Why Your Changeover Times Feel Inevitable (But Aren't)
We cut changeover times by 80% at a label manufacturer without buying new equipment or adding headcount. The breakthrough wasn't in the machines—it was in everything happening around them.
At the time, it felt like we were always bumping into capacity. We'd need another press, more people, or a second shift. Expensive decisions for any business.
Operators showed up each day, pushed hard, and worked fast. But the machines kept sitting idle. Not because people were slow, but because our job mix was high and runs were small. Every new job meant another changeover.
If setup took an hour, that's just what it took. The team believed the only lever was sequencing jobs smarter: run the same inks, the same plates, back-to-back. It helped, but it made scheduling harder.
We were wrong about that.
Everyone was solving for job order. No one was solving for lost press hours. That's where we started looking.
What We Actually Discovered
We stopped debating and started watching. We observed real changeovers and timed the steps. What we found was universal:
Setups started after downtime began — the press was powered down far earlier than the work required it.
Critical items had no standard home — tools, plates, inks, and fixtures were scattered or tucked away, not staged for the next job.
The best setup process wasn't the standard — every operator ran a different sequence, guided by memory instead of a defined method.
Information wasn't where the work happened — settings, instructions, and approvals were searched for or confirmed after shutdown.
Most setup loss wasn't setup at all — it was tapping into tribal knowledge, walking to kit or clean, waiting on confirmations, or hunting for what should've already been obvious.
The machines weren't the constraint. The system around them was.
How We Fixed It
Instead of trying to avoid changeovers, we made changeovers easier.
We shifted setups from a solo task to a coordinated team process. When one person owns all of setup, downtime balloons. When a team shares the work, setup shrinks without breaking the schedule.
Added dedicated press-support involvement
A press-support role handled cleanup and ink washout, eliminating repeated operator trips. A mobile cleanup cart moved inked components and tooling to the wash room in one trip, not many fragmented ones.
Staged materials and tooling before shutdown
The next job's plates, inks, and materials were collected and staged press-side ahead of time. This removed the pattern of presses stopping early and operators starting setup late.
Built a shared, repeatable setup sequence
The cleanest real setup process on the floor was captured and translated into one team standard. The focus wasn't on creating paperwork—it was on making the sequence clear enough that any operator could execute it without guessing.
Moved real-time communication onto the floor
Wrist pagers replaced verbal callouts, enabling instant coordination between operators and press support. Questions that used to interrupt setup ("do we have the next job?", "where is that plate?", "can I shut this down yet?") were answered faster and earlier.
The Results
The press stopped going down early because nothing was waiting to be defined. Operators stopped searching for what they needed after the press stopped, because the team ensured the right things were waiting when the press was waiting.
Setup stopped depending on memory and started depending on system.
Scheduling stabilized instead of collapsing, because setup work became predictable and distributed, not compressed into downtime.
Less interruption meant more uptime. Pre-staged work meant fewer internal setup steps. A shared standard meant less variance. One coordinated cleanup trip meant less motion. Instant communication meant faster decisions without early shutdown.
The Pattern
Operators were working hard, but the setup process made every changeover feel like a scramble. Once we brought in press support to prep and clean in parallel and staged plates and inks at the press before shutdown, the rest got easier. We documented the cleanest real setup sequence so it worked the same no matter who ran it. Better communication helped the team coordinate without stopping production to ask questions.
Shorter setups happened because the work and the team were ready before the machine stopped, not after.
The machines weren't the limitation—the lack of structure around the stop was.
Inevitability is a system problem, not a press problem. And systems can be improved.
Think your changeover times are as good as they can get? Let's observe one together and find out.
Frequently Asked Questions
-
Presses stopping early and setup starting late, plus searching for tools, plates, or settings during downtime.
-
By prepping plates, tools, and inks before shutdown and sharing setup and cleanup tasks across teammates to work in parallel.
-
SMED (setup reduction) focuses on shifting setup work outside of machine downtime, reducing the time the press is stopped.
-
It can reduce ink or tool changes, but the bigger opportunity comes from standardizing the setup process and preparing work earlier — not just ordering jobs.
-
By reducing setup downtime so more press hours are available each day for production.
-
Because setup steps are remembered, not written down, so every operator runs a slightly different process.
-
Rarely. Most changeover improvement comes from better preparation, clear setup sequences, and shared support roles.
-
Press down early, setup delayed
Tools or plates being searched for in downtime
Setup looking different each time
Overtime increasing to cover lost press hours
-
Not just faster setups — more available press/machine hours, predictable changeovers, and less overtime pressure, without adding cost.
