Andrew Veal
← All case studies

Case Study · 3D Systems · 2016–2019

WALT: a dollar-weighted lead-time metric I devised

DRAFT — core write-up complete; final results and validation being refined.
RoleSenior Supply Chain Analyst
OriginBoard/CEO inventory mandate
ContributionSelf-devised metric

The problem

Inside a manufacturing plant fighting excess spend, management needed a way to profile and monitor long-lead-time components. The logic was sound: the further out a delivery date sits, the less likely the original forecast still holds — so long lead times quietly drive over-purchasing. But the obvious move, ranking parts by raw lead time, treats a cheap 100-day component the same as an expensive one. That misdirects effort.

What I proposed

Rather than rank by lead time alone, I weighted each component's lead time by its share of total production-line spend — turning a time measure into a dollar-aware priority score. I called it Weighted Average Lead Time.

WLT  =  Lead Time  × Component $ SpendTotal Production-Line $ Spend
WALT  =  Sum( WLT₁ + WLT₂ + … + WLTₙ )
A part's lead time, scaled by how much of the line's spend it represents.

Why it changes the answer

The reprioritization is the whole point. Ranked by raw lead time, the longest-lead part tops the list regardless of its cost. Ranked by WALT, the part carrying the most dollar exposure rises — even with a shorter lead time — because that's where shortening lead time actually reduces committed spend and inventory risk.

Ranked by lead time alone

1Component A100 days
2Component B60 days
3Component C45 days

Ranked by WALT (dollar-weighted)

1Component BWALT 41
2Component AWALT 23
3Component CWALT 9

Illustrative figures from the original worked example. Component B — shorter lead time but far larger spend share — becomes the true priority under WALT.

The result

WALT gave the plant a single, sortable number to focus lead-time-reduction effort where it moved the most committed dollars — decisive in an environment of high forecast uncertainty and constant engineering revisions, where keeping inventory low was survival. It's a metric I devised rather than adopted: as far as I've found, weighting lead time by spend share this way was a genuinely new framing of the problem.