Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.2K

I posted this question in the math forum on redddit, but it was deleted because it is not a math question.

I am hoping someone here can enlighten me.

In my life as an estimator for a machine tool builder, I have always used a learning curve model to estimate future repeat production.

That model is: Every time a quantity of parts is ran, the time to complete should improve; that improvement will be seen every time the quantity is doubled. In other words - with a 95% learning curve, a 5% improvement (100-95) will be seen between the first and second part, and again from the 2nd to the 4th, from the 4th to the 8th, etc. Every time the quantity doubles, the same percentage improvement is realized. (There is a little more to it, batch sizes and a 'forget factor' and so on, but I think you get the point.)

Every time a job is repeated, it is expected to go faster/cheaper because of experience and lessons learned.

If a job is able to be improved considerably every time it is re-ran, then the cost/time goes down considerably on subsequent runs. That is, a plot of cycle times or costs vs quantity, would show a very big drop from part 1 to part 2, from part 2 to part 4, from 4 to 8, etc. A big drop = a steep curve. Going down that curve happens quickly.

If a job is very difficult to improve upon, then the curve is considerably shallower, because the time to produce does not get better over time = shallow learning curve.

I have always used 'steep learning curve' to denote 'rapid improvement over time' but am now being told that is the opposite; apparently my definition is backward, and a SHALLOW learning curve means rapid improvement over time.

Could someone please set me straight on this?

I posted this question in the math forum on redddit, but it was deleted because it is not a math question. I am hoping someone here can enlighten me. In my life as an estimator for a machine tool builder, I have always used a learning curve model to estimate future repeat production. That model is: Every time a quantity of parts is ran, the time to complete should improve; that improvement will be seen every time the quantity is doubled. In other words - with a 95% learning curve, a 5% improvement (100-95) will be seen between the first and second part, and again from the 2nd to the 4th, from the 4th to the 8th, etc. Every time the quantity doubles, the same percentage improvement is realized. (There is a little more to it, batch sizes and a 'forget factor' and so on, but I think you get the point.) Every time a job is repeated, it is expected to go faster/cheaper because of experience and lessons learned. If a job is able to be improved considerably every time it is re-ran, then the cost/time goes down considerably on subsequent runs. That is, a plot of cycle times or costs vs quantity, would show a very big drop from part 1 to part 2, from part 2 to part 4, from 4 to 8, etc. A big drop = a steep curve. Going down that curve happens quickly. If a job is very difficult to improve upon, then the curve is considerably shallower, because the time to produce does not get better over time = shallow learning curve. I have always used 'steep learning curve' to denote 'rapid improvement over time' but am now being told that is the opposite; apparently my definition is backward, and a SHALLOW learning curve means rapid improvement over time. Could someone please set me straight on this?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (26).
[–] • 0 pt

I think you need to look at more quality control/assurance lingo.

You're looking at a quality/timliness dependant on batch size.

Part of what youd be looking at is setup time to get the process going divided by batch size.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I don't understand what quality lingo has to do with the original question.

Batch sizes are based on other factors... Minimum (and maximum) dollar value per lot, outside service lot sizes, maximum hours per operation, raw material yield, etc. and are not driven by setup time or quality concerns.

Setup times are calculated based on work center, fixturing, quantity of tools, number of machine axes, and so on.

Dividing setup time by quantity does give a minutes per part number, but we charge setup and teardown times as a separate nre line item.

I am applying a learning curve factor to setup times as well, but my original question still applies... if it gets considerably easier to do something over time, then my cost to produce drops quickly over time... a steep curve. If it does not get easier to do something over time, then the cost to produce is relatively horizontal... a very shallow curve.

The question has nothing to do with "figuring out how to do a new thing," it has to do with "getting better at doing that new thing the next time you do it" and then the next time, and the times after that.