Most production programmes were written once, under deadline, and never revisited. An audit typically recovers double-digit percentages without new tooling.
A programme that runs is not the same as a programme that runs well. When a part goes into repeat production, the programme written to prove the first-off is usually the one still running two years later — cautious feeds, air cutting between features, and a tool change that could have been avoided.
Where the time actually goes
- .01Rapid moves at cutting height instead of clearance plane
- .02Roughing strategies that predate your machine's high-speed options
- .03Tool changes ordered by feature, not grouped by tool
- .04Conservative stepovers left from proving the first article
- .05Finish passes on surfaces that are never inspected
Simulate against the real setup
An audit is only trustworthy if it simulates with the actual stock, fixture, holder and machine kinematics. Reducing a cycle by 18 percent means nothing if the new toolpath collides with a clamp on the second op.
Tool life is part of the number
Pushing feeds until the cycle drops and the tooling budget doubles is not a saving. The honest metric is cost per part — cycle time, tool consumption and scrap rate together.
TYPICAL RESULT — 10 TO 25 PERCENT CYCLE REDUCTION ON PROGRAMMES OLDER THAN TWO YEARS, WITHOUT NEW TOOLING.
Document it, or it decays
A faster programme with no setup sheet becomes a slower one the first time a different operator runs it. Setup sheets, tool lists and work offsets are what keep the improvement in place after the person who made it moves on.