When demand is real but the building cannot keep up, the constraint usually is not the market. It is the flow, the control layer, and the gap between the schedule and the floor. We redesign all three, prove it on one line, then standardize it across every site you run.
2×
Assembly throughput at Bandit Industries, same footprint, no major capital
8-12 weeks
To a measurable lift on the targeted line
FEL-1
Greenfield front-end engineering, with the financial model behind it
Process design is the right call when the work itself is the problem — not the people running it and not the screens on top of it. If two or more of these describe your plant, the flow is where the output went.
01
Orders you cannot fill and lead times you cannot defend — and adding people or shifts stopped buying you capacity a couple of hires ago.
02
Your control system reports after the fact, so the real constraint is a matter of opinion rather than something the data points at.
03
Planning works from what was supposed to happen. The floor works from what actually did. Nobody is reading the same number, and the daily meeting is a negotiation.
04
You are growing by adding plants, and the last thing you want is ten different ways of making the same thing in ten different buildings.
Every item below is something you can see on the floor or read off the board. Nothing on this list is a document.
Layout and sequence redesigned around takt and the real material movement nobody has measured, so the building produces more without more square footage.
Instrumentation, PLC integration, and SCADA so the line tells you where it is slowing and where it is about to stop — this shift, not in next week's report.
MES execution: work orders, routing, quality, traceability, and live performance against plan, so people run from what is happening instead of yesterday's plan.
The redesign packaged as a repeatable standard — same process, same control logic, same numbers — so the second site does not start from scratch and the tenth runs like the first.
We find the constraint with data first. If the gain is in the flow, you do not buy a building. If it genuinely needs capital, we will say so and tie it to a specific number.
For greenfield work: front-end engineering through FEL-1, with the cost estimate, the production model, the projected payback, and the sensitivity analysis behind the investment.
Brownfield
Most of our work starts here. We map the process as it actually runs, including the workarounds, the paper step nobody documented, and the spreadsheet that quietly became a system of record. Then we redesign the flow in phases that fit real uptime windows, worked through with operations before anything is touched.
Greenfield
A new line or a new site is the cheapest moment to get flow, control, and execution right. We design the process, the control strategy, and the MES data model together, so the layout, the staffing plan, and the reporting you will need in year three are decided before the concrete is poured.
A redesign that only changes the layout drifts back. The control and execution layer is what keeps the new flow stable, visible, and repeatable across sites — which is why we design the whole stack as one thing.
ERP and the P&L
The business outcome
MES
Execution — work orders, quality, traceability
SCADA
Visibility and real-time control
PLC and sensors
The floor (OT)
Everything between the PLC and the P&L.
Where redesigns actually fail
How equipment is sequenced, interlocked, and supervised. What gets measured, at what resolution, and where the signal comes from.
How work is dispatched, tracked, confirmed, and genealogized. What the operator is asked to do, and what the system does for them instead.
A control layer that cannot answer what execution needs to ask. We design that handoff deliberately rather than discovering it at go-live.
We are platform-agnostic by design, and when the redesign needs hands on the hardware, Magic Engineering is in the same P&L — not a subcontractor on a separate schedule.
The flow, the constraints, the people, the legacy equipment: none of it generalizes. We bring engineers to the floor, in this order, every time.
01
Time, travel, station balance, downtime, and the gap between the schedule and reality. Most of it has never been measured in one place. We measure it, on your shifts.
02
Not the one everyone complains about. The one the data actually points to, which is frequently somewhere nobody had been looking.
03
New layout and sequence, with the control and execution systems to hold it. Validated on one line before it goes anywhere else in the business.
04
One proven standard, replicated site to site on a SCADA and MES backbone that makes every plant legible the same way.
What we hand over at the end
One view of throughput, uptime, and station state, on the floor and in the office at the same moment. The layout below is illustrative, but the information architecture is what we actually build: a current number, the baseline it is being judged against, and the station that is costing you the shift.
MES · Line 1
LiveOEE
87%
vs 71% baseline
Output
4.2
machines per month, from 2.0
Uptime
96%
Station status
S1
Running
S2
Running
S3
Slow
S4
Running
S5
Stopped
S6
Running
Throughput · 24h
+18%
WO-4471 · Frame weld
RunningWhy this particular screen
Bandit Industries had 47 Beast horizontal grinders sold and was producing two a month. The constraint was the assembly flow — not the market, and not the machines.
Case · Bandit Industries
“I have never seen a company move so quickly before on changing the organization, lining up participants, and getting buy-in.”
The team mapped the real flow — station balance, the 47-mile journey each machine's parts took through the plant, and the gap between the schedule and what the floor actually did — then rebuilt the sequence with the operators who run it. Six miles of parts travel came out, and monthly throughput more than doubled on the same footprint.
Outcome
2×
Monthly throughput on the same footprint, with no major capital build-out.
Read the full caseMagic Consulting sits inside a group with 15,000+ professionals and 6,000+ customers in 50+ countries — combined group figures, and the reason a redesign proven on one line has somewhere to scale when the second and tenth site come due.
Both. Brownfield: take the plant you already have and re-engineer it to produce more on the same footprint, in phases that fit real uptime windows. Greenfield: take a concept to a buildable, financeable facility — we have owned front-end engineering through FEL-1, including the financial model that justifies the investment.
Common story. Most redesigns that do not hold failed at the control and execution layer rather than at the layout. We build the SCADA and MES that make the new flow visible and keep it from drifting back to the old way three months after the kickoff lunch.
On a targeted line, usually a measurable lift in 8 to 12 weeks. Faster when the constraint is informational — visibility, standard work, scheduling. Slower when it is structural: layout, equipment, or a control system that has to be rebuilt first.
No. We prove the redesign on one line, in one plant. Standardizing across sites is an option you take once the first one works, not a condition of starting.
Sometimes. Often the gain comes from using what is already on the floor more deliberately. When new tooling is the right answer we will say so, and tie the spend to a specific metric rather than a category. The right tool is not necessarily a Magic tool.
It is the capability the outcome pages draw on when the work itself has to change. If you are not sure which one you are looking at, the readiness questions on the Consulting page will point you.
Capacity & Throughput
If the flow is sound and the line still caps out, the question is what the existing assets can actually do before capital gets committed.
Read the pageData Visibility
The redesign needs a baseline to be judged against, and the new flow needs a live board to keep it from drifting.
Read the pageEliminate Waste
When the losses are chronic but the flow itself is fine, the sharper tool is a loss-by-loss attack rather than a redesign.
Read the pageThirty minutes, working session, your numbers. We will walk you through how we would attack the constraint that is capping output — or tell you straight if we are the wrong people for the problem.
