Fictitious management example · no real company or purchased report.
Confidential internal report preview · purchase not enabled
Production & Operations Executive Management Report
Assessment 00000000-0000-4000-8000-000000000000 · 2026-09-24 12:00:00 UTC · model 1.0.0
Executive Management Summary
Overall maturity 2.80 / 5 · Developing. The score is based on 40 valid self-assessments out of 40 core questions, with industry weights. It is a structured management hypothesis, not an external benchmark or a financial forecast.
No distinct weakness ranking: all assessed dimensions have the same mean score. The two investigation areas below follow industry weight only. This does not establish greater damage or causation in either area; validate them with operational evidence.
Scope, context and limits
Industrial Manufacturing · Hybrid · selected product-family strategy: Make-to-Order. Revenue €100–500m · employees 500–1.999 · sites 2–5 · respondent COO / Operations. Context informs the scale and perspective of validation; it grants neither a maturity bonus nor a penalty.
Management dashboard
| Dimension | Score | Industry weight | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Production strategy and operating model | 2.80 | 12% | Developing |
| Production planning and order control | 2.80 | 14% | Developing |
| Capacity, constraints and throughput | 2.80 | 18% | Developing |
| Material flow, WIP and lead time | 2.80 | 15% | Developing |
| OEE, maintenance and technical stability | 2.80 | 12% | Developing |
| Quality, scrap and process capability | 2.80 | 11% | Developing |
| Shopfloor management, KPIs and problem solving | 2.80 | 11% | Developing |
| Organization, skills and continuous improvement | 2.80 | 7% | Developing |
Priority diagnosis
These are investigation assignments. For each, the operational owner should confirm the product family, evidence window, current bottleneck and customer effect before committing resources.
| Order | Hypothesis to validate | Decision-ready evidence | Initial horizon |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Capacity, constraints and throughput | Confirm the constraint by product family using good output, effective hours and lost minutes; review buffer and mix. | Shift-level constraint log, good output and a loss Pareto. | First 30 days |
| 2. Material flow, WIP and lead time | Capture WIP by process stage, age, due date and value; distinguish processing from waiting. | WIP aging list, lead-time distribution and approved buffer rules. | First 30 days |
| 3. Production planning and order control | Reconcile weekly demand, material readiness and finite hours; classify rush orders and plan breaks by cause. | Release list, plan versions and decisions explaining every significant change. | Days 30–90 |
| 4. Production strategy and operating model | Map customer commitments and product-family targets; document decisions when delivery, utilization, quality and working capital conflict. | Approved segment targets, recorded trade-off decisions and evaluated alternatives. | Days 30–90 |
| 5. OEE, maintenance and technical stability | Verify the equipment time base, downtime reasons and critical spares; prioritize losses at the scarce resource. | Agreed time base, downtime Pareto and evidence that fixes held. | Days 30–90 |
Recognized management patterns
- Planning overloads the constraint — hypothesis from answers; confirm against plant data.
Warning signs
- Order release without adequate checks (question 8) — assign an owner and operational evidence within 30 days.
Business-model deep dive · Make-to-Order
These eight questions address the product family or order flow selected in the assessment. Module version 1.0.0 · 2.75 / 5 · 8 valid answers. This module does not change the core score or create an external benchmark.
| Strategy question | Response | Specific verification |
|---|---|---|
| M1. A customer order is accepted only with confirmed constraint capacity and a credible delivery date. | 3 / 5 | Partly established: check coverage and the standard. Evidence example: The promised date reflects available hours, product mix and existing order commitments. |
| M2. Production starts only when material, routing, tooling and approvals are ready. | 2 / 5 | Low rating: prioritize verification in the pilot. Evidence example: Components, drawings, inspection plan and a constraint slot are all available before work begins. |
| M3. Sequence and lot size account for the promised date and losses at the scarce resource. | 3 / 5 | Partly established: check coverage and the standard. Evidence example: A rush order receives an earlier slot only after approval and documentation of the displaced order. |
| M4. Open orders and WIP are managed by due date, age and customer impact. | 2 / 5 | Low rating: prioritize verification in the pilot. Evidence example: A blocked order appears in the daily review with its cause, owner and revised date. |
| M5. Customer changes are approved after assessing capacity, material, cost and schedule effects. | 4 / 5 | Positive rating: confirm using actual transactions. Evidence example: A changed specification alters the confirmed delivery date only after capacity is checked again. |
| M6. Quality and acceptance steps are included in the promised lead time. | 3 / 5 | Partly established: check coverage and the standard. Evidence example: Final inspection has a reserved slot in the delivery plan and creates no unplanned queue. |
| M7. Foreseeable late deliveries trigger a prioritized decision in time to act. | 2 / 5 | Low rating: prioritize verification in the pilot. Evidence example: Planning and sales agree on an alternative and customer communication before the due date. |
| M8. Delivery to the confirmed date is reviewed together with WIP, constraint throughput and margin. | 3 / 5 | Partly established: check coverage and the standard. Evidence example: Higher output counts only when customer orders are delivered on time and economically. |
Cross-site footprint
Separate score 2.50 / 5 from 2 valid responses. This module applies only where multiple sites were selected.
| Site question | Response | Operational example |
|---|---|---|
| S1. Capacity and constraints are allocated across plants or sites using demand, material and transport lead time. | 3 / 5 | An order moves to a second plant only if material, free constraint hours and the transport date all fit. |
| S2. Cross-site WIP and transfers are visible with their waiting time, value and delivery effect. | 2 / 5 | A transfer does not merely lower WIP at the first plant while the same order remains blocked elsewhere. |
Management decision: Pilot one or two low-rated topics on a traceable customer order or product family. Name the owner, baseline and effectiveness date. If scores are uniformly high, validate the data before claiming improvement.
Constraint, throughput and KPI framework
Identify the genuinely scarce resource for each relevant product family and planning period. Confirm it using good output, effective hours, lost minutes, mix, queued work and downstream restrictions. Protect its work with material, tools, qualified operators, quality releases and a deliberately sized upstream buffer. A better OEE figure at a non-constrained machine does not establish more good output to customers.
| KPI | Management question / definition | Owner | Cadence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Good constraint output | Good, usable units of the required mix per effective constraint hour | Production | Shift / day |
| Lost constraint minutes | Where is scarce capacity actually lost, and which cause is actionable? | Production / Engineering | Shift / day |
| Constraint schedule adherence | Is the agreed sequence delivered without unapproved rush orders? | Planning | Daily |
| Buffer before constraint | Is protection adequate without excessive WIP? | Production / Logistics | Shift |
| Lead time and WIP age | How much time is processing, waiting, inspection or release? | Operations | Weekly |
| OTIF to confirmed date | Does the benefit reach the promised customer order? | Supply Chain | Weekly |
| First pass yield | How much output is usable without rework? | Quality | Shift / week |
| OEE components | Which availability, speed and quality losses affect relevant equipment? | Production / Engineering | Shift / week |
| WIP value | How much capital is tied up in the flow? | Operations / Finance | Week / month |
Agree the time base, denominator, exclusions, product mix, source and owner before setting targets. Review process losses by shift, service and flow weekly, and Finance-approved benefit monthly. When the constraint moves, confirm the new measurement point and annotate the time series.
30/60/90-day implementation plan
Mandate and sequence: first validate Capacity, constraints and throughput and Material flow, WIP and lead time. This ordering follows industry weights because all assessed dimension means are equal. The CEO or COO appoints a result owner, an operational lead and a Finance partner before work starts. Targets follow the verified baseline; a score change alone is not an achieved result.
Days 1–30 · diagnose and stabilize
| When | Work package | Acceptance evidence | Lead |
|---|---|---|---|
| Days 1–5 | Define pilot product families, constrained resource and confirmed customer dates; secure shift, order and quality data. | Agreed pilot boundary, mix, data extracts and gaps | Plant management / Planning |
| Days 1–10 | Define good output, OTIF, FPY, schedule adherence, WIP age and value with consistent filters. | KPI sheet with source, owner, exclusions and baseline window | Controlling / Operations |
| Days 5–15 | Trace order flow from release to shipment and split processing, loss, waiting and hold time. | Value-stream and constraint hypotheses with testable causes | Production / Logistics |
| Days 10–25 | Confirm the constraint by product family using good output, effective hours and lost minutes; review buffer and mix. | Shift-level constraint log, good output and a loss Pareto. | Production / Industrial engineering |
| Days 10–25 | Capture WIP by process stage, age, due date and value; distinguish processing from waiting. | WIP aging list, lead-time distribution and approved buffer rules. | Operations / Intralogistics |
| Days 20–30 | Launch three prioritized countermeasures at the daily board; escalate safety and customer risks separately. | Action register, staffing needs and first before/after reading | Plant management |
Gate 30: Plant management and Finance approve definitions, data coverage, actual constraint by product family, the loss Pareto, scope and owners. If data are inadequate, repair measurement before estimating savings.
Days 31–60 · pilot and remove causes
| When | Work package | Acceptance evidence | Lead |
|---|---|---|---|
| Days 31–40 | Pilot finite weekly planning and daily release, checking material, people, tools and quality status. | Release checklist, plan versions and recorded exceptions | Planning / Production |
| Days 31–50 | Use Pareto and root-cause analysis on constraint stoppages, changeovers and quality losses. | Corrective actions with baseline, trial and verification date | Production / Engineering / Quality |
| Days 40–55 | Protect scarce capacity with material, tool and staffing checks, and work on the three largest loss causes. | Shift-level constraint log, good output and a loss Pareto. within the defined pilot | Production / Industrial engineering |
| Days 40–55 | Test a release limit and protective buffer for one product family; escalate blocked orders daily. | WIP aging list, lead-time distribution and approved buffer rules. within the defined pilot | Operations / Intralogistics |
| Days 45–60 | Compare comparable mix and demand; watch OTIF, quality, WIP and downstream capacity as guardrails. | Good output, OTIF, FPY, WIP aging and cost comparison with confounders | Operations / Finance |
| Days 55–60 | Test standard work, shift handover and escalation with the people who will own them. | Versioned pilot standard and training feedback | Plant management / HR |
Gate 60: Steering reviews the same KPI definitions before and after intervention, demand, mix, open quality risks, shifted WIP and capacity downstream. Continue, adapt or stop the pilot based on repeatable evidence.
Days 61–90 · integrate and decide on scale
| When | Work package | Acceptance evidence | Lead |
|---|---|---|---|
| Days 61–70 | Document priority, release and escalation rights across planning, plant, quality and supply chain. | RACI and escalation matrix for shift, day and week | COO / Plant management |
| Days 61–80 | Reconcile effective constraint hours, demand and material limits in S&OE and monthly S&OP. | Capacity scenarios with cost, delivery effect and approval decision | Planning / Supply Chain |
| Days 70–85 | Use constraint hours and the required mix as firm limits in weekly and monthly planning. | Shift-level constraint log, good output and a loss Pareto. as an approved standard | Production / Industrial engineering |
| Days 70–85 | Introduce WIP limits and escalation into standard work and flow control. | WIP aging list, lead-time distribution and approved buffer rules. as an approved standard | Operations / Intralogistics |
| Days 75–90 | Separate incremental sold throughput, real cost changes and released inventory with Finance. | Benefit register with sources, one-offs, assumptions and owner | Finance / Operations |
| Days 85–90 | Sequence rollout by product family and site according to data readiness, resources and risk. | Approved 12-month roadmap, budget limits and line ownership | Executive management / COO |
Gate 90: Scale only when routines work in regular operation; good constraint output or delivery has improved on comparable demand; WIP and quality have not deteriorated unnoticed; and Finance can validate the net effect. Investments need a separately approved business case and alternatives.
12-month roadmap
Months run from mandate start. The first three correspond to Gates 30/60/90; wider rollout follows pilot evidence. Across multiple sites, expand site by site. Set OTIF, good-output, FPY, WIP and capital targets from the verified baseline and customer need, never from the maturity score.
| Month | Implementation | Evidence / acceptance | Management decision | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | Confirm data, product families and constraint; start a daily deviation board. | KPI definitions, loss Pareto and scoped pilot | Gate 30: approve baseline and gaps | Plant management / Finance |
| M2 | Pilot release discipline and constraint protection; remove recurring technical and quality losses. | Pilot standard, action log and before/after data | Gate 60: continue, change or stop | Production / Planning |
| M3 | Integrate the pilot with weekly planning and S&OP; review financial impact and side effects. | Benefit register, roles, rollout order and investment options | Gate 90: decide scale and budget | COO / Finance |
| M4 | Use constraint hours and the required mix as firm limits in weekly and monthly planning. | Approved standard for Capacity, constraints and throughput and training proof | Line owner accepts handover | Production / Industrial engineering |
| M5 | Connect the next product family only after its data, capacity and skills coverage are checked. | Pilot-standard gaps, constraint and material review | Weekly go / pause by product family | Operations / Planning |
| M6 | Introduce WIP limits and escalation into standard work and flow control. Audit actions adopted in months 4–5 against relapse. | Evidence for Material flow, WIP and lead time and a 90-day recheck | Half-year gate: benefit, quality and resources | Operations / Intralogistics |
| M7 | Align shift, mix and capacity scenarios with validated constraint hours and demand. | Costed shift, outsourcing and automation alternatives | Invest only on confirmed need and restrictions | COO / Finance |
| M8 | Review standard work, maintenance windows and skills on the next lines or sites. | Audits, skills matrix and open exceptions | Area manager approves each transfer | Plant management / HR / Engineering |
| M9 | Run S&OP, weekly and daily control from one coherent view of capacity and inventory. | Schedule stability, OTIF, WIP age and good constraint output | Quarterly gate: demand, buffers and delivery | Supply Chain / Operations |
| M10 | Audit sustained use on representative shifts and product families. | Evidence of KPI definitions, escalation, standard work and release | Close deviations with named owners and dates | Plant management / Quality |
| M11 | Reconcile the benefit register with actuals, removing mix, price and duplicate effects. | Finance-approved margin, cost and working-capital comparison | Steering adjusts targets and portfolio | Finance / COO |
| M12 | Hand over management cadence, data ownership and the improvement portfolio. | Year-end review, audit closeout and next prioritized plan | Annual gate: sustain, revise or invest | Executive management / Plant management |
For every approval, steering records the decision, date, owner, data version and next review.
Measurement logic and financial validation
1. Establish a comparable baseline
Plant management, Planning and Finance select a representative product family and at least one complete planning cycle. Document site, resource, shift pattern, mix, demand, confirmed dates, material position, scheduled equipment time and exceptional events. Compare more cycles if demand is seasonal or mix shifts. Use the same timestamp rules and filters before and after intervention. Separate planned maintenance, unplanned stoppages, changeovers, scrap and rework. Approve the baseline only after ERP, MES and order-list differences and missing data have been resolved.
| Measure | Definition and data cut | Source and cross-check |
|---|---|---|
| Good constraint output | Good units of the agreed mix divided by scheduled available constraint hours in the same period; unplanned downtime remains visible in the denominator. | Shift and equipment events reconciled with good and shippable output |
| Lost constraint minutes | Record stoppage, changeover, material, staffing, quality and missing release by one primary cause to avoid overlaps. | Shift event log sampled against operating records |
| OTIF | Complete delivery by confirmed customer date divided by all orders or lines due in the same cohort; define partial shipments. | ERP order, confirmed date and shipment event; flag date changes |
| First pass yield | Good units without rework on first pass divided by units first processed at the defined operation. | Quality and production transactions by product family |
| WIP and lead time | WIP by amount, age and Finance-approved value; lead time from documented release to shipment or defined exit. | ERP balance and timestamps, correcting blocked and duplicate quantities |
Comparability: More output is a benefit only after demand, mix and downstream capacity are considered. OTIF, quality and WIP aging are countermeasures against local optimization. If the constraint moves, establish a new resource and time base from that date; do not present an uninterrupted trend.
2. Keep three benefit accounts separate
| Benefit account | Calculation and conditions | Finance approval |
|---|---|---|
| Incremental operating contribution | Additional good units actually sold and delivered × incremental contribution margin per unit, net of incremental freight, overtime and start-up costs unless already included. Unsold capacity remains potential. | Reconcile orders, shipments and revenue with product costs; test demand, mix, pricing and cannibalization. |
| Inventory and liquidity | Sustainable reduction in average units × approved unit book value, or directly valued stock difference. Correct for movements to suppliers, external warehouses or other plants. | Report released working capital and actual cash effect separately from income; financing cost requires demonstrated change. |
| Real cost reduction | Only spending actually removed or reliably avoided counts: evidenced lower subcontracting, scrap material or express freight. | Compare invoices, contracts, cost centers and periods; do not claim fixed overhead without an actual reduction. |
Prevent double counting: Do not add the same recovered constraint minutes as OEE gain, incremental throughput and cost saving. Scrap reduction may already be included in extra good output. Less stock releases capital but is not automatically extra operating profit. Record investment, implementation, recurring cost and one-off effects separately.
3. Make decisions auditable
For every action, Finance keeps a benefit sheet with baseline period, source, owner, intervention date, comparison period, demand and mix adjustment, the three benefit accounts and unresolved assumptions. Label figures explicitly as hypothesis, validated capacity, delivered volume, realized contribution or released capital. Gate 60 assesses pilot effects and side effects; Gate 90 decides repeatability and scale. Agree monetary targets only after the baseline.
Governance and management agenda
The same KPI definitions connect the shift, daily S&OE, weekly planning and monthly investment decision. Every material deviation has a cause or testable hypothesis, owner, due date, escalation point and follow-up measure. The board explicitly shows blocked orders and open decisions so that an average green score cannot conceal critical customer orders.
| Cadence / lead | Required evidence | Decision and record |
|---|---|---|
| Every shift / shift lead | Good constraint output, lost minutes, material, people, tools, quality holds and upstream buffer. | Secure operations, record cause and owner, escalate unresolved risk immediately. |
| Daily / plant and planning (S&OE) | Released orders, available constraint hours, shortages, backlog, due customer orders and plan deviation. | Decide sequence and rush orders including displaced orders; document customer communication. |
| Weekly / Operations and Supply Chain | OTIF, FPY, WIP age/value, lead time, plan stability, completed actions and next capacity gap. | Adjust weekly plan and improvement portfolio; continue, revise or stop pilots. |
| Monthly / COO, CEO and Finance | S&OP scenarios, demand and mix, verified benefit, liquidity, investment options and risks. | Approve resources, rollout order and budget limits; record assumptions. |
Decision rights
| Event | Decision owner | Non-negotiable record |
|---|---|---|
| Rush order displaces a promised order | Plant management within mandate, with Planning and Sales presenting alternatives. | Name displaced order, customer impact, revised date and cost. |
| Material shortage or constraint outage | Shift lead secures operation; plant manager decides priority; Engineering and Logistics resolve cause. | Timestamp, lost minutes, affected orders and escalation. |
| Quality or process release pending | Quality makes release decision under applicable procedure. | No quantity release solely to meet utilization or due date. |
| Extra shift, outsourcing or investment | COO or CEO within approved budget on an Operations and Finance case. | Demand, constraint effect, cost, risk, alternatives and reversal plan. |
Before mandate start, appoint sponsor, line owners and deputies and set budget and escalation limits. Record baseline, target, next proof and status for every action. Close an issue only after the line owner confirms sustained effectiveness. Record Gates 30, 60 and 90 as dated go, conditional go or stop decisions.
Interim management requirement profile
Mandate objective: An experienced leader executes across plant, planning, quality, engineering and Finance. The first two validation fields are Capacity, constraints and throughput and Material flow, WIP and lead time. Refine this hypothesis after ten working days of plant evidence. The sponsor gives access to production, order, quality and financial data. Define authority for analysis, shopfloor routines and pilots in writing; quality releases, people decisions, customer promises and investment approvals remain with the designated owners.
| Milestone | Expected deliverable | Acceptance |
|---|---|---|
| Day 10 | Data and constraint hypotheses, decision map, initial customer and quality risks. | Sponsor and plant lead agree pilot scope and data gaps. |
| Day 30 | Shift-level constraint log, good output and a loss Pareto.; WIP aging list, lead-time distribution and approved buffer rules.; baseline and prioritized actions. | Plant lead and Finance accept Gate 30. |
| Day 60 | Pilot planning, constraint and shopfloor cadence with controlled before/after comparison. | Steering decides continue, change or stop. |
| Day 90 | Transferred standards, trained line owners, Finance-reviewed benefit and sequenced rollout. | CEO approves scale only after Gate 90. |
Candidate selection matrix
| Criterion | Weight | Interview evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Comparable constraint and throughput execution | 30% | Actual mandate with baseline, personal decision role, actions, day-30/day-90 outcome and relapse control. |
| Finite planning, S&OE and shopfloor leadership | 25% | Order release, priority conflicts, shift boards and connection to S&OP. |
| KPI and Finance capability | 20% | Explain good output, FPY, OTIF, WIP and net benefit without double counting. |
| Leadership and handover | 15% | Resolved plant/quality/sales conflict; established line owners and audited standards. |
| Industry and process fit | 10% | Relevant process and customer risks, procedures and approval evidence. |
Seek two comparable execution references: starting point, decisions under pressure, measurable customer result, capital effect and condition six months after handover. Ask what did not improve and why. The output is a working management cadence with owned standards, not just a slide deck. Negotiate fees against mandate scope, authority and availability; the assessment score is no guarantee of fees or success.
Monitoring baseline and comparisons over time
This report documents a dated assessment run. Buying it does not itself create a monitoring account. For free time comparison, explicitly save the run under a confirmed email address and the right company profile. One user may administer multiple companies; never combine their records.
| Baseline field | This report |
|---|---|
| Assessment date (UTC) | 2026-09-24 12:00:00 |
| Core model version | 1.0.0 |
| Industry and operating model | Industrial Manufacturing · Hybrid |
| Product-family strategy | Make-to-Order |
| Valid answers and overall score | 40 of 40 · 2.80 / 5 |
Separate strategy module: Make-to-Order · version 1.0.0 · 2.75 / 5 from 8 valid responses.
Comparison protocol
- Use the same company, core model version, industry, operating model and product-family strategy. Start a new baseline after a substantial scope or mix change.
- Compare N/A patterns and valid-answer counts: a score may move merely because coverage changed.
- Read the current result against both the immediately preceding comparable run and the first saved comparable run. Compare all eight dimensions and warning signs; compare strategy scores only with the same module version.
- Place measured good constraint output, OTIF, FPY, WIP age/value and lead time beside the answers, each with a date, source and owner. The assessment does not collect those operational values automatically.
| When | Review | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| Start / Gate 30 | Save assessment; document operational baseline and N/A coverage. | Approve measurement and pilot. |
| Gate 90 | Repeat only after standards have been implemented and can be verified. | Explain response and operational changes; decide scale. |
| Months 6 and 12 | Connect repeats with action closure, audit and Finance benefit sheets. | Decide on relapse, constraint shifts and investment. |
Interpretation: A higher score reflects a changed self-assessment, not proof of causal or financial impact. A lower score may reflect more honest judgment after better data became available. Profit and cash effects require Finance-approved actuals and assumptions. Do not extend a direct trend across different model versions or company boundaries.
Deep dive and answer appendix
Every answer below remains visible for management review. A low response identifies a hypothesis and specific verification work, not a measured defect. A high response requires evidence of coverage and consistent use. N/A must be justified in the chosen product family. Start with the two focus areas, then investigate critical safety, customer and quality exposures regardless of rank.
Production strategy and operating model · 2.80 / 5
Investigation: Map customer commitments and product-family targets; document decisions when delivery, utilization, quality and working capital conflict. Pilot: Apply one agreed objective set and an explicit priority rule to a product family. Evidence: Approved segment targets, recorded trade-off decisions and evaluated alternatives. Owner: Executive management / Finance.
| Core question | Response | Review and example |
|---|---|---|
| Q1. Production and operations have measurable objectives derived from business strategy, customer commitments and financial priorities. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: Plant objectives connect on-time delivery, good output from the constraint and inventory value to explicit targets. |
| Q2. The production and site model fits the product portfolio, demand pattern and customer requirements. | 2 / 5 | Low: verify cause, customer effect and a corrective owner. Illustrative evidence: Standard items are made to stock, while customer-specific variants start only after an order arrives. |
| Q3. Trade-offs between utilization, delivery capability, inventory, quality and cost are assessed transparently and decided by management. | 4 / 5 | Positive: confirm with representative records and shifts. Illustrative evidence: Before accepting a rush order, management decides which order moves and what the change will cost. |
| Q4. Suitable control methods and service commitments are defined for the main product families. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: Each product family has a defined make-to-stock, make-to-order or project milestone service model. |
| Q5. Investments, automation and capacity measures are prioritized using a transparent business case. | 2 / 5 | Low: verify cause, customer effect and a corrective owner. Illustrative evidence: An extra shift at the constraint is evaluated against contribution margin, delivery effect and staffing. |
Production planning and order control · 2.80 / 5
Investigation: Reconcile weekly demand, material readiness and finite hours; classify rush orders and plan breaks by cause. Pilot: Release only ready orders and test a priority-based finite weekly sequence. Evidence: Release list, plan versions and decisions explaining every significant change. Owner: Planning / Production.
| Core question | Response | Review and example |
|---|---|---|
| Q6. The production plan is based on agreed demand, realistic capacity, material availability and binding priorities. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: A weekly plan is confirmed only when demand, material and truly available constraint hours match. |
| Q7. Planning horizons and levels are clearly distinguished and connected. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: S&OP sets the monthly frame, weekly planning allocates capacity, and the daily board resolves deviations. |
| Q8. Orders are released only when material, capacity, equipment, quality and relevant documentation are sufficiently available. | 2 / 5 | Low: verify cause, customer effect and a corrective owner. Illustrative evidence: An order starts only when material, tools, qualified people and required approvals are ready. |
| Q9. Sequencing and lot-size rules account for the constraint, changeover time, customer priority and inventory consequences. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: At the constraint, sequence reflects due dates and changeover losses; batch sizes are deliberately limited. |
| Q10. Short-term plan changes and rush orders follow defined decision and escalation rules. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: A rush order needs named approval and an explicit decision on the displaced order. |
Capacity, constraints and throughput · 2.80 / 5
Investigation: Confirm the constraint by product family using good output, effective hours and lost minutes; review buffer and mix. Pilot: Protect scarce capacity with material, tool and staffing checks, and work on the three largest loss causes. Evidence: Shift-level constraint log, good output and a loss Pareto. Owner: Production / Industrial engineering.
| Core question | Response | Review and example |
|---|---|---|
| Q11. Constraints are identified from actual data by product family and period and reviewed regularly. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: Lost minutes by line and product family reveal which process currently limits total throughput. |
| Q12. Available capacity reflects the shift pattern, product mix, planned losses, qualifications and technical limits. | 2 / 5 | Low: verify cause, customer effect and a corrective owner. Illustrative evidence: Changeovers, maintenance and missing qualifications are deducted from 240 scheduled equipment hours. |
| Q13. The constrained resource is protected by material, people, tools, quality release and a deliberately sized buffer. | 4 / 5 | Positive: confirm with representative records and shifts. Illustrative evidence: A defined material buffer sits before the constraint; tools and trained backup staff are secured. |
| Q14. Lost constraint time is recorded by cause, prioritized by economic effect and assigned to accountable owners. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: Constraint downtime is prioritized by cause, financial effect and accountable owner. |
| Q15. Capacity gaps trigger timely, evaluated scenarios and management decisions. | 2 / 5 | Low: verify cause, customer effect and a corrective owner. Illustrative evidence: For a foreseeable capacity gap, overtime, subcontracting and reprioritization are compared with their costs. |
Material flow, WIP and lead time · 2.80 / 5
Investigation: Capture WIP by process stage, age, due date and value; distinguish processing from waiting. Pilot: Test a release limit and protective buffer for one product family; escalate blocked orders daily. Evidence: WIP aging list, lead-time distribution and approved buffer rules. Owner: Operations / Intralogistics.
| Core question | Response | Review and example |
|---|---|---|
| Q16. Material and information flows are visible end to end for relevant product families. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: A value-stream view shows material and order status from release to shipment for each product family. |
| Q17. WIP targets and buffers are defined for each process stage and managed by quantity, age and due date. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: Each stage has a WIP target; aging or imminent orders are tracked separately. |
| Q18. Processing, waiting, transport, inspection and release times are measured separately and reduced deliberately. | 2 / 5 | Low: verify cause, customer effect and a corrective owner. Illustrative evidence: Of 18 days of lead time, three are processing and 15 are waiting, inspection or release. |
| Q19. Material supply and internal logistics support production according to need without unnecessary duplicate stock. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: The next shift receives the material it needs without building parallel unofficial stores. |
| Q20. Backlogs, blocked orders and aging WIP trigger defined actions and escalation. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: A blocked order beyond its dwell-time threshold appears on the daily board with a cause and escalation. |
OEE, maintenance and technical stability · 2.80 / 5
Investigation: Verify the equipment time base, downtime reasons and critical spares; prioritize losses at the scarce resource. Pilot: Remove recurring faults using root-cause analysis and reserve critical maintenance windows. Evidence: Agreed time base, downtime Pareto and evidence that fixes held. Owner: Maintenance / Production.
| Core question | Response | Review and example |
|---|---|---|
| Q21. OEE or alternative equipment performance measures have a documented time base and consistent definitions. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: The OEE definition specifies which scheduled production hours and stoppages enter the calculation. |
| Q22. Availability, performance and quality are analyzed separately and supported by reliable loss reasons. | 2 / 5 | Low: verify cause, customer effect and a corrective owner. Illustrative evidence: An OEE loss is recorded separately as downtime, reduced speed or scrap. |
| Q23. Critical equipment is maintained according to risk; preventive and condition-based measures are planned and effective. | 4 / 5 | Positive: confirm with representative records and shifts. Illustrative evidence: Maintenance intervals for a critical machine reflect failure risk and condition data, not only the calendar. |
| Q24. Recurring failures are addressed through root-cause analysis, permanent corrective action and effectiveness checks. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: After recurring sensor failures, the cause is removed and the effect checked over several weeks. |
| Q25. Critical equipment has the necessary spares, technical documentation and maintenance skills available. | 2 / 5 | Low: verify cause, customer effect and a corrective owner. Illustrative evidence: Critical spares, current drawings and reachable specialists are available for the constraint machine. |
Quality, scrap and process capability · 2.80 / 5
Investigation: Separate scrap, rework and release waiting by product family and process stage. Pilot: Address leading defects at the constraint with root-cause work, a controlled trial and documented release. Evidence: FPY evidence, defect Pareto and approved corrective-action closure. Owner: Quality / Production.
| Core question | Response | Review and example |
|---|---|---|
| Q26. Quality requirements and critical process parameters are clear, current and available at the relevant workstations. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: Target values, tolerances and inspection intervals for critical parameters are visible at the workstation. |
| Q27. First pass yield, scrap, rework and quality losses are attributed to their causes. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: Scrap and rework are reported by product family, defect cause and affected equipment. |
| Q28. Deviations and recurring defects are analyzed systematically, permanently resolved and lessons transferred. | 2 / 5 | Low: verify cause, customer effect and a corrective owner. Illustrative evidence: A recurring defect is handled with 8D and the solution transferred to comparable machines. |
| Q29. Quality inspections and releases are risk based and do not create avoidable waiting time or hidden stock. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: Inspection and release reflect risk; avoidable inventory waiting between stages is removed. |
| Q30. Process changes are introduced under control, with effects, risks and outcomes documented. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: Before changing a parameter, risk, approval, trial and outcome are documented. |
Shopfloor management, KPIs and problem solving · 2.80 / 5
Investigation: Clarify each measure’s definition, source, owner and trigger; inventory open actions. Pilot: Test a daily board with deviation, decision, deadline and effectiveness review in one area. Evidence: KPI definitions, decision records and verified action closure. Owner: Plant management / Controlling.
| Core question | Response | Review and example |
|---|---|---|
| Q31. Shopfloor reviews follow a fixed cadence and focus on deviations, decisions, owners and deadlines. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: The daily board reviews a delivery deviation with a decision, owner and deadline. |
| Q32. The KPI system connects local process measures with throughput, delivery performance, quality, cost and working capital. | 2 / 5 | Low: verify cause, customer effect and a corrective owner. Illustrative evidence: The KPI board shows how scrap at the constraint affects throughput, delivery and cost. |
| Q33. KPIs have clear definitions, data sources, owners and review frequencies. | 4 / 5 | Positive: confirm with representative records and shifts. Illustrative evidence: OTIF has a confirmed due date, treatment of partial shipments, source, owner and review cadence. |
| Q34. Problems are handled with an appropriate method and closed only after effectiveness has been demonstrated. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: An A3 action closes only when the defect has not returned during the agreed verification period. |
| Q35. Escalations are decided at the level with the required authority and accountability; open actions are followed through. | 2 / 5 | Low: verify cause, customer effect and a corrective owner. Illustrative evidence: Prolonged constraint downtime has defined escalation points for shift lead, engineering and plant management. |
Organization, skills and continuous improvement · 2.80 / 5
Investigation: Expose decision rights, skills gaps and single-person dependencies by shift. Pilot: Train backup coverage and standard work at the constraint; coach leaders on real deviations. Evidence: Roles matrix, skills coverage and audit records. Owner: Plant management / HR.
| Core question | Response | Review and example |
|---|---|---|
| Q36. Roles, responsibilities and decision rights across production, planning, quality, engineering, logistics and supply chain are clear. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: A decision matrix governs who approves sequence changes and informs customers when material is short. |
| Q37. Shift and staffing plans account for qualifications, absences, learning curves and critical single-person skills. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: A skills matrix shows who can operate the constraint on each shift and where cover is missing. |
| Q38. Leaders and employees are trained in standard work, problem solving, data interpretation and improvement. | 2 / 5 | Low: verify cause, customer effect and a corrective owner. Illustrative evidence: Shift leaders practise standard work and root-cause analysis using real shopfloor deviations. |
| Q39. Improvement initiatives have a baseline, target, owner, deadline, resources and a check of financial impact. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: A changeover project has a starting measure, target, owner, deadline and verified financial effect. |
| Q40. Successful improvements become binding standards, are audited and are protected against relapse. | 3 / 5 | Partial: test how reliably the standard is applied. Illustrative evidence: An improved changeover sequence is trained, documented and audited after 30 and 90 days. |
For each material finding, record source, baseline period, responsible manager, affected orders, financial hypothesis, decision deadline and effectiveness date. Do not turn self-ratings directly into monetary benefits.
Method
Each core response uses a 1–5 scale. A dimension is the mean of its valid answers; the overall score applies the stated industry weights. N/A responses are excluded and the weights of valid dimensions are normalized. Strategy and multi-site modules are reported separately. Pattern rules and self-assessments are hypotheses, not causal proof or comparisons with other companies. Monetary effects require a Finance-approved operational baseline.