Source: Getty Images

Reader’s Question: Our shop has been trying to work more closely with suppliers to bring in new products and help us optimize things. Some efforts have been fruitful, but a lot of them have actually led to more variability in our processes. How can we get back on track without losing the productive gains?

If you feel like you’ve improved specific pieces but lost the plot, you’re not alone. New toolholders, upgraded cutters, fresh coolant, a denser fixture, updated posts and tool paths all individually make sense. However, when all done at once, they can swamp a process with change and widen the potential for chaos. The goal now isn’t to pause progress, but we do need to put a frame around it so the shop can keep solid wins without living on edge.

Featured Content

When Will We See Humanoid Robots on the Manufacturing Floor? READ MORE

10 Robotic Solutions You Can Find at IMTS 2026 READ MORE

DN Solutions and HELLER: A United Vision for U.S. Manufacturing Renewal READ MORE

Start by returning to the last known viable process. Not the fastest cycle or your newest kit, but the version that ran calmly across shifts with a predictable first-pass yield. Treat that process like a “golden sample.” Write it down at a level that leaves little to guess: fixture type and location, torque and clamp order, tool list with toolholder and stickout, coolant type and concentration, work offsets and probing logic, feeds and speeds per op as well as any notes operators used to keep things centered. If this documentation doesn’t exist, build it from the machine that most consistently makes good parts. You’re not memorializing perfection, but you are anchoring a known suitable state that you can return to if experiments drift.

Next, get honest about where vendors have been in the driver’s seat. Good suppliers bring real value, whether it’s geometry that pulls heat, toolholders that buy you reach without chatter or coolants that stabilize finish. The trouble starts when their “best case” becomes embedded without a proper trial. Reset the relationship where you define the problem, the constraints and the proof you need. Ask for one change at a time, run it on your material and your machine and judge it against your golden process using your own inspection. If a vendor wants to push a strategy or product that demands changes in other areas, educate them on the broader context and why certain changes bring risk. Teach them where things are going well now, and make a plan for how to hold that stability. Nothing installs into production without a way back.

Many manufacturers often confuse “optimized” with “fast.” For me, a fully optimized process is the most balanced. It’s aggressive where it can be, shows restraint where it needs to. Every lever in the process has a range, whether it be fixture density, probing frequency or toolpath aggression. The right balance point for all aspects of the process exists inside those ranges. The shortest cycle that only holds tolerance with careful babysitting isn’t optimized; it’s brittle. A clever, single-setup fixture that forces you into long reaches may move you backward in tool life and scrap. A probing routine that checks everything “just in case” breaks rhythm while catching nothing. Balance looks like the fastest stable window you can repeat on Monday at 1p.m. and Thursday at 2 a.m., with the least complexity tax you can pay. It’s not moderation for its own sake; it’s choosing the combination that makes the rest of the system behave.

To find that balance again, slow the rate of change and isolate variables. Freeze the golden process as the default. Open a short, controlled trial window where only one lever moves. If you’re evaluating a new insert grade, keep toolholders, stickout, feeds, offsets and coolant constant. If you’re trying a higher-density fixture, derate feeds 5-10% so you’re not accumulating risks to move parts. If you’re reducing cycle time, add a purposeful finish pass where cosmetics or tolerance need protection so you don’t pay the difference at inspection. Give each trial a clear start and stop, and decide success criteria up front: first-pass yield, finish/tolerance, tool-life, offset drift over a 10- or 50-part run, inspection minutes per part. If the numbers don’t move the right way, revert to the frozen process and write down what you learned.

Because time and capacity are real, decide how you want to pay for speed: upstream or downstream. There are two valid control strategies, and different shops pick different answers. “Push and catch” keeps cycles aggressive, but the shop must build a stronger quality control net with tighter sampling, in-process checks on known risk features, maybe an added post-machine inspection so shipments stay safe while you learn. This often fits prototypes, short runs or learning phases when inspection minutes are available and you need data quickly. The cost is time at the back end and a higher escape risk if you misread a signal. “Back off and hold” eases feeds, simplifies setups and reduces checks because the process itself is calm. This fits unattended runs, cosmetic or medical work, tight deliveries or when labor is scarce. It’s often faster at the system level even if the individual cycle is slower, because you’re not paying in scrap or rework. Use a simple trigger to choose: if inspection minutes per part or rework risk outrunning the cycle time you saved, move upstream and stabilize.

At some point you have to decide when enough is enough. Set a shop rule for changes that touch live work: no rollout until the process holds for a defined run. For example, 10 parts without intervention and 50 parts without trend drift on the production machine with the operator who will actually run it. No change survives without an update to the setup doc, and no update is “real” until the next operator can run it from that document alone. If a change demands constant offsets or new tribal tricks, it hasn’t earned its place. Park it in a trial queue for a quieter week or end it outright. The goal is to protect the standard that keeps the shop productive.

Bringing this back on track doesn’t require burning down what you’ve built. It requires a clearer contract with change. Freeze a known-good build so there’s always a safe harbor. Let suppliers help inside your constraints with your proof. Move one lever at a time and measure what matters. Decide consciously whether you’ll push and catch or back off and hold, and change course when the inspection bill tells you you’re paying the wrong tax. Most of all, write down the process you want people to run and keep it current every time you learn something worth keeping.

Do you have a machining question? Ask the expert. John Miller leans on more than a decade of industry experience to answer machining questions from MMS readers. Submit your question online at mmsonline.com/MillersEdge.