Delays are often treated as a capacity problem.

When work is late, the usual responses are:

  • pushing harder,

  • adding buffers,

  • or blaming unpredictable demand.

In this typography, none of that worked — because delays weren’t caused by lack of effort. They were caused by unclear internal processes.

The situation: constant delays, constant pressure

The typography delivered quality work, but deadlines were frequently missed.

Symptoms included:

  • jobs waiting between steps,

  • last-minute rushes,

  • frequent reprioritization,

  • and a general sense that “everything is urgent.”

People were busy all the time, yet work kept piling up.

The real issue wasn’t speed — it was flow

At first glance, delays looked like production problems.

But a closer look showed something else:

  • work entered the system without clear prioritization,

  • steps depended on informal communication,

  • handoffs were ambiguous,

  • and no one had a complete view of work-in-progress.

Delays weren’t happening on machines.
They were happening between people and steps.

Step one: making work visible

The first intervention was simple but revealing:
make all ongoing work visible in one place.

This exposed:

  • how many jobs were in progress at the same time,

  • where work stalled,

  • and how often priorities changed mid-process.

Visibility alone reduced confusion — but it wasn’t enough.

Step two: defining a clear flow

Next, the internal workflow was clarified:

  • how work enters the system,

  • which steps are mandatory,

  • where decisions are made,

  • and what “ready” means at each stage.

This eliminated assumptions and reduced back-and-forth.

Work stopped bouncing randomly between people.

Step three: limiting work in progress

One of the biggest sources of delay was too much parallel work.

By limiting how many jobs could be active at the same time:

  • focus increased,

  • interruptions decreased,

  • and completion accelerated.

Finishing work became more important than starting new work.

Step four: stabilizing priorities

Priority rules were made explicit:

  • what can interrupt ongoing work,

  • what cannot,

  • and who has the authority to change priorities.

This reduced firefighting and allowed teams to plan realistically.

The result: a 90% reduction in delayed work

After these changes:

  • delayed jobs dropped by approximately 90%,

  • deadlines became predictable,

  • and stress levels decreased significantly.

Importantly, this was achieved:

  • without new machines,

  • without additional staff,

  • and without working longer hours.

The hidden benefit: calmer decision-making

Beyond the metrics, something important changed:

  • fewer urgent escalations,

  • more stable planning,

  • and better communication with customers.

When internal flow stabilized, external reliability improved naturally.

Why this approach worked

The key was shifting focus from speed to flow.

Delays are rarely solved by moving faster at individual steps.
They’re solved by reducing friction between steps.

A common pattern in production environments

This situation is common wherever:

  • work is customized,

  • steps are sequential,

  • and priorities shift frequently.

When flow is unclear, delays multiply.