Mick Holly

The recurring categories — scrap, changeovers, inventory, rework and downtime — are ordinary, not hidden.

• They persist because nobody chases the root cause and people get used to the losses.
• Holly’s conclusion: people are capable, but they cannot act on what they cannot see.
• Making the metric visible is the first step, not buying a new tool.

One post lists five leaks, each a persistent background cost. Holly walks through them in a short video and offers a quick, no-pressure conversation rather than a product pitch.

Read original · Original 2

What is the scrap rate, and when was it last challenged?

• Was the supply chain designed for today’s market or the one ten years ago?
• Each question turns an accepted operating condition into a comparable number; an unanswered question is itself a finding.

Putting three questions to one industrial manufacturer yielded $1.5M in cost reductions — not through higher prices, renegotiated contracts or job cuts, but by addressing waste that had sat in plain sight, unmeasured, for years.

Read original · Original 2

Holly argues the better first question is why it is there: inventory can point to poor flow, unreliable equipment, long changeovers, quality problems, scheduling issues, large batch sizes or imbalance between operations. Following those clues can release working capital, shorten lead times, unlock capacity without adding people or equipment, and cut expediting — a bigger prize than inventory reduction alone.

A packaging manufacturer thought it had an inventory problem: too much stock and cash tied up.

• On the floor, Holly writes, the stock traced to a supply chain designed around 2018 demand patterns, with six points where inventory buffered underlying inefficiency.
• Mapping the value chain and redesigning replenishment and supplier relationships cut inventory costs by $1M and freed cash.

Read original · Original 2

Holly says companies that grow their bottom line twice as fast as their top line share one trait: leaders can answer questions about the floor.

• Not through micromanagement, but because a management system surfaces operational performance in real time and prompts action.
• The gap between the P&L and what happens on the line is where margin disappears.

Holly describes a recurring conversation with manufacturing CFOs: asked for the current changeover time on the main production line, they answer, "I'd have to ask ops."

The one post in the reviewed set that leaves the factory floor applies the same idea to meeting design.

• It contrasts a weekly tactical meeting that repeatedly rescues the same problem with daily tiered meetings that contain problems where they happen.
• KPIs tied to strategy and recurring problems assigned an owner and a lasting fix, Holly concludes, address a management-system problem rather than a meeting problem.

Read original · Original 2

The posts present figures as measured outcomes; one frames the broader opportunity as a range for manufacturers generally, not a single case.

Across the posts: changeover running four times the industry benchmark; scrap at an "acceptable" 3% across key lines, roughly $1M a year in written-off material at that revenue; more than $500K in systemic excess inventory; $1.5M in operating cost reduction measured against the P&L; inventory down 51% with lead time down 35%; and a stated $500K–$2M range of working capital held by operational inefficiency.

Read original · Original 2 · Original 3 · Original 4 · Original 5

The offer is a free 30-minute manufacturing margin review, followed — if both sides identify an opportunity — by a one-day site visit with zero production disruption. Holly states the qualification plainly, targeting people who own the P&L rather than operators.

One post names its intended reader: CEOs, COOs and CFOs at industrial or consumer-goods manufacturers with $500M+ in revenue who suspect the P&L understates the business’s margin potential. Another frames a case around a private-equity-backed manufacturer heading into a portfolio review.

Read original · Original 2 · Original 3 · Original 4

Mick Holly compares two weekly tactical meetings.

• Most play like Groundhog Day: an urgent issue hijacks the agenda, the team reacts, mandates go out, and three weeks later the same problem is back.
• That, they write, is a lifeboat — it rescues but does not prevent.
• A lighthouse behaves differently: daily tiered meetings contain problems where they happen, KPIs tie back to strategy, and recurring problems get an owner and a lasting fix.
• The claim is that leadership teams think they have a meeting problem when they actually have a management system problem.
• The post points to a TBM blog post with the full one-hour agenda and five ground rules.

For brands planning a campaign

A strong anchor piece for audiences of operations and plant leaders who buy management systems rather than point tools. The concrete metaphor and named offsite resource make it easy to build a follow-up asset — a checklist or template — around the linked agenda.

Excess work-in-progress is easy to spot on almost any manufacturing walk, and the instinct is to cut inventory.

• Holly argues the better first question is why it is there.
• Inventory can point to poor flow, unreliable equipment, long changeovers, quality problems, scheduling issues, large batch sizes, or imbalance between operations.
• Following those clues can release working capital tied up in WIP, shorten lead times, unlock capacity without adding people or equipment, raise throughput, cut expediting and firefighting, and improve margins.
• One operation reduced inventory by 51% and lead time by 35%.
• The post invites readers to send a direct message for help reading the clues in a specific operation.

For brands planning a campaign

Useful for a services or software brand whose pitch risks sounding like “cut inventory.”

• This framing positions the product as a diagnostic that finds flow, changeover, and quality causes.
• The paired 51%/35% result is ready-made for a case-study or landing-page proof point.

Holly describes a private-equity-backed industrial manufacturer facing a portfolio review with margins not moving.

• Leadership knew costs were high but not where.
• Three things were eating margin every shift, all invisible on the profit-and-loss statement: changeover time running four times the industry benchmark because the process had never been redesigned since installation; scrap sitting at an “acceptable” 3% across key lines, roughly $1M a year at that revenue; and supply chain logic optimized for outdated demand patterns, generating more than $500K of excess inventory.
• None appeared as a single line item — all were buried in standard cost variances.
• Twelve months later, the company recorded $1.5M in operating cost reduction measured against the P&L.
• The post links to a free 30-minute manufacturing margin review.

For brands planning a campaign

The clearest example in the corpus of a quantified case study.

• For a brand targeting manufacturing executives or investors, it shows how to frame an offer around a measurable cost reduction instead of a product feature.
• The three-leak structure can be reused as an assessment framework.

The three questions are: how long does the longest changeover take, and how long should it take; what is the scrap rate, and when was it last challenged; and is the supply chain designed for the current market or the one ten years ago?

• Holly says asking those questions at one industrial manufacturer led to $1.5M in cost reduction — not from raising prices, renegotiating contracts, or cutting people, but from waste that had sat in plain sight, unmeasured, for years.
• The post adds that if a team cannot answer all three today, that inability is itself the finding.
• It links to a free 30-minute margin review, followed by a one-day site visit if opportunity is identified.

For brands planning a campaign

A strong lead-magnet pattern: three diagnostic questions readers can take into a meeting, with an offer attached only after the gap is visible. Works for content campaigns seeking low-friction engagement before a sales conversation.

A packaging manufacturer arrived with what felt like an inventory problem: too much stock, cash tied up, and leadership unable to explain why.

• On the floor, Holly writes, inventory turned out to be a symptom.
• The real issue was a supply chain designed around 2018 demand patterns, where years of incremental decisions had built a system nobody had examined end to end.
• The work involved mapping the full value chain from raw material to customer, identifying six separate points where inventory was buffering underlying inefficiency, and redesigning replenishment logic and supplier relationships.
• The result was $1M in inventory cost reduction, freed cash, and improved working capital.
• Holly adds that most manufacturers hold $500K to $2M of working capital hostage to operational inefficiency.
• A 30-minute review leads to a one-day operational walk at no cost if opportunity is confirmed.

For brands planning a campaign

Useful when a brand needs to sell a diagnostic engagement rather than a product. The structure — client's stated problem, actual root cause, six specific buffer points, dollar result — is a template for case-study copy and qualifying calls.

After years of walking factory floors, Holly still sees five things eating margin in plain sight: scrap, changeovers, inventory, rework, and downtime.

• None are exotic, they write; they stay invisible until someone points a light at them, and nobody chases the root cause because people get used to the level.
• The post's central claim is that it is rarely a pricing problem and almost always a visibility problem — the people are good, but they cannot act on what they cannot see.
• A short video walks through all five, and the post offers a calendar link for a quick, no-pressure conversation.

For brands planning a campaign

The best single item for a brand that wants a short, visual, category-level piece rather than a long case study. The five-item list maps directly onto monitoring or analytics offerings, and the “visibility, not pricing” framing gives a campaign a ready headline argument.

One post states the case directly, pointing to changeover time, scrap rates and an outdated supply chain.

• Another turns it into three questions for an operations team; a third lists scrap, changeovers, inventory, rework and downtime as problems that stay invisible until someone shines a light on them.
• The consistency makes this a clear core position for a brand to engage with.

A recurring diagnostic frame applied to each plant or client case, shifting the question from price to floor measurement.

For brands planning a campaign

A brand selling operations-improvement solutions — industrial software, equipment or consulting — gets a creator whose message is diagnostic, not promotional: the audience is asked whether the problem lies where they assume. Content built around one specific floor metric will land better than general efficiency claims.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

One post brings all three into a three-question exercise and reports a $1.5M cost-reduction result. Another poses a related leadership question — whether the leadership team can answer a floor-level question, such as the current changeover time on the main production line — and reports that companies growing their bottom line twice as fast as their top line can.

A short, repeatable checklist for each conversation, with named metrics as the entry point.

The leadership-visibility angle shifts the question from the metric itself to whether managers can answer it at all.

For brands planning a campaign

A brand can build a campaign around one diagnostic question. Tools or services that address changeover, scrap or supply-chain design questions fit the existing frame directly.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4 · Source 5

Cutting inventory without reading the clue misses the larger prize.

• One post describes a packaging manufacturer whose stock traced back to a supply chain built around 2018 demand patterns, with six separate points where inventory buffered underlying inefficiency and years of small decisions nobody had reviewed end to end.
• The reported result was $1M in inventory cost reduction plus freed working capital; another post reports inventory down 51% and lead time down 35%.

Money is framed as trapped working capital, not just wasted material, putting the argument in finance as well as operations terms.

For brands planning a campaign

Fits campaigns for inventory, planning and supply-chain software. The creator argues for root-cause work before tooling, setting up a diagnosis-first purchase conversation rather than a straight product pitch.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

It contrasts a weekly tactical meeting that rescues the same problem three weeks in a row with a system that contains problems where they happen: daily tiered meetings, KPIs tied to strategy, and an owner and lasting fix for repeat problems.

• The conclusion: leadership teams do not have a meeting problem; they have a management system problem.
• The weekly hour can then look ahead and redirect resources instead of firefighting.
• The post links to a longer article with a full one-hour agenda and five ground rules.

The only post on leadership routines and information flow rather than production waste opens a different campaign territory from the margin diagnostics.

For brands planning a campaign

Useful for operations-management, performance-visibility or meeting-software briefs. This is a distinct angle from floor-improvement tools; campaigns focused on margin should not lead with it.

Examples: Source 1

One post gives a general range of $500K to $2M in working capital held by operational inefficiency at manufacturers. Another claims supply-chain margins up 15% and working capital down for companies whose leadership can see floor performance in real time.

Figures are anchored to the P&L and working capital, not just unit or process benchmarks.

For brands planning a campaign

The proof is numeric and finance-anchored, so campaigns asking for a measurable result match the creator’s existing style. Sponsors should supply the metric they want demonstrated and expect it to be used in the same form.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4 · Source 5 · Source 6

Several posts put the booking link in the first comment rather than the body.

• One links to a short video on five margin leaks and points to a calendar link in the comments; another links to a longer article with the full meeting agenda and ground rules.
• The offer is a 30-minute manufacturing margin review, followed, if both parties identify an opportunity, by a free one-day site visit with no production disruption.
• One post states the qualification plainly: industrial or consumer-goods manufacturers with $500M+ in revenue, and leaders who suspect more margin exists than the P&L shows.

Post as the diagnostic, then a bounded next step as the conversion. The described offer terms are Holly's own business terms and do not establish third-party partnership terms.

For brands planning a campaign

The creator already uses a lead-generation rhythm, so a sponsor can slot into the next step — an assessment, report or tool — rather than commission a long-form asset.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4 · Source 5 · Source 6 · Source 7 · Source 8

Posts address CEOs, COOs and CFOs at industrial and consumer-goods manufacturers.

• One opens with a recurring conversation with manufacturing CFOs about changeover time and the gap between the P&L and the floor; another frames a case around a private-equity-backed manufacturer heading into a portfolio review.
• One post explicitly names the audience and revenue threshold.

For brands planning a campaign

Fits brands selling to industrial leadership—enterprise software, capital equipment and consulting—better than shop-floor tooling marketed to operators. Sponsored content should retain the executive framing rather than become a technical demonstration.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

In a separate post, they refer to “our latest TBM blog” and link to a TBM blog post. Ask for clarification on their formal role with TBM Consulting Group.

View example

Ciampoli's posts about sharing an approach to operational improvement, ERP alignment and plant visibility, and about documentation falling behind how work actually happens, cover the same territory Holly does when they say people cannot act on what they cannot see.

Ciampoli writes from inside a consulting firm and pairs the argument with a named platform, OPSIDIAN, that turns operational knowledge into something current and actionable.

• Their posts are event- and capability-led, without the quantified floor findings Mick Holly builds posts around.
• Where they quantify a changeover or scrap rate and what it cost, Ciampoli describes the risk of an outdated procedure and what better visibility enables.
• Readers wanting the diagnosis-and-numbers version should read Holly; those wanting the tools-and-documentation version should read Ciampoli.

Read original · Original 2

Choudhery's demand-planning-versus-supply-planning post and min-max planning post argue that inventory levels and planning parameters should reflect real operating conditions rather than outdated assumptions — the same point Holly makes when they say excess stock is a clue to an outdated supply chain.

Choudhery works in utility operations, where the stakes are storm response, outage risk and spare parts.

• The material is written from a corporate planning role rather than as a commercial offer.
• The unit of analysis is the planning discipline and the parameter — forecast accuracy, safety stock, reorder levels — while Holly's is the plant, the shift and the P&L figure.

Read original · Original 2

Khan's two posts from a manufacturing trade show list candidate problems that overlap directly with Holly's themes: downtime, quality, supply planning, inventory and margins. Both writers push readers toward a small number of high-value problems rather than a broad programme.

Khan's subject is the data and integration layer — machine context, ERP, MES, edge versus cloud, AI agents — and the posts offer event-driven takeaways from a trade show rather than client outcomes.

• Holly stays on the floor and reports measured results against the P&L; Khan describes a path and asks what the two or three problems worth solving first are.
• Readers drawn to Holly's operating results but wanting the systems angle have a natural next follow in Khan.

Read original · Original 2

The posts show how plant data, procedures, and knowledge connect, alongside event-based outreach to manufacturers.

The main gap is quantified margin-loss diagnostics from the production floor.

• Compared with Mick Holly's changeover, scrap, and inventory examples, Ciampoli's posts emphasize platform capabilities and event recaps over specific cost-reduction figures.
• Ask for quantified case examples.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

The posts use detailed role and process language for those planning functions.

The main gap is factory-floor production issues such as changeover, scrap, and throughput, which a general manufacturing margin campaign may need. Ask for examples covering those topics.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

The posts frame AI value around organizational context, system integration, and choosing a small number of business problems.

The main gap is concrete cost-reduction case examples.

• Compared with Mick Holly's floor-level margin diagnostics, Khan's posts focus on data architecture and adoption lessons rather than specific operational savings figures.
• Ask for quantified savings examples.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2