A full polishing range.
From cutting and one-step correction to final finishing.
Compare polishing productivity within similar job types before judging whether a team, compound or process has become faster.
Updated · NANOLAB Knowledge

A week of enhancement jobs cannot be compared directly with a week of demanding correction work. Average hours per vehicle may change because the work changed, not because productivity improved or declined.
Group work by the agreed correction target, surface condition and major process requirements. Keep the categories simple enough for reliable use. Vehicle size can be included, but it should not replace condition and scope.
| Group | Relevant comparison |
|---|---|
| Light enhancement | Accepted time for a similar finish target |
| Multi-stage correction | Total correction and refinement effort |
| Mixed repairs or special geometry | Assessment and exception workload |
Suppose one week includes eight three-hour jobs and two eight-hour jobs: the average is four hours. Another includes two three-hour jobs and eight eight-hour jobs: the average is seven hours. The underlying task times are unchanged; the job mix explains the difference.
Compare rework and accepted finish alongside labour. A faster average achieved by accepting more defects is a change in service, not necessarily an efficiency improvement.
Estimate next week’s capacity from the expected mix instead of multiplying the number of bookings by one historical average. Review unusual jobs individually rather than forcing them into a convenient category.
This approach makes product trials and staffing discussions fairer. A compound or operator should be judged under comparable work, with the complete process recorded, rather than rewarded or penalised for the difficulty of the week’s customer vehicles.
Ask NANOLAB about your surface and intended use. For application and care, use the current instructions for the exact product.

Pad Laundry Lead Time and the Number of Pads a Workshop Needs