CI Assessment

Level Lean Leadership
Facility leaders consistently show characteristics of each CI

Mindset. It is visible in their participation in meetings, coaching
and feedback, and they have leader standard work that
5 includes spending time on the facility floor every day.
Managers lead the Simple Problem Solving analysis for the
highest loss item each month. Leaders follow through on their
entire leader standard work schedule each week.
Facility leaders often show characteristics of each CI Mindset.

4 Leaders demonstrate these different mindsets on the shop
floor every day. Leaders train others in specific topics.
Facility leaders sometimes show characteristics of each CI

3 Mindset. They make visits to the facility floor 3 or 4 times per
week.
Facility leaders consistently show characteristics of at least
one CI Mindset. Leaders visit some of the performance
2 dialogue meetings but seldom demonstrate or lead Simple
Problem Solving. They make visits to the facility floor at least
once per week.
Facility leaders sometimes show characteristics of a few of the

CI Mindsets (Leadership/Set Direction, Go & see, Standards,
1 Quality at the Source, Make Problems Visible, Problem
Solving), but are not consistent in demonstrating these. They
make visits to the facility floor at times, but these visits are not
very frequent and rarely have a defined purpose.
Level Coaching & Feedback

The three culture management tools (Feedback, Storytelling,
and Recognition) are integrated into every leader's team
meeting structure. Coaching and feedback regularly occurs
between facility leaders and middle management, as well as
5
between middle management and their team members.
Facility leaders and middle managers have specific leader
standard work to provide coaching and feedback to direct
reports.
The three culture management tools (Feedback, Storytelling,

and Recognition) are being integrated into many leaders' team
meeting structures. Regular coaching occurs between facility
4 leaders and middle management, and some coaching is
beginning to occur between middle management and their
team members (though this may not be consistent yet).
Facility leaders have specific times in their agenda to provide
coaching and feedback to direct reports.
The coaching culture is becoming more widespread, with

3 regular coaching between facility leaders and middle
management. Facility leaders have specific times in their
agenda to provide coaching and feedback to direct reports.
There is the beginning of a coaching culture, with some
coaching between facility leaders and middle management,
but this is not consistent. Facility leaders do not have specific
2
times in their agenda to provide coaching and feedback to
direct reports - coaching is done sporadically and in an ad-hoc
manner.
There isn't a broad-reaching coaching culture. Some leaders
have begun to provide specific coaching and feedback, but this
1 is usually limited to annual or bi-annual performance reviews,
and feedback from leaders rarely reaches individuals on the
production floor.
Level Influence Model

All improvement work is led and completed by people who role
model, foster conviction and understanding, reinforce progress
with formal mechanisms and develop the talent skills of
themselves and the team.
5
All team members can lead improvement and have a clear
understanding of the components necessary to make change
sustain.
Improvement work is led and completed by people who role
4 with formal mechanisms and develop the talent skills of
themselves and the team with the assistance of experts that
are internal to the team.
Improvement work is led and completed by people who role

3
with formal mechanisms and develop the talent skills of
themselves and the team with the assistance of experts.
2 Leaders rely on others to come into their facility to influence

change and drive improvement.
Some people in the facility understand the basic mindsets and
1 behaviors of continuous improvement, but there is limited
understanding of how important these concepts are in
influencing change and improvement at the facility.
Level Recognition
There is a recognition program that is used to reinforce lean

mindsets and behavior. Human Resources (HR) does not own
5
the program and it is used frequently throughout the month.
Lead operators define and execute recognition of their team
There is a recognition program that is used to reinforce lean

4 mindsets and behavior. HR does not own the program and it
is put in practice on a monthly basis.
There is a recognition program based on goal achievement.
3 Recognition is used sporadically on the production floor and
depends on area’s manager.
There is a recognition program based on goal achievement.
2 Recognition is used perhaps twice per year, but still doesn’t
often reach the production floor.
There is no recognition program based on goal achievement.
1
Recognition rarely reaches the production floor.
Level Skills and Knowledge
Evidence of a learning environment is found throughout the

organization. There is a skills and knowledge capability matrix
5 with supporting training materials in place that includes both
technical and soft skills. Skill development is based on
eliminating biggest losses. There is a formal system in place to
manage the process and employee progress.
There is a skills and knowledge capability matrix in place with

supporting materials that are available to all employees.
4 Priority of skill development is based on biggest need of the
organization (biggest losses). There is not a system in place to
manage the training or tracking of employee progress.
3 There is a training matrix in place that aligns to all employee

roles and profiles for tracking purposes.
Training is not identified for all employees and levels. There is

2 not a training matrix in place. Training activities are dependent
on specific programs and projects (when the need arises).
Some work has been done to develop training plans, but these
plans are usually limited only to leaders. Not much work has
1
been done in developing individual capability and training
plans for each employee throughout the organization.
Level Employee Suggestion System (Quick & Easy)
Suggestion system exists and is deployed to all levels of the

facility. It is effective, regularly measured and improved.
Feedback is timely based on the complexity of the suggestion
(including acceptance, and implementation target date).
5
Implemented suggestions are sampled or audited periodically
to ensure deployed suggestion are being utilized. The number
of ideas per year is equal to total number of facility personnel
(one idea per person)
Improvement results and ideas are reported widely. Lateral
deployment is actively implemented, key projects and results
4 are set aside for deployment and shared with relevant teams.
There is a continuous flow of considerable number of valuable
suggestions. System is not continuously improved.
Suggestion system is readily accessible for ‘all’ employees and

simple to use. Frequent feedback includes reward and
recognition according to suggestion system. Suggestions are
3 linked to customer needs and facility goals. Performance
results are reported regularly. Suggestion process is well
known and supported by employees. Detailed performance of
the process is not measured.
Suggestion system exists, but feedback to employees is slow.
2 Suggestions not well linked to location strategy and rewards
are inappropriate. Results are reported visually and regularly.
System not well known by employees
There is not a structured employee suggestion process in
place for identifying potential improvements. Improvement
activities have begun to take place, but these are often ad hoc
1
and not well-documented. When effective improvements are
made in one area, the improvement is not often communicated
and deployed to other areas.
Level Job Instruction (JI)
Team leaders have created Job Breakdown Sheets (with input

from experienced employees) for all critical jobs, and are
providing JI-based training to all employees who need to be
5 trained on these critical jobs. JI methods are used for training
consistently throughout the entire facility. All critical tasks
have been standardized across all crews, and Job Breakdown
Sheets developed for these tasks.
Team leaders have created Job Breakdown Sheets (with input

from experienced employees) for most critical jobs, and are
providing JI-based training to all employees who need to be
trained on these critical jobs. A defined plan is in place for fully
4
implementing JI, and JI methods for training are used
consistently throughout most of the facility. Most critical tasks
have been standardized across all crews, and Job Breakdown
Team leaders have begun creating Job Breakdown Sheets
(with input from experienced employees) for some critical jobs
and providing training to some employees using the Job
Instruction methods. A defined plan has been created for fully
3
implementing JI, but use of the JI methods for training is still
not consistent throughout the facility. Some critical tasks have
been standardized across all crews, and Job Breakdown
Team leaders have begun creating Job Breakdown Sheets

(with input from experienced employees) for some critical jobs
and providing Job Instruction to some employees, but there is
no defined plan in place for fully implementing Job Instruction
2
(JI) training. Use of the JI methods to train employees is
sporadic and not consistent throughout the facility. Much
learning still takes place on-the-job, and most tasks are not
standardized across all crews.
There is no standardized process or curriculum for training

new operators on how to do job tasks. Supervisors rarely
1 provide one-on-one training to employees. Most learning
takes place on-the-job, usually by watching how another
employee performs the work. There is no standardization of
tasks across crews - each crew does the work in its own way.
Level Standard Work
Documented processes developed by the facility exist to drive

continuous improvement of standard work based on
innovations and input from workers, engineers and managers.
Improvements and critical measures within span of control of
operators are posted daily. Studies of movements and cost
5 savings for improved standards are ongoing. 100% of critical
tasks across the facility have a SOP. Employees are engaged
in the development. Floor leaders conduct daily audits to drive
compliance and improvement. SOPs are consistent in content
& structure. Each SOP specifies content of the work, optimal
sequence of steps, timing to complete and target output of the
work.
Standard work is being deployed in several areas of the
facility. Employees are engaged in development and standard
practices are communicated across all shifts through a sign off
process. Some activity occurs for continuous improvement, but
4 not in a consistent manner. It is evident critical tasks are
executed in the same way always. Floor leaders conduct
audits with established frequency. >80% of critical tasks have
a SOP. SOP's are consistent in content & structure. Each
SOP specifies content of the work, optimal sequence of steps,
timing to complete and target output of the work.
All processes and most operations have standard operating

procedures (SOP's) developed by the employees and signed
off by the different shifts but are still unclear to office and
online workers. System/process for updating standards is
3 sound but implementation is ineffective. Floor leaders conduct
audits with established frequency. >80% of critical tasks have
a SOP. SOPs are consistent in content & structure. Each SOP
specifies content of the work, optimal sequence of steps and
target output of the work.
Standard Work is set for all major processes. Standard
2 Operating Procedures (SOP's) are inconsistent in content &
structure. There is an audit tracking system for SOP
compliance. Less than 80% of critical tasks have a SOP.
Some Standard Work documentation has been created for a

few of the major processes, but it often lacks detail. New
1 employees are not trained using the Standard Work, and the
way the work is performed is not consistent within shifts.
There is not a defined method in place for auditing the system
or checking to see if Standard Work needs to be revised.
Level Lean Communication
There is a formal communication plan that assures that 90% or

more of the facility personnel is aware of results, highlights and
5
recognition of the lean implementation process. There are
specific dashboards for lean information.
There is a formal communication plan that assures 75% or
more of the facility personnel is aware of results, highlights and
4
recognition of the lean implementation process. Lean data
dashboards are shared with specific location information.
There is a communication plan that assures 50% of the facility

personnel is aware of lean information. The Human
3 Resources (HR) department manages the communication
program. There aren’t any lean information dashboards
located on the production floor.
Lean communications are managed by area leads and email.
2 However there is still no certainty of communication reaching
the production floor.
There is some communication of lean information, on specific
1 high-visibility initiatives, but no defined method exists for day-
to-day lean communication to employees on the production
floor.
Level Employee Satisfaction Survey
Feedback on the results of the survey is communicated in

writing throughout the organization. Effective follow up leading
5
to specific action plans are communicated, implemented and
monitored. Cultural Satisfaction Index (CSI) > 90%
Surveys are held on a regular basis, but are not adjusted to

4 the changing circumstances. There is no system to revisit the
content and purpose of the questions raised. Cultural
Satisfaction Index (CSI) > 85%
Surveys are held on regular basis. All employees understand
3 the purpose and goals of the surveys. Feedback to employees
still doesn't always take place or happens on a fragmented
basis.
Surveys are held on a somewhat regular basis. Survey
2 purpose and goals are only partially communicated to the local
organization. Surveys are executed with limited feedback and
follow up.
1 Surveys of employee satisfaction are rarely done, and even

when they are, not much action is taken as a result.
Current State vs Description
Evidence Demonstrating Your Conclusion
(Meets, Worse, Better)


Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
Level 5S: Sort
100% of employees have been trained in 5S. All work areas have
implemented 5S and are conducting regular Sort activities (daily,
weekly, or monthly) to sustain orderliness. Employees are
constantly looking for ways to improve the Sort process and increase
5 orderliness in the area. There is a clear standard in place for how
Sorting should be done. There is a clear standard in place for how
long items are allowed to remain in the Red Tag Area (7 days, 14
days, etc) before being disposed of.
At least 75% of employees have received 5S training. Most work

areas have implemented 5S and are conducting regular Sort
activities (daily, weekly, or monthly) to sustain orderliness. There is
4 a clear standard in place for how Sorting should be done. There is a
clear standard in place for how long items are allowed to remain in
the Red Tag Area (7 days, 14 days, etc) before being disposed of.
At least 50% of employees (both operators and leaders) have
received 5S training. The original 5S pilot areas have made great
progress and are continuing to improve. Employees are now in the
process of deploying 5S throughout the facility, and a clear facility-
wide implementation plan exists. An official, permanent Red Tag
3 Area has been designated, where employees can place unneeded
red-tagged items to get them out of their work areas. There is a
person appointed to manage the Red Tag Area and the disposition
of red-tagged items, but there is no clearly defined standard in place
for how long items should be allowed to remain in the Area or what
the process is for disposing of them.
5S training has occurred for some operators and leaders in isolated

areas of the facility. Employees have a basic understanding of 5S
concepts, can "say the words", and are trying it out in pilot areas.
There is no facility-wide plan for implementation of 5S. Employees in
2 pilot areas have conducted at least one Sort activity and removed
unneeded items from their work area, but some unneeded items are
again present and cluttering the area. No official Red Tag Area is
designated, and employees often don't know how to dispose of items
they red-tag in their area.
Work areas have unnecessary tools and equipment present, and

aisles are often cluttered and sometimes prevent viewing sections of
the machine. A few people have some informal knowledge of 5S
1 concepts, but no formal training on 5S has been done. Employees
know and apply basic housekeeping principles, but do not formally
apply the principles of 5S.
Level 5S: Set in Order

Needed tools can be retrieved within 30 seconds, and requires a
minimum amount of motion. Procedures are in place for making
changes and improvements to the defined locations and needed
5 items listed for the work area. All tools, equipment, and material
locations are clearly marked with painted lines and labeled. Items
are always returned to their defined locations when not in use.
Employees have started analyzing the "needed" items in their work

area and are minimizing the number of those items where possible.
Work areas are properly arranged for tool retrieval and use, with
4 tools located within easy reach to reduce wasted motion. Tools and
equipment are usually returned to their defined locations when not in
use.
Employees have put shadow boards in place for all tools required in
their work area, with each tool's defined location clearly labeled.
Minimum and maximum quantities have been defined for all
3 materials stored in the work area. Temporary tape outlines for
aisles, work zones, and equipment have been replaced with
permanent (paint or tape) lines. Tools and equipment are usually
returned to their defined locations when not in use.
Employees have defined a list of what equipment and tools are
required to be in the work area, and the list is posted for all to see.
These identified items are safely stored and moderately organized,
but are often still in toolboxes or drawers. Tools and equipment are
2 not always returned to their defined locations. Aisles, work zones,
and locations for equipment (trash cans, mobile bins, etc) have been
clearly outlined on the floor with temporary tape. Required materials
have a defined location, but there is no minimum or maximum
quantity defined for these items.
Tools and equipment are placed randomly around the work area. A
few items have a defined place, but this is not the norm and even
these items are often not in their defined locations. A list of required
1 tools/materials for the area is not posted, and tools look messy and
inadequate for the work. Some aisles and work zones are
demarcated but without frequent revision.
Level 5S: Shine
Cleaning and inspection in the work areas has become second-

nature, and any issues that are identified during inspections are
quickly corrected. Employees have identified any inspection points
on equipment that need to be relocated or modified to make them
5 easier to check during the shift (without shutting down the machine).
Employees routinely find ways to improve the equipment by
preventing leaks and sources of contamination, rather than just
cleaning up after them every day.
All of the specified housekeeping tasks are completed each day.
The work area typically looks like the "acceptable condition" photos
that are posted in the area. All of the critical pieces of equipment or
components in the area have been identified, and regular inspections
4 of these items occur to check for cleanliness and proper operation.
Employees are regularly using visual controls to assist with these
inspections, and often find ways to improve the visual controls.
Clear plans are in place for both housekeeping and inspection tasks,
and leaders routinely visit work areas to check the condition.
Most of the specified housekeeping tasks are completed each day.

Photos have been posted in the work area to show what the
acceptable level of cleanliness looks like. Most of the critical pieces
of equipment or components in the area have been identified, and
regular inspections of these items are occurring to check for
3 cleanliness and proper operation. Employees are beginning to put
visual controls in place to help them check for proper operation
quickly and easily. There is a plan in place designating the
appropriate person to contact if issues are found during inspection.
Leaders sometimes visit work areas to check the condition.
Employees have set aside short periods of time for housekeeping,

usually at the beginning or end of the shift. Necessary cleaning
supplies are kept in the work area, in a designated location. A list
has been created showing which items/areas should be cleaned
during the housekeeping time. However, these housekeeping tasks
2 are often not completed. Some of the critical pieces of equipment or
components in the area have been identified, and a regular
inspection routine has been established for these items, but there
may still be some confusion about who should be contacted if an
issue is found.
Work areas and machines are dirty and some places have not been
cleaned for a long time. Informal cleaning and housekeeping
activities sometimes take place, but it is infrequent and a specific
plan or schedule for doing these tasks does not exist. Cleaning
1 supplies are not stored in the work area, and employees usually
have to search to find these supplies when they are needed. There
is no identification of critical pieces of equipment or components that
should be cleaned and inspected on a regular basis.
Level 5S: Standardize
The crews/teams from all areas of the facility have agreed to a set of
5S standards they will use within their areas. These universal
5 standards for 5S are always followed in all areas, and leaders check
regularly to ensure compliance.
Clear standards exist for regularly performing the tasks of the first 3
S's. They are always followed and leaders check regularly to ensure
compliance. The standards are reviewed on a routine basis to check
for necessary revisions. Work areas have a 5S daily checklist
4 covering items internal and external to the machine (inside the
guards as well as outside the guards). All the crews/teams that work
in an area have agreed to a set of 5S standards they will use within
their area.
Clear standards exist for regularly performing the tasks of the first 3
S's. They are usually followed and leaders check sporadically to
ensure compliance. The standards are sometimes reviewed to
check for necessary revisions, but this is infrequent. There is a clear
3 plan for implementing 5S throughout the facility, and work areas
have a 5S daily checklist covering most of the items "outside the
guards" or external to the machine. Some crews/teams that work in
the same area have begun to share their 5S standards with each
other.
Some standards exist for performing the tasks associated with the
2 first 3 S's, but they are not very extensive and are not consistently
followed. Each crew or team has their own way of doing things.
Standards do not exist for performing the tasks associated with the
1 first 3 S's, only informal routines. Each crew or team has their own
way of doing things.
Level 5S: Sustain

Root causes are eliminated, and improvement actions focus on
5 developing preventive methods.
Sources and frequency of issues in the work area are documented

4 as part of the routine work. Root causes are identified and corrective
action plans are developed.
Teams in the work area perform checks on a regular basis to

3 maintain their 5S improvements.
Initial 5S level has been determined, and performance is
2 documented and posted in the work area.
Work area checks are randomly performed (not on a particular

1 schedule or with specific expectations). There is little or no visual
measurement of 5S performance.
Level Quick Changeover (QCO): Overall Initiative
The QCO initiative is fully developed with clear responsibilities and

5 full engagement. A comprehensive system exists which ties QCO
activities to business needs.
There is a formal QCO initiative. QCO activity is selected based on
4 understanding of business need.
There is a formal QCO initiative. When and where QCO is practiced

3 is not well understood.
2 There is some QCO activity, but inconsistent and not well organized.
There is no formal QCO initiative. Improvement in grade changes is
1 inconsistent if at all.
Level Quick Changeover (QCO): Capability Building
There is a matrix of capabilities for all operators and supervisors and a

5 training plan to eliminate gaps.
The operator and supervisors are trained frequently related to the

4 standards of the grade changes.
3 There are specific training programs on grade changes for new operators
New operators are trained on grade changes, but only as part of the initial
2 training
Little formal training is provided to new operators on how to perform grade

1 changes.
Level Quick Changeover (QCO): Performance Management

Every grade change is measured and recorded at the machine. Action is
recorded for grade changes that do not meet target. Review of
5 target/actual and follow-up on improvement happens on a regular,
prespecified basis.
Most grade changes are measured and recorded at the machine. Action is
4 recorded for grade changes that do not meet target. No regular review of
target/actual and actions to improve.
Some grade changes are measured and recorded at the machine. Actions
3 are sometimes recorded for grade changes that do not meet target.
Some grade changes contain targets. No action is recorded when a grade
2 change does not meet target.
Grade change times are calculated and recorded in a database, but are
1 not published and there is no action to improve.
Level Signal (Line Stop)
There are triggers and clear expectations of when to stop the line and react
to abnormalities. Compliance is >90% (checked daily at multiple levels in
the organization). At the machine, escalated issues and status are visible.
As additional resources are added to resolve the problem, the discovering
level maintains ownership. Triggers for the progression of problems up
5 through the help chain are pre-specified (who and what info) and simple.
For all levels of the help chain (beginning at the level of detection, typically
on the machine), the reaction to the abnormalities is pre-specified. 80% of
contained problems are assigned to implement countermeasures to
eliminate future stops (root causes).
There are clear expectations of when to stop the line and react to
abnormalities. Compliance is >75% (checked daily at multiple levels in the
organization). At the machine, escalated issues and status are visible. As
additional resources are added to resolve the problem, the discovering level
maintains ownership. Triggers for the progression of problems up through
4 the help chain are pre-specified (who and what info) and simple. For all
levels of the help chain (beginning at the level of detection, typically on the
machine), the reaction to abnormalities is pre-specified. 25% of contained
problems are assigned to implement countermeasures to eliminate future
stops (root causes).
organization). Escalated problems and status are not clear on the asset
(no visibility). Problem ownership is often assumed by support staff or
engineers that are responding. Triggers for the progression of problems up
3 through the help chain are pre-specified (who) and simple. For all levels of
the help chain (beginning at the level of detection, typically on the
machine), the reaction to abnormalities is pre-specified and new resources
review the prior actions and results when they begin supporting the effort.
Once problems are contained there is rarely follow-up to stop future
occurrences.
organization). Escalated problems and status are not clear on the asset
(no visibility). Problem ownership is often assumed by support staff or
engineers that are responding. Triggers for the progression of problems up
2 through the help chain are pre-specified (who) and often complex
depending on the problem. For 25% of the help chain (beginning at the
level of detection, typically on the machine), the reaction to abnormalities is
pre-specified, but resources rarely consider actions taken prior to their
support of the effort. Once problems are contained there is rarely follow-up
to stop future occurrences.
There is no consistent expectation of when to stop the line or call for help.
Escalated problems and status are not clear on the asset (no visibility).
Problem ownership is assumed by support staff or engineers that are
responding. When help is requested there is no formal system and is often
1 dictated by personal relationship. Response to abnormalities is highly
variable, and resources rarely consider actions taken prior to their support
of the effort. Once problems are contained there is rarely follow-up to stop
future occurrences.
Level TPM: Master Program
TPM Deployment plan in place for 1-3 year horizon aligned to site strategy
deployment
All elements of TPM in the Plan are at level 5
- Autonomous Care
- Improvement Teams (Focused improvement)
5 - Maintenance Systems
- Early Equipment Management
Steering team manages the deployment against the plan with measures to
monitor progress and checks the health of the system
All facility employees are involved and work together to build reliability OEE
for Base (Tissue) machine > 92, OEE for converting assets> 85%
TPM plan in place for 12 - 18 months

Maintenance and production plan is well integrated into the business plan.
Predictive Maintenance is in place.
4 Critical production machines are running at Overall Equipment
Effectiveness >75% for converting assets, > 85% for base (tissue)
machines
TPM vision is well defined and communicated
TPM deployment plan in place for 6-12 month horizon
Engineering has been engaged and new equipment to the facility has TPM
concepts applied prior to installation and start up
3 Standard work is in place for critical TPM processes with Steering team
involved in the checking process
Overall Equipment Effectiveness > 65% for converting assets, >80% OEE
for base (tissue) machines
Steering team formed but lacks a connected plan and measures

Facility has communicated it's direction with TPM
2 Autonomous Care and Improvement Teams in progress
Maintenance has established a charter and plan to improve
OEE is < 50% for converting , Base (Tissue) machine OEE is <80%
No structured reliability program established

1 No standard for daily asset care
Equipment output vs available capacity is below 50%
Level TPM: Maintenance Systems

95% of maintenance work is planned
Preventative tools used throughout the facility on a regular cadence &
route. Findings always drive action to root cause
5 All major breakdowns trigger SPS, driving to root cause, seldom do the
same problems come back
Training matrix posted, team members take accountability to close gaps
Work flow processes well established for work identification, planning,

scheduling, downtime coordination and materials management
Preventative tools used on a regular basis with standard routes, and
findings drive action
Training matrix drives regular capability building to close gaps
4 Emphasis on building capability in precision - belt tensioning, laser
alignment, proper torque, etc.
PM's have been optimized for 5S and Quick Change principles
Key metrics added - Mean Time Between Failures, Mean Time To Repair,
contribution to downtime caused by major breakdowns
Maintenance improvement plan integrated with Strategy Deployment

Planned work has a system to prioritize work
PM review system in place to drive out waste and improve reliability -
finding defects every 4 to 6 inspections
PM's are broken into running and down PM's
3 Have training matrix, starting to build capability to close gaps
Predictive and preventive tools are used in most areas
Key metrics tracked and visible (60% of planned work, 70% PM On time
Completion), start up effectiveness - back to pre down levels within 30 mins
for converting and 1 hour for Base (Tissue) Machines
Facility has established maintenance improvement plan, vision, mission,
training matrix, equipment criticality
Key metrics tracked and visible - drive problem solving
30% of Planned Work
2 50% PM On-time Completion
Starting to use predictive and preventive tools in critical areas. i.e. thermal
camera, ultrasound, vibration
Down reviews completed after each down to improve down effectiveness
More unplanned work than planned work, breakdowns are common

> 25% of maintenance resources are primary support for breakdown
1 response
Evidence of slip, trip, fall hazards, shop equipment cluttered, shop is dirty
Level TPM: Planning
There is a plan for at least a 6-week horizon.

Dates of the maintenance downs are frozen at least 1 month in advance.
Work orders for the down are frozen 1 week prior to the down.
Planned work for the next week is published.
5 Current week planned work completion is updated and tracked.
Work feedback is used for check and adjust on planned work.
95% of weekly scheduled work is completed at end of week.
% PM/PdMs are completed versus cycle 85%
There is a maintenance plan for 4 weeks, the dates are reported
beforehand and it meets most of agreed dates.
All planned work is kitted 3 days prior to start.
4 Planned work for the next week is published.
Maint mapping used to identify waste

There is a maintenance plan for 4 weeks but dates modified continuously.
The work orders are delivered one day before the shutdown, the resource
verification is made same day of the stop and down progress is updated
3 during down .
PM's are broken into running and down PM's
Gantt charts are used, visible and updated during the downs
There is a monthly maintenance plan, but dates are modified continuously.

. The work orders are delivered the same day of the shutdown. There is a
listing of tasks placed on machine.
2 40% of weekly scheduled work is completed at end of week.

Check and adjust system in place for improving planning efficiency
Materials are staged for planned work and area has 5S standards
During downs materials and tools are pre-staged before the down.
There is a bi-weekly maintenance plan, but frequently are off schedule
Planning meetings are held 3 days before the shutdown, but activities
aren’t clearly defined or placed at the machine.
1 Work orders are delivered the same day of the work.
Standing work orders cover more than 20% of a person's time.
% Planned work is less than 50%.. No process for schedule breaks
Level TPM: Autonomous Care

Standard tasks conducted throughout the shift for both running and
down inspections
Routes in place for predictive tools for early detection of wear
Operating teams have necessary skills to repair and maintain on shift
System in place to resolve equipment defects within 7 days
Leader Standard Work (LSW) confirming process used to deliver the
output
5
Clear standards in place for inspection with tasks leveled based on

optimized frequency
System in place for improving, optimizing, eliminating need to clean
4 Visual standards in place for ease and consistency of inspection
Predictive tools used for problem solving
LSW confirming output quality
Daily, weekly, monthly cleaning and inspection standards developed
by the operating teams linked to critical areas of the machine
Operators and maintainers are partnering to build process
3 knowledge in the operating teams
Training conducted on use of predictive tools and lubrication
Operators involved in basic lubrication
LSW for confirming completion of tasks
Operations and maintenance teams trained on clean to inspect,

inspect to detect, detect to perfect
2 Initial cleaning conducted by the operators and support personnel
Daily tasks developed for asset care by the operating teams
Equipment defect identification and correction initiated
Operations- Produces / Maintenance-Maintains Equipment.

Tendency for functional barriers and communication gaps between
1 operations and maintenance
Primary responsibility for asset care is with maintenance vs a shared
responsibility
Level TPM: Improvement Teams

Reliability improvement is measured by OEE
Operations and maintenance are driving problem solving based on
5 ongoing pareto analysis of losses
All available white space time is optimized for clean to inspect,
problem solving and capability building
Team is identifying and developing plans to close capability gaps

System in place to review and improve standards on a regular basis
Operating team owns visual boards for the line
Improvement team is involved with equipment changes for the asset
4 Down time required for TPM tasks is progressing to run-time checks
(no down time required) since countermeasures are being
implemented and beginning to eliminate the need for daily cleaning
(eliminating sources of contamination)
Team charter is updated annually or after reaching and sustaining

charter goals for 3 months
Reliability improvement is measured by OEE
Current focus area is communicated on the asset with simple
3 problem solving in progress
White space plans developed by team & linked to improvement
areas
Documenting wins before and after, single point lesson
Countermeasures are evident and progressing
Joint operating and maintenance teams are formed across the crews
to identify focus areas for improvement
Team shares results, plans, and barriers with leadership team on a
2 monthly basis
Team acknowledges leadership support for improvement activities
Improvement goals are established for the team
Team is building simple visual standards for the area
Improvements are primarily driven through support team

1 Support teams are not utilizing operations for problem solving or
improvement
Level TPM: Lubrication
Lube route clearly documented in PM's - operations or maint can

execute route (on routinely serviced equipment)
Automated systems in place where value added
5 Water dehydrator in use for water contamination on Tissue Machines
Ultrasound used to determine proper grease level when bearing
defect found
Oil sample ports clean, labeled, easily accessed
Leader standard work supports lube route / facility lube systems
Incoming equipment lubrication requirements identified and
confirmed with facility inventory list
4 Incoming equipment conforms with lubrication color coding scheme
Lube route established that scientifically determines the amount of
lubrication needed for each lube point based on equipment design
and machine speed
Lube routes established with all critical equipment and facility assets
Lubrication plan / A3 established as part of asset or maintenance
objectives
Lubrication training for facility systems established / conducted
Lubrication assessment completed annually in support of plan
3 Equipment failures are analyzed to determine root cause and link to
lubrication system
Oil sampling used as a predictive tool for early equipment wear
All equipment serviced at recommended intervals
Lubrication levels quickly identified (visual - site glass)
Lube room 5S conducted

New oils filtered prior to use
Closed color coded containers used for transport
Lubricants consolidated by type
2 Lubrication "champion" established for lube system improvement
Eye wash stations clean and readily accessed
MSDS info available, fire inspection frequency meets annual
guidelines
Oil samples conducted on critical equipment
Limited lubrication standards in place
No lubrication system owner
Lubrication failures evident
1 Lubricants added to equipment unfiltered
Multiple lubricants used throughout facility - no consolidation
Lubrication route not established / Multiple grease fittings not
lubricated
Level TPM: Focused Improvement
Individuals have Problem Solving objectives as part of their annual

objectives setting.
5 Simple problem solving occurs on shift for all major failures or red
events (hour by hour is red)
Problem solving for failures > i..e.30 minutes, and system in place to
lower trigger as number of failures decreases, supporting weekly
problem solving
4 PM's reviewed annually alongside the equipment history and stores
report, and adjusted based on history
Triggers for problem solving have been established; i.e. major
failures > 2hrs
Weekly problem solving occurs for major failures.
3 Day shift maint has 2 hours/week built into the schedule for problem
solving issues from the week or the issue back log
PM and PdM standards are being revised based on equipment
histories
Random problem solving

Inconsistent at determining root cause and confirming
countermeasure
2 Emergency repair histories are being generated, follow up is
assigned daily
Part failure histories are reviewed monthly generating the simple
problem solving issue bin
No trigger point for root cause analysis done by maintenance

No failure history is being generated
1 Limited equipment failure data used to prioritize improvements
Reccuring repairs are made to the same equipment
Level TPM: Early Equipment Management

Operators and maintenance involved in layout reviews and 2D
workshops considering the 7 flows in the design process
Operating team has been trained on Autonomous Care
Clean to inspect has been completed prior to PCO
5 Labeling, 5S and TPM standards completed prior to start up
Lube lines and conduit routes minimize contamination
All grease fittings are accessible and color coded based on lube type
and frequency
PMs, Lube routes, and PdM routes established prior to start-up
Operators and maintenance involved in the design and layouts

before the appropriation is written to ensure their input is factored
into the cost.
Operators and maintenance have trained on similar equipment at
other facility sites.
4 Autonomous Care training is done after ECO , prior to start up
OEM manufacturers have been trained on concepts of TPM and
incorporate thinking into the field fit flexibility options during assembly
phase
Engineering has been trained on concepts of TPM
Operators and maintenance involved early in the design phase, prior

to layouts and equipment selection.
Facilities with similar equipment are contacted and consulted on
3 recommendations, safety , PM's and spare parts.
Operators and maintenance attend vendor check outs.
Design standards include consideration for maintainability, flexibility,
operability and safety
Operators and Maintenance involved in the design safety reviews
prior to equipment start -up
2 Timing of reviews is often too late in the process for layout changes
Radom operator or maint involvement in equipment layout or design

Project focus is primarily on delivering on-time and on-budget
1 Improvements are often necessary to new equipment to meet
manufacturing requirements after installation
Level TPM: Tools and Spare Parts
Tool are available to the operating personnel for autonomous

maintenance and tools have 5S standards.
The technician's tools are complete and in order.
Shop 5S standards and leader standard work to ensure standards
are maintained
5 Stores inventory accuracy >98%
Bearings are stored in closed cabinets on vibration pads
PM tasks in place for quarterly maintenance of spare motors
Stores is partnering with operations to maintain operating supplies at
the line
50% to 70% of the tools including tools crib are available to the
operating personnel in autonomous maintenance tasks.
Training on safety and proper use of tools is in place for operations
The technician's tools are complete and in order.
4 Spare parts in the workshop are arranged and audits performed to
maintain this level but without a schedule
Stores inventory accuracy >95%
Parts are not being contaminated from dust and bearings are stored
in cabinets with vibration dampening pads
Operating personnel have basic tools for autonomous maintenance

tasks. Tools are often located where they are frequently used
Shadow boards have had further optimization to 5S standards
Maintenance Shop 5S in place with random audit and > 50%
compliance
3 Tool Crib 5S conducted with random audit and > 50% compliance
The technician’s tools are complete but not in order.
Stores inventory management is well controlled > 90% inventory
accuracy
Stores room is clean, well organized with some environmental
control
Tools are available on the line, but incomplete for autonomous tasks
Shadow boards are being used . 5S is not in place to maintain
The technician’s tools are incomplete and not in order.
2 The shop is in order but there are some spares not in use.
Audits are infrequent and driven by leadership.
Stores is controlled, basic parts management practices in place, >
80% inventory accuracy
Limited tools in operations area and controlled by a handful of
personnel; tools storage is random and unorganized on the machine
Shop tools are not organized, tool crib may not exist or is in poor
1 condition or missing parts
Limited or no parts staging for work orders
Stores is poorly controlled, stocked parts are often missing when
system indicates inventory
Level Visual Mgt: Shop Floor
There is an established work plan to redefine the Visual Aids for

improving visual management of the area. Walking by the machine
5 you can see the KPI's easily. Facility leaders have immediate
access to the status of the lines. There are procedures to follow in
case of emergency and the support chain is clearly defined.
There isn’t an established work plan to redefine the Visual Aids for
improving the visual management of the area, but walking by the
machine you can see the KPI's at a glance. Facility leaders have
immediate access to the status of the lines. There are procedures to
4 follow if any anomaly happens and support chain is established and
is clear for everyone. Facility personnel can clearly identify if an aisle
is obstructed, if raw materials, WIP or some part of this machine is
out of place. This is understood even if personnel is outside the
process. Inventory levels (min/max) and locations are clearly marked
Walking by the machine you can see the KPI's at a glance. Facility
leaders do not have immediate access to the status of the lines.
There are procedures to follow if any anomaly happens and support
chain is established but not always is well used. All dangerous
operations are clearly marked. Inventory levels are NOT clearly
marked but locations are designated.
KPIs are not visible at a glance in the machine or in other areas of

the company and support chain is not usually well used. Safety
equipment, production areas (hallways, safety areas, emergency
exit, etc) are demarcated and easily visible for plant staff. Equipment
and production areas clearly demarcated (e.g. defective machines),
but are not fully visible and understandable to people outside the
facility
2
There is not a clear support/help chain procedure established for the

machines. Some procedures may exist to notify others when help is
needed, but these are not consistently followed. The performance
results for each machine are only known by the crew at the end of
the shift - this is not visible real-time throughout the shift. There are
few if any demarcations in the work areas.
Level Visual Mgt: Facility KPIs

Through visual boards, the current safety, quality, productivity and
cost state of the facility even for people who do not know the facility.
Also the targets are visible and clear for everyone, even for people
5 who do not know the facility. There is a cascade of these indicators
from the management to the shop floor. Actual machine speed is
displayed and accessible to all at a distance. There is a system to
review and update visual management of Facility KPI's.
Through visual boards, the current safety, quality and productivity

state of the facility is clear at first glance, even for people who do not
know the facility. Also the targets are visible and clear for everyone,
4 even for people who do not know the facility. There is a cascade of
these indicators from the management to the shop floor. Actual
machine speed is displayed and accessible to all at a distance.
Production status is clear at all times on the shop floor. But

3 indicators are not cascaded from the management to the shop floor.
Actual machine speed is visually displayed.
Production status is not clear at all times on the shop floor. There
2 isn't a cascade of indicators from the management to the shop floor.
Production status isn't readily visible on the shop floor. There isn't a
1 cascade of indicators from management to the shop floor.
Level Visual Mgt: Standard Work
Employees consistently follow the standard work for visual

management in all work areas across the facility, and these
5 standards are routinely reviewed to check for necessary revisions or
potential improvements to the visual management process.
Standard work for visual management has been developed in in all
4 work areas across the facility, with all work areas and crews doing it
the same way.
Standard work for visual management has been developed in most

work areas, with all the crews in those areas doing it the same way.
3 There is more alignment across the facility on standard work for
visual management in all work areas.
Standard work has been developed for visual management in some

work areas, to ensure that all the crews in that area do it the same
2 way. But there are still some aspects of visual management that are
not done the same across crews. There is still little alignment across
the facility on standard work for visual management in all work areas.
Little Standard Work exists for visual management. What it should
look like and how it works is different in each work area.
Development and maintenance of visual aids is generally left to each
team's discretion.
Level JIT: Continuous flow
Production loops within the value stream have been consciously

identified and the major processes have achieved a cycle (campaign
length) of less than one week for high volume low variability SKUs
5 without increasing costs to the company. Flexible repetitive/level
scheduling cycles have been implemented and followed with
disciplined execution.
Over 75% of processes have been improved to a point where the

high volume/low variability SKUs are being produced on a
stable/level weekly cycle. Shutdowns for planned downtime are
4 coordinated within the cycle.. Focus on continuously improving set-
up/changeover efficiency. A high level of cycle time balance
between the operations has been achieved.
At least 50% of the processes have been improved to a point where
the high-volume SKUs are being produced on a stable weekly cycle.
Product routings are simple and visual throughout the factory.
Standard WIP between operations has been implemented and the
3 use of FIFO lanes has been instituted to make the WIP control
visual. Cycle time balance between operations continues to improve
due to improved 24/7 grade change capability and reduced minimum
run lengths.
Production process routings are being simplified and focused

improvement is taking place on changeover times and cycle time
2 imbalance. Large amounts of WIP still separate operations and
“batch” production still occurs.
Production processes are isolated “islands” with large amounts of

WIP between operations due to cycle time imbalances and/or long
1 changeover times. Products move through the production line in
large batches resulting in long throughput times. There are many
possible routing combinations making scheduling a difficult process.
Level JIT: Takt Time

Pace of production is established based on producing to customer
demand (Takt time). Takt time is calculated from the downstream
customer demand for each process and used to level production.
5 Each worker/operation is capable of operating within the optimal Takt
time. Reviewing changes in Takt time has become an integral part of
the S&OP process.
Downstream customer demand is used to determine the optimal

production Takt time and efforts are made to level production. Each
4 worker/station operates close to the optimal Takt time. Takt time is
recalculated on fixed intervals to ensure capacity to deliver and
alignment of supply and demand.
Downstream customer demand is used to determine the optimal takt

time, but it may not always be followed. Inefficiency exists in the
3 form of overproduction and low utilization. Production standards are
dynamic and vary with demand.
Fixed production standards (across all products) for cycle time are
2 used to benchmark daily operations. No real attempt is made to
match this to demonstrated customer demand.
Production pace is not planned but assumed to be a fixed function of

1 the current equipment. Line operates and adds/cuts hours or
inventory to match demonstrated customer demand.
Level JIT: Pull System
Production for high volume SKUs is driven completely by “Pull”

signal from downstream processes. Preferably, low volume/high
variability SKUs would be make to order. Demands are given to
5 pacemaker process only & drawn back up the line using a simple
signal system (i.e., Kanban card). WIP strictly limited & system highly
disciplined
Production is driven based on a “Pull” signal from downstream
processes for more than 50% of high volume SKUs. Low
volume/high variability SKUs may be make to order or make to
4 forecast. Daily demands are fulfilled by the final operation. WIP is
limited and system is disciplined. Supermarkets are optimized
and/or eliminated where possible. Pull systems have been leveled
throughout the kanban cycle (campaign).
Partial Kanban system is in place but withdrawal is not based on

demonstrated customer demand and may not be strictly regulated.
3 WIP levels are not always controlled and the “Pull” discipline is
occasionally broken. Supermarkets are being used to strategically
manage inventory throughout the value stream.
Production output at individual stations may be somewhat limited by

“back-up” of WIP from downstream processes. A capacity limit or
2 maximum WIP level is in place and usually followed. Communication
between processes is poor.
Production flow is completely MRP based with no in-line control on
1 operations or production pace. Material enters and is pushed
downstream on forecast only
Level Value Stream Mapping
Value stream maps are regularly used in the area's communications.

Front line leaders teach value stream mapping. All departments and
teams use posted value stream maps to show their improvement
5 plans. Each area's performance (down to the team) is reflected in
the current state measures summary on its value stream map (e.g.,
lead time, % value-added time, yield, productivity, uptime,
changeover).
All value streams display current state (including all end to end
processes) and 90-day future state maps showing improvement
goals (measures) and activities (kaizens). All supervisors in the
value stream are proficient value stream mappers,
4 draw their own maps, use mapping to systematically understand
opportunities large and small. Completion status of kaizens is shown
on the value stream maps, linked to strategy deployment, and
reflected in status of progress against 90 day goals.
Most areas have visible plans for improvement; many of these
shown as current and future state value stream maps with kaizen
bursts showing planned improvements. Some of the future state
maps show planned improvement in specific value stream process
3 measures (such as lead time, % value-added time, yield,
productivity, uptime, changeover times). In areas with current value
stream maps, supervisors and superintendents are proficient value
stream mappers and drew their own maps.
Value stream maps can be seen posted in the area, may once have
been used as an improvement planning tool, but they are out of date.
Some technical specialists (engineers, lean leads) know how to map
2 value streams. Most line manufacturing leaders do not. Value
stream maps, when present, show the current state only. Or, if
future state maps are present, they are out of date.
Value stream maps are not in use, or were used once but are out of
1 date. They are not part of the area's approach to improvement. Few
people if any in the area are proficient at value stream mapping.
Level Value Stream Management

Value Stream deployment plans are fully integrated into annual
business strategy deployment for all functions of the organization.
Participation is evident in all functions and levels of the organization.
5 Measurements are frequently compared against other world class
businesses for benchmarking purposes. Organizational stretch
goals are set based on the world class benchmarks.
Value Stream deployment plans are integrated into annual business

strategy deployment for most functions of the organization.
Breakthrough activity is identified and resourced. Measurement and
4 checking is integrated. Process metric targets are aligned with
business metric targets. Formal countermeasures with root cause
analysis are used for deviations from plans or results.
Value Stream deployment plans impact on the Business Plan has

started to be recognized as an important process for the business.
Value Stream integration into business strategy deployment may be
3 at a low level but the Value Stream has established a formal
approach to deployment. Measure and check process exists for the
Value Stream deployment plan. Countermeasures are becoming
more prevalent to address deviations.
Some degree of Value Stream deployment plans are evident and
there is evidence the operation is effectively moving toward Value
2 Stream goals. Some degree of checking process and measurement
is evident.
Value Stream deployment is at low level and has no role in

managing the business. There are no deployment plans and
1 measuring systems are working but the check process is ineffective.
Results are inconsistent.
Level Process Capability
Key process variables have been identified and are being routinely
controlled using statistical process control (SPC) techniques. SPC is
performed by operators as opposed to quality auditors. Capability of
5 all major processes is understood and regularly updated. Capability
is used as a factor in product design. Process capability using Ppk
or Cpk is used as an integral part of problem solving.
4
Key process variables have been identified and some of the

variables are being controlled by SPC. SPC is performed by quality
3 auditors. Ppk or Cpk has been identified but not used as part of the
problem solving process.
2
Key process variables have not been identified and PpK and Cpk are
1 unknown.
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Level Line Performance Dialogues
Line performance dialogues are carried out minimally every shift (ex: once
per shift, every 2 hrs, etc) by the line crew and supporting personnel. The
meeting is held invariably as scheduled and the whole team is conscious of
its importance to define their own job priorities. The performance board is
updated with the latest KPIs and identified problems together with the
status of solutions defined in previous meetings. KPIs are reviewed and
5 compared against targets in an ordered and focused way. Emphasis is
focused only on main losses and only when the targets are not met. When
the target of any KPI is not met the main problem is clearly identified and its
solution clearly defined together with the accountable person and deadline.
Pending solutions are always tracked before the end of the meeting. 80%
of the problems are solved at the shop-floor and the rest are raised to the
next level.
Line performance dialogues carried out minimally every shift (ex: once per
shift, every 2 hrs, etc) by the line crew and supporting personnel. The
meeting is always held as scheduled and the whole team is conscious of its
importance. The performance board is updated. KPIs are reviewed and
compared against target but the team is not always focused on the main
4 opportunities. Main problems are usually clearly identified but solution
definition must be improved. The person accountable for the solution is not
always clearly identified. Pending solutions aren’t usually tracked. Most
problems are usually solved by the front-line team but there’s still a high
demand for the support resources.
Line performance dialogues are being carried out minimally every shift (ex:
once per shift, every 2 hrs, etc), but assistance from supporting personnel
must be improved. Meeting discipline must be improved and meetings are
sometimes delayed. Performance board is usually updated on time but not
3 100%. KPIs are reviewed but target compliance is not always stated. Main
problems are usually identified but solutions are generally unclear and the
accountable person and deadline aren’t identified. Pending solutions aren’t
tracked. Problems are clearly identified but solutions still rely heavily on
support resources.
Line performance dialogues are being carried out minimally every shift (ex:
once per shift, every 2 hrs, etc), but there is only sporadic attendance of
supporting personnel, the level of attendance is less than 80 percent, and
2 meetings are frequently delayed. Performance boards are usually
incomplete. When KPIs are reviewed it is without order and focus and main
problems aren’t usually identified and prioritized. Solutions are rarely
defined and tracked.
Line performance dialogues are not carried out minimally every shift (ex:
once per shift, every 2 hrs, etc) at the shop-floor level by the line crew and
1 the supporting personnel (i.e., process specialists, team coordinators,
maintenance partners, etc).
Level Daily Accountability Meetings

Performance dialogues are carried out at all organizational levels. All daily
accountability meetings include updated visual displays (dashboards or
slideshows) to review KPIs. Meetings are focused on the definition and
tracking of action plans to solve the main problems. Minor issues are
5 successfully solved at the shop-floor, no high level involvement is required.
Major Issues are raised to the next level and prioritized in the daily
accountability meetings. Solutions to the major problems are
communicated in line performance dialogues. There are clear action plans
for those accountable for executing solutions.
Performance dialogues are carried out at all organizational levels. All

performance meetings include visual displays updated (dashboards or
slideshows) to review KPIs. Meetings are focused on defining and tracking
action plans to solve the main problems. Some minor problems are raised
4 to the daily meetings, requiring a high level of support from managers.
There’s no formal channel to communicate solutions across all plant levels
and task tracking relies exclusively in middle managers. There’s a good
level of participation from all team members including leadership.
Performance dialogues are carried out at all organizational levels. Daily

accountability meetings are correctly focused on defining action plans to
solve the main problems, however visual displays must be improved to
3 provide better problem visibility, as well as clarity and alignment within the
meetings. Communication between all organizational levels is not effective
and the level of participation from the team and leadership in performance
meetings must be improved.
Participants in daily accountability meetings are not well defined for correct
decision making and tracking of action plans. Meetings at different levels
within the facility do not consistently use KPIs and visual displays, and,
2 meetings sometimes drift to issue discussion rather than defining the action
plan. Without the supervision of managers the level of engagement at the
meetings is lacking.
Daily accountability meetings do occur, but they are usually low-energy and
focused on simply reporting what happened the day before, rather than
1 monitoring specific KPIs and defining action plans to solve the main
problems when KPI targets are not met.
Level Task Management
There is a task tracking tool for unsolved problems identified on the shop-
floor and those identified on a daily basis by the primary team. The tool
contains all required fields: the problem and solution are always clearly
defined with an opening date, deadline, responsible and status. There´s an
additional field for a postponed date to keep track of the original deadline if
this must be modified and there’s an execution indicator based on the
compliance of the original deadline.
5 Simple problem solving is used. Delayed tasks are reviewed during the
daily accountability meeting and are prioritized by the area manager. During
weekly meetings the execution indicator is reviewed to evaluate and
reassign resources as needed. 80% of the problems discussed during the
daily meeting are solved permanently within 3 days of its detection and
there is no more than one delayed tasks per accountable person.
There’s a task tracking tool for unsolved problems identified on the shop-
floor and those identified on a daily basis by the primary team. The problem
and solution are always clearly defined with an opening date, deadline,
4 responsible and status. Delayed tasks are reviewed during the daily
meeting and are prioritized by the area manager. During the daily
accountability meeting the execution indicator is reviewed.
The task management tool is used to solve problems on the shop floor and
those identified by the primary team. Some method of status is used and
some method of action is used such as four blocker or SPS. Late tasks are
overlooked and not a priority. Status of the tool is reviewed at a weekly
meeting. The problem, solution, opening date, deadline, responsible, status
3 and postponed date are identified. The delayed tasks are reviewed during
the daily meeting, but are not necessarily rescheduled and prioritized with
the support of area manager. The performance indicator is reviewed during
weekly meetings, but without a clear objective. Only corrective solutions are
solved in the first week and the number of delayed tasks increases
considerably.
A task management tool exists and is used only for the problems identified
by the primary team and most of the information is missing. The team has
not demonstrated accountability for the tool. The tool does not link tasks to
2 site and major objectives. The tasks may be reviewed during weekly
meetings, but without a clear objective. There is not a performance
indicator and compliance to tasks is very low.
There is not a defined tool or system in place for managing and tracking
1 tasks.
Level Kaizen Teams
Standard work includes the regular review of KPIs which are designed and
used to make problems visible. Cross-functional teams are in place to
solve problems and front-line operators are actively engaged in
improvement efforts. PDCA cycle is always used and action plans
5 incorporate the influence model, sustainability plans, and sharing of lessons
learned. Improvements made always become part of standard work
practices. Structured Kaizen events are happening on a regular basis and
clear and measurable results are being attained. Value stream maps
showing progress toward future state are evident.
Cross-functional teams are in place and carrying out the PDCA cycle.
Action plans are developed incorporating the influence model and
sustainability plans, but improvements are not consistently incorporated into
4 standard work practices. KPI targets are reviewed on a regular basis.
Plans are not consistently reviewed on a daily basis and facility
management is not involved in weekly reviews. Kaizen events are prevalent
and clear and measurable results are attained.
Cross-functional teams are assembled with participation of front-line
operators. KPI targets are set and reviewed - but not reviewed on a regular
3 basis. The PDCA cycle is used to understand the situation and develop
action plans but their is not enough focus on influence models and
sustainability plans.
There is no regular review of KPIs with the objective of making problems

visible. Operators are occasionally involved in improvement activity along
2 with other extended team members. KPI targets are set, but without
developing a detailed work plan to support the improvement efforts.
Areas of focused improvement are rarely established and only after

problems are frequent and significant. Operators have little involvement in
1 the improvement effort and specific work plans are rarely structured.
Kaizens are not taking place.
Level Customer Focus

Critical product and process variables/attributes are clearly identified (are
binary, visual and in control and capable) to meet internal/external
customer requirements. Process is capable to meet product specifications.
SOPs and visual management (including mistake-proofing) are in place to
5 ensure process control. Quality is built into the production process (Jidoka
concept is utilized) and when defects are generated they are immediately
identified and segregated in containment areas. . All operations have
standardized work sheets and any deviation triggers reaction plans as well
as SPS.
Critical product and process variables/attributes are clearly identified to

meet internal/external customer requirements. SOPs and visual
management (including some mistake-proofing) are in place to ensure
4 process control. Quality is built into the production process (Jidoka concept
is occasionally utilized) and when defects are generated they are
immediately identified but not necessarily segregated in containment areas.
Crew members measure customer metrics.
Critical product and process variables/attributes are identified and their

impact on internal/external requirements are clearly established. Quality
3 defects are jointly identified with the quality department. Some critical
customer metrics are not taken into consideration by crew members.
Critical product and process variables/attributes are identified. Employees
are aware of internal customer requirements but these are not their main
2 priority. Quality defect identification is under the quality department
responsibility with direct crew members involvement on follow up and
problem solving.
Employees are not always aware of the internal customer requirements in

1 downstream internal operations. They recognize the external customer
requirements by quality expectations and metrics.
Level Strategy Deployment
Deployment fully integrated into annual planning and all areas of the
organization. Employee participation is evident in all levels of the
5 organization. Measurements are frequently compared against other world
class businesses for benchmarking purposes. Organizational stretch goals
are set based on the world class benchmarks.
Deployment is integrated into the annual business plan and is implemented
in most areas of the organization. Breakthrough activity is identified and
4 resourced. Measurement and checking is integrated. Process metric
targets are aligned with business metric targets. Formal countermeasures
with root cause analysis are used for deviations from plans or results.
Deployment toward Business Plan has started to be recognized as an

important process for the business. Application may be at a low level but
3 the business has established a formal approach to deployment. Measure
and check connected to deployment process. Countermeasures are
becoming more prevalent to address deviations.
Some degree of deployment is evident and there is evidence the operation

2 is effectively moving toward GBP goals. Some degree of checking process
and measurement is evident.
Deployment is at low level and has no role in managing the business. There
1 are no deployment trees and measuring systems are working but the check
process is ineffective. Results are inconsistent.
Level Best Practices Management
Best Practices are a source of competitive advantage. Best practices from

KC facilities and external sources are deployed as part of the operating
strategy. Best practice identification and adoption is part of the culture.
Standard work and Leader Standard Work is in place to ensure that best
practice sharing is happening. Performance gaps are identified and
5 appropriate best practices selected to close those gaps. Performance
improvements (or gap closure) from adopting best practices are
communicated with the appropriate internal and external teams. Efforts are
made to improve the best practice ( 3- 6 months) after implementation and
the results shared with the appropriate internal and external teams.
Best Practices are integrated into work processes and plans. Information
from all KC facilities is pursued and distributed to all areas of the site.
People know where to get best practices and where to submit best practice
information. Performance gaps are identified and appropriate best
4 practices selected to close those gaps. Performance improvements (or gap
closure) from adopting best practices are are shared with the appropriate
internal and external teams.
Best practices are collected, communicated, and recognized as
opportunities. Best practices adoption is inconsistent and there is no clear
3 process or direction on adoption of best practices. Best practice sharing is
predominately happening within the location. Performance gaps are
identified and appropriate best practices selected to close those gaps.
Best practice sharing and adoption happens on an ad-hoc basis, there is no

2 process in place to share learning, and learning from others is not seen as
important or as an opportunity.
Best practices are often not recognized or shared, and no defined process
1 is in place to capture learning from other teams - internal or external.
Level Leader Standard Work

The methods for developing and implementing Leader Standard Work
(LSW) are standardized. It is performed daily, and there is about 90%
compliance (with tasks and checks delegated in the absence of the leader).
LSW is developed for all levels of site leadership. Coaching and feedback
are regularly part of the checks, and abnormalities are tracked and acted
5 on (contained). Results also act as an input to the site's systematic
problem solving processes. Leader tours of the work areas focus on
Critical Process health. Leaders know the critical processes in the area
and the tasks that are required for those processes to function. Their tasks
are completed. Checks are executed at critical points in the process where
weaknesses or known points of breakdown are possible.
The methods for developing and implementing LSW are standardized. It is

performed daily, and there is about 75% compliance. LSW is developed for
all levels of site leadership. Coaching and feedback are regularly part of
the checks, and abnormalities are tracked and acted on (contained).
4 Results also act as an input to the site's systematic problem solving
processes. Leader tours of the work areas generally focus on hotspots,
areas that have been an issue in the past or where improvements have
taken place to sustain their results.
The methods for developing and implementing LSW are standardized. It is

all levels of site leadership. There is tracking of whether or not LSW is
3 completed, but no actions for follow-up. Leader tours of the work areas
generally focus on hotspots, areas that have been an issue in the past or
where improvements have taken place to sustain their results.
There is no standardization on how LSW is developed or implemented. It is
the immediate supervisor and next level department leader. There is no
2 tracking to check if LSW is performed. Leader tours of the work areas have
little focus (sometimes on immediate hotspots or "socially" engaging team
regarding personal lives, sports, etc).
There is no standardization on how LSW is developed or implemented. It is

performed infrequently (less than daily), and we are unable to track
1 compliance due to lack of prescribed activity. LSW is rarely developed past
the immediate supervisor and next level. There is no tracking to check if
LSW is performed. Leader tours of the work areas have little or no focus.
Level Simple Problem Solving (SPS)
Criteria to initiate or trigger problem solving are specified for all areas of the
site. Problem-solving activities are reviewed weekly and show 100%
compliance to criteria. Criteria and problems are filtered against the main
losses and focus for the site, and prioritized accordingly. Follow-up tasks
are assigned to the empowered person. Problem status and task
completion are systematically tracked and effectiveness is reviewed at
regular intervals post implementation (30/60/90 days). Daily SPS is
5 completed at all levels of the organization (Site leadership to the floor). The
capability to facilitate SPS exists at all levels of the organization, and
capacity to facilitate SPS is systematically managed to support the site's
need. The outcome and impacts of problem solving are visible in the
effected workplaces. 100% of SPS's are systematically evaluated for
sharing of results within the site and externally. Specified channels for
sharing results are established and active.
Criteria to initiate or trigger problem solving are specified for most areas on
the site. Problem-solving activities are reviewed weekly and show 60%
compliance to criteria. Criteria and problems are filtered against the main
losses and focus for the site, and prioritized accordingly. Follow-up tasks
completion are systematically tracked and effectiveness is reviewed at
4 regular intervals post implementation (30/60/90 days). Weekly SPS is
completed at all levels of the organization (Site leadership to the floor). The
capability to facilitate SPS is managed ad-hoc and not connected to site
needs. The outcome and impacts of problem solving are visible in the
effected workplaces. Sharing of problem solving efforts and results does
occur, but is inconsistent. Sharing is mostly on an ad-hoc basis.
Criteria to initiate or trigger problem solving are specified for many areas on
the site, but problem-solving activities are rarely reviewed to check that they
are compliant to the criteria. Site objectives and main losses trigger some
problem solving, but this is not used to prioritize efforts. Follow-up tasks
completion are systematically tracked, but review of the effectiveness is
3 inconsistent. Weekly SPS is completed in 50% of the levels of the
organization (Site leadership to the floor). The capability to facilitate SPS is
managed ad-hoc and not connected to site needs. Visibility of the outcome
and impacts of problem solving is inconsistent in the effected workplaces.
Sharing of problem solving efforts and results does occur, but is
inconsistent. Sharing is mostly on an ad-hoc basis.
Criteria to initiate or trigger problem solving are specified for a few areas on
the site, but problem-solving activities are rarely reviewed to check that they
are compliant to the criteria. There is no consistent prioritization or filtering
of problem solving efforts. Follow-up tasks are not consistently assigned or
completed. Problem status, task completion, and effectiveness are not
2 systematically tracked or reviewed. There is inconsistent frequency to
problem solving activities and it is isolated to a few areas and levels of the
organization. There is limited capability to facilitate SPS. There is very
little, if any, visibility of the outcome and impacts of SPS in the effected
workplaces. Very little sharing of problem solving efforts and results occurs
within the organization.
There are no specific criteria to initiate Simple Problem Solving, and there
is little if any problem solving activity occurring. If there is any capability at
the site (individuals who know how to teach and facilitate problem solving
1 activities) it is not often utilized. There is very little, if any, visibility of the
outcome and impacts of problem solving in the effected workplaces. Very
little sharing of problem solving efforts and results occurs within the
organization.
Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
Level Quality Metrics
The performance for these metrics is completely stable and

predictable, reflecting a mature organization. The trends are
almost all positive with very few anomalies to explain. World-
5 class benchmarks are used to continuously stretch goals. All
site initiatives and activities are clearly aligned with these
metrics, and everyone in the organization clearly understands
these linkages.
The performance for these metrics is almost completely stable,

and all levels of the organization understand and are
comfortable with them. The trends for these metrics are mostly
4 positive, although occassional anomalies still occur. Most site
initiatives and activities are clearly aligned with these metrics,
and everyone in the organization clearly understands these
linkages.
The performance for these metrics has begun to stabilize, and
all levels of the organization understand and are comfortable
with them. The trends for these metrics are improving and are
3
mostly positive to flat. There is better clarity as to how site
initiatives align with and impact the metrics, and most
employees understand these linkages.
There is more stability in performance for these metrics, but

results are still somewhat unpredictable from month-to-month
2 or quarter-to-quarter. The trends for these metrics are mostly
flat, with some positive movement and less volatility. It is still
unclear how site initiatives align with and impact these metrics.
There is little or no evidence of stability in performance for

these metrics. The performance results are unpredictable from
month-to-month or quarter-to-quarter. The trends for these
1 metrics are typically flat, declining, or very volatile (swinging up
and down month-to-month). It is often not clear how the
initiatives and activities the site is working on throughout the
year align with and impact these metrics.
Level Cost/Productivity Metrics

these linkages.

linkages.

3

Level Delivery Metrics

these linkages.
linkages.

3

Level Customer Satisfaction Metrics

these linkages.

linkages.
3


Level Safety Metrics

these linkages.

linkages.

3

Level Breakthrough Goal-Setting
All goals are set as stretch goals year-over-year. These goals

are always based on world-class benchmarks, and represent
5
the effort of the site to make significant progress toward
achieving world-class performance.
Most goals are set as stretch goals year-over-year. Most of
4 these goals are based on world-class benchmarks, although a
few are occassionally still based on internal reflection.
Stretch goals are often set year-over-year. Some goals are

based on world-class benchmarks, and some are still
3
compared to a site or Business Unit's own internal
performance in previous years.
Stretch goals are sometimes set year-over-year. There has

been some investigation into benchmarks from other parts of
2
the company, but most goals are still set based on internal
reflection of the site's own prior-year performance.
There is little or no evidence that stretch goals are being set
year-over-year. Few, if any, goals are set based on world-
1 class benchmarks. Most goal-setting is based only on what a
site thinks it can achieve in the coming year compared to the
previous year's performance.
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
Comme
nts
In order to be assessed as being at a particular Level overall in one of the pillars, you
must have at least 85% Achievement in that Level.
Lean Leadership
Coaching & Feedback
Influence Model
Cultural Enablers
Recognition
Skills & Knowledge
Employee Suggestion System
Job Instruction
Standard Work
Lean Communication
Satisfaction Survey
Total Achieved:
Total Possible:
% Achievement in Each Level:
5S: Sort
5S: Set in Order
5S: Shine
5S: Standardize
5S: Sustain
QCO: Overall Initiative
QCO: Capability Building
QCO: Performance Management
Continuous Process Improvement
Signal (Line stop)

TPM: Master Program
TPM: Maintenance System
TPM: Planning
TPM: Autonomous Care
TPM: Improvement Teams
TPM: Lubrication
TPM: Focused Improvement
TPM: Early Equipment Management
TPM: Tools & Spare Parts
Continuous Process I Visual Management: Shop Floor
Visual Management: Facility KPI's
Visual Management: Standard Work
Just-in-Time: Continuous Flow
Just-in-Time: Takt Time
Just-in-Time: Pull System
Value Stream Mapping
Value Stream Management
Process Capability
Total Achieved:
Total Possible:
Line Performance Dialogues
Daily Accountability Meetings
Enterprise Alignment
Task Management
Kaizen Teams
Customer Focus
Strategy Deployment
Best Practices Management
Leader Standard Work
Simple Problem Solving
Total Achieved:
Total Possible:
Quality Metrics
Cost/Productivity Metrics
Delivery Metrics
Results
Customer Satisfaction Metrics

Safety Metrics
Breakthrough Goal-Setting
Total Achieved:
Total Possible:
PLEASE DO NOT TYPE IN THE CELLS BELOW! They should auto-fill based
Overall Plant Assessment

Pillar
Cultural Enablers
Results
OVERALL LEVEL
1 2 3 4 5
WHITE BRONZE SILVER GOLD PLATINUM
Have you met Have you met Have you met Have you met Have you met
100% of the 100% of the 100% of the 100% of the 100% of the
requirements requirements requirements requirements requirements
for this level? for this level? for this level? for this level? for this level?
YES YES NO NO NO PLEASE FILL IN ONLY THE BL

YES YES NO NO NO
YES YES YES NO NO
YES YES YES NO NO
YES YES YES NO NO
YES YES NO NO NO
YES YES YES YES YES
YES YES NO NO NO
YES YES YES NO NO
YES YES YES NO NO
10 10 6 1 1
10 10 10 10 10
100% 100% 60% 10% 10%
YES YES NO NO NO
YES NO NO NO NO
YES YES NO NO NO
YES NO NO NO NO
YES NO NO NO NO
YES YES NO NO NO
YES YES YES NO NO
YES NO NO NO NO
YES YES NO NO NO
YES NO NO NO NO
YES NO NO NO NO
YES NO NO NO NO
YES NO NO NO NO
YES NO NO NO NO
NO NO NO NO NO
YES NO NO NO NO
YES NO NO NO NO
YES NO NO NO NO
YES YES YES NO NO
YES YES NO NO NO
YES NO NO NO NO
YES YES YES YES NO
YES YES NO NO NO
YES YES NO NO NO
YES YES NO NO NO
YES YES NO NO NO
YES NO NO NO NO
26 12 3 1 0
27 27 27 27 27
96% 44% 11% 4% 0%
YES YES NO NO NO
YES NO NO NO NO
YES NO NO NO NO
YES NO NO NO NO
YES YES YES YES NO
YES YES NO NO NO
YES YES NO NO NO
YES NO NO NO NO
YES YES NO NO NO
9 5 1 1 0
9 9 9 9 9
100% 56% 11% 11% 0%
YES YES NO NO NO
YES YES NO NO NO
YES YES NO NO NO
YES YES NO NO NO
YES YES YES YES NO
YES YES NO NO NO
6 6 1 1 0
6 6 6 6 6
100% 100% 17% 17% 0%
! They should auto-fill based on your answers above.
ent
Level of Achievement
BRONZE
WHITE
WHITE
BRONZE
WHITE
E FILL IN ONLY THE BLUE COLORED CELLS TO THE LEFT!
YES
>85%
Cultural Enablers Rated Level
Lean Leadership 2
Coaching & Feedback 2
Influence Model 3
Recognition 3
Skills & Knowledge 3
Employee Suggestion System 2
Job Instruction 5
Standard Work 2
Lean Communication 3
Satisfaction Survey 3
OVERALL 2

5S: Sort 2
5S: Set in Order 1
5S: Shine 2
5S: Standardize 1
5S: Sustain 1
QCO: Overall Initiative 2
QCO: Capability Building 3
QCO: Performance Management 1
Signal (Line stop) 2
TPM: Master Program 1
TPM: Maintenance System 1
TPM: Planning 1
TPM: Autonomous Care 1
TPM: Improvement Teams 1
TPM: Lubrication 0
TPM: Focused Improvement 1
TPM: Early Equipment Management 1
TPM: Tools & Spare Parts 1
Visual Management: Shop Floor 3
Visual Management: Facility KPI's 2
Visual Management: Standard Work 1
Just-in-Time: Continuous Flow 4
Just-in-Time: Takt Time 2
Just-in-Time: Pull System 2
Value Stream Mapping 2
Value Stream Management 2
Process Capability 1
OVERALL 1
Line Performance Dialogues 2
Daily Accountability Meetings 1
Task Management 1
Kaizen Teams 1
Customer Focus 4
Strategy Deployment 2
Best Practices Management 2
Leader Standard Work 1
Simple Problem Solving 2
OVERALL 1
Results
Quality Metrics 2
Cost/Productivity Metrics 2
Delivery Metrics 2
Customer Satisfaction Metrics 2
Safety Metrics 4
Breakthrough Goal-Setting 2
OVERALL 2
TOTAL CI LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT 1

Acronym / Full Spelling / Meaning (click
Term for examples)
Cpk Process Capability Index
CSI Cultural Satisfaction Index

ECO Engineering Check-Out
Employee
Satisfaction Employee Satisfaction Survey
Survey
JI
Job Instruction
KPI Key Performance Indicator
LSW Leader Standard Work
Line
Performance Line Performance Dialogues
Dialogues
MRP Materials Requirement Planning
OEE
Overall Equipment Effectiveness
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
PCO Process Check-Out
PDCA Plan/Do/Check/Adjust
PdM Predictive Maintenance
PM Preventive Maintenance
Ppk Process Performance Index
QCO
Quick Changeover
SKU Stock-Keeping Unit
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SPC Statistical Process Control
SPS
Simple Problem Solving (4 Step Problem
Task
Management
Task Management
TPM
Total Productive Maintenance
VSM
Value Stream Mapping
White Space White Space
WIP Work In Process

Definition
Estimates what the process is capable of producing, considering that the process mean may not be centered between the spe
the process mean falls outside of the specification limits. Assumes process output is approximately normally distributed.
An indicator that measures the satisfaction of employees throughout an organization. Also sometimes called Employee Satis
Confirmation that the engineering requirements of a new piece of equipment have been fully satisfied after it is installed.
Employee satisfaction is the terminology used to describe whether employees are happy and contented and fulfilling their de
Many measures purport that employee satisfaction is a factor in employee motivation, employee goal achievement, and posi
workplace. Employee satisfaction is often measured by anonymous employee satisfaction surveys administered periodically
satisfaction in areas such as management, understanding of mission and vision, empowerment, teamwork, communication, a
The Cultural Satisfaction Index (CSI) is an output of the Employee Surveys. This output is also sometimes called Employee Sati
A method used by supervisors/team leaders to train an employee on how to do a job or task. This method ensures that after
will be able to remember how to do the job correctly, safely, and conscientiously. It also ensures that all employees are taug
same way. Job Instruction (JI) is one of four modules that make up the Training Within Industry (TWI) system. The other mod
Job Relations (JR), and Job Safety (JS). Visit the TWI Institute website at http://twi-institute.com for more information.
A measure of performance used to help an organization to focus, define, and evaluate how successful it is.
Reoccurring actions (daily, weekly, etc.) to be taken by the leader in his/her area of responsibility to focus on the process.
Frequent (at least once per shift) meetings held on the shop floor, where team members of a particular line stand in front of t
board to review performance metrics for Quality, Safety, Delivery, etc with their team leader and/or other leaders from differ
organization. This process is also known as: Asset Turnover Meetings, Shift Turnover Meetings, Asset Shift Exchange Meeting
Meetings, etc.
Production planning and inventory control system used to manage manufacturing processes.
A method for measuring the overall effectiveness of a manufacturing process. The method provides visibility into unschedule
losses categorized in to five major categories.
OEM refers to the company that originally manufactured the product or machine.
Confirmation that the process requirements of a new piece of equipment have been fully satisfied after it is installed.
A systematic process for continuous improvement.
Predictive maintenance (PdM) techniques help determine the condition of in-service equipment in order to predict when ma
performed. This approach offers cost savings over routine or time-based preventive maintenance, because tasks are perform
Maintenance, including tests, measurements, adjustments, and parts replacement, performed specifically to prevent faults fr
In process improvement efforts, the process performance index is an estimate of the process capability of a process during its
been brought into a state of statistical control.
A method of increasing flexibility and the amount of productive time available for a piece of machinery by reducing the chang
perform a grade change.
A number or code used to identify each unique product or item for sale in a store or carried in inventory at a manufacturing f
Documented and controlled description of the approved standard method for a process.
Method of using control charting to manage a process.
4 Step Problem Solving is a simple method for everyone to use to prevent reoccurrence of a problem by implementing counte
root cause. Step 1: Do I Have a Problem? Step 2: Do I know the Cause? Step 3: Have I confirmed the Cause and Effect? Step 4:
Countermeasures?
Task Management is the process of tracking all the specific tasks or activities associated with a project or improvement effort
with the descriptions of the tasks, who is responsible for completing each item, when they will complete it, and frequently up
what progress has been made or if any issues have been encountered. A Task Management System is a method for recording
all projects/improvement efforts in a central location. This system can be electronic or manual, depending on the needs of th
of Task Management are: Kaizen Newspapers, Project Plans / Gantt Charts, Tactical Implementation Plans (TIPS), etc.
Deterioration prevention and productive maintenance carried out by all employees. It is based on the principle that equipme
involve everyone in the organization.
A method of graphically depicting the steps in a process including inventory, information flow, Takt time, cycle time, and all th
regarding the process.
When an asset has produced it's required volume in a cycle, the asset is shut down until the cycle starts again. This non produ
a production schedule.
Items between steps waiting to be processed.
Cultural Enablers
Lean Leade Coaching & Feedback
2 2 3 3 3 2
To complete the 'Plant Assessment Dashbo

BRONZE BRONZE SILVER SILVER SILVER BRONZE
Coaching & Feedback
5 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 1
PLATINUMBRONZE SILVER SILVER BRONZE BRONZE WHITE BRONZE WHITE WHITE

5S: Set in Order
2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0
BRONZE SILVER WHITE BRONZE WHITE WHITE WHITE WHITE WHITE N/A
5S: Set in Order
1 1 1 3 2 1 4 2 2 2
WHITE WHITE WHITE SILVER BRONZE WHITE GOLD BRONZE BRONZE BRONZE
Daily Accountability Meetings
2 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 2 2
BRONZE WHITE WHITE BRONZE WHITE WHITE WHITE GOLD BRONZE BRONZE
Results
ability Meetings Cost/Productivity Metrics
1 2 1 2 2 2 2 4 2 2
WHITE BRONZE WHITE BRONZE BRONZE BRONZE BRONZE GOLD BRONZE BRONZE
TOTAL CI LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT
cs
WHITE

CI Assessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

CI Assessment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CI Assessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Level Lean Leadership

Facility leaders consistently show characteristics of each CI

Facility leaders often show characteristics of each CI Mindset.

Facility leaders sometimes show characteristics of each CI

Facility leaders sometimes show characteristics of a few of the

Level Coaching & Feedback

The three culture management tools (Feedback, Storytelling,

The coaching culture is becoming more widespread, with

Level Influence Model

Improvement work is led and completed by people who role

2 Leaders rely on others to come into their facility to influence

There is a recognition program that is used to reinforce lean

There is a recognition program that is used to reinforce lean

Level Skills and Knowledge

Evidence of a learning environment is found throughout the

There is a skills and knowledge capability matrix in place with

3 There is a training matrix in place that aligns to all employee

Training is not identified for all employees and levels. There is

Level Employee Suggestion System (Quick & Easy)

Suggestion system exists and is deployed to all levels of the

Suggestion system is readily accessible for ‘all’ employees and

Level Job Instruction (JI)

Team leaders have created Job Breakdown Sheets (with input

Team leaders have created Job Breakdown Sheets (with input

Team leaders have begun creating Job Breakdown Sheets

There is no standardized process or curriculum for training

Level Standard Work

Documented processes developed by the facility exist to drive

All processes and most operations have standard operating

Some Standard Work documentation has been created for a

Level Lean Communication

There is a formal communication plan that assures that 90% or

There is a communication plan that assures 50% of the facility

Level Employee Satisfaction Survey

Feedback on the results of the survey is communicated in

Surveys are held on a regular basis, but are not adjusted to

1 Surveys of employee satisfaction are rarely done, and even

Current State vs Description

Current State vs Description

At least 75% of employees have received 5S training. Most work

5S training has occurred for some operators and leaders in isolated

Work areas have unnecessary tools and equipment present, and

Level 5S: Set in Order

Employees have started analyzing the "needed" items in their work

Level 5S: Shine

Cleaning and inspection in the work areas has become second-

Most of the specified housekeeping tasks are completed each day.

Employees have set aside short periods of time for housekeeping,

Level 5S: Standardize

Level 5S: Sustain

Sources and frequency of issues in the work area are documented

Teams in the work area perform checks on a regular basis to

Work area checks are randomly performed (not on a particular

Level Quick Changeover (QCO): Overall Initiative

The QCO initiative is fully developed with clear responsibilities and

There is a formal QCO initiative. When and where QCO is practiced

Level Quick Changeover (QCO): Capability Building

There is a matrix of capabilities for all operators and supervisors and a

The operator and supervisors are trained frequently related to the