Project Charter
Problem, SMART goal, scope, team and sign-off. If the Sponsor won't sign it, the project isn't ready to start.
Open Project CharterFREELean Six Sigma workspace. No sign-up.
Twelve guided DMAIC tools, six reference guides and 21 printable cheat sheets for practitioners at every belt level. Your work saves in this browser as you go, and you can save a project file to keep or share.
Problem, SMART goal, scope, team and sign-off. If the Sponsor won't sign it, the project isn't ready to start.
Open Project CharterBranch from symptom to root cause on a canvas. A root cause only counts once it passes the "therefore" read-back.
Open 5 WhysThe whole project story on one page, from background to follow-up. Keep it current at every tollgate.
Open A3 ReportPick the phase your project is in. Each phase lists its tools and the guides behind them.
Establish a reliable baseline.
Worked examples, decision tables, facilitation guides and tollgate checklists. Take them into the workshop.
Browse cheat sheetsOriginally 7 wastes from the Toyota Production System, expanded to 8 with Non-utilised Talent (Skills). Every waste consumes resources without adding value the customer would pay for. Learning to see waste is the first step to eliminating it.
In Lean thinking, work falls into three categories. Value-Adding (VA) covers activities the customer would pay for if they understood them. Necessary Non-Value-Adding (NNVA) covers activities required by the current system but not valued by the customer, such as regulatory compliance or system limitations. Pure Waste (NVA) covers activities that can and should be eliminated immediately.
Unnecessary movement of materials, products, information, or people between locations.
Moving files between shared drives · Sending documents between departments for sequential review · Physical movement of goods to interim storage before final destination
Does this item need to travel this far? Can the next step be co-located? Can we remove the handoff entirely?
Excess stock, work-in-progress, or information queuing beyond what is immediately needed.
Emails sitting unread in shared inboxes · Partially completed work batched before the next step · Spare parts stockpiled beyond safety stock levels
Why is this waiting? What is causing the build-up? Can we reduce batch sizes or implement pull?
Unnecessary movement by people. Walking, reaching and searching for tools, information or equipment.
Searching for files across multiple systems · Walking to a printer across the office · Switching between applications to complete a single task
Is everything needed within easy reach? Can layout or system design reduce searching and switching?
Idle time when people, equipment, or information is delayed between process steps.
Waiting for approvals or sign-offs · System downtime · Waiting for a meeting to start · Dependencies on another team's deliverable
What is the person or process waiting for? Is this a capacity issue, a policy issue, or a communication failure?
Producing more than needed, sooner than needed, or faster than the customer requires. Often considered the worst waste as it creates or hides all others.
Reports produced but never read · Preparing more stock than can be sold · Sending notifications to people who don't need them
Does anyone actually use this? Are we producing based on demand or just "in case"?
Doing more work, adding more features, or applying more quality than the customer actually values or requires.
Reformatting reports into multiple templates · Multiple approval layers for low-risk decisions · Polishing a document that will only be read once
Is this step explicitly required by the customer? Would removing it be noticed?
Errors, mistakes, or non-conformances requiring rework, correction, scrapping, or customer complaint handling.
Incorrect invoices requiring reissue · Data entry errors causing downstream rework · Software bugs requiring patches · Mis-shipped orders
What causes this error? Is there a poka-yoke (mistake-proofing) solution? Why wasn't it caught earlier?
Failing to use the knowledge, creativity, skills, and experience of people in your organisation. The "8th waste" added when Lean expanded beyond manufacturing.
Not involving front-line staff in improvement decisions · Qualified staff doing tasks below their capability · Ignoring improvement ideas from operators
Are we listening to the people closest to the work? Are skills being used to their full potential?
Walk the process with fresh eyes. For each step, ask which of the 8 wastes is present. Use a tally sheet to count occurrences by type. A Pareto of waste types will tell you where to focus.
As you build your current-state Value Stream Map, mark each non-value-adding step with its waste type. This connects the 8 Wastes framework directly to your improvement priorities.
Use TIMWOODS in the Analyse phase to classify root causes. Most root causes trace back to one or more waste types and naming them helps teams prioritise countermeasures in the Improve phase.
Turning collected data into insights that point to root causes and guide improvement decisions. Covers Pareto, control charts, capability, and supporting tools.
Typically 80% of defects come from 20% of causes. Pareto analysis helps you focus effort where it will have the greatest impact. Always stratify data before building a Pareto chart. Pooling data from different shifts, machines or teams hides the real pattern.
A control chart is a run chart with statistically derived upper and lower control limits (UCL/LCL). Its purpose is to distinguish common cause variation (random noise inherent to the process) from special cause variation (something unusual that warrants investigation). Only special causes should be investigated. Tampering with common cause variation makes things worse.
| Data Type | Subgroup = 1 | Subgroup 2–9 | Subgroup ≥10 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuous (variable) | XmR / ImR | XbarR | XbarS |
| Defective (pass/fail) | — | p-chart (variable n) · np-chart (fixed n) | |
| Defects (count) | — | c-chart (fixed area) · u-chart (variable area) | |
Constants 2.66 and 3.27 derived from d2 and D4 for n=2 subgroups.
Any single rule violation warrants investigation. These rules detect patterns statistically unlikely under common cause variation.
1 point outside UCL or LCL. Probability 0.27%. Most obvious special cause signal.
9 consecutive points on the same side of the centreline. Suggests a sustained shift in the process mean.
6 consecutive points continuously increasing or decreasing. Suggests gradual drift such as tool wear, degradation or seasonal effect.
14 points alternating up-down. Suggests two alternating processes (two machines, two operators).
2 of 3 consecutive points beyond 2σ on the same side. Early warning of a shift.
4 of 5 consecutive points beyond 1σ from centreline on the same side.
15 points within 1σ of centreline. Suggests stratification and that data may be from mixed processes.
8 consecutive points on both sides, none within 1σ. Suggests a bimodal distribution from two mixed processes.
Measures how well the process spread fits within specification limits, assuming it is perfectly centred. It ignores any off-centring.
Measures actual performance and accounts for off-centring. When Cpk is lower than Cp the process is not centred on target.
Shows the distribution of continuous data including shape (normal, skewed, bimodal), spread and whether data falls within specification. Always look at shape before using mean/SD. A bimodal histogram suggests two mixed processes.
Plots two variables to explore correlation (X vs Y). Does not prove causation, but a strong correlation is worth investigating. Look for direction (positive/negative), strength, and outliers. Used to validate suspected X → Y relationships.
Shows median, interquartile range, and outliers. Excellent for comparing distributions across groups (shifts, machines, operators). A box plot comparison is almost always more informative than comparing means alone.
The Measure phase lives or dies on data quality. Key tools for collecting reliable, representative data that tells the truth about your process.
Before collecting data, answer three questions: What exactly are we measuring? (operational definition), How will we collect it? (sampling strategy), and How will we verify the measurement system is reliable? (Gage R&R). Poor data produces false root causes and wrong solutions.
A pre-designed form for tallying defects, issues, or events by category and time. Reduces transcription error. The simplest and most reliable data collection tool.
Columns = categories (defect types). Rows = time periods or locations. One tick = one occurrence. Include who, when, where fields.
Records what actually happens during direct observation. Captures cycle times, wait times, motion, and deviations from standard work. Never rely on self-reporting alone.
Step name, start time, end time, cycle time, issues observed, operator, date/shift, notes column.
Collect data broken down by the factors most likely to cause variation: shift, machine, operator, supplier, day of week, location. Averaging across strata hides the real source of variation.
"Average defect rate 4%" hides "Machine 3 night shift has 18% defect rate."
You rarely need 100% of data. Choose an approach that gives reliable conclusions without excessive effort.
Structured methods for capturing what customers actually need:
Determines how much variation in your data comes from the measurement system itself.
Same person, same part, same equipment. Does it give the same reading?
Different people measuring the same thing. Do they get the same reading?
Rule of thumb: %GRR <10% = acceptable. 10–30% = marginal. >30% = fix the measurement system before collecting data.
A guide to all common process mapping styles, from high-level SIPOC to detailed swimlane maps and value stream maps. Choose the right tool for the right question.
You cannot improve what you cannot see. Process mapping creates a shared understanding of how work actually flows versus how people think it flows. It surfaces waste, handoffs, delays and rework loops, and gives you the baseline from which improvement is measured.
High-level 5-column view. 4–7 process steps. Used in Define phase to scope the project and align stakeholders on boundaries. Start here before any detailed mapping.
Starting a project, aligning a team on scope, communicating to senior stakeholders.
Sequential steps as boxes and diamonds (decisions). Shows logical flow including decision branches, loops, and endpoints. Good for documenting procedures and standard work.
Documenting a procedure, identifying decision points, creating standard work instructions.
Flowchart organised by lane (person, team, or system). Handoffs become immediately visible, which is a key source of waiting and errors. The most powerful map for identifying where delays occur.
Multiple departments involved; when you need to surface handoff delays and ownership gaps.
Shows material and information flow from supplier to customer. Includes cycle time, wait time, inventory levels. Distinguishes value-adding from non-value-adding time. See the VSM page for detail.
Measure phase. Use it for calculating total lead time, identifying bottlenecks and inventory buffers.
Tracks physical movement of a person, product, or information through a space. Drawn on a layout map. The tangled lines ("spaghetti") reveal unnecessary motion and transport waste.
Physical layout is suspected as a waste source, particularly in manufacturing or service environments.
Maps responsibilities against process steps in a grid (rows = roles, columns = steps). Shows RACI-style involvement at each stage. Identifies over/under-involvement of teams.
Clarifying roles across a complex process; preparing standard work; RACI alignment.
VSM is the most powerful tool for seeing and eliminating waste across an entire process, from customer demand back to the first input.
A VSM shows the complete flow of materials and information required to bring a product or service to a customer. Unlike standard process maps, VSM captures time data including cycle time, wait time and total lead time, making waste visible in a way that flowcharts simply cannot.
Time to complete one unit at a single step. Measured directly at the process.
Total time from start to finish, including all waiting. This is what the customer actually experiences.
Available time ÷ Customer demand rate. The heartbeat of the process and how fast you must produce to meet demand.
Value-Adding Time ÷ Total Lead Time × 100%. World class: >25%. Most start at 1–5%.
A complete guide to the methodology, its origins, the 5 Lean principles, belt structure, and how DMAIC drives lasting improvement.
Lean originated in the Toyota Production System (TPS) in post-war Japan, pioneered by Taiichi Ohno and Shigeo Shingo. Its core insight: the only work worth doing is work the customer would pay for. Everything else is waste.
Six Sigma was developed at Motorola in the 1980s and popularised by General Electric under Jack Welch in the 1990s. It uses statistical methods to reduce process variation, targeting fewer than 3.4 defects per million opportunities.
Lean Six Sigma combines both: Lean's speed and waste elimination with Six Sigma's rigour and defect reduction. Together they are more powerful than either alone.
Tool Reference · Kaizn Studio
The 5 Whys is a root cause analysis technique developed at Toyota. By iteratively asking "why?", you move from the surface symptom down to the underlying systemic cause. The number five is a guide: you stop when you reach a cause you can actually change, which may be 3 whys or it may be 8.
Root cause: outdated invoice template. Fix: update template to include payment deadline. This is actionable, systemic and within the team's control.
If the answer to all three is yes, you have a valid root cause.
"Machine broke down" is not a root cause. Push further: why did it break? Why was that not prevented? Why was there no maintenance schedule?
"John forgot to do it" is not a root cause. Why did the process allow John to forget? What system or standard should have prevented this?
Lean Thinking Reference · Kaizn Studio
Any activity consuming resources without adding value the customer would pay for. Three types: Value-Adding (VA): customer pays for it; Necessary Non-Value-Adding (NNVA): required but not valued; Pure Waste (NVA): eliminate immediately.
Unnecessary movement of materials, products, or information. Ask: does this need to travel this far?
Excess stock or WIP beyond immediate need. Creates hidden problems and ties up cash. Ask: why is this waiting?
Unnecessary movement by people: walking, reaching, searching. Ask: is everything needed within easy reach?
Idle time between process steps while waiting for approvals, systems or people. Often the most visible waste.
Making more than needed, sooner than needed. Creates inventory and hides other wastes. The worst waste.
More work or quality than the customer values. Ask: would removing this step be noticed by the customer?
Errors requiring rework, scrap, or customer complaints. Every defect touches multiple wastes.
Not using the knowledge and creativity of people. The 8th waste, often overlooked but hugely impactful.
Waste is usually a symptom. Use 5 Whys to find the root cause before redesigning the process.
Tool Reference · Kaizn Studio
The A3 Report is a structured single-page problem-solving and communication tool pioneered by Toyota. The discipline of fitting everything onto one A3 sheet (420 x 297mm) forces genuine clarity. If the thinking does not fit, it is not yet clear enough.
Context and business case. Why does this problem matter? What is at stake? Keep it to 3 to 5 sentences.
Where are we now? Describe the process and its performance with data. A simple process sketch and key metrics work well here.
Where do we want to be? Specific, measurable targets with a deadline. Reference the Charter goal statement.
Why is the gap occurring? Summarise findings from 5 Whys or Fishbone. Show the logic chain, not just the conclusion.
What specific actions will address each root cause? Each countermeasure should trace directly to a root cause in section 4.
Who does what by when? Actions, owners, dates and current status. This becomes the action tracker for the rest of the project.
Did it work? Before and after data. Did you reach the target? If not, what explains the gap?
How will you sustain the improvement? Standard work, monitoring plan, next review date and remaining open actions.
DMAIC Phase 3 · Kaizn Studio
Identify and verify the root causes of the problem. Move from correlation ("this seems related") to causation ("this is a verified root cause supported by data").
Iteratively ask "why?" to drill from symptom to root cause. Best for focused, single causal chains. Stop when you reach a cause you can actually change.
Structured brainstorm across 6M categories: Man, Machine, Method, Material, Measurement, Mother Nature. Best for complex problems with multiple potential causes.
Rank causes by frequency or cost. The vital few causes (typically 20%) usually drive 80% of the problem. Always stratify before building a Pareto.
Identify special cause variation: signals that something unusual has happened and warrants investigation. Distinguish from common cause noise.
Plot two variables to explore potential X to Y relationships. Correlation suggests a relationship worth investigating, but it does not prove causation.
Compare data across subgroups (shifts, machines, operators). A problem that is worse on night shift or Machine 3 is pointing directly at its root cause.
A valid root cause passes all three checks:
Tool Reference · Kaizn Studio
The Project Charter is the formal authorisation document for a Lean Six Sigma project. It aligns the team, secures Sponsor commitment and defines the boundaries before any improvement work begins. If the Sponsor will not sign it, the project is not ready to start.
What is wrong, where, since when, and how big is the gap? Factual and data-referenced. No causes. No solutions.
Example: Invoice cycle time averages 8 days against a 2-day target, resulting in £15k/month in penalties over the past 6 months.
Why should the organisation invest in solving this now? Link to strategic goals, customer impact, cost or regulatory requirement.
Reduce [metric] from [baseline] to [target] by [date], resulting in [benefit]. Must be specific and measurable. No vague language like "improve significantly".
The primary Y metric and any secondary metrics. Record baseline and target for each. This is how you will prove success.
Explicitly define what is in scope and what is out of scope. Vague scope is the single biggest cause of project drift.
Named Sponsor, Champion and Belt with clear responsibilities. List all team members with their roles and expected time commitment.
High-level milestones for each DMAIC phase with target dates and owners. Not a Gantt chart. Keep it to 6 to 8 rows.
Key risks that could derail the project, assumptions being made and dependencies on other teams or decisions.
Data Analysis Reference · Kaizn Studio
A control chart is a run chart with statistically-derived control limits. Its purpose is to distinguish common cause variation (random noise inherent in the process) from special cause variation (something unusual has happened). Only special causes warrant investigation. Investigating common cause variation (called tampering) makes processes worse.
| Data Type | Subgroup = 1 | Subgroup 2 to 9 | Subgroup 10+ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuous (variable) | XmR / ImR | XbarR | XbarS |
| Defective units (pass/fail) | n/a | p-chart (variable n) or np-chart (fixed n) | |
| Defect count | n/a | c-chart (fixed area) or u-chart (variable area) | |
XmR is the most common chart in service and transactional processes: one measurement per time period, no subgrouping required.
Constants 2.66 and 3.27 are derived from d2 and D4 for subgroups of 2. The LCL for the mR chart is 0.
One point outside the UCL or LCL. Probability 0.27%. The most obvious signal. Investigate immediately.
Nine consecutive points on the same side of the centreline. Suggests a sustained shift in the process mean.
Six consecutive points continuously increasing or decreasing. Suggests gradual drift such as tool wear, degradation or seasonal effect.
Fourteen points alternating up-down-up-down. Suggests two alternating processes, such as two machines, two operators, two shifts.
Two of three consecutive points beyond 2σ on the same side. Early warning of a process shift.
Four of five consecutive points beyond 1σ from the centreline on the same side.
Fifteen consecutive points within 1σ of the centreline. Suggests stratification: data may be from two mixed processes being averaged.
Eight consecutive points on both sides of the centreline, none within 1σ. Suggests a bimodal distribution: two distinct processes.
Cp = (USL − LSL) ÷ 6σ. Measures whether the process spread fits within specification limits, assuming perfect centring. Ignores off-centring.
Cpk = min[(X̄−LSL)÷3σ, (USL−X̄)÷3σ]. Accounts for off-centring. When Cpk is lower than Cp the process is not centred on target.
DMAIC Phase 5 · Kaizn Studio
Sustain the gains. Prevent the process from reverting to old behaviour once the project team moves on. The Control phase is where most improvements fail, not through bad solutions, but through insufficient handover.
The key output metric (Y) and the critical input metrics (X) that drive it. Include both CTQs and leading indicators where possible.
Frequently enough to detect a shift before it causes harm. Daily for high-volume processes. Weekly for lower-volume. Set a review cadence and stick to it.
One named owner per metric. Not a team or a department: a person. Shared ownership is no ownership.
A pre-agreed reaction plan for when a Nelson rule fires or a KPI breaches its limit. Who is notified? What action is taken? By when?
Learn Reference · Kaizn Studio
A pre-designed tally form for counting defects, issues or events by category and time period. The simplest and most reliable collection tool. Columns = categories. Rows = time periods or locations. One tick = one occurrence.
Records what actually happens during direct observation. Captures cycle times, wait times, motion, deviations from standard work. Never rely solely on self-reporting by the people doing the work.
Define in advance which factors to stratify by: shift, machine, operator, day of week, location. Averaging across strata hides the real source of variation. "4% average defect rate" hides "18% on night shift on Machine 3".
Interviews (richest data), surveys (wider reach), complaints and escalations (already-captured pain), focus groups (shared issues), direct observation (watch customers use the process). Translate findings into measurable CTQs.
Every item has equal chance. Minimises bias. Best for attribute data and large populations where every nth item is impractical.
Every nth item (e.g. every 10th transaction). Practical for high-volume processes with consistent and predictable flow.
Random within defined subgroups. Ensures all strata (shifts, machines, regions) are represented in the collected data.
Small samples at regular intervals. Used specifically for XbarR and XbarS control charts. Typically 3 to 5 items per subgroup.
Before collecting data, verify that the measurement system itself is reliable.
DMAIC Phase 1 · Kaizn Studio
Agree on what problem you are solving, why it matters and what success looks like, before any data is collected or solutions considered. The most common reason projects fail is starting without alignment.
Signed by Sponsor, Champion and Belt. Contains problem statement, SMART goal, scope in/out, team, timeline and risks.
4 to 7 process steps in verb + noun format. Agreed by the full team. Defines the start and end boundaries of the project.
Customer needs captured via interviews, surveys or complaints and translated into measurable Critical to Quality characteristics.
Reduce [metric] from [baseline] to [target] by [date], resulting in [business benefit].
Reduce average invoice processing time from 8 days to 2 days by 30 September 2027, eliminating £15k/month in late-payment penalties.
"We need a new system" is not a problem statement. Describe what is wrong, where, since when and by how much.
A goal without a baseline is not SMART. Measure the current state before agreeing the target.
Workshop Guide · Kaizn Studio
Display the problem statement. Confirm everyone agrees it is the right problem to investigate. Set ground rules: no blame, no solutions yet, all ideas are valid, build on others' ideas. Silence in the brainstorm phase is normal and productive; do not fill it.
Call one M at a time. Silent sticky note phase (2 minutes): participants write causes individually without discussion. Share-out phase (3 minutes): each person reads their notes and places them on the relevant bone. Duplicates are valuable: they show where multiple people have observed the same cause.
Group similar causes together. Ask "Is this a cause or a symptom?" for any ambiguous notes. Clarify without judging. Combine duplicates. Add sub-causes as branches off the main bones where the team has deeper knowledge.
Give each participant 3 dots (or coloured stickers). Each person votes on the causes they believe are most likely to be root causes, not most common, not most obvious. Count votes and circle the top 2 to 3 causes.
Agree which prioritised causes will be investigated further using 5 Whys or data analysis. Assign owners and dates. Capture on an action log. Photograph the completed diagram before anyone leaves the room.
Tool Reference · Kaizn Studio
The Fishbone (or Ishikawa) diagram is a cause-and-effect analysis tool. The "head" of the fish is the problem. The "bones" are categories of potential causes. It is used to structure team brainstorming, ensure all cause categories are considered and identify the most likely root causes to investigate further with 5 Whys.
Training gaps, experience levels, fatigue, motivation, communication, staffing levels, judgement under pressure.
Example cause: New starters not trained on invoice coding system before going live.
Breakdowns, poor calibration, age, capability, incorrect settings, lack of maintenance, outdated software.
Example cause: Finance system times out after 10 minutes, causing users to re-enter data.
Procedure gaps, unclear instructions, missing standard work, non-compliance, inefficient sequence, rework loops.
Example cause: No standard procedure for handling invoices that arrive without a PO reference.
Quality of inputs, incorrect specifications, supplier variation, damaged goods, incomplete information received.
Example cause: Supplier invoices arrive in three different formats, requiring manual reformatting before processing.
Inaccurate data, poor Gage R&R, inconsistent definitions, data collection errors, wrong metrics being tracked.
Example cause: "Processing time" is measured from approval date, not receipt date, masking 3 days of queue time.
Seasonal demand, temperature, physical layout, noise, time of day, system load, external regulatory changes.
Example cause: Month-end surge in invoice volume overwhelms a team sized for average daily throughput.
Tool Reference · Kaizn Studio
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis is a structured, proactive risk assessment tool. It identifies what could go wrong in a process, assesses the impact and likelihood of each failure, and prioritises where to act before problems occur rather than after.
RPN = Severity (S) × Occurrence (O) × Detection (D)
Each factor is rated 1 to 10. A high RPN indicates a priority risk. Important: always address any item with Severity 9 or 10, regardless of the overall RPN score.
1–2: Negligible, barely noticeable
3–4: Minor disruption, easy to correct
5–6: Moderate impact, rework required
7–8: High impact, system or process degraded
9–10: Critical, safety risk or regulatory breach
1–2: Extremely rare (less than 1 in 100,000)
3–4: Remote (1 in 10,000 to 1 in 2,000)
5–6: Occasional (1 in 400 to 1 in 80)
7–8: Frequent (1 in 20 to 1 in 8)
9–10: Near certain (more than 1 in 3)
1–2: Almost certain to be caught before impact
3–4: High probability of detection
5–6: Moderate, may or may not be caught
7–8: Remote chance of detection
9–10: Almost impossible to detect
Act immediately. Assign an owner today. Do not wait for the next review cycle.
Plan corrective action within the current sprint or month. Confirm owner and due date.
Monitor closely. Schedule action in the next review period.
Document and review at the next scheduled FMEA update. No immediate action required.
| Process Step | Failure Mode | Effect | S | O | D | RPN | Recommended Action | New RPN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Validate budget | Wrong budget code entered | PO raised against incorrect cost centre | 7 | 5 | 6 | 210 | Add dropdown validation to budget field so only valid codes are accepted | 42 |
DMAIC Phase 4 · Kaizn Studio
Generate, test and implement solutions that address the verified root causes. Every countermeasure should trace directly to a root cause from the Analyse phase.
Divergent thinking: generate quantity before quality. Defer judgement during the session. Silent brainwriting (written, not spoken) avoids groupthink.
What do best-in-class processes look like in your industry or elsewhere? Adapt proven solutions rather than inventing from scratch.
Design the error out of the process entirely. A system that cannot produce a defect is better than one that detects defects after they occur.
Test the solution in a controlled environment before full rollout. Measure results against the baseline and target from the Charter.
Rate each proposed solution against four criteria. Use a simple 1 to 5 score for each.
| Solution | Impact on root cause | Feasibility | Cost | Speed | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Solution A | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 16 |
| Solution B | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 18 |
| Solution C | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 10 |
Tool Reference · Kaizn Studio
A structured retrospective that captures what happened, why it happened and what the organisation will do differently as a result. The Lessons Learnt session is the final step of the Control phase and one of the most consistently skipped. Skipping it guarantees the same mistakes will be repeated on the next project.
Brief summary: objectives, scope, timeline, team and constraints. Sets the context for anyone reading the document later.
Specific successes worth repeating. Name the practice, not just the outcome. "Daily stand-ups kept the team aligned" is more useful than "communication was good".
Honest account of blockers, delays, missed targets and quality issues. Create psychological safety so people name real problems, not sanitised ones.
Why did the problems in section 3 occur? Apply the same rigour you used in the project. "Insufficient time" is a symptom. What caused the time constraint?
Insights that change how the team or organisation will approach future work. What assumptions were wrong? What would you do differently from day one?
Concrete follow-up actions with named owners and due dates. Not "improve communications", but "update the project kickoff checklist to include a comms plan by [date]".
Quantify what the project actually achieved. Record before and after values for all key metrics from the Charter. Include cost avoided or ROI if calculable. This data is valuable for building the case for future improvement investment.
| Metric | Before | After | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Invoice cycle time | 8 days | 1.8 days | 78% reduction |
| Late payment penalties | £15k/month | £0/month | £180k/year saved |
| Budget code error rate | 22% | 3% | 86% reduction |
DMAIC Phase 2 · Kaizn Studio
Establish a reliable baseline. Understand the current performance of the process using valid, representative data before attempting to identify root causes.
Acceptable. Proceed with data collection.
Marginal. Use with caution and document the limitation.
Unacceptable. Fix the measurement system before collecting any data.
Every item has equal chance of selection. Minimises bias. Best for attribute data and large populations.
Every nth item (e.g. every 10th transaction). Practical for high-volume processes with consistent flow.
Random within defined subgroups. Ensures all strata (shifts, machines) are represented in results.
Small samples at regular intervals. Used for XbarR and XbarS control charts.
Data Analysis Reference · Kaizn Studio
Named after Vilfredo Pareto, who observed that 80% of effects come from 20% of causes. In process improvement, typically 80% of defects, delays or costs are driven by a small number of root causes. Pareto analysis identifies those vital few so effort is focused where it will have the greatest impact.
Fix the first 3 categories and you eliminate 83% of all invoice errors. The bottom two categories together account for only 17%, so addressing them first would be the wrong use of resource.
Run separate charts for each shift, location or team. Pooling data hides the real pattern. A 4% average defect rate can hide an 18% rate on one machine that is driving all the failures.
Sometimes the most frequent issue is not the most costly. Build two Pareto charts (one by count, one by financial impact) and compare. They may point to different priorities.
In some datasets the split is 70/30 or 90/10. The principle is about focusing on the vital few, not hitting an exact ratio.
The Pareto chart tells you what to investigate. It does not tell you why it happens. Use 5 Whys or a Fishbone diagram to find the root cause for each vital few category.
Reference Guide · Kaizn Studio
Process maps make the invisible visible. They create a shared picture of how work actually flows (not how people assume it flows), surface waste and handoff delays, and give you the baseline from which improvement is measured. Always map the current state before designing the future state.
Use when: Starting a project. Scope a process at the highest level, 4 to 7 steps only.
Shows: Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, Customers.
Example: Purchase order process: Supplier = Finance team. Input = Purchase request. Process = Validate → Approve → Raise PO → Confirm delivery. Output = Paid invoice. Customer = Requesting team.
Use when: Documenting a procedure or standard work. Single-lane, sequential.
Shows: Steps, decisions (diamonds), start/end (ovals).
Example: Customer complaint process: Receive complaint → Log in system → Acknowledge within 24hrs → Investigate → Decision: resolved? → Yes: close and confirm. No: escalate to manager.
Use when: Multiple teams or systems are involved. Best tool for finding handoff delays.
Shows: Who does what, where work crosses boundaries.
Example: Invoice approval: Sales lane: raise invoice. Finance lane: validate coding. Manager lane: approve spend. System lane: auto-generate payment run. Each arrow crossing a lane boundary is a potential delay.
Use when: Measure phase. Quantifying waste in time across the full process.
Shows: Cycle time, wait time, WIP, push/pull, total lead time.
Example: Order fulfilment: CT at each step measured in minutes. Wait time between steps often 4 to 48 hours. Total lead time = 6 days. Value-adding time = 22 minutes. PCE = 0.25%.
Use when: Physical layout causes unnecessary movement (Motion waste).
Shows: The actual path a person, product or document travels through a space.
Example: A nurse in a ward walks 3.2km per shift to collect equipment. Redrawn layout reduces this to 1.1km, saving 22 minutes per shift per nurse.
Use when: Clarifying roles across a complex process. Useful for RACI alignment.
Shows: Which roles are involved at each step and in what capacity.
Example: New starter onboarding: rows = HR, IT, Line Manager, Finance, Facilities. Columns = steps. Quickly reveals IT is involved at 9 of 12 steps but has no SLA, a bottleneck risk.
A process step or activity. The most common shape. Use a verb + noun label: "Validate request", "Send confirmation".
A decision point with two or more outcomes. Label the exit paths: Yes/No, Pass/Fail, Approved/Rejected.
Start or end of the process. Label clearly: "Customer submits request" or "Invoice paid and filed".
Input or output: data entering or leaving the process. E.g. "Customer data", "Completed form".
A physical or digital document produced at this step. E.g. "Purchase Order", "Approval email".
A sub-process: detail exists elsewhere. Keeps the main map clean. Reference the sub-process by name.
Each row crossing = a handoff. Each handoff = a potential delay. The swimlane makes this visible at a glance.
SIPOC should not show every click in a system. Swimlanes should not be a single box per department. Match the map type to the question you are answering.
Teams naturally describe how the process should work. Push back: "Does that always happen?" and "What happens when it goes wrong?"
Many processes have undocumented workarounds. These often represent both the biggest waste and the most important institutional knowledge. Capture them.
A map without time data is a flowchart. Adding cycle time and wait time transforms it into an improvement tool. Even rough estimates are better than none.
Tool Reference · Kaizn Studio
SIPOC is a high-level process map that defines the boundaries of a project before detailed analysis begins. It stands for Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs and Customers. A completed SIPOC aligns the team on what is in scope and prevents the most common scoping mistake: starting too wide or too narrow.
| Suppliers | Inputs | Process | Outputs | Customers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Requesting team | Purchase request form | 1. Receive request | Logged request | Finance team |
| Finance system | Budget report | 2. Validate budget | Budget confirmation | Procurement |
| Line manager | Approval policy | 3. Approve purchase | Signed approval | Procurement |
| Procurement team | Vendor details | 4. Raise PO | Purchase Order | Supplier, Finance |
| Supplier | Delivery note, Invoice | 5. Confirm and close | Goods receipt, Paid invoice | Requester, Finance |
SIPOC is not a swimlane. Each process step should be a meaningful transformation, not a system click or a form field.
Always start with the Process column. Suppliers and Customers are easier to identify once you know what the process does.
The next team in the process is a customer. If Finance receives your output, Finance is a customer.
Outputs are things produced, not things done. "Validate request" is an activity. "Validated request" is an output.
Workshop Guide · Kaizn Studio
A tollgate is a structured review at the end of each DMAIC phase, typically with the Sponsor and Champion. Its purpose is to confirm that the phase has been completed rigorously before the team moves on. Skipping or rushing tollgates is the most common cause of project failure: problems found in the Analyse phase are cheap to fix; the same problems found after implementation are not.
Quick Reference · Kaizn Studio
| Tool | Phase | Purpose | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project Charter | Define | Align team on problem, goal, scope and team before work starts | Signed authorisation document |
| SIPOC | Define | Map the high-level process and define project boundaries | 5-column process overview |
| Data Collection Plan | Measure | Agree what to measure, operational definitions, sample size and who collects | Signed-off plan and measurement system check |
| Run Chart | Measure / Control | See whether a measure has really changed over time, using the median and run rules | Time-ordered chart with signals flagged |
| Value Stream Map | Measure | Quantify waste in time across the full value stream | Current-state map with lead time and PCE |
| Check Sheet | Measure | Collect structured data on defect types, frequencies and locations | Tally data ready for Pareto analysis |
| Pareto Chart | Analyse | Prioritise the vital few causes driving 80% of the problem | Ranked bar chart with cumulative % line |
| Fishbone Diagram | Analyse | Structured brainstorm of potential causes across 6M categories | Visual cause map with prioritised causes |
| 5 Whys | Analyse | Drill from symptom to verified root cause | Causal chain with validated root cause |
| Control Chart | Measure / Control | Distinguish special cause from common cause variation | Statistical process behaviour chart |
| FMEA | Improve / Control | Proactively identify and prioritise failure risks by RPN | Risk register with prioritised actions |
| A3 Report | All phases | Document the complete improvement story on one page | Single-page problem-solving document |
| Lessons Learnt | All phases | Capture what happened, why and what will be done differently | Structured retrospective with action log |
Use a SIPOC. Build it before any other tool.
Use a Value Stream Map. Walk and time the process in person.
Use a Check Sheet to collect data, then a Pareto Chart to prioritise.
Use a Fishbone to brainstorm potential causes, then 5 Whys to drill to root cause.
Use a Control Chart. Apply Nelson Rules to identify special causes.
Use FMEA before full rollout. Focus on high-severity failure modes first.
Learn Reference · Kaizn Studio
A Value Stream Map shows the complete flow of materials and information from supplier to customer. It captures both process steps and the time data between them (cycle time, wait time and total lead time), making waste visible in a way that standard flowcharts cannot.
Time to complete one unit at a single step. Measured directly by observation. Do not rely on estimates or system records for the first measurement.
Total time from process start to finish, including all waiting. This is what the customer experiences. Usually dominated by queue time, not processing time.
Available time ÷ Customer demand rate. The heartbeat of the process: how fast you need to produce to meet customer demand without overproducing.
Value-adding time ÷ Total lead time × 100. In most office processes this is below 5%. World-class targets exceed 25%.
Items queuing between process steps. High WIP is a symptom of imbalanced capacity, batching or rework. Shown as inventory triangles on the map.
Time to switch from processing one type of work to another. High change-over times drive batching and inventory accumulation.
A process step with a data box below showing CT, C/O, uptime and operator count.
WIP between steps. Record the quantity and average wait time.
Work pushed to the next step regardless of whether it is ready to receive it.
Work triggered by downstream demand. The foundation of a lean flow system.
External entities at the start and end of the value stream with demand data.
Bottom of the map. VA time below the line, wait time above. Sum gives total lead time and PCE.
The current-state VSM captures reality as it is today. The future-state VSM is a designed target, typically showing: reduced WIP between steps, pull systems replacing push, smaller batches and a PCE target. The gap between the two becomes the improvement project.
In most administrative and service processes, value-adding time represents less than 5% of total lead time. The rest is waiting, batching and transport. A VSM makes this ratio undeniable. In a typical purchase order process with a 6-day lead time, actual processing time is often under 30 minutes.