There is a large, but concentrated, U.S. manufacturing expansion happening. Major investments are being made in data-center infrastructure, aerospace and defense, semiconductors, batteries, and biopharmaceutical manufacturing, to name a few of the sectors hitting the headlines. Teams have mobilized, plans have been developed, and construction is well under way. Project dashboards all look green.
But there is a problem ahead. Conventional plans are set up to “build and hand over” not “build and run.” The emphasis is on design, procurement, construction, and commissioning—meaning the equipment is powered up. However, the hardest work is yet to come.
When a CEO asks if you’re on schedule, what they want to know is “when will the enterprise reliably deliver the production outcome that justified the investment?”
Why Capital Expansion Projects Underperform
- Companies often approve large projects with commitment dates before the project even starts. The project team may communicate uncertainties and risks, but executives anchor on the first date they hear. As schedules slip, they rebaseline projects, but don’t (or can’t) do much to meet the original commitment date.
- Ramp-up is treated as a date rather than a learning curve. The reality is that production ramp-up begins with limited process knowledge and employee training. Processes are unstable, impacting throughput and product quality.
- Supplier readiness does not get enough attention. Procurement places orders, but no one checks whether the suppliers (or their suppliers) have a plan to meet delivery dates or how well they are tracking to their plan.
- Hiring plans show requisitions filled, but they don’t track training, skill proficiency, supervision readiness, or maintenance coverage.
- Plans focus on production readiness rather than production proficiency. Mechanical completion, factory acceptance testing, site acceptance testing, commissioning, qualification, and sustained production are distinct states. Achieving sustained production at the expected throughput, quality, staffing levels, etc. is the hardest step, but it often gets the least forethought and fewest resources.
Structure the Work as an Expansion Program
Success starts with setting up the right program structure. One integrated program leader should be accountable for the cross-functional workstreams beginning with building the business case all the way to achieving stable production at the targeted level. This role is typically assigned to an engineer, but reconsider; this can be overwhelming given the breadth of the workstreams. Example workstreams:
- Facility, utilities, and equipment
- Commissioning, qualification, and process ramp-up
- Supplier and materials readiness
- Workforce and leadership readiness
- Quality, regulatory, EHS, maintenance, data, and systems readiness
- Operating-model, communications, adoption, and business-transformation readiness
The program charter goals should be production outcomes, not construction goals. Establish success criteria as a ramp-up curve with progressive goals for sellable output, yield, OEE, OTIF, unit cost, and capacity utilization.
Establish a “build to run” governance model that includes supply chain, quality, maintenance, HR, and commercial in addition to the traditional operations and engineering groups.
There should also be one integrated master schedule covering all phases of work. Give operations decision authority at readiness gates so they take ownership early to avoid the cold handover after commissioning. Example gate questions:
- Have we confirmed the design will be able to produce the volume required to meet the sales forecast?
- Have we checked to confirm the supply base will be ready?
- Have we pressure-tested the workforce to ensure we have all groups trained and ready to go?
- Have we confirmed we will meet key customer commitments?
Use fresh eyes to conduct critical reviews to test assumptions, design maturity, construction completeness, commissioning logic, supplier capacity, workforce readiness, and the ramp-up plan. Don’t allow repeated rebaselining to erase the original commitment.
For critical components, require suppliers to demonstrate that they have the necessary capacity, qualified processes, and sub-supplier resilience. Include on-site visits to confirm capability and capacity. Evaluate key supplier risks and develop appropriate mitigation strategies such as securing a second source.
Elevate workforce tracking from an HR report to an operational readiness dashboard. Track status by role, shift, production line, skill proficiency, etc., not simply headcount. Training should include shift supervision, abnormal-condition response, how to handle quality decisions, and maintenance routines.
Protect commissioning and production ramp-up time. Don’t allow construction delays to compress the time needed for pilot runs, operator practice, process and equipment fine-tuning, or maintenance preparation.
Changing Conventional Thinking
Manufacturers are committing billions to new facilities, lines, and automation. A completed building and installed equipment do not fulfill an order, produce quality product, train an operator, or protect customer commitments.
To gain return on your investment, treat capacity expansion as a production-capability transformation—a synchronized redesign of assets, suppliers, labor, processes, systems, decision rights, and operating behaviors.
August 25, 2026
