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.
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
Show data table
| Item | Value | Unit | Cite |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1988–89 high | 85.5 | percent of capacity | CAP-003 |
| 1994–95 high | 84.6 | percent of capacity | CAP-003 |
| Long-run average, 1972–2025 | 78.2 | percent of capacity | CAP-003 |
| 1990–91 low | 77.2 | percent of capacity | CAP-003 |
| August 2026 (preliminary) | 75.7 | percent of capacity | CAP-001 |
| 2009 low | 63.4 | percent of capacity | CAP-003 |
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
Show data table
| Item | Value | Unit | Cite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average plant, hours operated | 66 | hours per week | CAP-006 |
| Hours in a week | 168 | hours per week | calendar |
| Hours not operated | 102 | hours per week | TC-D-001 |
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
Show data table
| Item | Value | Unit | Cite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Furniture, August 2026 | 67.2 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Furniture, 1972-2025 average | 77.4 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Furniture, gap | -10.2 | percentage points | TC-D-005-01 |
| Printing, August 2026 | 68.6 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Printing, 1972-2025 average | 78.7 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Printing, gap | -10.1 | percentage points | TC-D-005-02 |
| Primary metals, August 2026 | 67.3 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Primary metals, 1972-2025 average | 77.1 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Primary metals, gap | -9.8 | percentage points | TC-D-005-03 |
| Paper, August 2026 | 78.0 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Paper, 1972-2025 average | 86.5 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Paper, gap | -8.5 | percentage points | TC-D-005-04 |
| Plastics and rubber, August 2026 | 75.2 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Plastics and rubber, 1972-2025 average | 81.6 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Plastics and rubber, gap | -6.4 | percentage points | TC-D-005-05 |
| Motor vehicles and parts, August 2026 | 69.0 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Motor vehicles and parts, 1972-2025 average | 74.4 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Motor vehicles and parts, gap | -5.4 | percentage points | TC-D-005-06 |
| Textiles, August 2026 | 72.1 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Textiles, 1972-2025 average | 77.3 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Textiles, gap | -5.2 | percentage points | TC-D-005-07 |
| Chemicals, August 2026 | 71.7 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Chemicals, 1972-2025 average | 76.9 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Chemicals, gap | -5.2 | percentage points | TC-D-005-08 |
| Wood, August 2026 | 72.2 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Wood, 1972-2025 average | 76.7 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Wood, gap | -4.5 | percentage points | TC-D-005-09 |
| Apparel and leather, August 2026 | 71.3 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Apparel and leather, 1972-2025 average | 75.7 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Apparel and leather, gap | -4.4 | percentage points | TC-D-005-10 |
| Food, beverage and tobacco, August 2026 | 77.3 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Food, beverage and tobacco, 1972-2025 average | 80.2 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Food, beverage and tobacco, gap | -2.9 | percentage points | TC-D-005-11 |
| Computers and electronics, August 2026 | 75.8 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Computers and electronics, 1972-2025 average | 77.1 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Computers and electronics, gap | -1.3 | percentage points | TC-D-005-12 |
| Miscellaneous, August 2026 | 76.2 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Miscellaneous, 1972-2025 average | 77.1 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Miscellaneous, gap | -0.9 | percentage points | TC-D-005-13 |
| Fabricated metals, August 2026 | 78.3 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Fabricated metals, 1972-2025 average | 78.5 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Fabricated metals, gap | -0.2 | percentage points | TC-D-005-14 |
| Aerospace and other transportation, August 2026 | 73.4 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Aerospace and other transportation, 1972-2025 average | 73.4 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Aerospace and other transportation, gap | 0.0 | percentage points | TC-D-005-15 |
| Petroleum and coal products, August 2026 | 87.9 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Petroleum and coal products, 1972-2025 average | 85.5 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Petroleum and coal products, gap | 2.4 | percentage points | TC-D-005-16 |
| Electrical equipment, August 2026 | 85.8 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Electrical equipment, 1972-2025 average | 81.7 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Electrical equipment, gap | 4.1 | percentage points | TC-D-005-17 |
| Machinery, August 2026 | 83.4 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Machinery, 1972-2025 average | 78.2 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Machinery, gap | 5.2 | percentage points | TC-D-005-18 |
| Nonmetallic minerals, August 2026 | 82.5 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Nonmetallic minerals, 1972-2025 average | 74.0 | percent of capacity | CAP-026 |
| Nonmetallic minerals, gap | 8.5 | percentage points | TC-D-005-19 |
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
Show data table
| Item | Value | Unit | Cite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Insufficient orders | 67.1 | percent of plants | CAP-027 |
| Insufficient supply of labor | 22.2 | percent of plants | CAP-027 |
| Equipment limitations | 11.5 | percent of plants | CAP-027 |
| Insufficient materials | 11.3 | percent of plants | CAP-027 |
| Not profitable at full capacity | 10.5 | percent of plants | CAP-027 |
| Seasonal operations | 9.0 | percent of plants | CAP-027 |
| Sufficient finished-goods inventory | 7.2 | percent of plants | CAP-027 |
| Storage limitations | 6.3 | percent of plants | CAP-027 |
| Logistics or transportation | 3.5 | percent of plants | CAP-027 |
| Environmental restrictions | 1.6 | percent of plants | CAP-027 |
| Lack of fuel or energy | 0.7 | percent of plants | CAP-027 |
| Other | 10.7 | percent of plants | CAP-027 |
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
Show data table
| Item | Value | Unit | Cite |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 equipment | 215.5 | USD billion | CAP-017 |
| 2021 structures | 68.6 | USD billion | CAP-017 |
| 2021 total | 284.2 | USD billion | CAP-017 |
| 2022 equipment | 237.8 | USD billion | CAP-017 |
| 2022 structures | 76.5 | USD billion | CAP-017 |
| 2022 total | 314.3 | USD billion | CAP-017 |
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
Show data table
| Item | Value | Unit | Cite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Long-term rate | 2.1 | percent a year | CAP-024 |
| Previous business cycle | 0.1 | percent a year | CAP-024 |
| Current business cycle | 0.5 | percent a year | CAP-024 |
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
Show data table
| Item | Value | Unit | Cite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lowest stratum | 4.0 | percent of planned production time | CAP-012 |
| Average, all surveyed establishments | 7.8 | percent of planned production time | CAP-012 |
| Highest stratum | 12.8 | percent of planned production time | CAP-012 |
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
Show data table
| Item | Value | Unit | Cite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct maintenance spending | 57.3 | USD billion (2016) | CAP-008 |
| Total maintenance-related costs | 74.5 | USD billion (2016) | CAP-008 |
| Downtime cost | 18.1 | USD billion (2016) | CAP-007 |
| Defect cost | 0.8 | USD billion (2016) | CAP-007 |
| Sales lost to delays and defects | 100.2 | USD billion (2016) | CAP-007 |
| Lost sales, 90% CI low | 33.5 | USD billion (2016) | TC-V-001 |
| Lost sales, 90% CI high | 166.8 | USD billion (2016) | TC-V-001 |
| Lost sales, stratified estimate | 88.3 | USD billion (2016) | TC-V-001 |
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
Show data table
| Item | Value | Unit | Cite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Downtime, least reactive quartile | 4.0 | percent of planned time | TC-V-002 |
| Downtime, most reactive quartile | 13.0 | percent of planned time | TC-V-002 |
| Defect rate, least reactive quartile | 0.2 | percent | TC-V-002 |
| Defect rate, most reactive quartile | 3.3 | percent | TC-V-002 |
| Downtime ratio | 3.3 | ratio | CAP-010 |
| Defect ratio | 16.0 | ratio | CAP-010 |
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
Show data table
| Item | Value | Unit | Cite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Planned time | 6000 | hours per year | Illustrative |
| Changeovers | -500.0 | hours per year | Illustrative |
| Unplanned stops | -300.0 | hours per year | Illustrative |
| Slow running | -416.0 | hours per year | Illustrative |
| Scrap | -95.7 | hours per year | Illustrative |
| Fully productive time | 4688.3 | hours per year | Illustrative |
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
Show data table
| Item | Value | Unit | Cite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Changeovers, contribution | 600.0 | USD thousand per year | Illustrative |
| Slow running, contribution | 499.2 | USD thousand per year | Illustrative |
| Unplanned stops, contribution | 360.0 | USD thousand per year | Illustrative |
| Scrap, contribution | 114.8 | USD thousand per year | Illustrative |
| Scrap, variable cost of scrapped units | 76.5 | USD thousand per year | Illustrative |
| Total | 1650.6 | USD thousand per year | Illustrative |
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
Show data table
| Item | Value | Unit | Cite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Petroleum and coal | 1022 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-01 |
| Chemicals | 489 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-02 |
| Beverage and tobacco | 436 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-03 |
| Computers and electronics | 273 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-04 |
| Primary metals | 247 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-05 |
| All manufacturing | 180 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-06 |
| Paper | 174 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-07 |
| Electrical equipment | 167 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-08 |
| Machinery | 160 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-09 |
| Miscellaneous | 160 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-10 |
| Transportation equipment | 151 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-11 |
| Food | 147 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-12 |
| Nonmetallic minerals | 134 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-13 |
| Wood | 122 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-14 |
| Plastics and rubber | 118 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-15 |
| Fabricated metals | 114 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-16 |
| Printing | 97 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-17 |
| Textile mills | 93 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-18 |
| Furniture | 86 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-19 |
| Textile products | 84 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-20 |
| Leather | 71 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-21 |
| Apparel | 62 | USD value added per production-worker hour, 2021 | TC-D-006-22 |
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
Show data table
| Item | Value | Unit | Cite |
|---|---|---|---|
| need 300 h: recover | 1000 | USD per needed hour | Illustrative |
| need 300 h: schedule | 1024 | USD per needed hour | Illustrative |
| need 300 h: build | 10510 | USD per needed hour | Illustrative |
| need 300 h: stack | 1000 | USD per needed hour | Illustrative |
| need 1000 h: recover | cannot cover | USD per needed hour | Illustrative |
| need 1000 h: schedule | 1024 | USD per needed hour | Illustrative |
| need 1000 h: build | 3153 | USD per needed hour | Illustrative |
| need 1000 h: stack | 988 | USD per needed hour | Illustrative |
| need 2500 h: recover | cannot cover | USD per needed hour | Illustrative |
| need 2500 h: schedule | cannot cover | USD per needed hour | Illustrative |
| need 2500 h: build | 1261 | USD per needed hour | Illustrative |
| need 2500 h: stack | cannot cover | USD per needed hour | Illustrative |
| need 4688 h: recover | cannot cover | USD per needed hour | Illustrative |
| need 4688 h: schedule | cannot cover | USD per needed hour | Illustrative |
| need 4688 h: build | 673 | USD per needed hour | Illustrative |
| need 4688 h: stack | cannot cover | USD per needed hour | Illustrative |
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
Show data table
| Item | Value | Unit | Cite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demand | Orders or forecast that exceed the constraint's output | Pass: Backlog or lost orders, documented | Borderline: Forecast only | Fail: Not shown | TC method |
| The constraint | The asset that limits output, shown with output and queue data | Pass: Named and measured for 4 weeks or more | Borderline: Named from estimates | Fail: Not named | TC method |
| Unscheduled hours | Hours the constraint is not scheduled, and the full cost of scheduling them | Pass: Hours and full cost of added time | Borderline: Hours only | Fail: Not considered | TC method |
| Losses in hours | Hours lost in scheduled time last quarter, by cause | Pass: Recorded by cause, in hours | Borderline: Sampled or partly recorded | Fail: Percentages only | TC method |
| Price of an hour | Contribution per constraint hour | Pass: Agreed in writing with the controller | Borderline: Estimated by operations | Fail: Revenue per hour, or none | TC method |
| Recoverable hours | Hours recoverable within 12 months | Pass: A range, an owner and a plan per loss | Borderline: A single estimate, no owner | Fail: Not stated | TC method |
| Cost per needed hour | Capital cost per needed hour against cost per recovered hour | Pass: Both on one page | Borderline: One of the two | Fail: Neither | TC method |
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).