When Americans were plunged into the sobering reality of life during Prohibition in the 1920s, something interesting started to happen — something that, decades later, would end up influencing the evolution of Lean manufacturing.
As well as the development of NASCAR as a sport, but that’s a story for another time.
What happened is this: Distillers and manufacturers of alcohol didn’t agree with Prohibition, to put it mildly, and continued to make their products. Only, because of the stringent laws preventing the manufacturing of alcohol, they had to do it without all the typical accoutrements.
Moonshine, as it came to be known, had to be created and distilled in secret. Distillers subsequently became incredibly inventive — alcohol was made with whatever “equipment” could be found, like garbage pails and garden hoses.
When Chihiro Nakao learned about this aspect of American history, he was fascinated. As seasoned Lean leaders will already know, Moonshine as a Lean concept would eventually become a core facet of the 3P methodology that Nakao invented.
Because the ingenuity shown by moonshine distillers in the 1920s all but evaporated from American manufacturing systems after Prohibition was lifted. In its place, a complacency with equipment efficiency took hold — a complacency Lean consultants are still fighting against with the 3P methodology to this day.
This complacency, like an undisciplined approach to standards, is contrary to the underlying principles of Lean. True lean improvement requires a keen look at waste in all areas, including the waste hidden inside machines and equipment programs.
In This Article
- The Waste Hidden Inside Your Equipment
- Why Manufacturers Continue to Overlook Equipment Waste
- Before Buying Capacity, Eliminate Waste
- Building Equipment Around Lean Principles
The Waste Hidden Inside Your Equipment
One of the most common misconceptions in manufacturing is that if a machine is running, it must be productive.
In reality, that’s not always the case.
Equipment can be operating exactly as programmed while still generating waste. This is where many leaders and decision-makers get stuck, because if the equipment isn’t leaking, squeaking, or failing all together, it can be difficult to spot small instances of waste until they compound into larger issues.
Like speeds and feeds remaining unchanged for years at a time, or cycle times gradually increasing.
This kind of waste is subtle to the untrained eye — most leaders don’t notice when tools are traveling farther than necessary and they don’t think to question why an operator would stand idle while their machines complete cycles.
All of this is accepted as normal, yet none of it adds value.
Machine waste often goes unnoticed because it’s embedded within the machine itself. Organizational leaders will spend considerable time improving layouts, mapping value streams, and tracking performance metrics, all without stopping to ask a simple question:
Why does the equipment operate this way in the first place?
The answer is often that no one has challenged the assumptions behind the process.
A CNC machine may move a tool several feet before changing operations when only a few inches of clearance are required. A stamping press may spend the majority of its cycle time moving through empty space before making contact with the part. An operator may remain stationed in front of a machine despite having ample opportunity to support flow elsewhere in the process.
Individually, these inefficiencies appear insignificant. Collectively, they consume hundreds of productive hours each year and artificially constrain capacity.
Why Manufacturers Continue to Overlook Equipment Waste
Identifying machine waste demands a perspective that many enterprises struggle to reach. For the moonshiners of the 1920s, though, this perspective was required, not optional.
They looked at their manufacturing processes directly — watching how they actually worked, not how they should work.
But in modern manufacturing settings, processes and equipment aren’t constrained by law enforcement to the same degree and, as an unexpected and unfortunate result, improvement efforts are often directed toward the wrong problems.
For example, manufacturing engineers are almost always under-resourced and disconnected from day-to-day production realities in modern organizations. Instead of spending time observing operators and equipment on the shop floor, they’re trapped behind a screen 3 floors away, working on reports, software systems, and vendor relationships.
“Many of them are, as Nakao would call them, catalog engineers that go out and buy solutions, instead of using their brain to create something that’s defendable in the marketplace.” — Mark DeLuzio
We’ve sequestered our engineers away from the action. Is it any wonder, then, that many improvement opportunities stay hidden in plain sight?
This disconnect also creates an over-reliance on equipment suppliers. When capacity issues emerge, the default response is often to purchase larger or more sophisticated machinery. Yet these very same equipment vendors are incentivized to sell equipment, not to eliminate waste from existing processes.
And so organizations get trapped in a familiar cycle: Processes become inefficient, capacity tightens, and so new equipment is purchased.
All while the underlying waste remains entirely untouched.
This mindset extends beyond individual machines and influences how organizations approach capital investment decisions altogether. The key lesson here is that before investing in new, flashy equipment, manufacturers must determine whether or not the existing process is truly operating at its full potential.
If they don’t, they’re not following Lean thinking. They’re throwing money at a process that was engineered to produce waste from the start.
Before Buying Capacity, Eliminate Waste
“If you don’t realize this now: Equipment vendors are not your friend.” — Mark DeLuzio
Companies that adhere to the Lean methodology approach capital expenditures in a significantly different way.
Instead of asking how quickly a new machine will generate a financial return, they start by asking whether the need for that machine is legitimate in the first place.
Has every opportunity been exhausted to improve speeds and feeds? Has unnecessary motion been eliminated? Has the process been redesigned to better support flow?
These questions often reveal opportunities that traditional investment analyses overlook. In many cases, organizations discover that existing equipment can produce more output than previously believed with a little bit of problem solving and common sense.
Case Study: Are Robots Really Needed?
Mark DeLuzio, principal architect of the Danaher Business System and founder of Lean Horizons Consulting, once worked with an organization in Europe that had just rolled out a new robot.
They were very proud of their robot. It didn’t matter that all the robot did was hover over a mold in an injection molding machine, grab the part, bring it out, and drop it in a box — they were proud of it.
Until Mark pointed out that the mold was required to be opened up over a meter wide for the robot to be able to fit in between the molds, which slowed down the cycle time.
And that increase in cycle time was entirely unnecessary.
The robot was doing a job that could have easily been accomplished with gravity and gravity is free. A simple hanedashi could easily blow the part off the mold and into the box below without taking up 40% of the floor space like the robot did.
“It’s these kinds of things that we see here and we don’t challenge them because we’re not trained to look for them.” — Mark DeLuzio
The long and short of it is this: By removing waste from machine programs, reducing changeovers, improving ergonomics, and supporting one-piece flow, manufacturers can unlock substantial capacity without increasing their footprint or capital spending
More importantly, these improvements create a foundation for something even more powerful — designing equipment specifically to support Lean principles rather than trying to adapt Lean principles to accommodate equipment.
Building Equipment Around Lean Principles
This is why Moonshine became such a central component to Lean manufacturing.
Inspired by the inventiveness of the Prohibition-era distillers, Moonshine in Lean thinking encourages engineers to develop simple, purpose-built equipment using creativity rather than large capital budgets.
Instead of purchasing standardized solutions that contain built-in compromises, organizations design equipment around their specific operational needs. After all, the objective is to have equipment that supports flow, minimizes changeovers, and flexes with customer demand, right?
When the engineers are dusted off and brought back to the playing field to design equipment around these principles, it not only supports the objective but also becomes a competitive advantage.
Because, in our modern age, your company’s competitors can purchase all the same machines, work with all the same suppliers, and hire near-identical talent. But what they can’t replicate — at least not as easily — is equipment that has been intentionally designed to eliminate waste in a Lean operating system from the start.
That distinction is why Moonshine remains such a powerful concept today.
It challenges manufacturers to move beyond accepting equipment limitations and instead engineer processes that align with customer demand, operational flexibility, and continuous improvement.
Do You Know How Fast You Were Going?
Prohibition moonshine, modern manufacturing, and yes, even NASCAR, are all conceptually intertwined.
The development of NASCAR as a sport came directly out of the Prohibition era because moonshine distillers had to have very, very fast cars in order to out-run local law enforcement. As a result, they were not only inventive with their manufacturing processes, but their mechanical engineering as well.
That’s what we’ve lost sight of in our contemporary companies.
We’re no longer running from the law, but we’re still in a race. The problem is that, for most organizations and their leaders, they don’t seem to realize that their equipment is hindering their ability to compete at speed.
Moonshiners of the 1920s didn’t buy stock cars off the lot and hope they picked the fastest out of all the identical units. They looked deeply at their equipment and, using their creative problem-solving skills, modified them to suit their objectives.
So the takeaway is this: The solution isn’t always newer equipment.
Resist the impulse to buy your organization’s way out of machine waste. Instead, cultivate a willingness to challenge existing assumptions and observe processes more closely so your company can eliminate waste at its source.
When you embrace this mindset, you’ll likely discover that your company’s greatest opportunity for improvement is found in the equipment that’s already there.
And, for those willing to take the next step, Moonshine is the framework for transforming your equipment from a source of hidden waste into a powerful competitive advantage.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is equipment waste in Lean manufacturing?
Equipment waste refers to non-value-added activities built into machines, equipment programs, and production processes. Common examples include excessive tool movement, machines cutting air, unnecessary operator motion, long changeovers, idle machine time, and inefficient equipment layouts. These inefficiencies reduce capacity and increase costs without adding value for the customer. - Why do manufacturers often overlook waste inside their equipment?
Many manufacturers focus on production metrics, value stream mapping, and process improvements while assuming equipment is operating efficiently. Because machine programs, speeds, feeds, and operating methods are rarely challenged, waste can become normalized and remain hidden for years. - How can manufacturers increase capacity without buying new equipment?
Manufacturers can often unlock additional capacity by reducing machine cycle times, eliminating unnecessary movements, improving changeovers, optimizing speeds and feeds, and designing better operator workflows. These improvements frequently create significant capacity gains without requiring additional capital investment. - What is Moonshine in Lean manufacturing?
Moonshine is a Lean engineering methodology developed by Chihiro Nakao that encourages organizations to design and build simple, purpose-built equipment using creativity and experimentation. The goal is to eliminate waste, improve flow, reduce changeovers, and create competitive advantages that cannot be easily copied by competitors. - Why can new equipment create problems in a Lean environment?
New equipment is often purchased to solve capacity issues, but it can introduce additional complexity, longer changeovers, larger footprints, increased maintenance requirements, and batch production. If equipment is not designed around Lean principles, it may create new forms of waste instead of eliminating existing ones. - How should Lean organizations evaluate capital equipment investments?
Rather than focusing exclusively on ROI calculations, Lean organizations evaluate whether new equipment supports takt time, flow, quality, flexibility, changeover reduction, and long-term operational improvement. They also investigate whether existing equipment can be improved before investing in additional machinery.
