.4percentage pointsTC-D-005-10
Food, beverage and tobacco, August 202677.3percent of capacityCAP-026
Food, beverage and tobacco, 1972-2025 average80.2percent of capacityCAP-026
Food, beverage and tobacco, gap-2.9percentage pointsTC-D-005-11
Computers and electronics, August 202675.8percent of capacityCAP-026
Computers and electronics, 1972-2025 average77.1percent of capacityCAP-026
Computers and electronics, gap-1.3percentage pointsTC-D-005-12
Miscellaneous, August 202676.2percent of capacityCAP-026
Miscellaneous, 1972-2025 average77.1percent of capacityCAP-026
Miscellaneous, gap-0.9percentage pointsTC-D-005-13
Fabricated metals, August 202678.3percent of capacityCAP-026
Fabricated metals, 1972-2025 average78.5percent of capacityCAP-026
Fabricated metals, gap-0.2percentage pointsTC-D-005-14
Aerospace and other transportation, August 202673.4percent of capacityCAP-026
Aerospace and other transportation, 1972-2025 average73.4percent of capacityCAP-026
Aerospace and other transportation, gap0.0percentage pointsTC-D-005-15
Petroleum and coal products, August 202687.9percent of capacityCAP-026
Petroleum and coal products, 1972-2025 average85.5percent of capacityCAP-026
Petroleum and coal products, gap2.4percentage pointsTC-D-005-16
Electrical equipment, August 202685.8percent of capacityCAP-026
Electrical equipment, 1972-2025 average81.7percent of capacityCAP-026
Electrical equipment, gap4.1percentage pointsTC-D-005-17
Machinery, August 202683.4percent of capacityCAP-026
Machinery, 1972-2025 average78.2percent of capacityCAP-026
Machinery, gap5.2percentage pointsTC-D-005-18
Nonmetallic minerals, August 202682.5percent of capacityCAP-026
Nonmetallic minerals, 1972-2025 average74.0percent of capacityCAP-026
Nonmetallic minerals, gap8.5percentage pointsTC-D-005-19
Link to this exhibit

Note: August 2026 is preliminary and subject to annual revision on November 24, 2026. Industries sorted by gap; the count is unweighted, so a small industry counts the same as a large one.

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, G.17 Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization, release of September 18, 2026, Table 7 (CAP-026). Gaps and count: Trapped Capacity derived figures TC-D-004, TC-D-005.

02

Why plants run below capability

Weak orders explain most idle capacity. Some plants also name limits inside the plant, and those are the ones operators can work on.

Weak orders are the most cited reason

When the Census Bureau asks plants why they run below full capability, 67.1% cite insufficient orders. Next come insufficient supply of labor, at 22.2%, and equipment limitations, at 11.5% [CAP-005].

This is the honest starting point: most idle capacity is a market problem, and no improvement program fixes a market problem.

Exhibit 4

Plants cite weak orders first, then labor and equipment

Reasons for operating below full production capability, US manufacturing plants, Q2 2026, percent of plants citing at least one reason

0%20%40%60%80%Insufficient orders67.1%Insufficient supply of labor22.2%Equipment limitations11.5%Insufficient materials11.3%Not profitable at full capacity10.5%Seasonal operations9.0%Sufficient finished-goods inventory7.2%Storage limitations6.3%Logistics or transportation3.5%Environmental restrictions1.6%Lack of fuel or energy0.7%Other10.7%
Show data table
Plants cite weak orders first, then labor and equipment (Reasons for operating below full production capability, US manufacturing plants, Q2 2026, percent of plants citing at least one reason)
ItemValueUnitCite
Insufficient orders67.1percent of plantsCAP-027
Insufficient supply of labor22.2percent of plantsCAP-027
Equipment limitations11.5percent of plantsCAP-027
Insufficient materials11.3percent of plantsCAP-027
Not profitable at full capacity10.5percent of plantsCAP-027
Seasonal operations9.0percent of plantsCAP-027
Sufficient finished-goods inventory7.2percent of plantsCAP-027
Storage limitations6.3percent of plantsCAP-027
Logistics or transportation3.5percent of plantsCAP-027
Environmental restrictions1.6percent of plantsCAP-027
Lack of fuel or energy0.7percent of plantsCAP-027
Other10.7percent of plantsCAP-027
Link to this exhibit

Note: Plants may cite more than one reason, so shares overlap and do not sum to 100. Standard errors 0.3 to 1.5 points. Strike or work stoppage withheld by Census. Ultramarine marks the two limits discussed in the text.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization, 2026 Quarter 2, Table 3b (CAP-027).

03

Capital spending and productivity growth

Manufacturers kept investing in structures and equipment, while sector productivity grew at a fraction of its long-term rate.

Manufacturers raised capital spending by 10.6% in 2022

US manufacturing companies with employees spent $314.3 billion on structures and equipment in 2022, up 10.6% from $284.2 billion in 2021 [CAP-017].

Exhibit 5

Manufacturers spent $314.3 billion on structures and equipment in 2022

Capital expenditures, US manufacturing companies with employees, 2021 (revised) and 2022, billions of current dollars

$0$50$100$150$200$250$300$3502021Equipment $215.5Structures $68.6$284.22022Equipment $237.8Structures $76.5$314.3+10.6% on 2021
Show data table
Manufacturers spent $314.3 billion on structures and equipment in 2022 (Capital expenditures, US manufacturing companies with employees, 2021 (revised) and 2022, billions of current dollars)
ItemValueUnitCite
2021 equipment215.5USD billionCAP-017
2021 structures68.6USD billionCAP-017
2021 total284.2USD billionCAP-017
2022 equipment237.8USD billionCAP-017
2022 structures76.5USD billionCAP-017
2022 total314.3USD billionCAP-017
Link to this exhibit

Note: Nominal dollars, not adjusted for inflation. Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. The survey has since been folded into the Annual Integrated Economic Survey; 2022 is its latest year.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Annual Capital Expenditures Survey, manufacturing table (CAP-017).

Output per hour has grown 0.5% a year this cycle

Manufacturing labor productivity has grown at an annualized 0.5% in the current business cycle, above the previous cycle’s 0.1% but well below the long-term rate of 2.1% since 1987 [CAP-024].

Exhibit 6

Output per hour has grown 0.5% a year this cycle, against 2.1% long-term

Labor productivity (output per hour worked), US manufacturing sector, average annual growth, percent

0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%Long-term rate2.1%Previous business cycle0.1%Current business cycle0.5%
Show data table
Output per hour has grown 0.5% a year this cycle, against 2.1% long-term (Labor productivity (output per hour worked), US manufacturing sector, average annual growth, percent)
ItemValueUnitCite
Long-term rate2.1percent a yearCAP-024
Previous business cycle0.1percent a yearCAP-024
Current business cycle0.5percent a yearCAP-024
Link to this exhibit

Note: Business-cycle comparison as published by BLS; the current cycle is still open. Rates are averages for the whole sector, not for any plant.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Productivity and Costs, Second Quarter 2026, Revised, news release of September 3, 2026, manufacturing section (CAP-024).

04

Losses inside scheduled hours

Stops, changeovers, slow running and scrap take hours from lines that are scheduled to run. The public evidence is thin and comes with limits we state plainly.

Downtime took 7.8% of planned time in the NIST sample

In a NIST study of US discrete manufacturers, downtime averaged 7.8% of planned production time, ranging from 4.0% to 12.8% across groups of plants by size and industry [CAP-012].

Exhibit 7

Downtime took 7.8% of planned production time in the NIST sample

Downtime as a share of planned production time (NIST survey question 9), US discrete manufacturers, annual values for 2016, percent

0%3%6%9%12%15%Lowest group 4.0%Highest group 12.8%Average 7.8%
Show data table
Downtime took 7.8% of planned production time in the NIST sample (Downtime as a share of planned production time (NIST survey question 9), US discrete manufacturers, annual values for 2016, percent)
ItemValueUnitCite
Lowest stratum4.0percent of planned production timeCAP-012
Average, all surveyed establishments7.8percent of planned production timeCAP-012
Highest stratum12.8percent of planned production timeCAP-012
Link to this exhibit

Note: Self-selected sample: 85 responses returned by maintenance managers, some dropped. The question asks for downtime as a share of planned time; NIST reads it as unplanned. Range shows the lowest and highest survey strata (NAICS 321-339, excluding 324 and 325).

Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Economics of Manufacturing Machinery Maintenance (NIST AMS 100-34), D. S. Thomas and B. A. Weiss, 2020, Table 5.1 (CAP-012).

Lost sales may be the largest maintenance loss

NIST estimates $100.2 billion of sales lost to delays and defects from preventable maintenance issues [CAP-007], with a 90% confidence interval of $33.5 billion to $166.8 billion, and $88.3 billion when estimated by size and industry [TC-V-001]. That is revenue, not profit.

Exhibit 8

NIST's lost-sales estimate is large but uncertain

Maintenance costs and revenue at risk, US discrete manufacturing, NIST estimates, annual values for 2016, billions of dollars

$0$30$60$90$120$150$180COSTSDirect maintenance spending$57.3Total maintenance-related costs$74.5Downtime cost$18.1Defect cost$0.8REVENUE AT RISKSales lost to delays and defects$100.2$166.8
Show data table
NIST's lost-sales estimate is large but uncertain (Maintenance costs and revenue at risk, US discrete manufacturing, NIST estimates, annual values for 2016, billions of dollars)
ItemValueUnitCite
Direct maintenance spending57.3USD billion (2016)CAP-008
Total maintenance-related costs74.5USD billion (2016)CAP-008
Downtime cost18.1USD billion (2016)CAP-007
Defect cost0.8USD billion (2016)CAP-007
Sales lost to delays and defects100.2USD billion (2016)CAP-007
Lost sales, 90% CI low33.5USD billion (2016)TC-V-001
Lost sales, 90% CI high166.8USD billion (2016)TC-V-001
Lost sales, stratified estimate88.3USD billion (2016)TC-V-001
Link to this exhibit

Note: Whisker: NIST 90% confidence interval for lost sales, $33.5B to $166.8B; ink mark: NIST's estimate by size and industry strata, $88.3B. Lost sales are revenue, not profit, some of it moved to other US plants; they are not added to the cost rows. Self-selected sample of 85 returned responses.

Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Economics of Manufacturing Machinery Maintenance (NIST AMS 100-34), D. S. Thomas and B. A. Weiss, 2020, Executive Summary, Section 5.3 and Table 5.3 (CAP-007, CAP-008, TC-V-001).

The most reactive plants report the most downtime

In the NIST sample, plants in the quartile most reliant on reactive maintenance reported 3.3 times the downtime and 16.0 times the defects of those in the least reactive quartile [CAP-010].

Exhibit 9

The most reactive plants had 3.3 times the downtime and 16 times the defects

Downtime (share of planned production time) and defect rate, establishments most and least reliant on reactive maintenance (top and bottom quartile), US discrete manufacturing, NIST self-selected sample, annual values for 2016, percent

Downtime, % of planned time0%5%10%15%Least reactive quartile4.0%Most reactive quartile13.0% (3.3x)Defect rate, %0%1%2%3%4%Least reactive quartile0.2%Most reactive quartile3.3% (16x)
Show data table
The most reactive plants had 3.3 times the downtime and 16 times the defects (Downtime (share of planned production time) and defect rate, establishments most and least reliant on reactive maintenance (top and bottom quartile), US discrete manufacturing, NIST self-selected sample, annual values for 2016, percent)
ItemValueUnitCite
Downtime, least reactive quartile4.0percent of planned timeTC-V-002
Downtime, most reactive quartile13.0percent of planned timeTC-V-002
Defect rate, least reactive quartile0.2percentTC-V-002
Defect rate, most reactive quartile3.3percentTC-V-002
Downtime ratio3.3ratioCAP-010
Defect ratio16.0ratioCAP-010
Link to this exhibit

Note: Associations from 85 returned responses, not causal effects. Small bases: a 16x ratio on defect rates of 0.2% and 3.3%. Each panel has its own scale.

Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Economics of Manufacturing Machinery Maintenance (NIST AMS 100-34), D. S. Thomas and B. A. Weiss, 2020, Executive Summary and Table 7.1 (CAP-010, TC-V-002).

These are associations from a small, self-selected sample, not proof that a different maintenance mix will produce the same gains [CAP-010]. Changeovers, slow running and minor stops are harder still. No government series measures them, and no public dataset supports an industry-average OEE. For these losses the reliable number is the one a plant measures itself.

05

Putting a price on lost hours

A loss without a price is not finished. One illustrative line turns OEE points into cash, then sets recovered hours against new capital.

In the illustrative line, losses exceed a weekend day every week

The four losses take 1,312 of the line’s 6,000 planned hours, about 26 hours a week: more than the line would gain by running round the clock every Saturday (Illustrative).

Exhibit 10

In this illustrative line, four losses take 1,312 of 6,000 planned hours

Illustrative data

Planned production time and losses, one constraint line, one year, hours

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0006,000Planned time−500Changeovers−300Unplanned stops−416Slow running−96Scrap4,688Fully productivetime
Show data table
In this illustrative line, four losses take 1,312 of 6,000 planned hours (Planned production time and losses, one constraint line, one year, hours)
ItemValueUnitCite
Planned time6000hours per yearIllustrative
Changeovers-500.0hours per yearIllustrative
Unplanned stops-300.0hours per yearIllustrative
Slow running-416.0hours per yearIllustrative
Scrap-95.7hours per yearIllustrative
Fully productive time4688.3hours per yearIllustrative
Link to this exhibit

Note: Not a description of any real plant. Replace the assumptions with your own.

Source: Illustrative data. Trapped Capacity illustrative line model; assumptions are listed in Chapter 5.

On the illustrative line, one OEE point is worth $72,000

Priced at $1,200 an hour of contribution, the four losses cost the illustrative line $1.65 million a year, including $77,000 of variable cost forfeited on scrapped units (Illustrative).

Exhibit 11

In this illustrative line, the four losses cost $1.65 million a year

Illustrative data

Annual cost of losses, one constraint line, thousands of dollars of contribution, plus variable cost of scrapped units

$0k$100k$200k$300k$400k$500k$600k$700kChangeovers$600kSlow running$499kUnplanned stops$360kScrap$191kincl. $77k variable cost of scrapTotal $1.65 million a year
Show data table
In this illustrative line, the four losses cost $1.65 million a year (Annual cost of losses, one constraint line, thousands of dollars of contribution, plus variable cost of scrapped units)
ItemValueUnitCite
Changeovers, contribution600.0USD thousand per yearIllustrative
Slow running, contribution499.2USD thousand per yearIllustrative
Unplanned stops, contribution360.0USD thousand per yearIllustrative
Scrap, contribution114.8USD thousand per yearIllustrative
Scrap, variable cost of scrapped units76.5USD thousand per yearIllustrative
Total1650.6USD thousand per yearIllustrative
Link to this exhibit

Note: Prices apply only on a constraint line with demand above output. A scrapped unit forfeits the contribution of its line time and its variable cost. Not a description of any real plant.

Source: Illustrative data. Trapped Capacity illustrative line model: price $2.00 and variable cost $0.80 a unit ($1.20 contribution), 1,000 units an hour ($1,200 a constraint hour).

One point of OEE on this line is 60 hours of planned time, 60,000 units, or $72,000 of contribution a year (Illustrative). The price applies only on a constraint with demand. On a line that is not the bottleneck, a recovered hour adds inventory, not sales.

Price your own hour before you price a new one

In 2021, value added per production-worker hour ranged from $62 in apparel to $1,022 in petroleum and coal products, against $180 for manufacturing as a whole [CAP-029] [TC-D-006-01] [TC-D-006-06] [TC-D-006-22].

Exhibit 12

Value added per production-worker hour ranged from $62 to $1,022 in 2021

Value added per production-worker hour, US manufacturing industries (three-digit NAICS), 2021, dollars

$0$200$400$600$800$1,000Petroleum and coal$1,022Chemicals$489Beverage and tobacco$436Computers and electronics$273Primary metals$247All manufacturing$180Paper$174Electrical equipment$167Machinery$160Miscellaneous$160Transportation equipment$151Food$147Nonmetallic minerals$134Wood$122Plastics and rubber$118Fabricated metals$114Printing$97Textile mills$93Furniture$86Textile products$84Leather$71Apparel$62
Show data table
Value added per production-worker hour ranged from $62 to $1,022 in 2021 (Value added per production-worker hour, US manufacturing industries (three-digit NAICS), 2021, dollars)
ItemValueUnitCite
Petroleum and coal1022USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-01
Chemicals489USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-02
Beverage and tobacco436USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-03
Computers and electronics273USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-04
Primary metals247USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-05
All manufacturing180USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-06
Paper174USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-07
Electrical equipment167USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-08
Machinery160USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-09
Miscellaneous160USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-10
Transportation equipment151USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-11
Food147USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-12
Nonmetallic minerals134USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-13
Wood122USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-14
Plastics and rubber118USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-15
Fabricated metals114USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-16
Printing97USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-17
Textile mills93USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-18
Furniture86USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-19
Textile products84USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-20
Leather71USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-21
Apparel62USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021TC-D-006-22
Link to this exhibit

Note: Current (2021) dollars: value added reflects product prices as well as productivity. Value added includes labor, overhead and profit, so it is not contribution; a line hour uses several production-worker hours. 2021 is the last ASM year.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018–2021 Annual Survey of Manufactures, Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries (AM1831BASIC01), fields VALADD and HOURS (CAP-029). Ratios: Trapped Capacity derived figures TC-D-006.

Three ways to buy an hour

A plant short of hours on its constraint can recover losses, schedule more time, or build. On the illustrative line, recovery is cheapest for a few hundred hours, recovery plus weekend scheduling for up to about 2,200, and only a new line covers more (Illustrative).

Exhibit 13

In the illustrative case, the cheapest hour depends on how many the plant needs

Illustrative data

Annual cost per productive constraint hour actually needed, by option and by hours needed a year, illustrative line, dollars per hour

$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,00001,0002,0003,0004,0005,000Productive hours needed a yearRecover(up to 328 h)Schedule weekend hours (up to 1,875 h)Recover, then scheduleBuild a new lineBeyond 2,203 h, only a new line covers the need
Show data table
In the illustrative case, the cheapest hour depends on how many the plant needs (Annual cost per productive constraint hour actually needed, by option and by hours needed a year, illustrative line, dollars per hour)
ItemValueUnitCite
need 300 h: recover1000USD per needed hourIllustrative
need 300 h: schedule1024USD per needed hourIllustrative
need 300 h: build10510USD per needed hourIllustrative
need 300 h: stack1000USD per needed hourIllustrative
need 1000 h: recovercannot coverUSD per needed hourIllustrative
need 1000 h: schedule1024USD per needed hourIllustrative
need 1000 h: build3153USD per needed hourIllustrative
need 1000 h: stack988USD per needed hourIllustrative
need 2500 h: recovercannot coverUSD per needed hourIllustrative
need 2500 h: schedulecannot coverUSD per needed hourIllustrative
need 2500 h: build1261USD per needed hourIllustrative
need 2500 h: stackcannot coverUSD per needed hourIllustrative
need 4688 h: recovercannot coverUSD per needed hourIllustrative
need 4688 h: schedulecannot coverUSD per needed hourIllustrative
need 4688 h: build673USD per needed hourIllustrative
need 4688 h: stackcannot coverUSD per needed hourIllustrative
Link to this exhibit

Note: Recover: $300k a year program, up to 328 h (25% of losses). Schedule: weekend hours at $800 per scheduled hour, $1,024 per productive hour, up to 1,875 h. Build: $12M line, 10 years, 10% cost of capital, $1.2M a year to run; adds 4,688 h.

Source: Illustrative data. Trapped Capacity illustrative model; assumptions in Chapter 5 and formulas in the method notes.

06

The Hidden Line Test

Seven figures a request for new capacity should show before it is approved, starting with demand, and a ledger that produces them before the vote.

Seven figures a capital request should show first

The Hidden Line Test is a one-page gate for any request to add capacity. It asks the sponsor to prove demand, then to show the capacity already standing, scheduled or not, and to price it, before the committee prices the capacity to be built.

Exhibit 14

A capital request should show seven figures, demand first

A gate for any request to add capacity; the sponsor shows each figure for the constraint asset

FIGUREWHAT TO SHOWPASSBORDERLINEFAIL1DemandOrders or forecast thatexceed the constraint'soutputBacklog or lostorders, documentedForecast onlyNot shown2The constraintThe asset that limitsoutput, shown with outputand queue dataNamed and measuredfor 4 weeks or moreNamed fromestimatesNot named3Unscheduled hoursHours the constraint is notscheduled, and the full costof scheduling themHours and full costof added timeHours onlyNot considered4Losses in hoursHours lost in scheduled timelast quarter, by causeRecorded by cause,in hoursSampled orpartly recordedPercentages only5Price of an hourContribution per constrainthourAgreed in writingwith the controllerEstimated byoperationsRevenue perhour, or none6Recoverable hoursHours recoverable within 12monthsA range, an ownerand a plan per lossA singleestimate, noownerNot stated7Cost per neededhourCapital cost per needed houragainst cost per recoveredhourBoth on one pageOne of the twoNeither
Show data table
A capital request should show seven figures, demand first (A gate for any request to add capacity; the sponsor shows each figure for the constraint asset)
ItemValueUnitCite
DemandOrders or forecast that exceed the constraint's outputPass: Backlog or lost orders, documented | Borderline: Forecast only | Fail: Not shownTC method
The constraintThe asset that limits output, shown with output and queue dataPass: Named and measured for 4 weeks or more | Borderline: Named from estimates | Fail: Not namedTC method
Unscheduled hoursHours the constraint is not scheduled, and the full cost of scheduling themPass: Hours and full cost of added time | Borderline: Hours only | Fail: Not consideredTC method
Losses in hoursHours lost in scheduled time last quarter, by causePass: Recorded by cause, in hours | Borderline: Sampled or partly recorded | Fail: Percentages onlyTC method
Price of an hourContribution per constraint hourPass: Agreed in writing with the controller | Borderline: Estimated by operations | Fail: Revenue per hour, or noneTC method
Recoverable hoursHours recoverable within 12 monthsPass: A range, an owner and a plan per loss | Borderline: A single estimate, no owner | Fail: Not statedTC method
Cost per needed hourCapital cost per needed hour against cost per recovered hourPass: Both on one page | Borderline: One of the two | Fail: NeitherTC method
Link to this exhibit

Note: Pass rules are editorial judgment, not industry benchmarks; adjust them to your own hurdle rates. Formula for figure 7 in the method notes.

Source: Trapped Capacity method.

The decision rule

Buy hours in order of cost: recover the losses on the constraint first, schedule more of its week second, and build only for the hours the first two cannot supply.

Free download · PDF

Take the full report to the capital committee

All six chapters, the fourteen exhibits with their data, the line model's assumptions, the Hidden Line Test and the sources behind every figure.

Authors
To be named before launch (placeholder).
Data basis
Published statistics from the Federal Reserve, the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and NIST, each opened at its source; our own calculations recomputed by script; model outputs marked Illustrative.
Funding and conflicts
Placeholder pending the editorial standards disclosure (see About).

Download the report

We use these details as described in our privacy notice (placeholder pending legal review).