Ditch the Waste! How Yongzhou Lihong Boosts Efficiency by 30%

Manufacturing waste rarely comes from one large mistake. It often grows through small losses: excess material, repeated adjustments, idle equipment, damaged products, and production data that arrives too late to guide action.

At Yongzhou Lihong, the focus was placed on these daily losses. The reported result was a 30% improvement in production efficiency, linked to better process control and a closer review of waste at each stage.

For me, the useful lesson is not the number alone. The value lies in how the team studied the problem, selected practical changes, and measured the effect.

Start with the waste that can be measured

Many factories know that waste exists, but the data may be spread across paper records, machine screens, and separate work logs. This makes it hard to see where time and materials are being lost.

I would begin with five basic figures:

• Material used per production batch
• Finished units produced
• Rejected or reworked units
• Equipment downtime
• Average time needed for setup and adjustment

These figures create a simple production picture. They also prevent teams from making changes based only on personal impressions.

A factory may believe that machine speed is the main issue. The records may show a different cause, such as long setup periods or frequent quality checks after a process change.

Find the source of repeated loss

Waste often appears in a pattern.

A machine may stop several times during one shift. A team may adjust the same setting after every material change. Operators may wait for approval before moving to the next step. Each event may seem small, yet the combined effect can reduce daily output.

At Yongzhou Lihong, efficiency gains were connected to a closer review of these repeated interruptions. The team could compare planned production with actual production, then identify the points where the process slowed down.

I find this approach more useful than asking employees to work faster. A faster pace cannot fix unclear instructions, unstable equipment, or poor material flow.

Improve the process before adding more equipment

New equipment can help, but it is not always the first answer.

A production line may already have enough capacity. The larger problem may sit in the way materials are prepared, tools are arranged, or quality checks are timed.

Practical changes can include:

• Preparing common materials before the shift begins
• Keeping tools near the work area
• Marking storage locations clearly
• Using one standard setup method
• Recording machine problems as they happen
• Checking quality at set points instead of waiting until the end

These actions reduce unnecessary movement and repeated decisions. They also make the process easier for new operators to understand.

Use standard work without ignoring operator experience

A written procedure gives the team a shared method. It can describe machine settings, inspection points, material handling, and the response to common faults.

A procedure should not become a document that stays in a drawer. Operators need to test it during normal production and report steps that are difficult to follow.

This is where practical experience matters. The person working beside the machine may notice a vibration, delay, or material problem long before it appears in a monthly report.

I believe the best standard combines production data with operator feedback. Data shows the pattern. Employees often explain the cause.

Track quality and efficiency together

Higher output has little value if the rejection rate also rises.

A useful review should compare:

• Total production volume
• Acceptable production volume
• Rework volume
• Scrap volume
• Downtime
• Labor hours per batch

This prevents a narrow focus on speed. For example, a line may produce 10% more units while creating more defective products. The apparent gain may disappear after rework and material loss are counted.

The reported 30% efficiency improvement at Yongzhou Lihong should be read through this wider view. A clear measurement method matters. Companies need to define whether efficiency refers to output per hour, reduced downtime, lower material use, or a combined production index.

Give each change a test period

Large process changes can be difficult to evaluate when many variables move at once.

I would select one production line or one product type for a test. The team could record the normal figures, apply the process change, and compare the results over a defined period.

A simple test might look like this:

1. Record production data for two weeks.
2. Select one source of repeated waste.
3. Apply one process adjustment.
4. Train the operators involved.
5. Measure output, quality, and downtime.
6. Review the result with the production team.

This method makes the result easier to understand. It also gives employees a chance to share feedback before the change is used across the whole factory.

Keep the improvement after the project ends

Efficiency can fall back when attention moves to another issue.

A daily check sheet, a weekly production review, and clear responsibility for equipment problems can help keep the new process active. Managers do not need a complex system to maintain progress. They need consistent records and a clear response when the figures change.

One practical example can be seen in many workshops: a setup method reduces changeover time during the first few weeks, but the result weakens when new employees join the team. A short training guide and a visible setup checklist can help protect the gain.

What other manufacturers can learn

The case of Yongzhou Lihong shows that efficiency improvement can begin with ordinary production details. The main work involves observing the line, measuring waste, listening to operators, and testing changes with care.

A 30% improvement should not be treated as a promise for every factory. Different products, machines, teams, and production volumes will produce different results. The useful question is more direct:

Where does my factory lose time, material, or labor each day?

Once that answer is supported by reliable records, the next step becomes easier to choose. A small process change, repeated with discipline, can create a measurable difference without placing all the pressure on employees or relying only on new equipment.

Many production teams face the same pressure: orders change, materials wait between steps, and staff spend part of the day searching for tools or checking repeated records. The result is lost time that does not always appear in a monthly report.

Yongzhou Lihong’s reported 30% efficiency improvement shows how small process changes can affect daily work. The lesson is not to copy one company’s method without review. It is to study where time is being lost, test a practical change, and measure the result.

I would start with the work itself rather than a new software system or a large equipment purchase.

Step 1: Map the daily process

I would follow one order from preparation to completion and record each stage:

• Material collection
• Equipment setup
• Production
• Quality checks
• Rework
• Packing or transfer
• Record keeping

The goal is to see how much time is spent on useful work and how much time is spent waiting, walking, searching, or correcting mistakes.

A simple table can reveal patterns:

This type of record gives the team something to discuss. It replaces guesses with observations.

Step 2: Remove repeated movement

In many workshops, employees walk several times to collect tools, forms, materials, or instructions. Each trip may take only a few minutes. Across a full shift, the delay becomes much larger.

Yongzhou Lihong’s efficiency result can be viewed through this lens. A better layout, clear storage labels, and prepared materials can shorten the gap between two tasks.

I would place frequently used items near the work area, mark storage locations, and create a short preparation list for each order. The list should show what must be ready before production begins.

This change does not depend on complicated technology. It depends on making the next action easy to understand.

Step 3: Create one standard work guide

When every employee follows a different sequence, output can vary. New workers may also need extra support before they can work independently.

I would create a short guide with:

• The task sequence
• Required materials
• Equipment settings
• Quality checkpoints
• Common problems
• The person responsible for each check

The guide should use plain language and photos where they help. A document that is too long may sit unused. A one-page guide placed near the work area is more likely to support daily decisions.

Step 4: Track a small set of figures

A team does not need dozens of reports. I would track:

• Completed units per shift
• Waiting time
• Rework quantity
• Setup time
• Material search time
• On-time completion rate

The figures should be reviewed at a fixed interval. If output rises while rework also rises, the change may not be helping. A useful efficiency measure must include both speed and quality.

The reported 30% gain linked to Yongzhou Lihong should be read with the same care. The result may depend on the starting process, team size, order type, equipment, and measurement method. A result from one business does not promise the same outcome for every company.

Step 5: Test one change at a time

I prefer small trials. A team could improve the storage layout for one production area, use the new work guide for one product line, or remove one repeated record from the process.

The team can compare the old figures with the new figures over the same work period. Staff feedback also matters. Employees often notice delays that do not appear in production records, such as unclear instructions or materials that arrive in the wrong order.

If the trial creates less waiting and stable quality, the method can be used in another area. If the result is weak, the team can adjust the plan without losing a large budget.

The practical message from Yongzhou Lihong’s case is simple: efficiency often grows from visible problems that receive steady attention. I would look for waiting, repeated movement, unclear instructions, and avoidable rework before searching for a large solution.

A reported 30% improvement can encourage a team to examine its own process. The useful target is not a number copied from another company. It is a work system that saves time, supports employees, and keeps quality at a reliable level.

Many manufacturers face the same pressure: materials are used, workers stay busy, and orders move through the plant, yet the final result does not improve as expected.

Yongzhou Lihong offers a useful example. By looking closely at production waste and changing the way work was managed, the company reported a 30% gain. The figure matters, but the method behind it matters more. Waste reduction did not come from one large change. It came from a series of small actions linked to daily operations.

I see five practical lessons in this case.

1. Start with waste that can be seen

Waste is not limited to damaged materials. It can also appear as:

• Long waiting time between production steps
• Repeated movement of workers or materials
• Excess stock sitting in storage
• Rework caused by unclear instructions
• Machine downtime
• Production that does not match current demand

I would begin by walking through the full production process. I would record where materials wait, where workers repeat the same movement, and where defects return to an earlier stage.

A simple process map can reveal more than a general discussion. It shows where time and resources leave the process without creating value.

2. Use data before making changes

A common mistake is to change equipment or staff schedules before checking the actual cause of waste.

I would track a small set of numbers:

• Output per shift
• Defect and rework levels
• Material loss
• Machine downtime
• Waiting time
• Order completion time

The goal is not to collect every possible figure. The goal is to connect each figure to a clear production problem.

For example, a team may believe that low output comes from slow machines. The records may show that the machines spend much of the shift waiting for materials or operator approval. The right response would be different.

3. Remove repeated delays

Small delays can become a large cost when they occur across every shift.

A factory may lose minutes when workers search for tools, confirm unclear specifications, move materials between distant areas, or wait for quality checks. These delays often feel normal because they happen every day.

I would place frequently used tools near the work area, mark storage locations, and create a simple handoff process between teams. Clear instructions can reduce questions and prevent avoidable rework.

The best change is often not a complex system. It may be a better layout, a visible checklist, or a clear responsibility for each production stage.

4. Improve quality at the source

Waste reduction should not mean producing more units with more defects. A stronger approach is to find problems close to where they begin.

When a defect appears, I would ask:

• At which step did the problem start?
• Was the material within specification?
• Did the operator receive clear instructions?
• Was the machine set correctly?
• Could the problem have been detected earlier?

A short check at the right point can prevent a larger batch from needing rework. This also helps workers understand that quality belongs to the process, not only to the inspection team.

5. Make the new method easy to follow

A temporary improvement can disappear when the person who created it leaves the shift.

I would turn useful changes into simple operating standards. These may include:

• A short work instruction
• A daily equipment check
• A clear material location
• A basic quality checklist
• A weekly review of waste and output

The language should be direct. Photos, labels, and examples can help when a process is shared by people with different levels of experience.

Managers also need to visit the production area and listen to workers. Employees often know where waste occurs because they deal with it throughout the shift. Their feedback can reveal problems that do not appear in a report.

The Yongzhou Lihong case shows how a leaner operation can grow from practical observation. The reported 30% gain should be read alongside the company’s own baseline, measurement period, and definition of improvement. A result from one factory should not be treated as a promise for every business.

For my own improvement plan, I would use a clear sequence: observe the process, measure the waste, choose one problem, test a small change, check the result, and keep the change only when the data supports it.

Waste reduction is not about asking people to work faster without support. It is about removing the obstacles that make good work harder than it needs to be. That is where a more efficient production process can begin.

Every production team faces the same pressure: meet customer requirements, control costs, and keep delivery plans stable. Waste makes each task harder. Extra material, repeated work, idle equipment, damaged packaging, and unclear production data can reduce output without appearing on a single invoice.

At Yongzhou Lihong, I see efficiency as a result of better daily decisions. The goal is not to push people to work faster. The goal is to remove the steps that do not help the product or the customer.

A target such as “30% more efficiency” needs a clear starting point. I would measure the current process before making any claim. The review can cover:

• Material use per order
• Production time per unit
• Rework and rejected items
• Machine waiting time
• Energy use during production
• Packaging loss
• Delivery preparation time

This data shows where waste starts and where it grows.

A common example is a production order that uses several material sizes. If workers cut each size separately, leftover pieces may remain after every batch. Those pieces may be too small for the next order, even though the total leftover amount looks limited. When the team records the sizes, groups similar orders, and plans the cutting sequence before production, material loss can fall without changing the product design.

The same approach applies to machine time. A line may stop because operators are waiting for materials, checking unclear instructions, or changing tools more often than needed. I would record the reason for each stop rather than treating all downtime as the same problem. A short delay caused by missing labels needs a different solution from a delay caused by equipment maintenance.

A practical improvement process at Yongzhou Lihong can follow these steps:

1. Set a clear baseline

   Record normal output, working hours, material input, waste, rework, and downtime for a defined period. The baseline gives the team something useful to compare.

2. Separate necessary work from avoidable work

   Quality checks and safety steps protect the customer and the team. They should not be removed. Repeated data entry, unnecessary movement, unclear approvals, and preventable rework deserve closer attention.

3. Create simple operating instructions

   Workers should be able to understand the required material, order, tool, inspection point, and packing method without searching through several documents. Clear instructions reduce variation between shifts.

4. Plan materials before production begins

   A small material check can prevent a larger delay. I would confirm stock, dimensions, labels, and packaging before the order reaches the production line.

5. Track waste by cause

   “Waste” is too broad to guide action. I would classify it as cutting loss, quality loss, waiting time, excess packaging, transport movement, or unused stock. Each category points to a different action.

6. Review the result with the people doing the work

   Operators often notice problems that do not appear in reports. A short weekly discussion can reveal repeated delays, difficult tools, unclear labels, or steps that create extra handling.

7. Test one change at a time

   A small trial makes the result easier to read. If material planning changes at the same time as equipment settings, it becomes difficult to know which action created the improvement.

The 30% figure should come from measured results, not from a broad promise. If a process completes 100 units in a set period, the team needs to define whether 30% more efficiency means 130 units with the same labor, 30% less waste for the same output, or 30% less production time per unit. These are different results.

A useful report may show the change in a simple format:

• Material waste: from 8% to 6%
• Rework: from 5 orders to 3 orders per month
• Average waiting time: from 18 minutes to 11 minutes per batch
• Packing preparation: from 25 minutes to 17 minutes per order

Numbers like these help customers understand what has changed. They also help the team avoid claims that cannot be checked.

My view is simple: efficiency starts with respect for materials, time, and attention. When Yongzhou Lihong reduces avoidable steps, the team can focus more on product quality and customer delivery. Less waste does not mean cutting corners. It means making each step easier to understand, easier to measure, and easier to improve.

Many manufacturers see waste as a cost that cannot be avoided. Material scraps, repeated handling, excess packaging, and rework may look like small issues on their own. Across a full production cycle, they can slow the line and reduce the value of every working hour.

Yongzhou Lihong took a different view. The company treated waste reduction as a process improvement task rather than a simple disposal project. By reviewing how materials moved through production and removing avoidable losses, Yongzhou Lihong achieved a reported 30% improvement in efficiency.

That result offers a useful lesson for companies facing rising material costs, uneven output, or production delays: waste reduction works best when it is connected to daily operations.

The hidden cost of production waste

When I review a production process, I do not look only at the waste bin. I also check where time, movement, and materials are being lost.

A plant may experience waste through:

• Unused or damaged raw materials
• Repeated movement between workstations
• Extra packaging and unpacking
• Production errors that require rework
• Long waiting periods between process steps
• Poor storage that causes confusion or damage
• Machines running below their planned capacity

These problems often share one feature: they become normal. Workers learn to work around them, supervisors accept them as part of the process, and management sees the cost only after it appears in monthly figures.

Yongzhou Lihong’s experience shows why a closer review can change the result. The company focused on the full flow of work rather than one isolated area.

Step 1: Track where waste starts

Waste reduction begins with observation.

A useful review follows the product from material storage to processing, inspection, packing, and dispatch. At each stage, the team can record:

• How much material enters the process
• How much finished output comes out
• How much time workers spend waiting
• How often a product needs rework
• How far materials travel inside the plant
• Which tasks create repeated handling

This information creates a more practical picture than a general statement such as “production is not efficient.”

For example, a packaging team may spend several minutes searching for the right materials before each batch. The time lost may not appear as a separate expense, yet it reduces output during every shift. A small storage change can remove that delay without adding equipment.

Step 2: Separate necessary waste from avoidable waste

Not every scrap item can be removed. Some production methods create a set amount of material loss. The useful question is not whether all waste can disappear. The question is whether the current level is reasonable for the process.

I would divide waste into three groups:

1. Process-related waste
   Material loss that comes from the design of the production method.

2. Error-related waste
   Loss caused by incorrect settings, handling mistakes, or unclear instructions.

3. Flow-related waste
   Loss linked to waiting, extra movement, poor storage, or repeated checking.

This method helps the team choose the right response. A process issue may require equipment or design changes. An error issue may need clearer work instructions. A flow issue may improve through layout changes and better scheduling.

Step 3: Improve the process without creating new pressure

Waste reduction should not depend on workers moving faster throughout the day. That approach can increase fatigue and create more mistakes.

A stronger plan improves the way work is arranged.

Yongzhou Lihong’s reported efficiency gain can be understood through this type of process focus. When a company reduces unnecessary handling, lowers rework, and keeps materials available at the right point, workers can spend more time on productive tasks.

Practical changes may include:

• Placing frequently used materials closer to the workstation
• Marking storage areas with simple labels
• Setting clear limits for work-in-progress stock
• Checking machine settings before each production run
• Using a standard method for common tasks
• Recording the reason for each rework case
• Reviewing waste levels by shift or product type

These changes do not always require a large budget. They require regular measurement and cooperation between production, quality, warehouse, and purchasing teams.

Step 4: Measure efficiency with more than one number

A company may reduce waste while creating another problem. For example, lower material use may lead to slower output or more quality complaints. The review needs a balanced set of measures.

Useful indicators include:

• Material usage per finished unit
• Scrap rate
• Rework rate
• Output per working hour
• Waiting time between process steps
• Packaging use per shipment
• Customer complaints linked to production quality

The reported 30% improvement at Yongzhou Lihong is most useful when viewed alongside these operating measures. A single percentage can attract attention, but the method behind it helps other companies judge whether a similar project fits their own process.

What other companies can learn

I believe the main lesson is simple: waste reduction should be treated as a daily management practice.

A company does not need to change every production step at once. It can select one product line, one shift, or one common waste source. The team can measure the current condition, test a small change, and compare the result with the previous process.

This approach also gives employees a clear role. Workers often see waste before managers do because they deal with the process every day. Their feedback can reveal repeated delays, unclear instructions, and storage problems that a report may miss.

Yongzhou Lihong’s case shows how a focus on waste can support better efficiency. The 30% gain did not come from treating waste as a separate environmental topic. It came from connecting material use, working time, production flow, and quality control.

For manufacturers seeking better output, the starting point may be closer than expected: observe the process, record the losses, remove avoidable steps, and keep measuring what changes.

Many factories face the same pressure: raw materials become more expensive, production waste is hard to track, and small losses add up across every shift. A process may look stable from the outside while offcuts, rejected items, rework, and unused materials quietly reduce the final result.

The Yongzhou Lihong story offers a practical lesson. Better results do not always come from buying more equipment or pushing workers to produce faster. They can come from finding where waste starts, measuring it with care, and improving one step at a time.

When I look at a waste reduction project, I start with the material flow.

A factory receives raw materials, stores them, moves them to production, processes them, checks the finished items, and handles the remaining material. Waste can appear at each point. A damaged package may cause loss before production begins. Poor cutting plans may create excess offcuts. A machine setting may lead to repeated defects. Weak storage control may make usable material difficult to identify.

Yongzhou Lihong’s success story is useful because it points to this wider view. Waste reduction is not only a workshop task. It involves purchasing, storage, production, quality checks, maintenance, and staff training.

The first practical step is to create a clear waste record.

I would record the type of waste, the location, the time, the related machine, the material involved, and the reason for the loss. A simple table can reveal patterns that are easy to miss during daily work.

For example:

• Excess cutting material may point to poor layout planning.
• Repeated surface defects may be linked to equipment settings.
• High rework levels may show that quality checks happen too late.
• Unused material in storage may reflect weak stock labeling.
• Frequent machine stops may lead to rushed production and more defects.

The purpose is not to blame a worker. It is to connect the loss with the process that created it.

The next step is to separate waste by cause.

Some material cannot be reused. Some can return to the production process. Some can be sold or sent to a recycling partner. These categories should not be mixed, because mixed waste is harder to handle and often loses value.

Clear labels, marked storage areas, and simple work instructions can help staff make the right choice. A small change in layout may save more material than a complex management plan.

Production settings also deserve close attention. A machine that runs too fast may increase output for a short period but create more defects. A setting that is too slow may raise energy use and reduce capacity. The right point depends on the material, product design, equipment condition, and quality requirements.

This is where daily data becomes useful. Teams can compare material input with finished output, rework, rejected items, and recoverable waste. The data does not need to be complex. A reliable paper record or spreadsheet can support better decisions when workers complete it in the same way each day.

Worker involvement matters as well. People on the production line often notice problems before managers see them. They know which machine causes repeated adjustments, which material is difficult to handle, and which step creates delays.

I believe a useful improvement system gives workers a simple way to report these issues without turning every mistake into a personal fault. Short meetings, clear feedback, and practical training can help the team focus on causes rather than blame.

Equipment maintenance also affects waste reduction. A worn tool, loose part, or unstable temperature can create a stream of rejected products. Regular checks may prevent that loss. Maintenance records should show what was inspected, what was changed, and whether the change reduced defects.

The Yongzhou Lihong example also shows why small improvements can support business performance. Less waste can reduce material loss. Fewer defects can lower rework. A steadier process can make delivery planning easier. These benefits depend on the actual operation, so no company should copy a result without checking its own data.

A sensible plan can begin with one production line or one product group. Measure the current waste level, choose one cause, test one change, and review the result. If the change works, the team can apply the method to another area. If it does not work, the records can show what needs to be adjusted.

This approach avoids a common mistake: setting a broad waste reduction target without knowing where the waste comes from. A target may sound useful, yet it gives workers little help when the process itself remains unclear.

The main lesson from Yongzhou Lihong is practical. Waste reduction starts with visibility. Once a company can see where materials are lost, it can choose actions that fit its equipment, workers, products, and budget.

Better results come from a controlled process, careful records, and steady cooperation across the factory. Less waste is not only an environmental goal. It can also support more stable production and better use of the materials a business has already paid for.

Contact us today to learn more Emily Bai: yz_lihong@yeah.net/WhatsApp +8618508420266.

Yongzhou Lihong Production Management Team, 2024, Waste Reduction Practices for Improving Manufacturing Efficiency

Emily Bai, 2024, Practical Methods for Measuring Production Waste and Process Performance

Yongzhou Lihong Quality Control Department, 2024, Standard Work Instructions for Stable Manufacturing Operations

Yongzhou Lihong Operations Department, 2024, Material Flow Optimization and Daily Production Improvement

Emily Bai, 2024, Linking Quality Control with Efficiency Improvement in Manufacturing

Yongzhou Lihong Manufacturing Research Group, 2024, A Practical Review of the Reported 30% Efficiency Improvement