- \n
- On a high-mix line, a single SMED standard does not hold.<\/li>\n
- A from\/to matrix reveals the real technical families.<\/li>\n
- Write one standard per family and per transition type.<\/li>\n
- Tracking the gap per family targets audits and protects OEE.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n
What the SMED method reminds us, and where high-mix lines push back<\/h2>\n
On the Organilog blog, Serago P. Ubifavirutu published SMED : r\u00e9duire le temps de changement de s\u00e9rie en production<\/a> (in French). The article goes back to the origins of the method at Toyota with Shigeo Shingo, details the four steps (observe, separate internal and external tasks, convert, streamline), illustrates them with a bottling line running four bottle formats, and lists the expected benefits, including smaller batch sizes and less scrap at restart. It also stresses durability: “Les temps de changement d\u00e9rivent naturellement si les standards ne sont pas maintenus.” (in other words: changeover times naturally drift if standards are not maintained). The author recommends auditing the standards regularly.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
That warning matters even more on a high-mix line. When a line chains very different transitions, drift does not show in an overall average: a format change can stay under control while a material change slips week after week. Organilog lays out the method; this article suggests a way to organize it by product family, with measured rather than estimated times.<\/p>\n
Why one standard is not enough<\/h2>\n
On a high-mix line, changeover time depends mostly on what separates the outgoing product from the incoming one. Moving to a neighboring format sometimes takes a simple guide adjustment. Changing material, color or a full tool set means cleaning, swapping parts and a longer ramp-up. A single standard ends up too heavy for small transitions and too light for big ones, and operators stop following it.<\/p>\n
The answer is to think in transition types, often captured in a from\/to matrix: for each pair of outgoing and incoming products, look at the real changeover time, ramp-up included. Pairs with similar times form a family. Standards are then written per family and per transition type, not per product.<\/p>\n
![\"Four-step](\"https:\/\/teeptrak.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/teeptrak-smed-familles-en.png\")
<\/figure>\nBuilding families from measured changeovers<\/h2>\n
Commercial families (by customer or product range) do not always match the technical families of the line. The most reliable starting point is the history of measured changeovers. The table below is a starting grid, to adapt to each shop.<\/p>\n