Filetype Excel XLSX | Posted on 09 Aug 2022 | 3 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
232x Filetype XLSX File size 1.73 MB Source: www.ame.org
Sheet 1: How to use the Lean Sensei
| AME Lean Sensei® | ||||||
| The Association for Manufacturing Excellence offers the AME Lean Sensei to anyone interested in benchmarking their organization against distinguished AME Excellence Award recipient companies. AME Excellence Award recipients operate at exceptional levels of performance, setting the bar high for achieving success in the search for operational excellence. The AME Lean Sensei will help you see if you’re ready to apply and if you’re not interested in applying the AME Lean Sensei is still a valuable tool to help your organization identify potential areas of focus and improve the way you improve. For a firsthand look at how to use the AME Lean Sensei, watch this webinar: | ||||||
| http:/youtu.be/L1mKoi-nWTQ. | ||||||
| How to use the AME Lean Sensei: | ||||||
| Have 5 to 10 key staff members or key knowledgeable associates come together in one room. Include people who have little to do with direct responsibilities for your improvement program activities. Discuss each question and arrive at a letter grade for each answer. The AME Lean Sensei should be used as a systematic process for your team to improve. It is not a survey to be given to all employees but should be used by a team that has some familiarity with basic lean principles. A+ = Best in class – World-class benchmark A = Excellent - Sustainable with great results B = Good results – Definitely going in the right direction C = On the journey - Some process gaps but striving for improvement D = More gaps than achievements – Definite area for improvement F = No achievements in this area – No process documented or followed |
||||||
| Select a letter grade for every question using the scroll down menu, then the AME Lean Sensei will populate the dashboard and report card automatically. With this information, you can easily see your improvement maturity strengths and weaknesses. | ||||||
| The letter scoring is the easy part of the AME Lean Sensei. To truly get the most benefit from the tool you must take the next step. We suggest you publically post your scores on a wall. Then gather documentation proof (for grades B or greater). Also have an area (column) to show actions to address gaps (for grades C or below). The overall score is not important; there is no final destination relative to improvement practices. Gather pictures, reports, etc. to support your score. Further suggestions on how to do this are below. | ||||||
| How to get the most from this tool | ||||||
| The best senseis—or teachers— always ask thought-provoking questions and do not give mere answers. The questions asked by the AME Lean Sensei will help you think about how to become best-in-class at your site or facility. As you answer the AME Lean Sensei, ask yourselves: • How can we prove this in writing? • How can we prove this visually? • Do we have any external benchmarks of excellence for comparative purposes? • What gaps do we have for each question? • Have we reached the level of excellence necessary to apply for the AME Excellence Award and, if so, how can we engage the entire company in that process? |
||||||
| Virtual and visual | ||||||
| One of the best ways that has been used to document and engage your workforce in this process is to designate a wall in your plant as the “World-Class Assessment Wall.” Below you will see an example of this wall. You will be building a spreadsheet-type matrix on the wall. |
||||||
| Column 1 – Cut and paste the sub-category question and place your letter grade next to the question. Column 2 – Visual proof – Take a picture of your accomplishments and place them in this column. Column 3 – Written proof – This is a written explanation of proof that you have achieved a high level for this question. Column 4 – Benchmarks – AME is one possible source to find best practices that can help you come up with companies that are excellent for each area. Column 5 – Gaps – Document opportunities for improvement related to this area. Column 6 – Owner – Assign individuals or teams to come up with actions related to each question. |
||||||
| Addressing gaps identified by the AME Lean Sensei | ||||||
| Once you’ve assessed your company using the Lean Sensei, AME is here to help you address them. AME offers training on lean and continuous improvement throughout the year both online and in-person, and we have a vibrant community of practitioners on the continuous improvement journey. The AME Annual Conference is also an outstanding learning opportunity to interact directly with practitioners from around the world, all striving to find ways to improve more effectively. | ||||||
| Always remember that you must prioritize or the work will be overwhelming and nothing will get accomplished. Pick 3-5 gaps and strive for deep improvement that is sustainable. If you approach your work with the AME Lean Sensei in a systematic way, your team will reap great rewards that are sustainable. If you ultimately decide to apply for the AME Excellence Award, the information on your wall is a template for the Achievement Report where you tell your story. | ||||||
| About the AME Excellence Award | ||||||
| The AME Excellence Award is bestowed on manufacturers who demonstrate excellence in manufacturing and business improvement practices. The process starts with a review of an Achievement Report (the applicant’s improvement story). Sites that score high enough merit a site visit where an assessment team performs a rigorous review of the applicant’s improvement practices. All applicants receive a feedback report on ways they can improve more effectively. | ||||||
| Only a handful are selected as Award Recipients each year. Applicants are not competing against other organizations; success is measured in terms of how effectively applicants stack-up against the criteria outlined in the Lean Sensei. | ||||||
| The recipients’ drive manifests in insightful continuous improvement strategies, innovative practices and inspired teamwork initiatives from which any organization can learn. | ||||||
| More information about the AME Excellence Award can be found at | ||||||
| http://www.ame.org/excellence-awards. | ||||||
| About AME | ||||||
| The Association for Manufacturing Excellence (AME) is the premier not-for-profit organization dedicated to the journey of continuous improvement and enterprise excellence. AME’s membership is composed of a trusted network of volunteers who are committed to leveraging the practitioner-to-practitioner and company-to-company shared-learning experience. Through engaging workshops, plant tours, webinars, summits and industry-leading conferences, AME members are continually discovering and implementing new continuous improvement strategies and best practices. AME offers its members a multitude of valuable resources to help them stay abreast of current industry developments and improve the skills, competitiveness and overall success of their organizations. Join AME in leading the “renaissance of manufacturing in North America.” | ||||||
| For more information, visit: | ||||||
| www.ame.org. | ||||||
| AME Lean Sensei® - AME Award Criteria Self-Assessment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date: | Company: | Input Needed | Input Needed | Note: the information in these columns is for your internal company use, this info. is NOT needed if applying for the AME Excellence Award | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Major Section of Criteria | Question # | Sub-Category | Lean Sensei Questions - Select the description that most closely relates to your company's current state; then grade it using one of the letter grades to the right. | Grade | Grading - Click the cell and select a grade from arrows to the right | Proof or Gaps - Define Proof of Rating or Gaps - Paragraph / Picture or Both | Tools and Training Topics | Tools and Training Topics | Resource Links | Resources | A+ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Management System - 150 pts. | 1 | Policy Deployment - Excellent | Formal and effective program from the top for vision, strategy, and objective creation with a robust level of catchball horizontally and vertically for alignment. Clear focus on the "critical few" breakthrough strategic initiatives which are cascaded from the top all the way down and across the organization. Employees understand how their work relates to company objectives/strategies. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Describe the plants policy deployment process, such as hoshin kanri planning, strategic planning, etc. What is the scope and level of the plant’s cascading of policy, goals, strategies, and action plans for both the shop floor and the front office? | Strategic Planning | SWOT Analysis | A | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Strategy Deployment | Voice of the Customer Surveys | Introduction to the Harada Method (Webinar) | B | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Policy Deployment - On the Journey | Policy deployment is in place from the top for vision, strategy, and objective creation. But linkages down through the organization are missing. Breakthrough objectives may exist, but focus is not crisp. Some methodologies are in place for goal deployment. A catchball process is evolving. | B | Hoshin | Company Vision, Mission, Values | C | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Value Stream Mapping | One Page Strategic Plan | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Policy Deployment - Needs Improvement | Vision, strategy, and objectives exist but accountabilities and alignment are weak. Objectives handed down from higher levels, no real catch-ball type process exist. Departments focus on their priorities; activities are often not in alignment across the organization. (F) No strategy or deployment of strategy exists. | D | Company Vision, Mission, Values | X-matrix for policy deployment | F | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | Creating an AIP - Annual Improvement Plan | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | Management System - Excellent | Tracking and report outs in visual management form, done in daily, weekly and monthly reviews in the Gemba. Processes are stabilized, so it becomes easy to see abnormal conditions. When problems happen a process view is taken most of the time to address them. There is good understanding and alignment at multiple levels of the organization on daily priorities to be addressed. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Visual Management | Help Wanted: Using Visual Management to Drive Continuous Improvement (Webinar) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Key Performance Indicators | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Management System - On the Journey | Leaders are attempting to move to a process or value stream view when addressing improvement opportunities. Tracking and report outs done in daily, weekly and monthly reviews sometimes in office conference rooms and sometimes in the Gemba. Visual management practices and IT database systems evolving to support and guide. Too much time is spent on normal conditions as abnormalities and are not always easy to see. | B | Gemba Leadership | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Gemba Walks | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Management System - Needs Improvement | Tracking and report outs done in weekly or monthly operating reviews in office areas. Most hourly employees unaware of most critical information. Most data resides in computers, minimal visual management. Problems are seen more as individual issues, insufficient time is available to address process issues. (F) No communication to or understanding by employees of the big picture - they are focused only on payment for their job. | D | Tiered Daily Management | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | A3 Problem Solving/Reporting | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | Leader Standard Work - Excellent | A best practice for leadership behaviors have been identified and standard work practices have been defined. Leaders consistently adhere to those desirable behaviors, they lead in the gemba, not from the office. Tiered meetings quickly and meaningfully communicate process abnormalities and business issues. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Explain how you utilize standard work in your management approach, including going to the Gemba to learn what is really happening. Describe your system of outlining expectations and follow-up with all plant and site personnel. | Leader Standard Work | Visual Management | AME Webinar: Lean Management, Lean Leadership and Leader Standard Work | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Process Mapping | Leadership - Making Lean A Success (Webinar) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Leader Standard Work - On the Journey | Leader standard work exists but has not yet fully changed the culture or daily operating practices between all tiers. More time is spent in the gemba. Tier meetings spend too much time drifting into problem solving or talking about unnecessary information. | B | Managing Resistance to Change | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | 4M Leadership | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Leader Standard Work - Needs Improvement | Leader standard work in place with minimal or sporadic levels of discipline to it. Different leader behaviors and styles, widely varied leader processes. Tier meetings are undisciplined and overwhelmed with the large number of problems needing resolution on a daily basis. (F) No leader standard work in place. | D | Manufacturing Leadership Program | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | Coaching Skills | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 | Continuous Improvement- Excellent | Highly effective daily management program in place, with involvement by many employees. Strong evidence that most processes are stable and performance improvement is sustained. Performance metrics are timely, visual and meaningful; they are used for effective decision making. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Describe your plant's continuous improvement program to achieve the policy deployment plan:, Outline the role and relationship of leadership and all associates in achieving company goals and Objectives. | Morning Meetings | Hour by Hour Charts | Making Daily Kaizen a Success (Webinar) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Employee Engagement | Lean Metrics: Driving the right behaviors | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Continuous Improvement - On the Journey | A formal and standard continuous improvement and daily management program in place, moderate number of employees participating. Evidence that processes are being stabilized and performance improvement is usually tracked and sustained. Performance metrics seem reasonable and somewhat timely. It is not clear how they are driving decision making or helping to resolve issues that arise on a day-to-day basis. | B | Continuous Improvement System / Process | Problem Solving for Teams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Kaizen | Basic QC tools | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Continuous Improvement - Needs Improvement | Continuous improvement activities sporadic or used in some silos, sustaining gains is a challenge. Performance metrics are not timely or very useful for decision making, they tend to focus on activity counts (how many) and one department's metrics may conflict with the metrics used in other departments. Many improvement initiatives without clear alignment. (F) No continuous improvement activities formalized. | D | Leader standard work | Idea Systems | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | Visual feedback/accountability | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| People Centric Leadership - 150 pts. | 5 | Respect Team Members - Excellent | Team members (employees) empowered to make decisions, try new things, fail and problem solve in a safe environment. Employees are valued for their heads, their hearts and their hands. They are responsible for the processes in their area of the value stream, and continue to be trained and coached on multiple aspects of critical thinking and problem solving skills. Employees are trusted to implement many improvement ideas with simple idea validation process where management is no longer an approval bottleneck. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Describe your plant’s approach to diversity and inclusion. Describe how leadership promotes self-reflection to improve leadership skills and show respect for people. Describe how the plant ensures leaders and managers practice effective communication, listening and building relationship skills. | Team Training | Lean Leadership Skills | Webinar: Building a People Centric Culture | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Self Directed Work Team | Employee Development | People-Centric Leadership and AME | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Respect Team Members - On the Journey | Team members are mostly valued for their hands and heads; they contribute ideas for improvement, but implementation of ideas is slow to happen. Employees are sometimes made to feel like they own and have a responsibility for their own portion of the value stream and for creating an improved future within it, but managers and engineers still make most of the decisions. Some training has been done on critical thinking and problem solving skills. | B | Critical Thinking Training | Reward and Recognition systems | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | ESOL Training | Change Management | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Respect Team Members - Needs Improvement | Organization claims to value people, but not too much done in the way of developing employee critical thinking skills/capabilities.. Improvement ideas accepted from employees but everything must be approved by managers. Management operates more from a 'this is my silo' perspective. Employees have some problem solving training. (F) There is no problem solving training for employees. Disrespect exists throughout management and employees. | D | Personal Development - Skills training - Presentation, Communication, Etc. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | Mentoring Program | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 | Morale - Excellent | Employees feel valued and respected by leadership; they know where the company is headed and why. They trust that leadership cares about both them and customers in a positive meaningful way. Leadership promotes self-reflection to improve the way leaders lead (e.g. using 360 feedback, engagement surveys, leadership coaching, etc.). Clear evidence of significant cultural or engagement improvement over the past 3-5 years or consistently showing in excess of 70% high/very high engagement scores. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | List efforts being used to achieve a high level of employee engagement. Describe how you have changed your organization to better align for creating value across different departments and work groups? | Manpower Motivators | Making Developing People Job 1 in Lean (Webinar) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Career Paths | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Morale - On the Journey | Leaders learning to behave as servant leaders. Moderate levels of respect for people with some attempts to engage their hearts and minds as well as their hands. Some evidence of growing cultural or engagement improvement over the past 3-5 years. Good/Very Good engagement scores in excess of 50%. | B | Team Building | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Onboarding Program / Process | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Morale - Needs Improvement | Leaders tend to behave more as bosses than leaders, generally they make decisions and tell people what to do. Show moderate levels of respect for people. Employees have no responsibility for their portion of the value stream beyond the task they do. Minimal evidence of improvement in culture or engagement scores over the past 3-5 years. (F) Morale is very poor and employees are not allowed to make decisions. | D | Assessing and increasing Employee Satisfaction | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | Servant Leadership | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 | Problem Solving - Excellent | Problems are viewed as process issues and people are expected to shine a light on them as soon as they happen. A protocol exist to have the appropriate people immediately come to the Gemba to see the problem. Employee-team members are engaged on a daily basis to identify root cause/s and propose solutions-countermeasures to permanently eliminate/control issues. Self-reflection or evaluation exists on the quality of the problem solving activities. Problem solving is a required component of all job roles. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Describe your plant's problem-solving process, including the role of teams within it and how improvement ideas are actively solicited. What is the role of manufacturing associates and front office personnel in achieving kaizen or continuous improvement? Describe how skills related to improvement and teamwork are included in employee job requirements? | Problem Solving | 4M analysis - Man Machine Material Method | Webinar: Poka Yoke Creating a Culture of Zero Defects | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | A3 | 7 QC Tools | Kata for Daily Improvement (Webinar) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Problem Solving - On the Journey | Problem solving to identify root cause/s and propose solutions to permanently eliminate them are practiced when time is available by management and employees. Much of the analysis gets done by an "A Team" of employees and managers. Team members are asked to identify and eliminate waste as part of their daily routine, not just as part of "events" but follow-up by leadership on this practice is inconsistent. Problem solving skills is a required component for leadership roles. | B | 5 Why | CEDAC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Fishbone | Quality at the Source | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Problem Solving - Needs Improvement | People are not encouraged to shine a light on problems, instead they are encouraged to find a way to work around the issue. Typically a myriad of problem solving methods throughout the company, tendency towards temporary containment only with little thought given to the overall process. Problem solving tends to be done by management with inconsistent employee participation. (F) There is no standard or formal problem solving process in the company. | D | Poka-yoke | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | Affinity Analysis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 | Employee Development - Excellent | Employee development a top priority for all levels of leadership. The plant invests resources to ensure leaders and managers practice effective communication and listening skills as well as builds leaders’ and managers’ relationship & coaching skills. Leaders frequently in Gemba coaching and teaching, focused on building capability to see and eliminate waste, solve problems and serve the ultimate customer. Very high levels of trust between employees and leaders. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Describe your plant’s approach to ensure leaders and managers develop people’s talents and capabilities. | Career Paths | Cross-Training | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Benchmark Tours | Skills Development | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Employee Development - On the Journey | Employee development is a stated priority for leadership. Leaders often in Gemba and do some coaching. People are being encouraged to take more responsibility for the work they do, but leaders still make most of the decisions in the Gemba telling employees what to do. Trust levels improving. Employee development includes problem solving skills, team work and facilitation skills to support improvement culture. | B | Lean Certification | TWI | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Train the Trainer Program | Coaching and Training Skills | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Employee Development - Needs Improvement | Training generally targeted only at top performers plus regulatory to all others, minimal coaching from leaders, they tend to act more as bosses. Minimal formal engagement strategies or methods, much reliance on the individual leader's personal style to motivate employees. Trust levels are low. (F) There are no performance reviews or coaching for all employees in the company. | D | Performance Reviews | Succession Planning | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | Catalytic Coaching | Performance Management Techniques | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 | Rewards & Recognition - Excellent | Numerous formal recognition programs in place. Informal recognition is an integral part of culture and is apparent through open and genuine actions. There is focus on celebrating and recognizing small incremental improvements and team growth and development. Recognition programs are clearly tied to performance, cost savings targets do not conflict with lean objectives/practices. Recognition programs are in alignment with lean objectives. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | How do you recognize and reward individuals and teams for contributing to improvement? | Wall of Fame | Employee Idea Systems | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Bucks Achievement Program | Reward and Recognition Programs | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rewards & Recognition - On the Journey | Recognition programs are in place but are a mixture of entitlements and programs that are clearly tied to performance. Some evidence of informal recognition practiced throughout the organization. | B | Suggestion / Improvement Contest | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Gain Sharing Program | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rewards & Recognition - Needs Improvement | Rudimentary reward and recognition programs in place, limited to a few traditional type programs. They have tended to become entitlements which appear to do little in terms of incentivizing passionate employee engagement. (F) Employees are not recognized for their performance. If there are rewards, they have no meaning - entitlement. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Safety and Environmental Health - 50 pts. | 10 | Safety - Excellent | The compliance portion of the safety program is well developed and showing year over year positive results. Continuously improving safety culture (e.g., employee based safety committees, safety improvement programs, safety gemba walks, safety kaizen events, etc.) in place and metrics show year over year positive results. Clear evidence ergonomics (office & operations) are strongly considered in the design of work and workspaces, and "near misses" are consistently mined as opportunities for improvement. The employee base is engaged and shows clear ownership of safety program. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Describe your safety program, including efforts to ensure ergonomic safety:, Describe your system of outlining expectations and follow-up with all plant and site personnel regarding safety:, How are you improving your safety program?, Report your safety record for the past three to five years: | Safety Committee | Rattlesnake Hunts | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Safety Manual | Safety Award Program | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Safety - On the Journey | Compliance safety program is well organized and effective. Some attention has been given to proactive ergonomic improvement in the design of work and workspaces. Near misses are inconsistently captured as an opportunity for improvement. Elements of a continuous improvement safety program are in discussion. Some engagement of employees in defining safe working practices. | B | Safety Audits | Ergonomic Audits | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | EHS - Environmental Health and Safety | Ergonomic Training | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Safety - Needs Improvement | Safety based on compliance to regulations. Safety programs are minimal and measures are compliance based required metrics. (F) Clear examples of poor ergonomics and/or safety problems as you walk through the processes and the compliance metrics reflect this lack of safety focus. Safety manager owns safety and there is little or no employee engagement. | D | Non Negotiable List | Lockout / Tagout Program | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | Safety Plays Bingo | More than Mandatory Training | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 | Energy - Excellent | The company has reduced energy usage in its internal operations and in logistics. Company effectively working toward zero waste to landfills. Company also helps customers, suppliers, and employees to reduce energy usage including commuting and at home. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | What is your impact on the environment? | Enterprise Sustainability | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Lean and Green | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Energy - On the Journey | An initiative to decrease energy use in operations exists. Some evidence is presented showing that operational use of energy is decreasing or that energy usage per unit is decreasing. | B | Solar or Alternative Power Sources | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | ISO 14000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Energy - Needs Improvement | Energy usage or other natural resource usage measures are not decreasing and may be increasing. (F) Energy usage has no clear priority other than as a line item in expenses. |
D | Recycle/Re-use/Returnable programs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 | Carbon Neutral - Excellent | There is significant attention given to environmental programs. Plant is moving toward a carbon neutral position. Alternative sources of energy being measured and tracked (e.g., using a high percentage of energy coming from renewable sources). | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | What is your impact on the environment? | Enterprise Sustainability | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Lean and Green | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Carbon Neutral - On the Journey | Carbon neutral is starting to be discussed and some resources may be being applied to improve energy efficiency and waste streams. The company is decreasing energy from fossil fuels sources. | B | Solar or Alternative Power Sources | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Carbon Neutral - Needs Improvement | Little or no attention is given to reducing carbon footprint and perhaps energy usage or other natural resource usage. If they know at all, energy from fossil fuels is increasing, not decreasing. (F) No attention is given to reducing their carbon footprint. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Operations Improvement - 200 pts. Operations Improvement - 200 pts. Operations Improvement - 200 Operations Improvement - 200 pts. | Waste (Muda) Waste (Muda) Waste (Muda) Waste (Muda) Waste (Muda) | 13 | 8 Waste Reduction - Excellent | Extensive efforts used to make it quick and easy to identify abnormalities. Successfully eliminated overproduction, over processing, wait times, excess motions, defects, etc. Minimal transportation. There is evidence that these systems are reviewed and improved upon regularly. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Muda) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate all forms of waste on the shop floor: | Rattlesnake Hunts | Visual Systems | Webinar: "Introduction to Lean Rattlesnake Hunts" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | 5S Program | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 Waste Reduction - On the Journey | Reasonable efforts used to make it easier to identify abnormalities, but challenges still exist. Meaningful elimination of overproduction, over processing, wait times, excess motions, defects, etc. Reducing transport times. There is evidence that these systems are reviewed and improved upon regularly. | B | Waste Scavenger Hunts | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Golden Ticket Program | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 Waste Reduction - Needs Improvement | Trying to make it easier to identify abnormalities, but efforts still in the early stages. Activities underway to reduce overproduction, over processing, wait times, excess motions, defects and transport times. There is evidence the organization is trying to do this more effectively. (F) Employees do not know what waste is defined as and there are no activities to reduce waste. | D | Spin the Wheel of Waste | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | 8 Wastes Training | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 | On-Time Delivery - Excellent | On-Time Delivery (OTD) is consistently high with zero shipping errors; when problems do arise root cause analysis eliminates them as they occur. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Muda) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate all forms of waste on the shop floor: | Shipping KPI boards in Use | Flow Efficiency Versus Resource Efficiency (Webinar) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Shipping Playbook - Processes Mapped | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| On-Time Delivery - On the Journey | OTD is consistent and at a high level, shipping errors are minimal and are measured and followed up within the quality system in a reasonable time frame. | B | Standard Work in Shipping | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| On-Time Delivery - Needs Improvement | OTD is sporadic or below industry standards of performance; shipping errors exist and don't typically drive root cause problem solving when they occur. (F) Employees are not aware of the companies OTD performance and there is not action to improve. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15 | Quality - Excellent | A clear understanding of "quality at the source" and to never pass a defect to the next operation. Wherever possible, poka-yoke (mistake-proofing) methods have been installed to eliminate errors that could lead to defects. There is a strong focus on process quality as well as product quality. Products are shipped to customers virtually defect free. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Muda) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate all forms of waste on the shop floor: | CTQ - critical to quality - Tree | Quality at the Source | AME Webinar: So You 've Done Lean, but Quality is Still an Issue? Five Proven Solutions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Root Cause / Countermeasure | Poka-Yoke | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Quality - On the Journey | Some movement toward "quality at the source", perhaps by allowing employees to check their own work based on clear "good/no good" standards. Some familiarity with the concept of poka-yoke and a few examples of poka-yoke (mistake-proofing) methods have been put in place to eliminate errors that could lead to defects. Occasional quality issues will arise with final products. | B | FMEA | Jidoka | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | DOE | Andons | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Quality - Needs Improvement | Definition of quality is not consistent between employees and/or departments. Errors and defects are fixed as individual problems with little attention being paid to fixing the overall process. Inspection is considered to be a viable solution to quality problems. (F) Quality is reactive only and clear processes do not exist. | D | Six Sigma | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | Variation Reduction | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 | Raw Material - Excellent | Raw material, kanbans and work-in-process inventories have clear locations, amounts are defined and there is a clear rationale for these levels. Levels are regularly adjusted as customer demands shift. Key inventory measures of success: accuracy, reduction in levels, increased velocity are showing meaningful improvement. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Muda) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate all forms of waste on the shop floor: | Kanban Implementation | PFEP | Webinar: Pull/Kanban Systems | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Point of Use Materials | Lean Supply Chain | Migrating from Batch to Continuous Improvement | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Raw Material - On the Journey | Raw material, kanbans and work-in-process inventories have locations, and at least the planning group can explain the rationale for these levels. Cycle counting is being done not full inventories. | B | Visual Trigger Systems | Pull Systems/Kanban | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Vendor Managed Inventory | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Raw Material - Needs Improvement | No set locations for inventory. People frequently need to look for parts or components. (F) Raw materials are mixed, not identified, and there is no trigger to reorder. | D | Breadman Programs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | DFMA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17 | Finished Goods - Excellent | Finished inventories are well organized and levels are clear at a glance. There is a clear understanding of how much finished inventory is on-hand and why it exists. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Muda) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate all forms of waste on the shop floor: | Kanban Implementation | PFEP | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Visual Trigger Systems | Pull Systems/Kanban | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Finished Goods - On the Journey | Finished goods inventories are fairly well organized although levels still may not be clear at a glance. There is a limited understanding of how much finished inventory is on-hand and why it exists. | B | Supermarkets | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | One Piece Flow | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Finished Goods - Needs Improvement | There have been little or no logical effort to reduce on-hand quantities of finished goods. (F) Some finished goods have been in inventory for greater than 2 years. There is no process to rightsize finished goods. | D | Standard Work-in-Process | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18 | Material Handling - Excellent | Materials and information are delivered in a timely way and easily accessible to people doing the work. Material and information is organized in a manner that reduces stress and strain for operators and allows them to remain primarily focused on value-added work. Clear pull signals exist. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Muda) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate all forms of waste on the shop floor: | Waterspider / Material Handler Roles and Responsibilities | Material Handling Systems | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Bar Coding or Technology in warehousing | Scheduled Delivery Routes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Material Handling - On the Journey | Material and information is somewhat organized in a manner that reduces stress and strain for operators and some attention has been given to developing processes that allow operators to stay focused on value-added work. | B | Point of Use | Lean Supply Chain | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Metrics tracked and improved for downtime due to lack of parts | Pull Production | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Material Handling - Needs Improvement | Material or information pushed to the next operation at the convenience of the delivering department. Little or no consideration given to presenting material or information in a way that meets the next user's needs. (F) Employees stop production to retrieve materials. No material handlers. | D | Visual Systems | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Unevenness (Mura) Unevenness (Mura) Unevenness (Mura) | 19 | Standard Work - Excellent | Standardized work is understood to be the best known way to do a job. Standard work is followed 100% of the time. The organization has an easy to use protocol for improving standard work practices or changing them to meet changes in takt time. Staffing and standardized work is intentionally adjusted as demand changes. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Mura) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate al forms of unevenness, fluctuation and variation on the shop floor | Standard Work vs. Work Standards | Standardized Work methods and tools | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Takt Time | Time Studies | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Standard Work - On the Journey | Some limited application of effective standardized work practices; protocols do not exist to routinely adjust standard work to meet changes in takt time or work flows. | B | Work Balance | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Standard Work - Needs Improvement | Job procedures may exist, but no effective use of standard work to routinely identify and readily use 'best practices' for doing work. Considerable variation between ways different employees do the same job. (F) Standard work does not exist. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20 | Pull Systems - Excellent | Information and materials are pulled through the entire supply chain based on real customer demand. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Mura) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate al forms of unevenness, fluctuation and variation on the shop floor | Visual Trigger Systems | Pull Systems: MTS, MTO and mixed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Kanban | Kanban Systems | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pull Systems - On the Journey | Pull can be seen and some form of kanban used in most areas; continuous improvement of the pull processes are being done. | B | Vending systems or Supplier controlled Supply | PFEP | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pull Systems - Needs Improvement | System is primarily push (still making and moving batches of items), with considerable expediting on a daily basis. (F) No processes in place for triggering pull. Piles of material or lack of material is obvious. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21 | Synchronization - Excellent | Strong system for synchronizing flow of material and information to meet internal and external customer needs. Takt time is used to surface problems immediately when and where they arise. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Mura) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate al forms of unevenness, fluctuation and variation on the shop floor | Project Management | Value Stream Mapping | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Kata | Takt Time | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Synchronization - On the Journey | Steps are being taken to start synchronizing flow of material and information to meet internal and external customer needs in some areas. People in the organization understand and can articulate the role takt time should play in the design of work schedules and staffing levels. | B | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Synchronization - Needs Improvement | Does not use the concept of takt time to set production rate or surface problems. Push systems in place, generally with batch processing practiced. (F) No idea what takt time means with frequent scheduling, interruptions and expedites. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22 | Level Loading - Excellent | A full visual production control system is in place to level, sequence and control production regardless of volume or mix. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Mura) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate al forms of unevenness, fluctuation and variation on the shop floor | Heijunka | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Level Loading | Mixed Model Scheduling | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Level Loading - On the Journey | Initial attempts being made to level workloads for some parts of the operation. | B | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Level Loading - Needs Improvement | Production schedules based on MRP forecast with daily adjustments for orders that need to be expedited. Typically manufacture some products not immediately needed by customers on a daily basis. (F) Level loading does not exist. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 | Maintenance Programs - Excellent | Equipment preventative maintenance programs are highly effective and include operator involvement. Equipment produces a quality product at the required rate, close to 100% of the time. Operational Equipment Efficiency (OEE) used for key equipment to maximize through-put capabilities. Breakdowns and minor/major stoppages are infrequent or non-existent. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Mura) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate al forms of unevenness, fluctuation and variation on the shop floor | TPM - Total Preventative Maintenance | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Autonomous Maintenance | OEE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Maintenance Programs - On the Journey | Equipment preventative maintenance programs are emerging in some areas, and some effort is made to include operator in daily cleaning/checking of equipment. Awareness exist of OEE but it is not actively or consistently used for driving through-put. | B | Visual TPM systems | Help Chain | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Technical Training Program | Andons | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Maintenance Programs - Needs Improvement | Equipment preventative maintenance programs are minimal, most maintenance is focused on addressing current issues/breakdowns. (F) There is no significant involvement by operators in maintenance activities and it is common to "run to failure". | D | TPM checklists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Overburden (Muri) Overburden (Muri) Overburden (Muri) Overburden (Muri) | 24 | Visual Performance Feedback - Excellent | Extensive and meaningful visual controls in place to indicate abnormal situations in real time; quick action response and escalation processes in place to quickly control abnormalities. Employees can easily see through good visual management to identify exceptions. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Muri) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate all forms of Overburdening people and machines on the shop floor: | Visual Management | Visual Systems | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Visual Trigger Systems | Visual Management | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Visual Performance Feedback - On the Journey | Visual controls are in place and starting to capture what is important. Operators are aware of current status based on visual indicators. But the information is inconsistently used to create immediate awareness of issues. | B | +QDIP - Safety, Quality, Delivery, Improvement / Inventory, Productivity | Making Problems Ugly | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Tiered Daily Management | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Visual Performance Feedback - Needs Improvement | Visual boards are posted with traditional metrics. They are not driving behavioral change or immediate corrective actions. Workarounds are still the norm for dealing with issues. (F) Visual boards do not exist to see current conditions. | D | Gemba Management | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25 | Value Streams - Excellent | The value streams have been mapped and are well understood from ideation to cash and information is readily shared across departments. There is very high alignment across the organization to customers served. The plant fosters an understanding of customer expectations within its total workforce. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Muri) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate all forms of Overburdening people and machines on the shop floor: | Value Stream Mapping | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Quality Stream Mapping | Making Material Flow | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Value Streams - On the Journey | Value streams have been mapped and some movement has taken place to have better alignment with key customer groups served. A model line has been established with a clear understanding of the quotation to cash for customers served. Some actions have been taken as a result of the value stream work but most of the organization still operates in a traditional way. | B | Material and Information Diagrams | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Value Streams - Needs Improvement | Some value stream mapping has been done, but operations and external support departments still largely operate in functional silos. Some cooperation/collaboration, but complete alignment across functional responsibility areas is a major challenge. (F) Company has never used value stream mapping. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 26 | 5S - Excellent | 5S has evolved to become part of the culture; it's used to reduce waste. 5S actions focus more on making it easier to see interruptions to flow and identify abnormalities, more so than housekeeping. There is evidence that these systems are reviewed and improved upon regularly. 5S activities are owned and managed by employees who see real benefits in using those practices. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Muri) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate all forms of Overburdening people and machines on the shop floor: | Rattlesnake Hunts | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | 5S Closed Loop System | How to Sustain Your 5S Improvements (Webinar) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5S - On the Journey | Widespread understanding of 5S, though not always sustained; 5S audits are in place. 5S actions focus may still be seen by some employees as having a "good housekeeping" focus as opposed to enhancing productivity. | B | Non Negotiable List | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Sustaining 5S | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5S - Needs Improvement | Some understanding of 5S principles but it is done on an inconsistent basis. It is very hard to visually tell if there is a problem or an abnormality as people are quite busy doing work. (F) Employees have not been trained on 5S and a 5S process does not exist. | D | 5S Checklists and Audits | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27 | Changeover Time - Excellent | Changeover/set-up times allow production of a wide variety of products; setup times less than 10 minutes on all critical pieces of equipment or processes. Approaches to reduce setup times well defined & widely understood. Complex changeovers orchestrated to happen seamlessly. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Muri) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate all forms of Overburdening people and machines on the shop floor: | SMED - Single Minute Exchange of Die | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Quick Change Over | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Changeover Time - On the Journey | Changeover/set-up times have improved, but still take significant time. Complex changeovers not always orchestrated to happen in a timely way (wait time exist). | B | One Touch Exchange of Die | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Changeover Time - Needs Improvement | Changeover/set-up time is still long, some effort has been made to reduce it; implemented changes not always sustained. (F) Changeover time is not tracked but needed. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 28 | Layout for Flow - Excellent | Flow is more than just producing component parts in a single cell, ideally a complete product is manufactured in the cell, ready to go to the customer. Work area layouts promote flow of material and information and minimize transit and other forms of waste. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Muri) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate all forms of Overburdening people and machines on the shop floor: | Lego Layout | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Point of Use Materials | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Layout for Flow - On the Journey | Some changes in work area layouts may have been made to promote flow of material and information and minimize transit and other forms of waste. Work still moves between functional departments with significant batch manufacturing. | B | Spaghetti Charts | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Level Loading Charts | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Layout for Flow - Needs Improvement | Work is largely done by departments arranged by function and/or the entire process is spread throughout the facility. (F) Work area layouts are not arranged to promote flow of material and information and minimize transit and other forms of waste. | D | Bottleneck Visibility | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | 3P | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 29 | Cross-Training - Excellent | Staffing of processes matches team members to the demand. Multi-skilled operators perform work based on standardized work practices that ensure balanced work and an ability to meet customer demand. Associates frequently rotate to keep skills fresh. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Muri) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate all forms of Overburdening people and machines on the shop floor: | Visual Cross-Training Program | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Career Paths | TWI | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cross-Training - On the Journey | A few employees are cross-trained but the practice is not widespread or systematic. Most operators only have the skills to work traditionally (one or two jobs). | B | Career Paths | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Cross-Training Matrices | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cross-Training - Needs Improvement | There is evidence that work is not balanced between operators and/or areas. Workers are specialized within single functional departments and have a limited number of skills they can perform. A few key employees provide some flexibility. (F) There is no record of cross-training, in the system or visually. | D | Employee Development Plans | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | Skills-based pay systems | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Business Operations - 100 pts. | Waste (Muda) | 30 | 8 Waste Reduction - Excellent | Clear understanding of how the classic 8 wastes apply to business support organizations. Support departments (e.g., HR, Finance, Engineering, etc.) successfully eliminated information overproduction, over processing, wait times, excess looking for information, defects - rework, etc. They provide positive support to departments that directly create value for customers. There is evidence that these systems are reviewed and improved upon regularly. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Muda) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate all forms of waste in the front office: | 8 Wastes in the Office training | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | SIPOC for each Department | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 Waste Reduction - On the Journey | Some understanding of how the classic 8 wastes apply to business support organizations. Support departments (e.g. HR, Finance, Engineering, etc.) some efforts at waste elimination mostly focused on improvements within the department, with some cross-functional focus. There is evidence the organization is trying to do this more effectively. | B | Rattlesnake Hunts in the Office | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Same as for production… | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 Waste Reduction - Needs Improvement | No clearly aligned understanding of how the classic 8 wastes apply to business support organizations. Support departments (e.g. HR, Finance, Engineering, etc.) (F) Office employees have not been trained on waste. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 31 | Service Levels - Excellent | Service levels for support department work activities is consistently high with zero errors; when problems do arise root cause analysis eliminates them as they occur. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Muda) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate all forms of waste in the front office: | Elimination of Silos | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Gemba Walks | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Service Levels - On the Journey | Service levels for support department work activities is consistent and at a high level, errors are minimal and are measured and followed up within a quality system in a reasonable time frame. | B | Customer and Supplier Relationship between inter-company departments | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Standard Work | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Service Levels - Needs Improvement | Service levels for support department work activities is not really tracked in a meaningful way, errors exist and don't typically drive root cause problem solving when they occur. (F) No visibility of service errors and no process to improve. | D | Process Mapping | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | Tiered Daily Management | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 32 | Quality - Excellent | A clear understanding of "quality at the source" and to never pass a defect to the next operation. Wherever possible, poka-yoke (mistake-proofing) methods have been installed to eliminate errors that could lead to defects. There is a strong and effective approach on quality of transactions and information flows to make certain the processes yield the right information at the right time. Department outputs are delivered virtually defect free. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Muda) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate all forms of waste in the front office: | FMEA | Statistical Control | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Quality at the Source | Plan - Do - Check - Act | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Quality - On the Journey | Some movement toward "quality at the source", perhaps by allowing employees to check their own work based on clear "good/no good" standards. Some familiarity with the concept of poka-yoke and a few examples of poka-yoke (mistake-proofing) methods have been put in place to eliminate errors that could lead to defects. Occasional quality issues will arise with deliverables. | B | ISO Integration with LEAN | A3 Closed Loop System | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Quality Alert System | Visual Work Instructions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Quality - Needs Improvement | Definition of quality is not consistent between employees and/or departments. Errors and defects are fixed as individual problems with little attention being paid to fixing the overall process. (F) Office employees have no definition of quality for their work. Continuous errors and rework. | D | Process Focused improvement | Never Check your own Work | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | Six Sigma | Cause and Effect Diagrams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Unevenness (Mura) Unevenness (Mura) | 33 | Information Synchronization - Excellent | Highly effective and synchronized flow of information that ensures key cross-functional areas (engineering, purchasing, sales, operations, etc.) of the organization are in alignment on a daily basis to meet internal and external customer demand. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Mura) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate al forms of unevenness, fluctuation and variation in the front office: | Visual and Virtual Management | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Abnormal vs. Normal ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Information Synchronization - On the Journey | Steps are being taken to start synchronizing flow of information to meet internal and external customer needs in some areas. There is some collaboration between departments but the organization still largely operates in silos relative to information flows. |
B | Process Stability | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Gemba Walks | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Information Synchronization - Needs Improvement | Information systems are primarily push based monthly/quarterly forecasts. Insufficient consideration given to impact one department's needs has on other departments. (F) Individual departments in the office are silo based with no understanding of how they affect internal or external customers. | D | Agile Software Development | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | Tiered Daily Management | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 34 | Level Loading - Excellent | Support departments (sales, customer service, engineering, etc.) highly effective at leveling workloads to match work capacity to demand. Extensive collaboration to avoid overburdening support staff and operations. Organization effectively avoids creation of uneven work flows on a daily basis and avoids month or quarter end surges in demand. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Mura) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate al forms of unevenness, fluctuation and variation in the front office: | Gemba Walks | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Level Loading | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Level Loading - On the Journey | Leaders in the organization understand importance of better aligning work schedules, staffing and internal, external customer demand, but coordination between operations, sales, engineering and other related groups is not always well coordinated. | B | Bottleneck Visibility | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Heijunka | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Level Loading - Needs Improvement | Capacity assumed to be infinite with little consideration given to level loading work within or between departments. Work schedules frequently adjusted to accommodate last minute expedites. Monthly or quarterly surges in demand a normal occurrence. (F) Overtime is a major problem for the company but only seen by employees as the process. No action is taken to reduce overtime or expedites. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 35 | Standard Work - Excellent | Standardized work is understood to be the best known way to do a job. Standard work is followed 100% of the time. The organization has an easy to use protocol for improving standard work practices. Staffing and standardized work is intentionally adjusted as demand changes. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Mura) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate al forms of unevenness, fluctuation and variation in the front office: | Process Mapping | Standardized Work | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Playbooks | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Standard Work - On the Journey | Some limited application of effective standardized work practices; protocols do not exist to routinely adjust standard work to meet changes in demand or work flows. | B | Leader Standard Work | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Roles and Responsibilities | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Standard Work - Needs Improvement | Job procedures may exist, but no effective use of standard work to routinely identify and readily use 'best practices' for doing work. Considerable variation between ways different employees do the same job with each employee individually deciding how to best do the work based on their training. (F) Office employees have no standard work, process maps, or work instructions. Individual head knowledge only. | D | SIPOC of your Job | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | TPI - Transactional Process Improvement | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 36 | Visual Performance Feedback - Excellent | Extensive and meaningful visual controls in place to indicate abnormal situations in real time; quick action response and effective escalation processes in place to quickly control abnormalities and identify root cause performance issues (e.g. relative to information flows, accuracy, timeliness, etc.). | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Mura) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate al forms of unevenness, fluctuation and variation in the front office: | Visual Triggers in the Office | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Key Performance Indicator Boards | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Visual Performance Feedback - On the Journey | Visual controls are in place and starting to capture what is important. People are aware of current status based on visual indicators. But the information is inconsistently used; typically need to wait until time is available to address issues. | B | Pipeline Visibility in Sales, HR, Etc. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Help Chain | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Visual Performance Feedback - Needs Improvement | Visual boards are posted with traditional metrics. They are not driving behavioral change or immediate corrective actions. Workarounds are still the norm for dealing with issues. (F) No visual boards for the office. No measures of performance tracked or monitored. | D | Tiered Daily Management | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | Andons | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 37 | Value Streams - Excellent | Managing by clearly identified value streams with end to end metrics, and possibly value stream managers. Value streams are well understood from ideation to cash and information is readily shared across departments. There is very high alignment across the organization to customers served. The plant fosters an understanding of customer expectations within its total workforce. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Mura) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate al forms of unevenness, fluctuation and variation in the front office: | Value Stream Map Training and Systems | AME Webinar: Value Stream Mapping for Office and Service | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Quality Stream Mapping | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Value Streams - On the Journey | Key business processes mapped with implemented future states based on key lean principles. Some movement has taken place to have better alignment with key customer groups served. Some actions have been taken as a result of the value stream work but most of the organization still operates in a traditional way. | B | Process Mapping | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Internal Customer/Supplier Agreements | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Value Streams - Needs Improvement | Some value stream maps created for key business processes with implemented future states. But operations and external support departments still largely operate in functional silos. Some cooperation/collaboration, but complete alignment across functional responsibility areas is still a challenge. (F) No value streams exist. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Overburden (Muri) | 38 | 5S - Excellent | 5S has evolved to become part of the culture; it's used to reduce waste. 5S actions focus more on making it easier to see interruptions to flow and identify abnormalities, more so than housekeeping. There is evidence that these systems are reviewed and improved upon regularly. 5S activities are owned and managed by employees who see real benefits in using those practices. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Muri) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate all forms of Overburdening people and machines in the front office: | Rattlesnake Hunts in the Office | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | 5S in the Office | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5S - On the Journey | Widespread understanding of 5S, though not always sustained; 5S audits are in place. 5S actions focus may still be seen by some employees as having a "good housekeeping" focus as opposed to enhancing productivity. | B | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5S - Needs Improvement | Some understanding of 5S principles but it is done on an inconsistent basis. It is very hard to visually tell if there is a problem or an abnormality as people are quite busy doing work. (F) No understanding of 5S in the office. No 5S process. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 39 | Layout for Flow - Excellent | Work area layouts promote seamless flow and foster an environment of collaboration between people. Information flows are more than just producing information in a single department. Other departments' need for information timeliness, format and ease of use are taken into account. Little time spent searching for 'right' information. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Muri) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate all forms of Overburdening people and machines in the front office: | Pipeline of Work Visibility and Triggers | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Capacity visibility in the office | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Layout for Flow - On the Journey | Some changes in work area layouts may have been made to promote information flows and minimize transit and other forms of waste. Work still moves between functional departments with significant batching of information. Attempts underway to take into account other work groups needs for timeliness, format and ease of use. Information being made easier to find. | B | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Layout for Flow - Needs Improvement | Work is largely done by departments arranged by function and/or the entire process is spread throughout the facility. (F) Work area layouts are not arranged to promote flow of information and minimize search time and other forms of waste. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 40 | Cross-Training - Excellent | Staffing of processes matches needed team members to the demand. Multi-skilled operators are performing work based on standardized work practices that ensure balanced work and ability to meet customer demand. Associates frequently rotate to keep skills fresh. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | (Muri) Describe all efforts to identify and eliminate all forms of Overburdening people and machines in the front office: | Cross-Training in the Office | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Playbooks for each Job and Department | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cross-Training - On the Journey | A few employees are cross-trained but the practice is not widespread or systematic. Most operators only have the skills to work traditionally (one or two jobs). Work procedures may be in place and be mistaken for "standardized work". | B | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cross-Training - Needs Improvement | There is evidence that work is not balanced between operators and/or areas. Workers are specialized within single functional departments and have a limited number of skills they can perform. A few key employees provide some flexibility. (F) High risk if someone is absent. No cross-training or written standards. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Extended Value Stream Management - 150 pts. | Product Development - 75 pts. | 41 | Design Internal - Excellent | Key stakeholders are clearly identified and their requirements are considered in the product and/or process design cycle. Design cycle time improvement is a key metric. The various functional groups involved in designing, procuring, making, and selling new products actively talk to one another early in the cycle, and actively collaborate throughout the complete cycle of getting a new product/process ready for implementation. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | What innovative processes are followed to meet customer expectations?, How do you foster an understanding of customer expectations within your total workforce? | Phase gate Pipeline visibility | 3P Product Design: Innovating with Lean Tools (Webinar) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Voice of the Customer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Design Internal - On the Journey | Key stakeholders are identified and considered in the product and/or process design cycle to some degree. Leaders are aware of design cycle time, it focuses more on the design portion of the process vs. rather than a 'total cost' perspective. The various functional groups involved in designing, procuring, making, and selling new products talk to one another early in the cycle, but coordination/collaboration is somewhat uneven and fluctuates. | B | Lean PDS - Product Delivery System | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Minimum Viable Product | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Design Internal - Needs Improvement | Product and/or process design cycle is long and very linear with limited identification of stakeholder requirements. One department does their work and then they hand off the design information and decisions made to the next department. (F) There is not new product development visibility across departments. No ownership evident. | D | Target Costing | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | DFMA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 42 | Design External - Excellent | Specific processes are in place to pursue breakthrough innovations vs. just incremental improvements. Both customer and supplier involvement is a requirement for product and service development. Customers and suppliers are welcome and are frequent active participants in the design process. A deep and meaningful understanding of the voice of the customer, it's a key driver throughout product and process design efforts. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | What processes do you have in place at the highest level to foster breakthrough solutions vs. incremental improvement to meet and/or stay ahead of customer expectations? What innovative processes are followed to reduce costs and increase value to the customer?, What do you do in your new product development process to minimize total cost?, What is your approach to benchmarking? | Design Kaizen with Suppliers | Agile Software Development | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Design Kaizen with Customers | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Design External - On the Journey | Innovation activities primarily focused on incremental improvements. Involvement of customers and suppliers has been initiated and they have some role in the design process. Product and service design teams are clear that the voice of the customer should be a key driver throughout product and process design and development efforts, though this goal is not fully realized yet. Supplier involvement is somewhat 'ad hoc.' | B | Voice of the Customer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | DMAIC - (Define - Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Design External - Needs Improvement | Customers and suppliers are not normally participants in the design process and a validated voice of the customer is not a big consideration in the product and process design and development efforts. (F) External design is only based on internal understanding. There is no process for voice of the customer or supplier. | D | Minimum Viable Product | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | Rapid Experimentation Practices | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 43 | Design Tools - Excellent | There is routine use of time reduction and quality verification tools; such as quality function deployment (QFD), design for manufacturing and assembly (DFMA), variety reduction, use of common parts, modularity, benchmarking, cross functional/co-located design teams, etc.; where appropriate to help minimize total product cost and reduce time to market. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | How do you focus on variety reduction, commonality and modularity? | DFMA - Design for Manufacturing Analysis | Rapid Prototyping | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | FMEA - Failure Mode Effect Analysis | Try storming | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Design Tools - On the Journey | There is growing use of or experimentation with tools such as QFD, DFMA, variety reduction, use of common parts, modularity, benchmarking, cross functional/co-located design teams, etc. and the connection between these techniques and the ability to cut total product cost and reduce time to market is recognized. | B | QFD - Quality Function Deployment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Elimination of Waste in Design | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Design Tools - Needs Improvement | Product and process design teams are not familiar with or are not using tools such as QFD, DFMA, variety reduction, use of common parts, modularity, benchmarking, cross functional/co-located design teams, etc. to help minimize total product cost and reduce time to market. Designs are largely based on inputs from sales and engineering expertise. (F) No standard design tools exist for development. | D | Voice of the Customer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | Key Performance Indicators in Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Supplier Development & Procurement - 75 pts. | 44 | Suppliers - Excellent | Supply decisions are made on the basis of total customer cost and there is evidence of strong and consistent supplier partnering involving all functions in the organization. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | How do you partner with your suppliers to minimize total cost to your value stream? | Supplier Scorecards | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Supplier Audits and Assessments | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Suppliers - On the Journey | Rationale for supply decisions are starting to change to move toward the concept of total customer cost as opposed to a focus on lowest piece price, and there is more emphasis starting to be placed on supplier partnering within the organization. | B | Key Supplier List and metrics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Preferred Supplier Rating Program | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Suppliers - Needs Improvement | Supply decisions are made on the basis of part cost and there might be evidence of adversarial relationships with suppliers. (F) No processes or standards exist for purchasing or for supplier management. | D | Pull with Suppliers | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | Total Cost of Ownership | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 45 | Supplier Improvement - Excellent | Efforts are made to help suppliers improve their processes and joint problem-solving efforts or improvement teams are common. Supplier metrics are in place as performance gauges and results are utilized to create shared improvement efforts. Evidence of favorable impact from joint improvement efforts is regularly reviewed. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | What is your focus regarding supplier certification?, What is your supplier focus for continuous improvement to improve business results?, What are your processes to achieve perfection in product and supplier management? | Supplier Development | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Kaizen with Suppliers | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Supplier Improvement - On the Journey | There are examples of joint process improvement activities between customers and suppliers and the efforts are expanding beyond purchasing to include other functions in the organization. Supplier metrics, although somewhat traditional, are in place and shared with supplier regularly in order to impact on supplier quality, cost and delivery outcomes. | B | A3's with Suppliers | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Corrective Action Systems | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Supplier Improvement - Needs Improvement | There is little or no feedback or information sharing with suppliers other than quality or delivery issues. Supplier delivery and quality results are tracked but no formal processes exist for collaborative improvement actions. Normal practice is to have multiple suppliers for the same part and to engage in pressuring of suppliers to outbid one another. (F) There are no measures of supplier performance and no processes for helping suppliers improve. | D | Quality at the Source | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 46 | Pull-Based Systems - Excellent | Pull-based systems have been extended to suppliers and there is evidence of working with suppliers to streamline the flow of material and information between the organization and its suppliers. Customer demand information is directly shared with suppliers and there is an integrated supply chain from customer to supplier. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | What innovative processes are being used to improve market service and logistics? | Supplier Kanban | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Supplier Visual trigger Systems | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pull-Based Systems - On the Journey | Some experimentation with pull-based systems with suppliers may have occurred and those in management roles in the procurement and planning areas understand the need to improve the flow of material and information between the organization and its suppliers. | B | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pull-Based Systems - Needs Improvement | Expedites and reschedules with suppliers are common and ordering is largely based on forecast or material requirements planning (MRP) / enterprise resource planning (ERP). (F) There are no pull-based systems in place with suppliers. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plant Results – 200 pts. | Quality Focus - 50 pts. | 47 | Scrap - Excellent | Internal first pass yields are very good, and scrap levels are very minimal (low). Both of these measures show meaningful improvement year over year. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Scrap and/or yield rates (Planned vs. Unplanned) | Visual Recycling Program | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Visual Scrap Reduction Program | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Scrap - On the Journey | Internal first pass yields are pretty good, and scrap levels are at fairly good and both these measures show some improvement year over year. | B | Variation Reduction | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Jidoka | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Scrap - Needs Improvement | Internal first pass yields and scrap levels are sporadic. (F) Internal first pass yields and scrap levels are very low or not measured. | D | Poka-Yoke | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 48 | Customer Loyalty - Excellent | There is a pro-active effort to understand customer requirements and this information is communicated widely to employees. Customer loyalty metrics like Net Promoter Score or some other meaningful indicators are actively used to surface and address issues. Customer loyalty is at a very high level and increasing on a year-to-year basis. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Customer rejects annually (PPM)or appropriate industry measurement | Key Customer Metrics | Sales Playbook | The Role of Sales in a Lean Enterprise (Webinar) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Value in the Eyes of the Customers | Customer Profiles | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Customer Loyalty - On the Journey | There are some programs in place to ensure the organization understands customer requirements and to communicate them to employees, but the linkages between requirements and day-to-day decision making is not always clear. Customer satisfaction measures get used but it is not clear how they impact decision making or improvement actions. | B | Customer Awards Received | Sales Key Performance Indicators | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Defined Critical Customer Criteria | Leading and Lagging Indicators | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Customer Loyalty - Needs Improvement | There is little or no formal analytical effort to understand customer requirements. Surveys might measure customer satisfaction but the information does not appear to drive key decision making or improvement actions. (F) There is no process in place to measure customer satisfaction and complaints are extreme. | D | Customer Surveys | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | Stakeholder Analysis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 49 | Quality Results - Excellent | Processes are in place to discover the 'root causes' of quality issues. Corrective actions almost always take care of problems in a timely way. Quality is at or positively beyond Six Sigma levels of performance. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Other appropriate quality related measures that would support the achievement of your Policy Deployment Plan | A3 Program | Fishbone / Ishikawa Diagrams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Poka-Yoke | 5W's and 1H | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Quality Results - On the Journey | Processes are in place to discover why quality is poor and to identify corrective actions for improvement, but results are somewhat inconsistent. Trends show year-to-year improvement. | B | Quality Stream Mapping | PDCA-based problem solving | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Critical to Quality Criteria | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Quality Results - Needs Improvement | Quality issues get addressed as an individual problem. Quality inconsistent from year-to-year. (F) No focus on fixing the process or consistent application of 'root cause' analysis. | D | Quality Manual | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | 5 Why | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 50 | Warranty - Excellent | Customer rejects are virtually non-existent. Customer rejects are very low and have been declining year over year unless already at zero. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Other appropriate quality related measures that would support the achievement of your Policy Deployment Plan | Customer Scorecards | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Kaizen with Customers | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Warranty - On the Journey | Customer rejects are at a reasonable level and there has been a pattern of some improvement year over year. | B | Preferred Supplier Awards | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Stakeholder Analysis | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Warranty - Needs Improvement | Customer rejects are addressed as an individual problem. (F) Rejects do not get analyzed in a meaningful way to solve recurring problems or to address process improvement actions. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cost - 50 pts. | 51 | Value Added/Employee - Excellent | Value added per employee is very high and shows year over year improvement. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Value added per associate or employee (Sales minus purchased materials divided by total headcount) | Productivity Metrics | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Elimination of the Culture Killer called Layoffs by Driving Sales growth | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Value Added/Employee - On the Journey | Value added per employee is very good and shows some year over year improvement. | B | Lean Accounting | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Value Added/Employee - Needs Improvement | Value added per employee is poor and shows a flat or declining trend. (F) There is no measurement of value added per employee. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 52 | Inventory Turns – Excellent | Days on hand of inventory is very low and inventory turnover numbers are among the very best in the industry. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Inventory turns - raw, work in process and finished as appropriate: | Trend Chart showing Inventory Turns | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Creation of Flow through the Value Stream | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Inventory Turns – On the Journey | Days on hand of inventory is at least equal to industry average, and inventory turnover numbers are trending upward each year. | B | Lean Accounting | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Inventory Turns – Needs Improvement | Days on hand of inventory is high and inventory turnover numbers are among the lowest in the industry. (F) There is no process to measure and understand the amount of inventory on hand or inventory turns. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 53 | Capacity Management – Excellent | Continuous improvement is generally considered before adding new plant or equipment. Capacity is added in small chunks. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Other appropriate cost related measures that would support the achievement of your Policy Deployment Plan: | ROI - Return on Investment accomplishments | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Capacity Management – On the Journey | Continuous improvement is frequently considered before adding new plant or equipment, although capacity may still be added in good size chunks when needed. | B | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Capacity Management – Needs Improvement | Current needs are considered and calculated but capacity is added in big chunks and space needs are generally always expanding. (F) Continuous improvement is not considered before adding new plant or equipment or staff. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Delivery - 50 pts. | 54 | On-Time and Complete Delivery – Excellent | OTD (on-time delivery) is very high and has shown year over year improvement unless at 100%. On-time metrics are based on customer request dates. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Percent on-time and complete shipments | Customer Satisfaction metrics | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| On-Time and Complete Delivery – On the Journey | OTD is very good and has shown some year over year improvement. Measures for OTD have evolved from "promised date" to "customer request date." | B | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| On-Time and Complete Delivery – Needs Improvement | OTD is poor or declining year over year. Measures for OTD are based on "promised date". (F) It is seen as acceptable to schedule work at the convenience of the plant's processes. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 55 | Lead Time – Excellent | There is evidence that order lead times have been dropping year over year. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Other appropriate delivery related measures that would support the achievement of the Policy Deployment Plan | Lead Time tracking and Improvement using Value Stream Mapping | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Lead Time – On the Journey | There is some evidence that order lead times have improved (less time) in the past couple of years. | B | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Lead Time – Needs Improvement | There is evidence that order lead times have been staying the same or taking more time year over year. (F) There is no process to track, update or improve lead times. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 56 | Premium Freight – Excellent | Costs for premium freight, inbound or outbound, are low and have been declining year over year unless at zero. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Premium freight costs, including incoming raw material or finished goods shipment (premium freight is abnormal freight to meet customer demand | Elimination of the waste (Expedite) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Customer pull vs. push | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Premium Freight – On the Journey | Costs for premium freight, inbound or outbound, are average or better, and there has been some decline in these costs year over year. | B | Lean Logistics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Premium Freight – Needs Improvement | Costs for premium freight, inbound or outbound, are significant and have been flat or trending up year over year. (F) There is no process to evaluate and improve freight costs. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 57 | Parts Shortages – Excellent | Parts shortages and/or stock outs are infrequent or non-existent and related measures show year over year improvement unless zero. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Other appropriate delivery related measures that would support the achievement of the Policy Deployment Plan | Continuous Flow | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Kanban at the Lowest levels possible | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Parts Shortages – On the Journey | Parts shortages and/or stock outs are seen as a problem and there has been some improvement in any related measures year over year. | B | Elimination of downtime due to Part Shortages | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Pull-based replenishment systems | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Parts Shortages – Needs Improvement | Parts shortages and/or stock outs are frequent and expediting and hot lists are common. (F) There is no focus or process to improve parts shortages. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Profitability - 50 pts. | 58 | EBIT – Excellent | EBIT is increasing year over year and is at a level that exceeds industry average. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) profitability or other appropriate measures to document plant profitability. | Lean Accounting | Lean Accounting Principles, Practices and Tools (Webinar) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Capacity management | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| EBIT – On the Journey | EBIT is reasonable for the industry, and perhaps there has been some small increase in the past couple of years. | B | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| EBIT – Needs Improvement | EBIT is flat year over year and generally at a level that is below industry average. (F) EBIT is decreasing year over year. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 59 | Operating Income – Excellent | Operating income on manufacturing assets is very high and trending upward year over year. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Operating income on manufacturing assets ration | Accounting Metrics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Capacity Management | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Operating Income – On the Journey | Operating income on manufacturing assets is pretty good, with some trending upward in the past couple of years. | B | Lean Accounting | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Operating Income – Needs Improvement | Operating income on manufacturing assets is flat year over year. (F) Operating income on manufacturing assets is trending downward year over year. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 60 | Market Share – Excellent | Generally, market share is growing and sales are increasing. | A+ | Show/ Explain Proof | A | Other appropriate profitability-related measures that would support the achievement of your policy deployment plan. | Market Analysis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | Customer Profiles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Market Share – On the Journey | Generally, market share is being maintained or growing at least slightly, and sales are stable or on the increase. | B | Value Streams in Sales | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | Show / Explain Gaps | Voice of the Customer | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Market Share – Needs Improvement | Market share is stagnant and sales are flat. (F) Market share is declining and sales are decreasing or the company has no concept of their market share relative to their relevant territories. | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Lean Sensei® Report Card | Weighted per Actual Audit Points for AME Award | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sections and Sub Categories | Possible | Actual | Letter Grade % | Section Grade | Muliplier | Possible Weighted Points | Your Actual Weighted Points | ||||||||||||||||||
| Management System | 20 | 16 | 80 | A | 7.5 | 150 | 120 | 0-16=F | |||||||||||||||||
| o | Policy Deployment | 5 | 4 | A | 17-33 = D | ||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Management System Reporting | 5 | 4 | A | 34-50 =C | ||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Leader Standard Work | 5 | 4 | A | 51-67 = B | ||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Continuous Improvement | 5 | 4 | A | 68-85 = A | ||||||||||||||||||||
| People Centric Leadership | 25 | 20 | 80 | A | 6 | 150 | 120 | 86-100 =A+ | |||||||||||||||||
| o | Respect for Team Members | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Morale | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Problem Solving | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Employee Development | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Rewards and Recognition | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Safety and Environmental Health | 15 | 12 | 80 | A | 3.3335 | 50 | 40 | ||||||||||||||||||
| o | Safety | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Energy | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Carbon Neutral | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Operations Improvement | 85 | 68 | 80 | A | 2.353 | 200 | 160 | ||||||||||||||||||
| o | Waste Reduction | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | On Time Delivery | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Quality | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Raw Materials | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Finished Goods | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Material Handling | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Standard Work | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Pull Systems | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Synchronization | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Level Loading | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Maintenance Programs | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Visual Performance | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Value Streams | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | 5S | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Change Over | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Layout for Flow | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Cross Training | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Business Operations (in the Office) | 55 | 44 | 80 | A | 1.8182 | 100 | 80 | ||||||||||||||||||
| o | Waste Reduction | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Service Levels | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Quality | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Information Synchronization | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Level Loading | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Standard Work | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Visual Performance | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Value Streams | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | 5S | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Layout for Flow | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Cross Training | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Product Development | 15 | 12 | 80 | A | 5 | 75 | 60 | ||||||||||||||||||
| o | Design Internal | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Design External | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Design Tools | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Supplier Development and Procurement | 15 | 12 | 80 | A | 5 | 75 | 60 | ||||||||||||||||||
| o | Supplier Decisions | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Supplier Improvement | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Pull Based Systems | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Quality Focus | 20 | 16 | 80 | A | 2.5 | 50 | 40 | ||||||||||||||||||
| o | Scrap | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Customer Loyalty | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Customer Results | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Warranty | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Cost | 15 | 12 | 80 | A | 3.3335 | 50 | 40 | ||||||||||||||||||
| o | Value Add / Employee | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Inventory Turns | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Capacity Management | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Delivery | 20 | 16 | 80 | A | 2.5 | 50 | 40 | ||||||||||||||||||
| o | On Time and Complete | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Lead Time | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Premium Freight | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Parts Shortages | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Profitability | 15 | 12 | 80 | A | 3.3335 | 50 | 40 | ||||||||||||||||||
| o | EBIT | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Operating Income | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| o | Market Share | 5 | 4 | A | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Totals | 300 | 240 | 80 | A | Totals | 1000 | 800 | ||||||||||||||||||
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
