- \n
- The 85% benchmark is a reference point, not a target for every machine.<\/li>\n
- A credible target starts from a reliable baseline, machine by machine.<\/li>\n
- The type of production changes each machine’s potential.<\/li>\n
- Progress comes in steps, expressed in OEE points and tracked weekly.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n
Why the 85% benchmark is misleading<\/h2>\n
The 85% figure appears in almost every presentation on OEE. It is usually described as world class, built from 90% availability, 95% performance and 99.9% quality. As a general reference point, it is useful. As an operational target, it creates three problems.<\/p>\n
- \n
- It ignores the type of production.<\/strong> A high-volume line running one product and a cell that changes part numbers several times per shift do not have the same potential. The second one loses time to changeovers by design, even when they are well run.<\/li>\n
- It depends on how OEE is calculated.<\/strong> Planned production time, whether planned stops are excluded, which reference rate is used: two plants can show the same figure with very different realities. A target borrowed from elsewhere has no comparable basis.<\/li>\n
- It demotivates when the gap is too wide.<\/strong> Asking a machine measured far below to reach 85% within the year sets a target the team knows is out of reach. The target then stops being a management tool.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The right reflex is to keep 85% as a discussion horizon, not as a target. A useful target is built from what each machine actually does today.<\/p>\n
Start from the baseline, not from a headline number<\/h2>\n
An improvement target only makes sense against a reliable starting point. In many plants, the starting OEE comes from manual entries: shift sheets, Excel files, end-of-shift reports. These records miss most short stops and underestimate slow running. Reported OEE is therefore often more flattering than actual OEE, and any target built on it is wrong from day one.<\/p>\n
Before setting a number, measure over a representative period: several weeks, covering every shift, the usual products and a normal maintenance cycle. This baseline must separate the three OEE components:<\/p>\n
- \n
- availability, with stops classified by cause (breakdowns, changeovers, material waits, operator waits);<\/li>\n
- performance, meaning the gap between the actual rate and the reference rate, including micro-stops and slow running;<\/li>\n
- quality, with scrap and rework linked to the time they were produced.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
This breakdown shows where the potential lies. Two machines with the same OEE can call for very different targets and action plans if one loses mainly on availability and the other on speed.<\/p>\n
![\"Four-step](\"https:\/\/teeptrak.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/teeptrak-solo-a9-en.png\")
<\/figure>\nOne target per machine and per type of production<\/h2>\n
A single plant-wide target hides the differences between machines. It is better to set a target per machine, or at least per family of comparable machines, taking the type of production into account. The table below offers a qualitative reading grid, to be adapted to each site.<\/p>\n
- It depends on how OEE is calculated.<\/strong> Planned production time, whether planned stops are excluded, which reference rate is used: two plants can show the same figure with very different realities. A target borrowed from elsewhere has no comparable basis.<\/li>\n
- It ignores the type of production.<\/strong> A high-volume line running one product and a cell that changes part numbers several times per shift do not have the same potential. The second one loses time to changeovers by design, even when they are well run.<\/li>\n