Case page
Overview
The result was a 43% reduction in overall coating expenses. I still think the more useful part of the story is how the decision was framed: not as a shortcut to a cheaper input, but as a way to understand which coating requirements were essential, which could flex, and where cost was being carried without enough product value.
Where the trade-off actually was
What made this interesting was that the cheapest-looking option was not automatically the best one. The real question was which requirements were actually doing work, and which ones were just inherited assumptions.
My role
My role was to keep the discussion anchored to product expectations: finish, consistency, handling, implementation risk, and the way the surface would be judged after the decision left the spreadsheet.
Approach
- I separated non-negotiable requirements from preferences that had become habitual.
- I looked at cost drivers next to surface quality, handling, downstream process friction, and implementation risk.
- I tried to catch the routes that looked efficient at first but would create a different problem later.
- I kept the final argument tied to a product decision, not a purchasing shortcut.
Outcome / Impact
The project delivered a 43% reduction in overall coating expenses. The number matters, but only because the path to it still made sense under product constraints.
Public-safe scope
I can share the decision framing, trade-off logic, and public outcome. I do not share supplier details, formulas, internal test methods, process settings, or company-sensitive implementation data.
Key learnings
- Cost work is strongest when requirements are made explicit before options are compared.
- The wrong cheap route usually shows up later as finish inconsistency, implementation friction, or product compromise.
- A good materials decision should still hold together after price, process, and product expectations are all on the table.