Elon Musk’s five rules for improving a process end with automation. That order deserves attention from every executive considering new equipment or software. When labor is difficult to find, costs are rising, and customer commitments are harder to meet, technology can look like the obvious answer. But an expensive investment can leave the underlying problem untouched if management skips the work that should come first. In plain language, Musk’s five rules are:
- Question the requirements.
- Remove unnecessary parts or process steps.
- Simplify and improve what remains.
- Shorten the cycle time.
- Automate.
The value is in applying these rules in order to the business’s actual needs. That is consistent with how I have always evaluated a client’s operation. Each recommendation must follow from the client’s goals and the evidence, with the entire project process kept as simple and clear-cut as possible.
First, question the requirements. Why is an activity necessary? What purpose does another approval serve? What evidence supports the belief that more equipment is needed? These questions must lead to a larger one: What is actually preventing the company from achieving its goals? The Theory of Constraints (TOC) is the cornerstone of my evaluation process because it helps identify that limitation before improvement priorities are set.
My evaluation follows the entire project, from customer inquiry through estimating, sales, design, purchasing, scheduling, production, delivery, and final billing. A problem visible in manufacturing may originate in incomplete information or conflicting decisions elsewhere. Understanding those connections helps determine whether the business needs more capacity, clearer management practices, or a different way of organizing the work.
Second, remove unnecessary work. Once we understand what is holding the business back, we can examine which activities consume time without helping it move forward. Repeated data entry, avoidable handoffs, corrections, and unresolved decisions create work throughout the company. Automating them can preserve expenses that could have been eliminated. As unnecessary steps are removed, the controls protecting employees, product quality, and customers must remain effective.
Employee practices belong in this examination because constant turnover and vacancies create recurring training, mistakes, and interruptions. Before deciding that automation is the answer to a labor problem, management needs to understand why dependable employees leave and how that instability affects the work. Otherwise, the company may purchase equipment while leaving a major source of lost capacity unresolved.
Third, simplify and improve what remains. Employees should understand what must happen, who is responsible, and what information is required before work moves forward. Clear responsibilities, effective training, and sound management practices allow people to perform consistently. This also helps protect the capacity of the constraint identified during the evaluation, because less of its available time is lost to confusion and preventable problems.
A Case Study for Transforming Profits Through Employment Practices: Improving those fundamentals brought positive changes to Building Material Supply & Truss Manufacturing. In 2018, the company was losing money and had little available for new equipment. Following my recommendations, they improved employee pay and management practices, adopted Lean methods, and implemented my time standards. Turnover ceased being a significant problem, costs fell, and margins improved without price increases. Over three years, they moved from negative profits to net profits above industry averages without buying new equipment. Substantial capital improvements came afterward. Their experience shows why the first three rules deserve serious attention before an automation proposal becomes the priority.
This is also the practical message of my published book, “Lean Manufacturing Made Obvious.” Improvement should make work easier to understand, teach, and sustain throughout the company. A method that depends on constant explanation or intervention still needs attention. Simplicity makes it easier for employees to succeed and for management to see where performance is breaking down.
Fourth, shorten the cycle time. With unnecessary work removed and the remaining methods improved, the next question is where greater speed will improve the business’s result. As I explained in my previous article on bottlenecks, making an individual department faster may accomplish little if completed work is still limited elsewhere. TOC keeps this rule focused on the point governing overall flow.
Begin by making better use of the capacity already available at that point. Remove avoidable interruptions, ensure information and resources are ready, and coordinate surrounding activities to support it. Then determine whether additional capacity is needed. Follow the work through completion to verify the benefit. As one constraint is relieved, another may become the next priority.
Labor time standards make that evaluation more useful. They connect expected labor requirements to defined methods and operating conditions, helping management assess workload, staffing, and scheduling. Compare estimated time with actual results and investigate meaningful differences. This gives leadership a stronger basis for judging whether a process change or equipment investment delivers the expected improvement.
Fifth, automate. By this stage, management should understand which work must remain, how it should be performed, and what benefit automation needs to provide. Some automation will be the right investment. It may relieve a capacity limitation, reduce labor requirements, improve consistency, or make difficult work safer. Evaluate those benefits alongside implementation, training, maintenance, and the demands placed on the rest of the business.
The financial case should distinguish between benefits. Recovered labor hours provide capacity, but payroll savings require an actual reduction in payroll expense. Additional production capacity creates a sales opportunity when demand and the rest of the operation support it. Automation outside the main constraint can still be justified, provided its expected return reflects the benefit it will actually deliver.
I will never recommend automation that I do not believe is the best fit for the client’s needs and goals. I begin without a predetermined solution or vendor preference and compare proposed investments with practical alternatives. I receive no referral compensation from plate or equipment vendors. My responsibility is to provide the client with an independent assessment, clear priorities, and an understandable explanation of the trade-offs.
Through Todd Drummond Consulting, I bring 40 years of manufacturing experience and 25 years of full-time consulting to this evaluation. My services combine TOC, practical Lean methods, and industrial engineering principles, including truss manufacturing time standards available with or without an on-site consultation. If you are considering a purchase or struggling with recurring delays, contact todd@todd-drummond.com or 603-748-1051. Tell me what you want to improve, and we can discuss where to begin.
Also pending is TWE, the Truss WorkMinute Estimator, with a tentative December 1, 2026 release target. TWE is being developed to give component manufacturers greater plate-vendor flexibility and automated WorkMinutes alongside familiar production and financial measures, with an AppWright connection supporting the broader management workflow. Development and validation remain underway. Contact me if you would like to discuss whether TWE fits your operation or learn about beta participation.