PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

CONFIDENTIAL

1-Day Diagnostic: Location 1

Client 6 – Automotive/Assembly industry

This report contains information that is confidential and proprietary to

McKinsey & Company and is solely for the use of McKinsey &
Company personnel. No part of it may be used, circulated, quoted, or
reproduced for distribution outside McKinsey & Company. If you are
not the intended recipient of this report, you are hereby notified that the
use, circulation, quoting, or reproducing of this report is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
 PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

SUMMARY

Performance gaps exist between world class standards and current

operating conditions at Location 1 factory

At a high level, there are several levers for elevating manufacturing

performance
• Improve material flow
• Simplify information flows
• Standardize operations
• “Build-in” quality

These levers can have both tangible and intangible benefits

• Tangible: labor productivity increase of 20-30%
• Intangible: reduced customer order time and increased
production capacity

Further analysis required to refine estimates

2
 PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

FACTORY PROFILE

Units – YTD
(as of Q2)

• Product 1 X,XXX
Products • Product 2 X,XXX
• Product 3 X,XXX
• Product 4 XXX
• Product 5 XXX

• Total sales: $XXX million

Financials • XX,XXX items produced per year
• Inventory turns are XX
– Raw material: $XX-XX million
– WIP: $X-X million
– Finished goods: $X-X million

• Floor space: XXX,XXX square feet

Facility • XXX direct employees, XXX indirect
employees
• X-X shifts per day; each shift X.X hours
• Turnover: X%
• Absenteeism: X-X%
*Fast ramp up of product volumes expected 3
 PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

LEAN ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

People Just-in-time
Level schedule
Continuous improvement 5
Continuous flow

Change readiness 4 Takt time

3
Management style Pull system
2
Autonomation
Inventory management 1 Abnormality detection

0
TPM Line stop and call

Visual management Problem solving

5S Man/machine separation

Cell/line layout
Standard
Support systems operations Skill building Plant design Flexible manpower systems
4
 PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Current condition World-class condition

Production processes are not synchronized All production processes are synchronized
and operate according to takt time

Material is pulled from the stores by the

Material replenishment to the line is not
material handler on a standard cycle;
effectively controlled; replenishment is
material orders placed using visual system
greatly assisted by expediters
Andon lights quickly highlight any problem;
Andon lights used to highlight major
response is fast and group drives to root
problems, but response time can be
causes
relatively long
Work standards fully defined and times
True work standards lacking and work
measured; work allocation occurs robustly
balancing occurs mentally, rather than with a
and as demand changes
robust fact base
Toyota model: 8 people per 1 team leader;
Group leads supervise ~XX employees,
team leaders report to group leaders
limiting their engagement in continuous
improvement activity

Significant opportunity exists to

improve productivity and quality
5
 PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

VALUE STREAM MAP – CURRENT STATE

Process PRELIMINARY
Uncontrolled
inventory
Material flow

Suppliers Company A Customers

Orders Orders
Forecasts for master
IMIS production schedule
Axle X shift
1x/day
X/day line Line 1
X day Work schedule
Product 1:
X-X
TBB: 6-7
X day
Line 2 deliveries
deliveries/
per day
day

Engine
Line 2
trim
X day X • Product 3
vehicles • Product 4
Raw
materials • XX/day
X-X days

Sub-
• Some items assy
Roll test Rework
such as axles, X day .X-X day
XX vehicles
engines, and X.X days
harnesses are XX vehicles XX
sequenced vehicles
Bus Line 1
cowl
.XX day .XX day • XX/day
Total “value add” = XX hours or X.X days Key points
Total lead time = XX.X days • Production processes
Raw do not follow same
materials production pace
X-X days V.A.%  XX%
Module • Significant amount of
True V.A. %probably < X%
rework as quality not
fully controlled in station
• Logistics system not
X hours XX hours X.X hours X.X hours formalized

~X-X days X day ~X.X days ~X days X.X days

6

OBSERVATIONS – 8 TYPES OF WASTE
Overproduction
• ~XX product/cowls between
Intellect
• Quality problems not displayed
visually; production pace not
evident so employees cannot
maximize their contribution
Motion
• Walking back and forth to
get parts from lineside
Correction
• Employees dedicated
to rework bays
• Currently, XX vehicles
from lines 1 and 2 are
awaiting rework
PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502
OBSERVATIONS
subassembly and assembly line
Conveyance
• Movement of product/ cowls
between subassembly
and line
Inventory
• X-X days stock
stored line side
• X.X days finished
goods
• Raw materials
inventory
Waiting
• 1 worker waiting X minutes
for another worker to move
so he could complete job
Overprocessing
• Release “component” on
engine to install bracket
• Cutting radiator tubing several
times to get proper length
7
 PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

OPERATIONAL METRICS
PRELIMINARY

Metric Current World class*

• Right first time • >90%
Quality • Vehicles awaiting rework • XX vehicles • 5 vehicles
• Discrepancies/unit • X.X discrepancies • <1 discrepancy
(chassis audit and roll test
for school bus)

• Inventory turns • XX turns • >40 turns

Cost • Overtime percent • X-XX% ** •%
• Lineside stock • X-X days • <2 hours

• On-time delivery • >XX% • 100%

Delivery • Customer order lead time • X weeks • 10 days
• Part shortages/expedited
• X-XX parts off-line • 0 parts
per day
• XX-XX potential
*Based on a more standard product and lower takt time production shortages per day
**Previously X-X% before launch of Product 5
8
 PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

MATERIAL AND INFORMATION FLOW – FUTURE STATE

P.I. Kanban PRELIMINARY
Shop stock
Post box
Physical pull
Leveling board

Suppliers Company A Customers

Orders Orders
Forecasts for master
Purchasing
reduction schedule

Axle IMIS
1x/day Sequence list to:
• Axle
FI
• Engine TBB: 6-7
FO • Module deliveries
per day

Engine
Line 2
FIFO
FIF
O

FI
FO
FIF

Subs
O

Roll test Rework Key points

FIFO
• Production processes
are synchronized
• Rework greatly reduced
as quality controlled in
FO station
Product 1 Line 1 FI • Replenishment of line
F IF O size stock and common
subassemblies
controlled

Modula- O
tor F IF

9
 PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

LEVERS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Lever Description Impact
Improve • Move subassembly production nearer to • Improve quality
material point-of-use • Reduce WIP
flows • Synchronize subassembly production to takt

Simplify • Enhance visual performance monitoring on line • Reduce inventory

information • Control replenishment of lineside stock with visual • Reduce part
flows signal shortages/expediting
• Standardize route and replenishment for material • Improve productivity
handler
• Right-size bin size

Standardize • Define work standards and determine work content

operations • Determine manpower requirements per station • Improve productivity
• Balance and allocate workload among operators, as • Improve quality
demand changes
“Build-in”
quality • Develop quality standards
• Enhance use of Andon system • Improve quality
• Improve productivity
Systematic approach to implementation
necessary to ensure sustainability
10
 PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

IMPROVE MATERIAL FLOWS

Line1 example PRELIMINARY

• Processes separated
• WIP between processes
• Processes do not produce according to takt
• Space reductions would allow more subs to
be brought on line

11
 PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

POTENTIAL LABOR PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT

Minutes Nonvalue-added ESTIMATE
Takt time = XX minutes Value-added

Wait Check leak test

Look for parts
Wait; get and
Search for parts look for parts
Post-cowl work
Get parts Leak test

Install other
Post-cowl work radiator tubes Install cowl

Install cowl Wait

Get next cowl
Pre-cowl work Install radiator and transport
tubes
Operator 1 Operator 2 Operator 3
Nonvalue- XX XX XX
adding
activity
Percent
• Average nonvalue-added activity is XX%
• Using XX% relaxation allowance, potential labor productivity improvement of 25%
• Further productivity improvements possible by improving work methods of value-
added components (i.e., spaghetti diagram)
Source: Observations of 3 plus cycles on cowl installation station, second shift, date 12
 PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

STANDARDIZE OPERATIONS TO IMPROVE PROCESS FLOWS

Spaghetti diagram for operator 2 OBSERVATION

Employee not fixed to stations

Stock

Stock
Some employees try to “build-
ahead”

Use of kits and tool boxes can

reduce wasted motion

Line
moves
Leak this
test way
13
 PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

DECOMPOSITION OF LABOR HOURS PER VEHICLE

Line 1 PRELIMINARY
Labor hours per vehicle

Other
Rework
Roll Total labor
Cab test productivity
build improvement
Subs is ____%
Engine
Axle

Line Total
Estimated
labor
productivity
improvement
Percent 14
 PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

SIZING THE OPPORTUNITY

Improv-
Base Savings
Category Current Future ment
Percent $ Millions $ Millions

Tangible benefits
Recurring:
• Labor – – 20-30 XX XX.X
productivity
• Warranty $XX/unit –
costs
One time:
• Inventory XX turns X turns 25 X X.X
release
Less tangible benefits
Reduced X weeks <X weeks
customer order
lead time Tangible savings
are significant but
Increased >X% intangible savings
production equally as
capacity through: important
• Improved
productivity
• Reduced space

15
 PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

APPENDIX

16
 PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

PICTURES FROM LOCATION 1 FACILITY

Component inventory Synchronize processes

Overflow area of components 1-2 days of stock for this particular
outside on the pavement subassembly

17

PICTURES FROM LOCATION 1 FACILITY
Standardized work and takt time
No one could state the takt time;
operations not really standardized;
workers not necessarily tied to
workstations
PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502
Right-size bins
Match containers to amount of
inventory to hold lineside
18
 PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

PICTURES FROM LOCATION 1 FACILITY

Space reduction? Returnable containers

Reducing inventory on line can free Pursue returnable containers to
up space to bring more reduce material and labor costs
subassemblies on-line

19
 PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

PICTURES FROM LOCATION 1 FACILITY

Design-to-cost Rework
Wire harness is >1 feet too long in About XX vehicles outside
length resulting in increased work waiting to be reworked
times and other production
difficulties
20
 PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

LABOR PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENTS

Reduce ?
rework Standardi-
zation of Work method
parts improvement Standardized
work and work
balancing
Savings Current labor Future labor
category hours per hours per
vehicle vehicle

Description • Improve • Standardize • Fundamen- • Standardize

quality and component tally improve work and
problem s to make work robustly
solving to production methods balance work
reduce and through across
defects assembly waste associates
(easier) reduction

Example • Reduce • Design-to- • Balance and

rework after cost on • Move allocate work
roll test some material and among
component tools closer to associates
s (e.g., point-of-use • Match man-
elec-trical • Improved power
harness) work station requirements
design to demand

21
 PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

LEAD TIMES ARE LONG PRELIMINARY

Breakdown of order lead time Possible drivers of order lead time

Days
• Engineering changes
• Part shortages
XX
X
Sales X
Engi- X.X
neer- Man- X.X- ?
X.X
ing factur- De-
ing livery

Back-
log

22
 PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502

JUST-IN-TIME A systematic process for producing what is required, when it is needed, in the quantity required

Level schedule Continuous flow Takt time Pull system

Production is perfectly Coordinated 1X1 production Pace of production is established Production is driven completely by “Pull”
leveled to customer occurs for all operations, as well based on the optimal Takt time. signal from downstream processes. Daily

5
demand and based on as coordinated shutdowns for
Takt time planned downtime. Traditional
department processes (i.e.,
stamping) have been “right-sized”
throughout the process
Production of major Coordinated 1X1 production
parts occurs daily. occurs for all operations, as well
Takt time is calculated from live
customer demand and used to
balance work combinations. Each
worker/operation is within the
optimal Takt time
Customer demand is used to
determine the optimal Takt time
demands are given to final assembly only
& drawn back up the line using a simple
signal system (i.e., Kanban card). With-
drawal based on the Kanban cycle. WIP
strictly limited & system highly disciplined
Production is driven based on a “Pull”
signal from downstream processes.

4
Production is as coordinated shutdowns for and efforts are made to balance Daily demands are fulfilled by the final
synchronized among planned downtime. Focus on work combinations accordingly. operation. Withdrawal is based on a
processes and based continuously improving Each worker/station operates regular material handling route. WIP is
on Takt time analysis set-up/changeover efficiency close to the optimal Takt time limited and system is disciplined

Production of major part The majority (>75%) of the pro- Customer demand is used to Partial Kanban system is in place but
numbers takes place cesses follow 1X1 production determine the optimal cycle time, withdrawal is not based on “live”

3
once a week and is techniques & only standard WIP is
fairly well synchronized present between processes. Mixed-
among processes model production is utilized to
reduce inventory levels & change-
overs are continuously improved
Production of major Production processes are located
part numbers takes in the same general area and
but it may not always be followed.
Changes in work combinations
are typically used to balance.
Inefficiency exists in the form of
overproduction and low utilization
Standard, nondynamic
production cycle time is used to
customer demand and may not be
strictly regulated. WIP levels are not
always controlled and the “Pull”
discipline is occasionally broken
Production output at individual stations
may be somewhat limited by “back-up”

2
place twice a month. some follow 1X1. Large amounts benchmark daily operations. No of WIP from downstream processes. A
Production pace differs of WIP still separate operations real attempt is made to match capacity limit or maximum WIP level is
by process and “batch” production still occurs this to “live” customer” demand in place and usually followed.
Communication between processes is
poor
Production of major part Production processes are isolated Production pace is not planned Production flow is completely MRP
numbers takes place “islands” with large amounts of but assumed to be a fixed based with no in-line control on
once a month. Pace is WIP between operations (i.e., function of the current operations or production pace. Material

1 driven by manufacturing
considerations with no
customer basis
departmentalized). Products move
through the production line in
large batches resulting in long
equipment. Line operates and
adds/cuts hours or inventory to
match customer demand
enters and is pushed downstream on
forecast only

throughput times

3 2/3 2/3 2
23

The process for stopping a manufacturing operation whenever an abnormality occurs,
AUTONOMATION either manually or automatically, in order to clearly identify problems as soon as they occur
Abnormality detection
Visual displays for monitoring processes
and pokayokes to automatically stop “out-
5
of-control” processes are used throughout
the facility to immediately make
abnormalities “transparent” to all
Visual displays for monitoring processes
and pokayokes to stop “out-of-control”
4
processes are used in 85% of the factory.
Abnormal events are easy to see and
clearly understood by all
Focus is on preventing errors through
pokayokes vs. team members across the
3
shop floor. The majority of areas have
process monitors visually displayed that
make it easier to identify problems
Some pokayokes and process monitors are
present, but team members are still
2
expected to prevent errors. Only a small
group of people notice problems and
understand the status of the shop floor
Pokayokes are not used and team
members are expected to identify and
1
prevent errors. It is difficult to identify
problems and abnormal events go largely
unnoticed
2 2/3
*Team members from the shop floor are usually involved in problem solving activities
Line stop and call (Andon)
There are clear line stop procedures in
place and the team members are
empowered to stop the line the instant an
abnormality occurs. The quick response
team is required to answer within 5 minutes
Team members are empowered to stop the
line according to established procedures
whenever an abnormality occurs. A quick
response team is in place and required to
“show up” within 10 minutes
Team members can stop the line for quality
or safety problems and wait for the
supervisor/team leader to respond.
Andons are in place to clearly signal the
locations of all problems
Team members can notify supervisor/team
leader of problem, but cannot consciously
stop production. There is not an efficient
process in place for team members to
signal a problem
Team members are not empowered to stop
the line and may be discouraged from
disrupting flow. Line stop authority may
reside as high as the plant manager
PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502
Problem solving
The root cause and countermeasures of all
problems are identified through PDCA
approach. Teams are formed to analyze a
wide variety of problems and operators can
lead activities. Employee involvement is
high and virtually no problems reoccur
Teams are formed to identify root causes
for a wide range of problems and operators
are always involved. Solutions for root
causes are identified through 5 Why
analysis resulting in significantly fewer
reoccurrence
Teams* are formed to identify root-causes
utilizing the PDCA cycles for major
problems only. Increased focus on
identifying root causes in the production
process through 5 Why analysis has
resulted in fewer problem reoccurrence
Limited use of problem solving “tools”, i.e.,
5 Why, by management and/or engineering
for major problems, but majority of
solutions are still “quick fixes” by
maintenance leading to repetitive problems
Majority of problems are only noticed by
team members and result in quick
superficial “fixes” by maintenance
technicians. Problems constantly reoccur
and result in low process efficiency
(productivity or OEE)
2
24

FLEXIBLE MAN-
POWER SYSTEMS
Man/mach. separation
The machine design allows
the team member to load
5
only, i.e., “auto-unload”
machines in quick and
easy movements
The machine controls are
designed for efficiency,
4
e.g., “1 touch” start or auto-
stop
Jidoka devices are incor-
porated into the design
3
of the machine to ensure
quality, allowing 1 team
member to run several
machines of 1 or more
types
1 team member may run
more than 1 machine
(typically the same type),
2 but it is still necessary to
monitor the process to
prevent errors
Machines are designed
without jidoka devices and
every machine must have 1
1 team member assigned to
monitor the process to
ensure a quality part
3 2/3
*Opportunities for individuals are based on high skill and high will
The combination of a manufacturing system (i.e., machines and lines/cells)
designed for flexibility and a highly cross-trained work force in an environment
that supports a successful deployment of labor
Cell/line layout
Motion economy is maxi-
mized by minimizing walk
patterns and material
conveyance, resulting in
minimal amounts of floor
space required for
production
Layout provides ultimate
flexibility in staffing team
members and virtually no
WIP is present due to
strict 1x1 production
Processes are linked,
resulting in increased flex-
ibility (operators can run
more than 1 station) and
communication. WIP
levels are still higher than
required
Individual stations are
separated by large
amounts of uncontrolled
WIP and it is difficult for
operators to move from
station-to-station or
communicate
Every station in the
process is an isolated
“island,” making it
impossible for team
members to move from
1 station to the next or to
communicate
Plant design
Continuous 1x1 flow
through the entire plant at
the same production rate,
i.e., “synchronized”
——
The plant layout
minimizes transportation,
and processes are linked
together. The layout
allows true 1x1 flow
——
Processing areas are
separated from each
other completely, typically
divided into departments.
A large amount of time is
consumed transporting
materials and parts
2 2
PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502
Skill building
Advanced knowledge train-
ing occurs and is linked to
advancement opportunities.
A “prehire” training program
exists to certify potential
employees
Qualification boards are
shown in all areas & a struc-
tured training program is
used to develop skills based
on specific company/
employee needs. Dedicated
time is reserved for training
There is a formal process
for cross-training team
member* and most of the
training is driven by con-
tinuous improvement needs.
Skill levels are tracked and
clearly posted in most areas
Most operators know more
than 1 job, but there is still
no formal cross-training
process. Most training is
limited to basic job skills
only
Operators are not cross-
trained and most workers
can only do 1 job. There is
no formal process for
qualifying operators and all
training is “hands-on”
Standard work
Forms of standard work
(process capacity sheets,
std. work combination
tables and std. work
charts) not only exist, but
are used for continuous
improvement at line level
Evidence exists for all
elements (Takt, standard
operations sequence,
and standard in-process
stock) and all forms of
standard work
SOPs and/or standard-
ized work forms have
been developed and are
posted at stations and
followed
Basic work procedures
exist, but are not strictly
followed and are not
easily accessible by
team members
There are no SOPs.
Team members work by
instinct. Activities vary
between operators and
are different from shift to
shift
2
25

SUPPORT SYSTEMS
5S
Formal 5S improvement
activities are planned according
5
to improvement targets and
audits are performed by
management (including plant
manager periodically)
Discipline is high on the shop
floor and 5S principles are
4
applied in the nonproduction
areas (offices, conference/team
rooms, etc.)
Clean, organized work areas.
Locations for tools and materials
3
are clearly marked and in their
place. Scrap/rework clearly
separated
Workplace looks more
organized, but it is difficult to
2
determine what is needed and
there are few markings to
identify proper locations. In
general, the cleanliness level
is low
No workplace organization on
the shop floor. All areas are
1
generally disorganized and
dirty. It is not clear what is
needed and what is not
needed
2/3
The systems or processes that form an infrastructure that provides
stability and standardization for the shop floor
Visual management
Wide range of visual manage-
ment tools are used throughout
the facility. The status of
production is transparent to
everyone. Inventory levels
(min/max) and locations are
clearly marked
——
Production status is clear at all
times on the shop floor. All
dangerous operations are
clearly marked. Inventory
levels are not clearly marked,
but locations are designated
——
Virtually no examples of visual
management beyond basic
forms, e.g., aisles marked
2 2
PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502
TPM
PMs are continuously improved
through kaizen activities and majority
are predictive in nature. Team mem-
bers are involved in maintenance
daily and help set targets for
improvement. OEE is known
Machine failure rarely impacts
production. Majority of maintenance
activities are planned & a system is in
place to highlight machine issues,
e.g., “tag” system. All machine fail-
ures have a quick response followed
by root-cause problem solving
All equipment has PM plans with
checklists/checkpoints posted. Most
PMs are based on time/frequency
and team members are responsible
for basic activities. Machine uptime
is charted vs. established targets
PM plans in place for some select
pieces of equipment, but majority
of maintenance activity is for
unplanned downtime. Only mainte-
nance techs work on machines.
Little information available on
downtime/OEE
Frequent machine breakdown with
no downtime/OEE information.
Machines are dirty and there is no
PM schedule or checklists
Inventory management
FIFO occurs within lots and no
material is found outside
designated areas. Inventory
is stored in nondedicated,
flexible storage locations
FIFO system is “fail-safe” and
inventory has clear locations
marked close to the point of
use. Inventory min/max levels
are clearly displayed
Formal system to support
FIFO is in place, but lapses
occur due to lack of discipline
and/or weak design. Specific
areas for inventory are clearly
labeled
Only isolated areas practice
FIFO. Designated areas for
inventory may exist, but it is
not clear because there are
no labels and there is little
discipline in place
FIFO is not practiced and it is
difficult to identify locations
and levels of inventory (raw,
WIP, F/G). Inventory is
located away from the point
of need
2
26

The attitudes and behaviors exhibited by the employees of the company and their desire for
PEOPLE change, as well as the emphasis placed on continuous improvement by the organization
Management style
All levels of management understand
current conditions on the shop floor.
5
There is a formal system for providing
fact-based reviews and coaching to
employees
Management approach to problem
solving is proactive. “Go and
4
see”/MBWA is practiced everyday.
Management has a strong desire to
listen to team members and support
with action
Management works on known
problems by investigating root cause
3
utilizing the “Go and see” approach.
Most employees receive specific
feedback on performance
Problems are communicated to
management, but response is slow
2
and the status always unclear
Management unaware of conditions
on the shop floor; only team
1
members and supervisors know real
problems. Shop floor performance
based on financial reports only
3 3
Change readiness
The entire organization is “open-minded”
and ready for change. Everyone
realizes that the organization must
constantly strive for improvement in
order to be competitive
Most of middle management
understands the need to change
and will support new ideas 100%
Upper management realizes the need for
change and is open to new ideas. They
are prepared to provide 100% support
going forward and exhibit a “whatever it
takes” attitude
The majority of shop floor employees
and front-line supervision recognizes the place (identifies goals/objectives, lists activities, and
need for change and are “open-minded” establishes metrics) but it lacks the “tie-in” of an
Entire organization is “closed-minded”.
Pervasive attitude of “this is how we
have always done things” and “we have
already tried those things”
PIT_ZXG779_auto-assembly_1-daydiagnostic_6_011502
Policy deployment and CI
The PDCA cycle is used to develop and maintain plans.
There is a program for CI training/rotation in the CI
department and team members lead activities. Greater
than 80% of the employees (IL & DL) have been a
member of an improvement team
Vertical and horizontal alignment with the business
plan exists throughout the organization. “3 Level”
meetings are conducted to ensure alignment with
goals. A structured CI plan has been developed
(including targets) with a CI office to support activities.
CI activities are visibly documented on the shop floor.
A clear business plan is in place and specific metrics to
support all goals/objectives have been developed and
cascaded to the shop floor. Formal review system has
been established for identified metrics, e.g., daily/
weekly/monthly meetings. CI activities occur, but they
are random and not tied into an overall program.
Full-time resources are dedicated to improvements
Performance management system for employees is in
integrated business plan. An employee suggestion
program is the primary source of CI and there is
little/slow action taken on submitted suggestions. Still
no systematic improvement process
Little or no connection between company goals and
shop floor activities. Employees do not understand
how they can support the company objectives. There
are no improvement activities involving team members
and there is no formal improvement organization.
Upper management/engineering focus is on large-
scale innovations
3/4
27