Newsletter #12
How hand-offs create invisible exposure
Jan 26, 2026
6 min-read
Curated by Fabrice Gribon, Founder of Gribon & Company
Practical, field-tested insights on operational excellence and business transformation — for Site Heads and Operations Directors.
Performance and compliance risks happen in the white space between department…
As a Site Head, your view of the facility is often defined by KPIs, dashboards, and milestone reports. On paper, Quality, Operations, Maintenance, Supply Chain, Manufacturing Technologies may be doing well with no major issues to report the last past months...
Yet, most significant non-compliance events and performance dips don't happen within a department. They happen in the "white space" between them.
I have noticed that hand-offs act invisible "saboteurs" of site efficiency and compliance. When a process moves from one silo to another, a gap opens. It is in these gaps that "invisible exposure" lives. This is a common pitfall I have encountered numerous times the last 20 years...

The BOM accuracy risk is often overseen
A common scenario in a large-scale manufacturing plant (e.g., in a Belgian CDMO). The Manufacturing Technology (MTECH) team defines the Bill of Materials (BOM) based on the validated process. However, as the plant scales up, actual production usage begins to deviate from the theoretical model.
The Hand-off Failure: MTECH "owns" the technical standard, but Supply Chain "owns" the procurement of raw materials based on that standard BOM. Meanwhile, Production sees the reality on the floor—perhaps a specific buffer is consistently over-consumed due to line-clearing nuances.
If the hand-off between MTECH and Supply Chain is poorly defined:
Production works around the discrepancy without formalising it.
MTECH remains unaware that the technical standard no longer matches reality.
Supply Chain continues to order based on "perfect" data that is actually inaccurate compared to demonstrated consumption.

The impact of invisible exposure
When the ownership of updating the BOM based on real usage is "lost in translation," the consequences ripple across the site:
1. Material and financial waste: Massive inventory variances lead to year-end write-offs that catch the Site Head by surprise...
2. Operational Risk: Supply Chain may under-order a critical excipient, leading to a sudden, "unexplained" stock-out that halts a multi-million-euro batch...
3. Compliance & Audit Risk: According to the EU GMP Annex 1, if your physical consumption significantly differs from your validated BOM without a documented rationale or change control, it signals a "loss of process control" to regulators…
The critical weakness lies in the hand-offs between MTECH (Manufacturing Technology) and Supply Chain due to the ambiguous ownership for updating the BOM based on actual production usage. MTECH might design the initial BOM, but production's actual material consumption, often influenced by process deviations or material substitutions, is not always seamlessly or promptly communicated back and integrated. If Supply Chain order materials based on an outdated or inaccurate BOM, the impacts are immediate and severe: material shortages, unexpected cost variances, rework, and traceability gaps emerge. This systemic gap emerges from a lack of end-to-end operations visibility. Data exists, but doesn't translate into timely, confident decisions. This "hidden factory" of unmanaged deviations and communication breakdowns directly reduces quality and efficiency, ultimately compromising manufacturing stability, discard levels and regulatory compliance.
I suggest the following 3 steps for a tighter control...
Step 1 - Clarify ownership: For the BOM process, assign a single "Value Stream Owner" who sits across MTECH and Supply Chain to ensure the feedback loop from Production is closed monthly.
Step 2- Implement documented process control and adherence KPI to detect lack of ownership and missed BOM updates. Find the appropriate frequency for updates based on campaign size, changeovers, shutdowns...
Step 3 - Walk the Value Stream: Follow a single batch’s journey from raw material to shipping for your highest value product. Observe the hand-offs. You’ll likely see more risk and waste in a one-hour walk than in a month of status reports.
Where could improved BOM accuracy and inter-departmental hand-offs deliver measurable impact for your site?
Newsletter #12
How hand-offs create invisible exposure
Jan 26, 2026
6 min-read
Curated by Fabrice Gribon, Founder of Gribon & Company
Practical, field-tested insights on operational excellence and business transformation — for Site Heads and Operations Directors.
Performance and compliance risks happen in the white space between department…
As a Site Head, your view of the facility is often defined by KPIs, dashboards, and milestone reports. On paper, Quality, Operations, Maintenance, Supply Chain, Manufacturing Technologies may be doing well with no major issues to report the last past months...
Yet, most significant non-compliance events and performance dips don't happen within a department. They happen in the "white space" between them.
I have noticed that hand-offs act invisible "saboteurs" of site efficiency and compliance. When a process moves from one silo to another, a gap opens. It is in these gaps that "invisible exposure" lives. This is a common pitfall I have encountered numerous times the last 20 years...

The BOM accuracy risk is often overseen
A common scenario in a large-scale manufacturing plant (e.g., in a Belgian CDMO). The Manufacturing Technology (MTECH) team defines the Bill of Materials (BOM) based on the validated process. However, as the plant scales up, actual production usage begins to deviate from the theoretical model.
The Hand-off Failure: MTECH "owns" the technical standard, but Supply Chain "owns" the procurement of raw materials based on that standard BOM. Meanwhile, Production sees the reality on the floor—perhaps a specific buffer is consistently over-consumed due to line-clearing nuances.
If the hand-off between MTECH and Supply Chain is poorly defined:
Production works around the discrepancy without formalising it.
MTECH remains unaware that the technical standard no longer matches reality.
Supply Chain continues to order based on "perfect" data that is actually inaccurate compared to demonstrated consumption.

The impact of invisible exposure
When the ownership of updating the BOM based on real usage is "lost in translation," the consequences ripple across the site:
1. Material and financial waste: Massive inventory variances lead to year-end write-offs that catch the Site Head by surprise...
2. Operational Risk: Supply Chain may under-order a critical excipient, leading to a sudden, "unexplained" stock-out that halts a multi-million-euro batch...
3. Compliance & Audit Risk: According to the EU GMP Annex 1, if your physical consumption significantly differs from your validated BOM without a documented rationale or change control, it signals a "loss of process control" to regulators…
The critical weakness lies in the hand-offs between MTECH (Manufacturing Technology) and Supply Chain due to the ambiguous ownership for updating the BOM based on actual production usage. MTECH might design the initial BOM, but production's actual material consumption, often influenced by process deviations or material substitutions, is not always seamlessly or promptly communicated back and integrated. If Supply Chain order materials based on an outdated or inaccurate BOM, the impacts are immediate and severe: material shortages, unexpected cost variances, rework, and traceability gaps emerge. This systemic gap emerges from a lack of end-to-end operations visibility. Data exists, but doesn't translate into timely, confident decisions. This "hidden factory" of unmanaged deviations and communication breakdowns directly reduces quality and efficiency, ultimately compromising manufacturing stability, discard levels and regulatory compliance.
I suggest the following 3 steps for a tighter control...
Step 1 - Clarify ownership: For the BOM process, assign a single "Value Stream Owner" who sits across MTECH and Supply Chain to ensure the feedback loop from Production is closed monthly.
Step 2- Implement documented process control and adherence KPI to detect lack of ownership and missed BOM updates. Find the appropriate frequency for updates based on campaign size, changeovers, shutdowns...
Step 3 - Walk the Value Stream: Follow a single batch’s journey from raw material to shipping for your highest value product. Observe the hand-offs. You’ll likely see more risk and waste in a one-hour walk than in a month of status reports.
Where could improved BOM accuracy and inter-departmental hand-offs deliver measurable impact for your site?
Newsletter #12
How hand-offs create invisible exposure
Jan 26, 2026
6 min-read
Curated by Fabrice Gribon, Founder of Gribon & Company
Practical, field-tested insights on operational excellence and business transformation — for Site Heads and Operations Directors.
Performance and compliance risks happen in the white space between department…
As a Site Head, your view of the facility is often defined by KPIs, dashboards, and milestone reports. On paper, Quality, Operations, Maintenance, Supply Chain, Manufacturing Technologies may be doing well with no major issues to report the last past months...
Yet, most significant non-compliance events and performance dips don't happen within a department. They happen in the "white space" between them.
I have noticed that hand-offs act invisible "saboteurs" of site efficiency and compliance. When a process moves from one silo to another, a gap opens. It is in these gaps that "invisible exposure" lives. This is a common pitfall I have encountered numerous times the last 20 years...

The BOM accuracy risk is often overseen
A common scenario in a large-scale manufacturing plant (e.g., in a Belgian CDMO). The Manufacturing Technology (MTECH) team defines the Bill of Materials (BOM) based on the validated process. However, as the plant scales up, actual production usage begins to deviate from the theoretical model.
The Hand-off Failure: MTECH "owns" the technical standard, but Supply Chain "owns" the procurement of raw materials based on that standard BOM. Meanwhile, Production sees the reality on the floor—perhaps a specific buffer is consistently over-consumed due to line-clearing nuances.
If the hand-off between MTECH and Supply Chain is poorly defined:
Production works around the discrepancy without formalising it.
MTECH remains unaware that the technical standard no longer matches reality.
Supply Chain continues to order based on "perfect" data that is actually inaccurate compared to demonstrated consumption.

The impact of invisible exposure
When the ownership of updating the BOM based on real usage is "lost in translation," the consequences ripple across the site:
1. Material and financial waste: Massive inventory variances lead to year-end write-offs that catch the Site Head by surprise...
2. Operational Risk: Supply Chain may under-order a critical excipient, leading to a sudden, "unexplained" stock-out that halts a multi-million-euro batch...
3. Compliance & Audit Risk: According to the EU GMP Annex 1, if your physical consumption significantly differs from your validated BOM without a documented rationale or change control, it signals a "loss of process control" to regulators…
The critical weakness lies in the hand-offs between MTECH (Manufacturing Technology) and Supply Chain due to the ambiguous ownership for updating the BOM based on actual production usage. MTECH might design the initial BOM, but production's actual material consumption, often influenced by process deviations or material substitutions, is not always seamlessly or promptly communicated back and integrated. If Supply Chain order materials based on an outdated or inaccurate BOM, the impacts are immediate and severe: material shortages, unexpected cost variances, rework, and traceability gaps emerge. This systemic gap emerges from a lack of end-to-end operations visibility. Data exists, but doesn't translate into timely, confident decisions. This "hidden factory" of unmanaged deviations and communication breakdowns directly reduces quality and efficiency, ultimately compromising manufacturing stability, discard levels and regulatory compliance.
I suggest the following 3 steps for a tighter control...
Step 1 - Clarify ownership: For the BOM process, assign a single "Value Stream Owner" who sits across MTECH and Supply Chain to ensure the feedback loop from Production is closed monthly.
Step 2- Implement documented process control and adherence KPI to detect lack of ownership and missed BOM updates. Find the appropriate frequency for updates based on campaign size, changeovers, shutdowns...
Step 3 - Walk the Value Stream: Follow a single batch’s journey from raw material to shipping for your highest value product. Observe the hand-offs. You’ll likely see more risk and waste in a one-hour walk than in a month of status reports.
Where could improved BOM accuracy and inter-departmental hand-offs deliver measurable impact for your site?