About

Background

I'm Daniil Tchistiakov. Before this practice, I looked at manufacturing from four different seats. Industrial engineer inside Boeing Fabrication, optimizing production and building product to rate. Management consultant across diverse manufacturing plants. Strategy analyst in heavy vehicle manufacturing, reading an operation through its costs and its portfolio. Simulation practitioner, modeling lines before decisions get expensive.

Every seat asked the same question. Why is this operation delivering less, or costing more, than the people, equipment, and space inside it should allow? And when demand rises, what does it genuinely need next? Every seat looked for the answer in a different place. The numbers see a margin problem. The floor sees an overtime problem. The constraint causing both usually sits in scheduling, handoffs, and flow, where none of those views catch it on their own. That is the gap this practice works in.

The results range from line level to network scale. At Boeing Fabrication's Interiors Responsibility Center in Everett, reworking schedule logic, station flow, and labor allocation raised area throughput 35 percent with no capital added. In consulting with Falconi US, the same constraint discipline delivered about $1.5M in annualized savings at a single plant, and I wrote the replication playbook for the network's other eleven plants. Recently, on a UAV composite airframe program at a WA aerospace company, a constraint-based production schedule raised area throughput 30 percent with no added labor or equipment. Earlier strategy work in heavy-vehicle manufacturing connected SKU economics and logistics cost to portfolio decisions.

Every engagement still starts the same way the best of that work did. On the floor, walking the line.