For decision makers
What it means for you, in the time you actually have.
You do not need to understand the simulation. You need to know which option wins, how sure we are, and what it costs.
Each option is scored on six areas, weighted by this year's goals. MBW reports the decision, with the detail one click away for anyone who challenges it.Every option is scored on six areas (economic, operational, quality, delivery, material and sustainability) and weighted by what your business is trying to achieve this year. MBW reports the decision directly, and keeps the detail one click away for whoever wants to challenge it.
Where the answer changes, before anyone argues about it
Finance, the plant manager and sales weight cost and delivery differently. Lay the weightings out once, find the turning point, settle it in the meeting.Finance, the plant manager and sales will weight cost and delivery differently. Instead of rerunning the analysis for each opinion, lay the weighting out once and see which option leads where, and the exact points where the lead passes to another. Often most of the room already gets the same answer; the one argument worth having is about the turning point that divides it, and it is settled in the meeting, not the week after.
Priorities written down and tested, in the investment use caseCost and footprint in the same answer
Footprint and cost come from one run. In a worked example, the best option on economics takes less energy per good part, yet carries more CO₂.Energy, emissions, water and material are measured in the same run as cost and delivery, so you never approve an efficiency gain that quietly worsens your footprint. In one worked example the option best on the economics makes more of an alloy part: each good part earns more and takes less energy, yet carries more CO₂, because the alloy's carbon is in its material. Looking at the energy alone would have called it greener.
Footprint, measured, on SustainabilityProposed actions, with their reasons attached
Proposals come from a rule book you can read, each with its facts and thresholds. One is marked tested only where the evidence separates it from chance.A comparison can be turned into proposals: what to change, for which option, and why. They come from a rule book you can read, not from a model nobody can question. Each shows the facts that made it, against their thresholds, so you can see how close it came and what would have to change for it to go away. It is marked tested only where the evidence separates it from chance; otherwise it is a hint, and says so.
The rule book, on AnalysisOne run, two readings
Both views come from one run with one set of assumptions, so what is left to argue about is priorities, not whose spreadsheet is right.The value is rarely the number itself. It is that the argument ends: the engineering view and yours come from one run with one set of assumptions, so what is left to disagree about is priorities, not whose spreadsheet is right. And the record of what was decided, and why, outlives the meeting.
The engineers' reading, for your teamThe morning report is already in your inbox
Where the model runs each morning, your report arrives before the early shift: what ships, what it costs, what is at risk. Never from data not read that day.Where the model runs every morning, your report arrives before the early shift, in your language: what goes out today, what keeping delivery on target would cost, and which orders are at risk if nothing changes, with the day's scores beside them. If a step failed that morning, no report is sent in its place: a report is never made from data that was not read that day.
A real morning, as a use caseFor engineers and process experts
“Where does it actually break, and why?”
One conversation, one decision.
Bring a decision you are weighing right now. We will walk through what MBW would show you about it, and tell you honestly if it would not help.
Book a discovery call(opens in a new tab)