Case study
TMI improved cabinet output by fixing work upstream of assembly
TMI’s final assembly area was filling with bulky work in process. More space looked like a possible answer. But operators were spending production time cleaning glue and marks left on panels earlier in the process. Impact Dakota followed that work back upstream, then helped TMI improve the way quality and production flowed into assembly.
The operating result
More cabinets produced each day.
TMI reported a significant improvement in daily cabinet output after work on upstream quality, lean methods and plant layout.
For the business
More finished cabinets each day after changing the work reaching final assembly, not just the size of the area.
For the team
Employees adopted quality-at-source standards and recognized their contribution to better productivity.
For the work
Quality practices aimed at reducing the rework that upstream processes had been passing into final assembly.
Why the assembly line was congested
Impact Dakota studied TMI’s assembly flow, plant layout, work methods and production data. It found that upstream panels arrived with excess glue and black marks. Assembly operators had to remove those defects before they could finish the cabinets.
That cleanup consumed time in the production pace-setter and held bulky work in the assembly area. The visible shortage of space was therefore partly a consequence of work being passed downstream unfinished.
TMI knew that upstream processes also needed attention. The operating improvement included clearer quality responsibility and work methods in those earlier steps, rather than asking assembly to absorb the cleanup.
What changed in the operation
Impact Dakota helped TMI train its workforce in quality at source, lean practices and 5S, alongside improvements to the production layout. The point was to change the work reaching assembly—not simply increase the space available for rework.
Before
Panels arrived with glue and black markings.
Assembly operators cleaned them before completing cabinets, keeping bulky work in the constrained area.
After
Quality at source, staff training, lean practices and layout changes became part of TMI’s working approach.
Less avoidable cleanup at the production pace-setter was the operating objective; higher daily cabinet output was the reported result.
How the improvement became normal work
TMI trained employees and established new quality-at-source practices across factory and office work. Employees followed the standards and appreciated how the changes affected productivity. Better quality responsibility earlier in the process meant final assembly was no longer treated as the default place to correct every upstream defect.
What the published case reports
The published Impact Dakota case reports significantly improved daily cabinet output, a separate 10% improvement associated with better layout and lean tools, and employees adopting new standards across the operation.
Why this matters to leadership
The congestion appeared in assembly, but part of its cause came from work completed poorly upstream. Addressing the source helped improve daily production and gave the people doing the work clearer responsibility for quality. The important leadership decision was to change what reached the constrained team rather than accommodating the same avoidable cleanup.
Where are your people losing time fixing problems created somewhere else in the operation?
The Diagnostic examines one recurring operating problem over two weeks for $5,800, with written findings, an executive readout, and a usable correction within the agreed scope.