Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Instructions:
Complete this form by 1. Entering your Company Name, Location, and Fidelity Technologies Corporation supplier number, 2. Selecting a score for each Lean Assessment Component, and 3. Entering any comments you wish to make. Your composite score is calculated at the end of the form. Be sure to save the document. Return the document as an e-mail attachment to: ippolitot@fidelitytech.com Or print and mail to: Tim Ippolito Fidelity Technologies Corporation 2501 Kutztown Road Reading, Pa 19605
Company Name: Company Location: Fidelity Technologies Corporation Supplier #: 0.0 Leadership
0.1 Management Commitment 0. Management is not aware of Lean concepts nor is it interested in adopting the Lean philosophy. 1. Management is aware of the Lean movement, is interested, but needs more info before making a commitment. 2. Management is educated in Lean concepts and has made a decision to adopt the philosophy but has not set a formal process in place. 3. Management is well versed in Lean, has developed a formal implementation team, and has assigned a person the responsibility for the Lean conversion. 4. Lean is established as the way the company conducts its business. Score: 0 Comment: <none> 0.2 Culture 0. No attempt has been made to address culture. 1. The need to address cultural change has been recognized and plans/tactics are being developed. 2. A cultural change process has begun. Communication forums have been established. The need to change has been identified and communicated to the workforce. Floor level change leaders have been identified and are being educated on the need to change and how to effect change. 3. Cultural change is apparent. Whats In It For Me (WIIFM) has been addressed at all levels and is understood and accepted. Successes are recognized and rewarded accordingly. 4. A continuous improvement culture exists. Employees recognize CI opportunities and enact positive change at all levels voluntarily and without management urging. Employees understand their level of empowerment to implement change. Score: 0 Comment: <none> 0.3 Infrastructure
Page 1 of 11
1.0 Transparency
1.1 Value Stream Mapping 0. No processes have been mapped. 1. Process mapping is accomplished informally and not as a matter of record. Not used as a continuous improvement tool. 2. Process is mapped and defined only after problems arise. Mapping is not used as a continuous improvement method. 3. Teams established to map and improve the processes. Not all value streams have been mapped. Value stream maps are an integral component of the continuous improvement plan. 4. All processes have been mapped. Value stream maps are used to identify areas for improvement and are tied to the master continuous improvement plan. Score: 0 Comment: <none> 1.2 Visual Order (6S Program) 0. No formal 6S activities conducted. Daily end-of-shift cleaning may occur but difficult for anyone to tell what goes where. 1. Thorough, non-routine cleaning and sorting occurs but not on a formal program basis. Difficult for visitors to tell what goes where, but workers know. 2. Thorough cleanings are scheduled and performed. Causes of excessive dirt and contamination are identified and root causes investigated. 3. A place for everything and everything in its place. Daily cleanings are performed (sort, straighten, shine, safety) with root causes of dirt and contamination identified and solutions developed. 4. 6S is a part of regular duties. The process is documented, solutions to root causes of dirt and contamination are implemented and verified, and improvements in execution over the past 12 months are exhibited. Score: 0 Comment: <none> 1.3 Visual Control (Progress/Status) 0. No visual controls in place. Supervision cant tell visually when an abnormality is occurring. 1. Some charts and communication posted when available, updated irregularly. Data is not current or being used to manage the work area. 2. Some visual control techniques utilized. Supervisors can tell when the work area is not running properly. 3. Real time status of performance is evident. Anyone can tell when an abnormality occurs. Visual tools such as flow charts, diagrams, and key indicators are used to make daily work decisions.
Page 2 of 11
2.1 Design for Manufacture/Assembly (DFM/A) 0. Product designed in engineering silos. No input from outside other than customer identified performance requirements. 1. Customer and suppliers involved in some designs. Some use of common platforms. 2. Customer and supplier involved in all applicable designs. Supplier partnerships developed. Assembly and manufacturing have input only after product design. 3. IPTs in place. Suppliers, customers, manufacturing, assembly, are all part of design team. Concurrent engineering utilized. 4. Automated systems in place to support DFM/A (e.g. computerized programs for identifying qualified common components, assigning scores to products as a function of ease of assembly, etc) and ensure redundancies and inefficiencies in design and assembly are eliminated. Older, in-production products have been re-designed for ease of manufacture and assembly. Score: 0 Comment: <none> 2.2 Flattened Bill of Material (BOM) 0. No effort has been made to reduce Bill of Material layers. 1. Some Bill of Material reduction efforts under way, but are incorporated after the design process. (i.e., production/supplier request to build at a higher assembly level) 2. Coordination occurs between engineering functions to eliminate redundant part design and facilitate common parts usage. Manufacturing/supplier included only after design is complete. 3. Full coordination between engineering groups, manufacturing, manufacturing engineering, etc. in an effort to produce at the highest possible level. 4. Sub-tier suppliers are included during design to identify components that are capable and already in production, readily available, common across other platforms, etc. Score: 0 Comment: <none> 2.3 Miscellaneous Methods 0. Design methods are focused on product performance only with an emphasis on not exceeding budget. Little or no regard is given to improving overall cost and development time. 1. Still product performance driven, but some regard is given to developing at less than budgeted and improving deadline performance. Little focus on sub-processes and cost to manufacture or support. 2. Product performance is the driver, but a focused effort is made to reduce time of development and overall cost via the use of one, or some, of the above mentioned methods. 3. Certain of the above tools have been identified and are an integral part of the development process. While cost targets and deadlines are established, the focus is on exceeding those targets, not on meeting them.
Page 3 of 11
Page 4 of 11
Page 5 of 11
Page 6 of 11
Page 7 of 11
Page 8 of 11
Page 9 of 11
Page 10 of 11
Page 11 of 11