CASE STUDY | WORKSHOP PERFORMANCE
TURNING WORKSHOP CAPACITY INTO COMMERCIAL PERFORMANCE
A two-technician agricultural machinery workshop was carrying ageing jobs, inconsistent labour conversion and hidden commercial leakage. Brendan introduced stronger operational control and examined how workflow, skills, parts and commercial decisions affected the result.
76.5% → 83.1%
WORKSHOP EFFICIENCY
52 → 14 DAYS
AVERAGE WIP AGE
90 → 42
OPEN WIP JOBS
91.3%
WARRANTY RECOVERY
Achieved rate
THE NUMBERS SHOWED A PROBLEM. THEY DIDN’T EXPLAIN IT.
Work was not moving consistently from arrival through completion to invoice. Parts delays, uneven technician performance, skills mismatches and internal costing decisions were affecting the workshop’s apparent and actual performance. The headline figures identified symptoms, but did not establish their causes.
FOLLOW THE WORK. FOLLOW THE HOURS. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Greater control was introduced around WIP, job ownership, scheduling, parts availability, completion and invoicing. Technician performance was examined individually, with available skills compared against the work generated by the depot.
The review also followed productive hours through to invoiced value, examined warranty recovery and distinguished genuine workshop inefficiency from legitimate preparation costs that had not been adequately allowed for within machinery sales.
WORKFLOW — Is work moving efficiently from arrival to completion?
CAPACITY — How much of the labour capacity being purchased is being productively deployed?
CAPABILITY — Do technician skills match the work the operation actually generates?
CONVERSION — How effectively does productive work become invoiced labour?
COMMERCIAL CONTROL — Does the business ultimately retain the value being created?
“A KPI tells you where to look. It doesn’t necessarily tell you what is wrong.”
CONTROL FIRST. PERFORMANCE FOLLOWED.
WORKSHOP EFFICIENCY
76.54% → 83.05%
+6.51 percentage points
TECHNICIAN A EFFICIENCY
78.54% → 90.36%
+11.82 percentage points
TECHNICIAN B EFFICIENCY
63.25% → 74.11%
+10.86 percentage points
INTERNAL EFFICIENCY
35.38% → 52.28%
+16.90 percentage points
OPEN WIP
90 → 42
53% reduction
AVERAGE WIP AGE
52 → 14 days
73% reduction
Open WIP reduced from 90 to 42 jobs and average WIP age fell from 52 to 14 days. Workshop efficiency increased from 76.54% to 83.05%, with both technicians improving within the existing two-technician structure.
Warranty recovery reached 91.3%. A bottom-up operational costing model reconciled to subsequent monthly accounts with 99.31% accuracy, giving management an earlier view of commercial performance.
FROM SYMPTOMS TO COMMERCIAL CONTROL.
WORKFLOW — 53% reduction in open WIP | 73% reduction in average WIP age
WORKSHOP EFFICIENCY — 76.54% → 83.05%
TECHNICIAN A — 78.54% → 90.36% efficiency | 101.35% YTD labour conversion
TECHNICIAN B — 63.25% → 74.11% efficiency | 81.21% YTD labour conversion
OVERALL LABOUR CONVERSION — 95.7% YTD
INTERNAL EFFICIENCY — 35.38% → 52.28%
LABOUR SALES — 77.6% above target across July–August | 27.1% above full-year target by 01 September
WARRANTY — 91.3% recovery
PARTS — 24.0% TP margin | Operational contribution tracked through the live costing model
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION — 99.31% costing-model accuracy against subsequent monthly accounts
CAPACITY — Skills-to-demand mismatch identified; recruitment requirement redefined around capability rather than headcount.
THE SAME KPI CAN HAVE FOUR DIFFERENT CAUSES.
A technician taking eight hours to complete six hours of appropriate work is an efficiency problem.
A technician without enough suitable work is a demand problem.
A technician unable to undertake the work that is available because the required competence does not exist is a capability problem.
A technician completing legitimate work that is subsequently written off to protect a machine transaction is a commercial-costing problem.
Completed warranty work that is not recovered is a revenue-protection problem. Productive work that remains unprocessed is a workflow and invoicing problem. Parts delays preventing completion are an operational-flow problem.
All of these can eventually appear on a dashboard as poor workshop performance. They require completely different management responses.
PRUDOM PERSPECTIVE
THE DASHBOARD IS THE BEGINNING OF THE CONVERSATION. NOT THE END.
Good operational management is not about chasing percentages in isolation. It is about understanding how the business converts people, time, work and cost into commercially recoverable value.
DEMAND → SKILLS → CAPACITY → PLANNING → PARTS → EXECUTION → COMPLETION → INVOICE → RECOVERY → MARGIN
“WE DON’T STOP AT WHAT THE NUMBERS SAY. WE ESTABLISH WHY THEY’RE SAYING IT — AND WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE.”
WHAT IS YOUR WORKSHOP REALLY COSTING YOU?
PRUDOM’s Workshop Performance Review examines the operation behind the headline numbers. We look at where capacity, time and margin are being lost — and what can realistically be recovered.
Understand the operation. Quantify the opportunity. Make the changes that improve commercial performance.
Discuss your operation
Explore the Workshop Performance Review →
Detailed performance analysis
Supporting operational evidence, definitions and measurement context.