Innoprod: The online tool for productivity. Benchmarking in plastic processing industry

Transcription

1 Innoprod: The online tool for productivity Benchmarking in plastic processing industry Farah Fawaz August 2013

2 Summary Companies need continuous improvement in productivity and cost reduction to cope with the increasing competition. Positioning them in order to allow comparison enhances productivity optimization. For the plastic injection industry this process is partly implemented by the Innoprod project, which became a real product! Innoprod is an online tool created to benchmark the productivity of firms counting at least one of their activities in plastic injection. Innoprod is available online and in three languages (French, German and Italian) and has been promoted in Switzerland as well as in Europe through the ALPlastics project. The research is based on the OPEX (Operational Excellence) model that focuses on four indicators: Total Productive Maintenance, Total Quality Management, Just-in-Time and Effective Management System. The benchmark is done on these four levels. This comparison is done using a survey of 155 questions. The OPEX model allows the companies to identify their weaknesses, so that they can take corrective actions in order to increase their level of Operational Excellence. The four indicators are the main points where companies should focus to improve their productivity. This analysis allows companies to better understand their structure and to position themselves in front of their competitors. The idea is to give to the production manager a productivity measurement tool that will on one hand improve the productivity and on the other hand reduce costs through the sharing of expertise and best practices. The company that has a login can fill the tool and it can generate automatically the benchmarking report. After the promotion of the project and explaining its use in January 2013 in Munich to the partners of the ALPlastics project, a workshop was organized in March 2013 in Fribourg to explain and analyze the benchmarking reports. Innoprod is now ready to be used, and the more companies participate the more the benchmarking results are decisive in the choice of corrective and improvement actions. 2

3 Table of content 1. Introduction Objectives The Innoprod Project The Innoprod Product Dissemination in the Alpine Space trough ALPlastics Methodology: Model OPEX (Operational Excellence) The four indicators (Enabler / Performance) Total Productive Maintenance Total Quality Management Just-In-Time Effective Management Systems The Questionnaire Overview of the seven question pools of the questionnaires Question pool: A. Your company Question pool: B. Cost structure and workforces of the site in {year} Question pool: C. Total Productive Maintenance System Enabler Question pool: D. Total Quality Management System Enabler Question pool: E. Just in Time System Enabler Question pool: F. Management System Enabler Question pool: G. Performance of the company Report and interpretation of results Calculations for the benchmark Report Examples Conclusion Reference Annex I. Calculation for Benchmark in French II. Report example II.1. French II.2. German II.3. Italian III. User's document III.1. Documentation: Gestion de l interface utilisateur III.2. Dokumentation: Verwaltung des Benutzer-Interface III.3. Documentazione: Gestione dell interfaccia utente IV. Administrator s document IV.1. Documentation: Gestion de l interface administrateur V. IT s document V.1. Documentation technique V.2. Source code

4 1. Introduction Companies need continuous improvement in productivity and cost reduction to cope with the increasing competition. Positioning them in order to allow a comparison, enhance productivity optimization. For the plastic injection industry this process is partly implemented by the project Innoprod, which became a real product! Innoprod is an online tool for the benchmark of the productivity of firms with at least one of their activity in plastic injection. This tool is available in three languages: French, German and Italian. The tool is available under the following link: With this tool the company can generate automatically a benchmarking report after successfully completing the whole questionnaire Objectives Companies in the same sector do not always share their expertise and do not offer a code of best practice even if they are related partners. It is therefore very difficult for companies to benchmark towards their competitors. The aim of this tool is to enable this benchmarking process by establishing a comparison between the productivity of different companies active in the field of plastic injection. These partner companies belong to the same macroeconomic environment, even if they occupy different markets. As previously mentioned, the objective of this benchmark is to improve the positioning of these companies in front of their competitors, by looking at their productivity. Innoprod will therefore make a first inventory of the productivity of plastic injection inside the company to identify strengths and weaknesses. The purpose was to create a tool for production managers to better measure their companies productivity and therefore to develop additional improvement measures. Innoprod will enable the members of Réseau plasturgie and the members its partners in Germany, Austria, France and Italy, to benchmark their productivity. These members are companies with at least one of their business unit active in plastic injection. By using the Innoprod tool while generating the automatic benchmarking report, the company can choose whether it wants a comparison with companies of the same cluster report, a comparison with other European companies report or both. 4

5 1.2. The Innoprod Project The Innoprod project began in This innovative idea of creating a benchmarking tool for plastic injection came from Mr. Yvan Bourqui, responsible for innovation at the Réseau plasturgie and Director Europe & USA for innovation at Johnson Electric. Leader in the field of micro-motors, Johnson Electric uses the injected plastic form for the production of some of its engines. Innoprod is a comparative project on good practices in the production industry. This evaluation brings continuous improvement in the productivity of the business focused on plastic injection. This project is financed by the Réseau plasturgie who acts as the Project Steering Committee for the Science and technology center of the canton of Fribourg and Platinn (Fri-Up). This study was primarily designed for companies within the Réseau plasturgie, but was then extended to other partners Switzerland wide and in the Alpine region through the ALPlastics project. The questionnaire was developed following four workshops between Fri-Up and the first six companies participating in the benchmarking process: Contact WAGO, CEBO BCR Plastics, JESA, Johnson Electric International AG, KBS-Spritztechnik, Mecaplast. The Fri-Up research team was inspired by a benchmark study in the pharmaceutical domain performed by Prof. Dr. Thomas Friedli, a specialist in benchmarking. Therefore, our questionnaire is a transcript of an existing survey in the pharmaceutical sector designed at the University of St. Gallen. Together, Fri-Up and the first six participants adapted this study to make it applicable to the field of plastic injection. The initial survey was made on six companies, all members of the Réseau plasturgie. This stage of the project allowed us to test this first version of the adjusted questionnaire. After this first tests, Fri-Up and the Réseau plasturgie developed the questionnaire to be more precise and optimal. The final questionnaire, used as main information source in the production of the final report, contains 155 questions divided into seven question pools The Innoprod Product Today, the Innoprod product became an online tool on Innoprod was designed in the three spoken languages in the the Alpine Space participating countries: French, German and Italian. The questionnaire is performed online where the companies get a login from the cluster which they belong to. Thus for example from Réseau plastugie for the Swiss companies; from Proplast for the 5

6 Italian companies; from Plastipolis or Carma for the French companies; from Kunststoff Cluster for the Austrian companies; and from Chemie Cluster Bayern for the German companies. The clusters get those rights to add companies from the administrator of Innoprod: Réseau plasturgie. After successfully completing to answer all the questions of the online benchmark form, the company can automatically generate the report in less than a minute. It is important to answer all the 155 questions to establish the benchmarking report. All the questions need to be answered; there is no I don t know option because the questionnaire has been simplified to the maximum. Two different reports are available; the company can choose whether it wants to compare itself only with the companies that are members of the same cluster or with all the companies that completed the questionnaire. When considering all the companies, this means all the benchmark participants, of all European clusters Dissemination in the Alpine Space trough ALPlastics The final product that resulted from the Innoprod project is an online benchmarking tool for the European plastic processing clusters and enterprises. Innoprod was promoted in the Alpine Space though the ALPlastics project. Réseau plasturgie presented the Innoprod project to its European partners from the beginning, in April 2012 in Linz. In January 2013 in Munich the partners got a login to test the tool and later in March 2013 in Fribourg, Réseau plasturgie organized together with Fri Up, a workshop to analyze and comment benchmarking reports. You will find bellow the article about Innoprod in the ALPlastics newsletter N 3: An online benchmarking tool for the European plastic processing clusters: A new online benchmarking tool for the European plastic processing enterprises. Thanks to the Réseau plasturgie (Switzerland) initiative under the Interreg Alpine Space ALPlastics project, the enterprises operating in plastic processing have now a new online benchmarking tool. Developed by taking into account the specificities of the plastic injection-molding field, InnoProd is a key tool for the enterprises in analyzing and comparing their performances with other companies in the same domain. For now, InnoProd is available in French, Italian and German. The concerned enterprises will only have to get a login and to answer some of the 150 questions - estimated time: one hour (without taking into account the data collection work) - in order to obtain a 6

7 direct detailed report from their level of competitiveness with some Total Productive Maintenance, Total Quality Management, Just in Time and Management System indicators. The software allows these enterprises to compare themselves in record time with others from a same cluster, but also - if they want to - with other enterprises from the entire Europe that already have completed the questionnaire, reminding that the data are obviously anonymous. Initially financed by the Science and Technology Center of the Canton Fribourg ( and Platinn ( the InnoProd project has been completed in connection with ALPlastics by the development of the software before being disseminated among the following European clusters members of ALPlastics: Chemie-Cluster Bayern (DE), Clusterland (A), CARMA et Plastipolis (FR), Proplast (IT), Réseau plasturgie (CH). Within the context of the conference Clusters as Drivers of Competitiveness: Policy and Management Issues, the members of the previously mentioned clusters have been trained on March 25th (2013) in Fribourg to a critical analysis of the findings of the InnoProd benchmarking, so that they can optimize their performances improvement in the future. 2. Methodology: Model OPEX (Operational Excellence) The benchmarking questionnaire was established on the basis of the OPEX model (Operational Excellence). The OPEX model is a philosophy of leadership, teamwork and problem solving for a continuous improvement of companies focusing on customer needs, employee accountability and optimization of activities of the various processes. In the specific case of plastic injection it is a productivity improvement. The OPEX model was developed and applied by the University of St. Gallen in the pharmaceutical domain. In order to suit our project, we adapted this approach to plastic injection. Therefore, a transcript of Prof. Dr. Thomas Friedli s model, specialist in the benchmarking area, has been done. The OPEX model we used for the benchmarking of the productivity of the companies having at least one activity unit in plastic injection contains the four indicators as follow: 7

8 (Preven/ve!! Maintenance!( Process(( Management(( Customer!! integra/on(( Time(( management(( and(flexibility(( Pull(( produc/on(( General(( Maintenance(( SelfWdirected(( teams(( TPM( TQM( JIT( Standardized(( equipment( (( CrossW( Technology!! func/onal(( assessment(( product(( and(u/liza/on((( development(( High(con/nuous(( improvement(rates(( Standardized( processes( (( Supplier(( quality(( management(( Low(absenteeism(&( (fluctua/on(( Standardized(( replenishment(( Stable(running(machines( Stable(processes( Low(inventory(( Management(System( Planning(( adherence( Direc/on(seang( Management(commitment(and(company(culture( Employee(involvement(&(con/nuous(improvement(( Func/onal(integra/on(&(qualifica/on(( Layout(( op/miza/on(( Flexible(( workforce(( OPERATIONAL(EXCELLENCE( Figure 1: OPEX model adapted to the benchmarking tool Innoprod In the figure of the OPEX model, the four indicators (TPM, TQM, JIT and Management System) are represented with all the required criteria to optimize the productivity and get the best level of Operational Excellence. In this figure of the OPEX model the company has to enhance the TPM to reach a better level of stable running machines. It also has to improve TQM to increase the level of stable processes and to increase the JIT indicator in order to have an optimal level of low inventory. In the model, the company also has to enhance the indicator management system to reach a better level of self-directed teams, a higher continuous improvement rate, a lower absenteeism & fluctuation and a higher level of most flexible workforces The four indicators (Enabler / Performance) The productivity of the selected companies is benchmarked according to the following four indicators: - Total Productive Maintenance, TPM - Total Quality Management, TQM - Just-in-Time, JIT - Effective Management Systems For each indicator we have Enabler and Performance. The enabler part of the benchmark is done on the basis of questions where the company self-asses itself for the four indicators of the OPEX model. The performance part in the benchmark is based on questions where the company has to answer precise and clear questions with numbers and rates. 8

9 Total Productive Maintenance The aim of the TPM indicator is to have effective fixed assets management that would allow an effective use of new technologies. The Enabler part of the indicator TPM is composed of three groups of questions where the company self assess itself: - Preventive Maintenance - Technology assessment and utilization - General Maintenance The company answers though putting its rank with sliders (from 0% to 100%). The questions related to preventive maintenance are in the group C1; the questions of technology assessment and utilization are in C2; and General Maintenance questions figures under C3. The mean of the results of C1, C2 and C3 gives the result for the TPM Enabler. Then we have the Performance part of the indicator TPM. In order to calculate the level of TPM Performance we use precise rates. The TPM Performance level of the company together with the Enabler gives us an overview of the level of Standardized Equipment. If the result is not satisfying and needs to (or can) be improved, then the company can identify its weaknesses and try to have a better TPM to reach an optimum level of Stable running machines through the benchmarking report Total Quality Management We seek to increase the quality of production with the TQM indicator. For this indicator, again, we have the Enabler and the Performance part. The TQM Enabler contains four criteria or group of questions. The first one is about the process management in the company. The second criteria is about the level of cross-functional product development, where information about the collaboration between the different departments and meeting of deadlines are collected. The third criteria to define the level of TQM is the customer integration; we would like to know if the company cares about customer satisfaction and if they collaborate for innovation. The fourth important criteria in defining the level TQM is the quality management of supplier, were we would like to know the collaboration intensity between the company and the supplier, but also the specific way that the company chooses supplier. After collection, the information for the four question groups of the TQM Enabler we proceed to the mean of answers. 9

10 There is also the Performance of the TQM were we collect information about the customer compliance rate, the supplier compliance rate, rate of rejected consignments, average outgoing quality, the number of collaborator for the quality and the quality cost. This part contain clear rates. If the company doesn t overestimate itself then its Performance and Enabler ranking in the benchmarking should be closed. The TQM will tell about the level of standardized processes of the company and help it to identify weaknesses in order to reach a better level of stable processes that will imply a better Operational Excellence level in general for the company Just-In-Time The JIT indicator aims to reduce the working capital while increasing the level of service. For the JIT indicator of the OPEX model we also have an Enabler part and a Performance part. The Enabler part is composed of four groups of questions. The first is about the time management and the flexibility. In this first group we want to identify how optimal the production cycle is. The second point of the JIT Enabler is the pull production, where we ask questions about when the production is launched and how far the company can rely on its suppliers, and if there is a stock. The third group of questions is about the layout optimization; here we want to know if the factory is well organize to simplify work and gain time. The last criteria of the JIT Enabler is the planning stability, we want to know if the company meets its daily production and the reliability of the planning of the factory. The mean of all the Enabler question groups together gives the general JIT Enabler. The JIT performance is composed of the ratio raw material stock rotation, the ratio finished product rotation, the average number of mold changes per machine per month, the average change time, the rate of confirmed delivery date to customer and the rate of confirmed delivery date to supplier. The mean values of all those criteria define the JIT Performance level. The Indicator JIT can, thanks to the benchmarking calculations, present the level of standardized replenishment of the company. The fact that the company has the opportunity to position itself trough the benchmarking report will allow to chose the needed measures to reach an optimal level of low inventory. 10

11 Effective Management Systems Finally, the management systems indicator aims at assuring that the company is operating under clear objectives. This indicator is also divided in Enabler and Performance, as the previous three indicators. The Enabler part is composed of three sections: Management by objectives, Management commitment and corporate culture, Employee involvement and continuous improvement, and Functional integration and qualification. The first question group management by objectives concerns the vision of the company, the resource management system and the manufacturing director. The corporate culture and cooperation between departments are developed in the second section, management commitment and corporate culture. The third question group about employee involvement and continuous improvement contain information about the ability of multitasking of the employees and their involvement. In the last group of question of Management System Enablers is about the flexibility of employees, their trainings as well as information transfer and meetings. In the Performance part of the OPEX indicator Management System we will collect numbers and rates in order to define following points: the number of hierarchical levels, the employee turnover, the sickness absenteeism, the training, the security level, the versatility. Thanks to the indicator Management System weaknesses can be identify to take actions to have a higher level of self-directed teams, high continuous improvement rates, a low absenteeism & fluctuation and as well a higher level of flexible workforces. Those improvement actions will lead to a better Operational Excellence level of the company. 3. The Questionnaire Only the plastic injection part of the business is assessed. That's why we must be careful not to take into account the employees who do not work in plastic injection. Otherwise, it can greatly affect the results related to productivity. The first time that the company logs in on the Innoprod Website to answer the questionnaire, we ask for the reference year and the currency. The reference year is the year for which the information and rates are chosen. For example even if we are in 2013, a company could have the numbers and rates of the year 2011 and not yet for 2012 or In this case, the company will enter its reference year and the questionnaire and the report will automatically take this information. The choice of currency is important because we have Swiss company working with Swiss Francs and European companies 11

12 working with Euro. Here the company has to enter whether it works with Swiss Francs or Euro because there is a part in the questionnaire where we ask about costs. The company has to give information about the exchange rate it has been used. We will use the exchange rate for benchmarking report where including Swiss and European companies Overview of the seven question pools of the questionnaires There are seven different question pools in the online questionnaire for the Innoprod benchmarking tool. In those pools of question, the important information for the presentation and the comparison of the production structure and the four indicators of the OPEX-model (Enabler and Performance) are collected. The questionnaire is done in a smart way where only necessary and useful information for the benchmark is asked about. Thus, all the questions have to be answered, by self-assessment for the Enablers and with precise numbers for the Performance. When we write {year} it means the company enters the year (reference year). It is the same for {currency} where the company has to chose between Swiss francs and Euro. Letter Question pool Comment A Your company In this group of questions, you will fill it with general information about the company and the production site. B C D Cost structure and workforces of the site in {year} Total Productive Maintenance System Enabler Total Quality Management System Enabler This pool of questions contains information about the cost structure of the production site and the number and occupation rate of the collaborators. In the section C, there are the questions for the enabler part of the indicator TPM. In the question pool D, you will answer questions for the enabler part of the indicator TQM. E Just in Time System Enabler This group of question contains information about the time management and other characteristics of Just in Time indicator. F Management System Enabler This pool of questions F is about the management, the 12

13 corporate culture and the employees. G Performance of the company The section G contains all the questions that will be used for the performance of the four indicators. In this questions pool, clear answers are required, with numbers, costs and rates Question pool: A. Your company In the table bellow, the entire questions related to the first group are listed and commented. Question# Question Answers Comments A1 Type of the sample 1. Subcontractor, contract work (no development) In this question we would like to know the type of the work done by the company. The possible answers to this question are yes or no; if the considered production site does subcontracting work. 2. Finished products The possible answers to this question are yes or no. Here we would like to know if the company is doing finished products. 3. Semi-finished products Here the possible answers are yes or no. We would like to know if the production site of the company produces semi-finished products. A2 Sourcing by region 1. Western Europe In this group of question, the 2. Eastern Europe 3. North America 4. South America company put the percentage of sourcing from each region. To save the answers and not get an 5. Middle East error message, it has to have a 6. Asia total of 100%. In the last line we have a special space with the sum 7. Rest of the world to help. A3 Geographic segmentation of customers 1. Western Europe In the question A3, we would like 2. Eastern Europe to know where the customers are 3. North America located. The answers are in %. 4. South America The sum has to be equal 100%. 5. Middle East 6. Asia 7. Rest of the world 13

14 A4 Production structure 1. Molds In the question A4, the company 2. Multi-component is asked to put the numbers of molds produced molds, multi-component 3. Over molds molds and over molds in the reference year. A5 Vertical integration of production in {year} 1. Percentage of colored materials on-site 2. Percentage of hot runner molds 3. Percentage reuse ground materials In this question, the answers are in %, where the company specifies some information about the production. Here we would like to know how much of the materials is colored on site, the percentage of hot runner molds and the percentage of the materials that are reused after grinding. A6 Innovation structure and audit 1. Number of new products launched in the past three years (new for production) 2. Number of audits on the site over the past three years by an official certification body 3. Number of audits on the site over the past three years by a internal body of the company 4. Number of audits on the site over the past three years by a client In this question we need a number as answer; the number of new production in the production line and the numbers of audit by an official certification body, an internal body of the company or a client. A7 Age of the production technology in {year} 1. Percentage of machines that have less than 5 years 2. Percentage of machines that are between 5 and 10 years 3. Percentage of machines that are between 11 and 20 years 4. Percentage of machines that have more than 21 years The sum of the 4 possible answers must be equal to 100%. Here we would like to know the age of the machines of the production site. A8 Degree of automation in {year}: How is the product output on your various machines? 1. Manual output In this question the sum has to be 2. The product fall from equal to 100%. Here we would itself in a box like to know the degree of 3. The output is done on a automation for the output of conveyor belt products. 4. The output is done by a robot and put on a 14

15 conveyor belt 5. Output is through a robot that conditions directly in the packaging A9 Degree of automation in {year}: How is the process of grinding carrots? 1. Using a mobile juxtaposed crusher 2. With a centralized system for grinding 3. No grinding The sum of the three possible answers has to be equals to 100%. Here we would like to know the percentage for the automation of grinding carrots. A10 Degree of automation in {year} 1. Centralized supply of granules (% of total materials used) 2. Automated quality control on the machine (% of equipped machines) We would like to know more about the degree of automation in the production and equipment. The answers are in percent. There is no link between the two questions, no constraints for the sum Question pool: B. Cost structure and workforces of the site in {year} In the table bellow, the entire questions related to the second group of questions Cost structure and workforces of the site in {year} are listed and commented. Question# Question Answers Comments B1 Costs of materials 1. Costs of raw materials, including other components of the product 2. Consumable costs of production necessary to operations and other services Here we have the cost in the currency that the company chooses at the beginning of the questionnaire (during the first login). The cost are whether in Swiss francs or in euro. B2 Cost of manpower 1. Direct Costs of laboratory staff involved in the production 2. Indirect costs of management of the laboratories directly involved in the production 3. Costs of production quality support B3 Maintenance costs 1. Costs of cleaning and maintenance of buildings, machinery, Here we have the direct and indirect cost of manpower related to the production. The company at the begging of the questionnaire and only once will have to choose the currency (Swiss Francs or Euro). Here we have all the cost of maintenance in the selected currency (Swiss francs or euro). 15

16 B4 Number of collaborators in {year} (Full Time Equivalent) tools and molds, including electricity, water, etc. 1. Production Here we would like to know the 2. Packaging number of FTEs for each activity. 3. Quality Control Please mention the number of (quality tests, analysis, FTE even if they don t figure on batch control and the payroll. shuttlecocks, approval) 4. Quality Assurance (certification processes, work procedures and measures, quality studies, quality planning) 5. Purchasing, Inventory, Logistics 6. Maintenance of equipment: machines, molds, devices 7. Environment, Health and Safety 8. IT Support 9. Other (Sales, general management and administrative) B5 Number of permanent and temporary employees in {year} 1. Percentage of fix employed FTE people (permanent contract) 2. Percentage of temporarily employed FTE people (fixed-term contract) The sum of the two answer is equal to 100%. Here we would like to know the percentage of fix and temporarily employed people Question pool: C. Total Productive Maintenance System Enabler In the table bellow, the entire questions related to the group of questions C about the indicator TPM enabler are listed and commented. This group is composed of enabler question, all the answers are represented with sliders where the company self-assesses itself by telling between 0% and 100% how much it fits with the proposed answer. Question# Question Answers Comments C1 Preventive Maintenance 1. We have a formal program for the maintenance of our machinery and equipment. Here we want to know of the maintenance program is clearly defined and documented. 16

17 2. We identify a good maintenance as improving strategy for the quality and compliance planning. 3. All machines with potential bottlenecks are identified and provided with additional spare pieces. 4. We continually optimize our maintenance program based on an analysis of failures. 5. Our maintenance service involves and trains machine operators to fulfill their own preventive maintenance. 6. Our operators are actively involved in the process of buying new machines. 7. The maintenance of our machines is mainly internal. We avoid as much as possible the intervention of an external service. Maintenance is important for the company; it is a synonym of goo quality. The bottlenecks have a big impact on the productivity. The more you care about it, the better your production will be. Failures are analyzed. The maintenance program is continuously improved from learning through failures. There is a person responsible for the machine and the company trains this person to empower it and have a better maintenance of the machine and equipment. The operators of machines know a lot about the machines they are responsible for. Involving them in the buying process is an added value. The empowerment of the responsible persons for the maintenance, intern to the company, gives more flexibility to the production and raises the productivity. C2 C3 Technology assessment and utilization General Maintenance 1. Our factory is at the forefront of new technologies in our field. 2. We are constantly looking for new production technologies on the market. 3. We develop new technologies internally. 4. Increased level of automation. 1. Our employees are committed to keep our factory clean and in order. 2. Our factory procedures insist that all tools and accessories are in place. 3. We have a checklist of In this section we would like to know how much the company cares about mew production technology. Those questions are very important, because a weak position in the benchmarking of the productivity could be caused by an inappropriate or obsolete technology. It is very important to k now if the factory is in an optimal condition for work. A weak general maintenance can have a huge negative impact on the productivity of the production site. 17

18 maintenance to continuously monitor the condition and cleanliness of our machines and equipment Question pool: D. Total Quality Management System Enabler In the table bellow, the entire questions related to the group of questions D about the indicator TQM enabler are listed and commented. This group is composed of enabler question, all the answers are represented with sliders where the company self-assesses itself by telling between 0% and 100% how much it fits with the proposed answer. Question# Question Answers Comments D1 Process 1. Processes are well Management documented in our company. 2. We regularly measure the quality of our processes using indicators. 3. The company has delegated to its responsible for process the planning, management and improvement of their processes 4. A large percentage of the production is under statistical control (SPC). 5. We analyze the causes of failure using standard tools (DMAIC, FMEA, Ishikawa,...) 6. Monitoring and control processes in real time. 7. Reduction of rate of waste. This part contains information about the processes in the company. We want to know if there is standard, so if they are clearly documented. For the measure of quality of processes we want to know if the company is oriented continuous improvement. The task of the process responsible is very important and has a huge impact on the productivity of the site. SPC: Statistical Process control is a method of quality control using statistics. DMAIC is an abbreviation of the five improvement steps: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control. FMEA: Failure mode and effect analysis is a systematic technique for failure analysis. Ishikawa method explains the cause of a specific event. D2 Cross-functional product development 1. Thanks to a close collaboration between R & D and manufacturing, we have reduced the time to launch products on the market ("scale-up"). In this section we would like to identify the level of collaboration between the different departments. A good collaboration can reduce time of launch of new products and reduce the risk of delay. We also want to know if the way of 18

19 D3 D4 Customer integration Supplier quality management 2. We do not have delays in the launch of new products in the past two years. 3. For the transfer of product and process between different departments and production sites there are standardized procedures to ensure rapid, stable and consistent transfer of knowledge. 1. We regularly carry out satisfaction surveys of our customers. 2. We regularly receive qualitative Evaluations from our customers. 3. We are looking among our customers for sources of innovation for our company and our product. 4. We collaborate with our customers to develop improvement programs to increase our performance. 1. In selecting suppliers, quality is our first criterion. 2. We conduct qualifications and audits on our suppliers 3. We systematically inspect our received goods 4. We conduct together with our suppliers improvement programs to increase our performance. collaboration is standardized in the company. Here we would like to know in how far the company listens to its customers, as well as on the customer satisfaction level as on the innovation possibilities trough collaboration with them. D4 is meant to identify how the company chooses its suppliers and if the relation between the is built on trust. We also would like to know how intensively the company and the suppliers work together to increase the overall performance level Question pool: E. Just in Time System Enabler In the table bellow, the entire questions related to the group of questions E about the indicator JIT enabler are listed and commented. This group is composed of enabler question, all the answers are 19

20 represented with sliders where the company self-assesses itself by telling between 0% and 100% how much it fits with the proposed answer. Question# Question Answers Comments E1 Time management and flexibility 1. Time reduction of machine cycle 2. We are constantly working on decreasing the installation time of production. 3. Time reduction for cleaning equipment 4. To increase flexibility in our factory, we focus on reducing the size of the lots. 5. The assembly process is documented as "Best Practices" in the factory. 6. Focus on a program for reducing delivery times 7. Accuracy of deliveries (on-time ratio) E2 Pull production 1. Our calendar includes the projected customer orders (Forcast) E3 Layout optimization 2. We use a "pull" system (tickets Kanban containers or visual signals) 3. We prefer a long-term partnership with suppliers rather than to change frequently. 4. We can rely on our suppliers to meet the agreed delivery times. 5. Instead of focusing on the stock approach, we ship to our customers according to a "JIT" oriented request. 1. Our processes are close to each other so that the handling is minimized (Lean) 2. The products are classified into groups of similar requirements processes to reduce the installation time of a The time management has a huge impact on the productivity of the company. We would like to know if the company take actions in order to reduce time, size of the lots and increase flexibility. In this part we would like to know how the company manager the orders from the suppliers and the production. The disposition of the machines according to the production process can have an influence on the productivity. Here we would like to know how optimal this layout is. 20

21 production. 3. We have collected the machines according to the type of product groups they produce (design small islands). 4. Our manufacturing processes from raw materials to finished products are "streaming". 5. We use "Value Stream Mapping" as a methodology to visualize and optimize processes. E4 Planning adherence 1. We usually meet our daily production plans. 2. We know the main causes of variances in our production schedule and are constantly trying to reduce them. 3. In order to increase reliability of our planning, we share information with our customers and suppliers. 4. Our factory has flexible hours We would like to know if the company meets the deadlines with the production. The communication with customers and suppliers can help the production to be more precise Question pool: F. Management System Enabler In the table bellow, the entire questions related to the group of questions F about the indicator MS enabler are listed and commented. This group is composed of enabler question, all the answers are represented with sliders where the company self-assesses itself by telling between 0% and 100% how much it fits with the proposed answer. Question# Question Answers Comments F1 Management by 1. Our production has a Objectives clear and documented vision of its processes. 2. Our vision and mission are widely shared and experienced by our employees. 3. Our resource A clear vision is important and if is better when it is shares with all the staff implicated directly and indirectly with the production. The manufacturing director has an important role in the productivity, the more he knows about the company and it divisions the 21

22 F2 F3 F4 Management commitment and corporate culture Employee involvement and continuous improvement Functional integration and qualification management system is objective oriented 4. Our manufacturing directors (production manager, site-leader, etc.) have a good understanding of the organizational division of the company. 1. Involvement of all employees in improvement projects. 2. Cooperation between the Departments. 3. The company has a culture of open communication. 4. Failures are always traced back to their origin, to identify causes and to remedy. 5. The management system of the company is quality oriented (integrated QMS). 1. We have process of continuous improvement. 2. Our employees are involved in the writing of manuals and procedures. 3. In our factory we have cross-departmental project teams to solve problems. 1. Our factory has implemented a program to increase the flexibility of our workers. 2. We regularly have information meetings in the company. 3. The information in these official meetings is employed in corrective actions. 4. We invest in training and qualification of our employees. 5. Trainings are primarily carried out by internal resources. better it is. Some companies face a lack of communication and cooperation between departments. Here we want to know how deep the communication and collaboration is. Failures can happen, but we want to know if the company take corrective measures and try to identify the causes, to increase quality. QMS: Quality Management System Here we want to know if the company follows a process of continuous improvement (Deming cycle PDCA, plan-do-check-act). The involvement of internal employees in manuals and procedures is important and the best is when the company has its own cross-departmental team for problem solving. The transparency in the company is very important. We want to know of meeting are organized to share this information. We also want to how much importance the company accords in trainings for the internal staff. 22

23 3.8. Question pool: G. Performance of the company In this question pool are the questions that will be used to calculate the performance part of each indicator of the OPEX model. Here the company has to answer with clear numbers and rates, thus it is not a self-assessment. Answering this part could take more time because the company has to ask the production manager, other responsible and staff for detailed facts, rates and numbers. Question# Question Answers Comments G1 Performance quality of the previous year 1. Customer noncompliance rat 2. Supplier noncompliance rate 3. Rate of waste of raw materials 4. Rate of rejected batches 5. Average outgoing quality (AOQ) G2 Quality costs 1. Failure costs (internal and external) G3 G4 JIT performance of the previous year TPM performance of the previous year 2. Costs of waste 3. Staff costs per machine We ask for the number of justified complaints related to the number of orders shipped. The number of complaints relative to all suppliers deliveries. The number of rejected batches ratio of the total number of produced batches. AOQ: Average Outgoing Quality All costs that are caused by the discovery and elimination of errors. All costs generated by noncompliant products that must be rejected. All personnel costs for quality (per machine). Annual Purchase / average stock value of raw material Annual sales / average stock value 1. Ratio raw material stock rotation 2. Ratio finished products rotation 3. Average number of mold changes per machine per month 4. Average change time 5. Rate of confirmed delivery date to customer 6. Rate of confirmed delivery date to supplier 1. Charging schedule Planned annual production capacity per machine (OEE opening time). 2. Maintenance costs of equipment and peripherals 3. Recovery time and cleaning Ratio of time spent in the start of production and cleanings on total 23

24 G5 Overall Equipment Effectiveness in {year} 4. Unplanned maintenance work opening time of the production site. Ratio of the total unplanned maintenance (repair, other unplanned stops) on the opening time. 1. (OEE) Availability OEE: Overall Equipment Effectiveness = (OEE) Availability x (OEE) Performance x (OEE) Quality (OEE) Availability = (Scheduled Time - Downtime) / Scheduled Time Scheduled Time- time during which the equipment was scheduled or expected to operate during the time period being analyzed Downtime- breakdowns (unplanned downtimes) + setup downtime. 2. (OEE) Performance (OEE) Performance = (Amount Produced x Ideal Cycle Time) / Available time. Amount Produced- the number of units produced during the time period Ideal Cycle Time- the designed or optimum cycle time Available Time- the time the machine actually ran: scheduled time - downtime. 3. (OEE) Quality (OEE) Quality = (Input - Defects) / Input Input- the number of units that were started through the process Defects- the number of defective units (even if they were subsequently salvaged). G6 Performance Indicators of the Management System in {year} 1. Number of hierarchical levels 2. Training 3. Security level 4. Versatility 5. Employee turnover 6. Sickness absenteeism Number of training days per employee. Number of reportable incidents on the basis of requirements MSST. The number of production workers, which can master more than three jobs. Employee turnover: rate of change of employees. The turnover on the site (including all types of fluctuations: termination, expiration of contracts, retirement, etc.). Ration of the total stopping in case of illness on the total hours of 24

25 work time. 4. Report and interpretation of results A report-generating tool carries out the data processing. This report allows the company to improve its productivity by identifying its weaknesses and take the right steps to correct its process. The comparison with the indicators enables the process optimization. Indeed, when a company notices that it performs less than the average in a certain area of production, it can easily correct its processes Calculations for the benchmark Total Productive Maintenance System (TPM) Enabler C1 Preventive Maintenance o = Mean Value (C1.1 to C1.7) C2 Technology assessment and utilization o = Mean Value (C2.1 to C2.4) C3 General Maintenance o = Mean Value (C3.1 to C3.3) TPM Enabler o = Mean Value (C1; C2; C3) Total Productive Maintenance System (TPM) Performance TPM_1 Overall Equipment Effectiveness o = G5.1 * G5.2 *G5.3 TPM_2 Recovery time and cleaning o = G4.3 TPM_3 Unplanned maintenance work o = G4.4/G4.1 TPM_4 Maintenance costs of equipment and peripherals / Direct labor o = (G4.2)/(B4.1 + B4.2 +B4.3) TPM_5 Maintenance costs of equipment and peripherals / Number of collaborators o = (G4.2) / (B4.1 + B4.2 + B4.3 + B4.4 + B4.5 + B4.6 + B4.7 + B4.8 + B4.9) TPM Performance 25

26 o = Mean Value (Rang (TPM_1); Rang (TPM_2); Rang (TPM_3); Mean Value (Rang (TPM_4); Rang (TPM_5))) Rang is the ranking of the values. Total Quality Management System (TQM) Enabler D1 Process Management o = Mean Value (D1.1 to D1.7) D2 Cross-functional product development o = Mean Value (D2.1 to D2.3) D3 Customer integration o = Mean Value (D3.1 to D3.4) D4 Supplier quality management o = Mean Value (D4.1 to D4.4) TQM Enabler o = Mean Value (D1; D2; D3; D4) Total Quality Management System (TQM) Performance TQM_1 Customer non-compliance rate o = G1.1 TQM_2 Supplier non-compliance rate o = G1.2 TQM_3 Rate of waste of raw materials o = G1.3 TQM_4 Rate of rejected batches o = G1.4 TQM_5 Average outgoing quality o = G1.5 TQM_6 Collaborators Quality Control and Quality Assurance / Direct Labor o = (B4.3 + B4.4) / [(X)-(B4.4 + B4.5 + B4.6 + B4.7 + B4.8 + B4.9)] and X = B4.1 + B4.2 + B4.3 + B4.4 + B4.5 + B4.6 + B4.7 + B4.8 + B4.9 o è = (B4.3 + B4.4) / (B4.1 + B4.2 + B4.3) TQM_7 Collaborators Quality Control and Quality Assurance / Number of collaborators o = (B4.3 + B4.4) / (B4.1 + B4.2 + B4.3 + B4.4 + B4.5 + B4.6 + B4.7 + B4.8 + B4.9) TQM_8 Quality costs / Direct Labor o = (G2.1 + G2.2 + G2.3) / (B4.1 + B4.2 + B4.3) 26

27 TQM_9 Quality costs / Number of collaborators o = (G2.1 + G2.2 + G2.3) /(B4.1 + B4.2 + B4.3 + B4.4 + B4.5 + B4.6 + B4.7 + B4.8 + B4.9) TQM Performance o = Mean Value (Rang (TQM_1); Rang (TQM_2); Rang (TQM_3); Rang (TQM_4); Rang (TQM_5); Rang (TQM_6); Rang (TQM_7); Rang (TQM_8); Rang (TQM_9)) Just-in-Time System (JIT) Enabler E1 Time management and flexibility o = Mean Value (E1.1 to E1.7) E2 Pull production o = Mean Value (E2.1 to E2.5) E3 Layout optimization o = Mean Value (E3.1 to E3.5) E4 Planning stability o = Mean Value (E4.1 to E4.4) JIT Enabler o = Mean Value (E1; E2; E3; E4) Just-in-Time System (JIT) Performance JIT_1 Ratio raw material stock rotation o = G3.1 JIT_2 Ratio finished product rotation o = G3.2 JIT_3 Average number of mold changes per machine per month o = G3.3 JIT_4 Average change time o = G3.4 JIT_5 Rate of confirmed delivery date to customer o = G3.5 JIT_6 Rate of confirmed delivery date to supplier o = G3.6 JIT Performance o = Mean Value (Rang (JIT_1); Rang (JIT_2); Rang (JIT_3); Rang (JIT_4); Rang (JIT_5); Rang (JIT_6)) 27

28 Mangement System (MS) Enabler F1 Management by objectives o = Mean Value (F1.1 to F1.4) F2 Management commitment and corporate culture o = Mean Value (F2.1 to F2.5) F3 Employee involvement and continuous improvement o = Mean Value (F3.1 à F3.3) F4 Functional integration and qualification o = Mean Value (F4.1 à F4.5) MS Enabler o = Mean Value (F1; F2; F3; F4) Management System (MS) Performance MS_1 Number of hierarchical levels o = G6.1 MS_2 Employee turnover o = G6.5 MS_3 Sickness absenteeism o = G6.6 MS_4 Training o = G6.2 MS_5 Security level o = G6.3 MS_6 Versatility o = G6.4 MS Performance o = Mean Value (Rang (MS_1); Rang (MS_2); Rang (MS_3); Rang (MS_4); Rang (MS_5); Rang (MS_6)) 4.2. Report Examples After collecting all the information, the benchmarking report will be generated. When you generate the PDF of the report, on the fist page is the title where you figures the logos of the five entities which 28

29 participated to Innoprod: ALPlastics, Alpine Space, Réseau plasturgie, Canton of Fribourg's Science and Technology Center/Hub (PST-FR) and platinn. On the title page of the report the following important information are given: Name of your company Address of the concerned production site (because the same company could have more than one production site, this is why we precise) The number of companies with whom you are compared The information about whether the benchmark is in your cluster or in Europe Date and time when the report was generated Benchmarking de EIA-FR Pérolles, 1700 Fribourg Comparaison avec 6 entreprises, Europe Figure 2: Information on the first page This is the only time where Notre usine est the à la pointe name des technologies of the nouvelles company dans is mentioned; the rest of the report is anonymous. C2.1 C2.2 notre domaine. Nous cherchons constamment de nouvelles technologies de production sur le marché. After each graph we have a comment box to permit the company or auditing entity to put remarks, C2.3 Nous développons de nouvelles technologies en interne. explanations, improvement propositions, etc. C2.4 Augmentation du niveau d'automation 10/07/13 20:44 Figure 3: Comment box C3. Entretien général C3.1 The report is the structured in three parts. First we have general information about the production site. C3.2 Nos employés s'efforcent de garder notre usine propre et en ordre. Nos procédures d usine insistent sur le fait que tous les outils et accessoires soient à leur place. C3.3 Nous avons une liste de contrôle de l entretien afin de surveiller en permanence l'état et la propreté de nos machines et de l équipement. 29

30 Production Structure Typologie de l'échantillon Figure 4: Type of the sample The figure about the type of the sample corresponds to the questions A1 of the questionnaire. For this concrete example we can see that from the totality of the interviewed sample of the benchmark this company have 40% of the subcontractor, contract work (no development), 60% of the sample for finished products, and 60% for semi-finished products. Page: 1/29 30

31 Approvisionnement par région Moyenne A2.1 Europe de l'ouest A2.2 Europe de l'est A2.3 Amérique du Nord A2.4 Amérique du Sud A2.5 Moyen-Orient A2.6 Asie A2.7 Reste du monde Médiane Meilleure Figure 5: Sourcing by region In the figure of the sourcing by region, the company can compare itself with the other companies of Page: 2/29 the plastic injection sector for their sourcing. For this company we identify that it has the most Western European suppliers and 80% more than the average value of 50% and the median of 39%, etc. For the geographic segmentation of customers we have the same type of graph as for the sourcing by region: 31

32 Segmentation géographique des clients Moyenne A3.1 Europe de l'ouest A3.2 Europe de l'est A3.3 Amérique du Nord A3.4 Amérique du Sud A3.5 Moyen-Orient A3.6 Asie A3.7 Reste du monde Médiane Meilleure Page: 3/29 Figure 6: Geographic segmentation of customer For example this company has less than the average in percentage of western European customer and more than the average for the South American customers. In those last two graphs it is important for a company to identify the supplier and market places of it potential competitor. Structure de la production Structure de la production [Pièces] Moyenne [Pièces] Médiane [Pièces] A4.1 Moules Moyenne Médiane [Pièces] [Pièces] [Pièces] A4.2A4.1 Moule Moules multi-composants A4.2 Moule multi-composants A4.3 Surmoulage A4.3 Surmoulage Meilleure Meilleure Figure 7: Production structure Page: 4/29 Page: 4/29 32

33 In the production structure graph we can identify the type of production (molds, multi-component molds, over molds) compared to the other company of the benchmarking sample. Intégration verticale de la production en 2012 Moyenne Médiane Intégration verticale de la production en 2012 A5.1 Pourcentage de matières colorées sur site A5.2 Pourcentage de moules à canaux chauds Votre 80site Moyenne 71 Médiane 80 A5.3 Pourcentage de réutilisation de matières broyées A5.1 Pourcentage de matières colorées sur site A5.2 Pourcentage de moules à canaux chauds A5.3 Pourcentage de réutilisation de matières broyées Meilleure Meilleure Figure 8: Vertical integration of the production in 2012 In the graph about the vertical integration of the production, the company has more than the average concerning the coloration on site of the material. The company has 80% of hot runner molds, but only 20% of grinding carrots are reused. Structure d'innovation et audit [Nombre] Moyenne [Nombre] Médiane [Nombre] Structure d'innovation et audit A6.1 Nombre de nouveaux produits lancés au cours des trois Moyenne Médiane A6.2 Nombre d'audits réalisés sur le site au cours des trois dernières [Nombre] 12 [Nombre] 8 [Nombre] 10 A6.3 A6.1 Nombre d'audits de nouveaux réalisés produits sur le lancés site au au cours cours des des trois trois dernières A6.4 A6.2 Nombre d'audits réalisés sur le site au cours des trois dernières A6.3 Nombre d'audits réalisés sur le site au cours des trois dernières A6.4 Nombre d'audits réalisés sur le site au cours des trois dernières Page: 5/29 Page: 5/29 Meilleure Figure 9: Innovation structure and audit The innovation structure and audit part is important. This company has to take action to increase these criteria. The company is under the mean value. We could image to create a workshop where this company could learn from a better one at this level and teach something where it masters. Age de la technologie de production en 2012 Moyenne A7.1 Pourcentage des machines qui ont moins de 5 ans A7.2 Pourcentage des machines qui ont entre 5 et 10 ans A7.3 Pourcentage des machines qui ont entre 11 et 20 ans A7.4 Pourcentage des machines qui ont plus de 21 ans Médiane Meilleure 33

34 Age de la technologie de production en 2012 Moyenne A7.1 Pourcentage des machines qui ont moins de 5 ans A7.2 Pourcentage des machines qui ont entre 5 et 10 ans A7.3 Pourcentage des machines qui ont entre 11 et 20 ans A7.4 Pourcentage des machines qui ont plus de 21 ans Médiane Meilleure Figure 10: Age of the production technology in 2012 With this graph of the benchmark, the company can compare the age of the machines with the one of Page: 6/29 the competitors and think about whether to keep it like that or invest in new machines. There is always a dilemma in investing in new machines and reduce maintenance cost or keep the old ones. Degré d'automatisation en 2012: Comment s'effectue la sortie produit sur vos différentes machines? Moyenne A8.1 Sortie manuelle A8.2 La pièce tombe d'elle-même dans une caisse A8.3 La sortie s'effectue sur un tapis roulant A8.4 La sortie se fait par un robot de dépose sur un tapis roulant A8.5 La sortie se fait au moyen d'un robot qui conditionne Médiane Meilleure Figure 11: Degree of automation in 2012: How is the product output on your various machines? In this example we see the company has an acceptable rate of automation. Page: 7/29 34

35 Degré d'automatisation en 2012: Comment s'effectue le processus de broyage des carottes? Moyenne Médiane A9.1 A l'aide d'un broyeur mobile juxtaposé Degré d'automatisation en 2012: Comment s'effectue le processus de broyage des carottes? A9.2 A l'aide d'un système centralisé de broyage A9.3 Pas de broyage Votre 80site Moyenne 48 Médiane 45 A9.1 A l'aide d'un broyeur mobile juxtaposé A9.2 A l'aide d'un système centralisé de broyage A9.3 Pas de broyage Meilleure Meilleure Figure 12: Degree of automation in 2012: How is the process of grinding carrots? This company has a low level of grinding carrots, we should think about why it is so. Is it because of the material that can t be reused, or for other reasons? Improvement actions could be undertaken if the material keeps the same characteristics after temperature changes and grinding. Degré d'automatisation en 2012 Moyenne Médiane A10.1 Alimentation centralisée des granulés (en % du total des Degré d'automatisation en A10.2 Contrôle de qualité automatisé sur la machine (% de machines Moyenne Médiane A10.1 Alimentation centralisée des granulés (en % du total des A10.2 Contrôle de qualité automatisé sur la machine (% de machines Page: 8/29 Meilleure Page: 8/29 Figure 13: Degree of automation in 2012 The degree of automation of this company is lower that the average, we have to check how to do better. Structure des coûts et effectif du site en 2012 Moyenne B_1.1 Coûts des matières B_1.2 Coûts de main d'oeuvre B_1.3 Coûts d'entretien Médiane Meilleure 35

36 Structure des coûts et effectif du site en 2012 Moyenne B_1.1 Coûts des matières B_1.2 Coûts de main d'oeuvre B_1.3 Coûts d'entretien Médiane Meilleure Figure 14: Cost structure and staff on site in 2012 The cost structure graph presents how the costs of the company are distributed. Page: 9/29 Nombre de collaborateurs en 2012 (Equivalent Plein Temps) Moyenne Médiane B4.1 Production B4.2 Emballage B4.3 Contrôle Qualité (tests de qualité, analyses, contrôles des lots et B4.4 Assurance de la Qualité (homologation de procédés, procédures B4.5 Achats, Stocks, Logistique B4.6 Maintenance des équipements: machines, moules, B4.7 Environnement, Santé et Sécurité B4.8 Support Informatique B4.9 Divers (Ventes, Direction générale et administrative) Meilleure Figure 15: Number of collaborator in 2012 (Full Time Equivalent) Here we have the distribution of the workforces on the different tasks. Page: 10/29 36

37 Nombre de collaborateurs fixes et temporaires en 2012 Moyenne B5.1 Pourcentage de personnes EPT employées de manière fixe (CDI) B5.2 Pourcentage de personnes EPT employées de manière Médiane Meilleure Figure 16: Number of permanent and temporary employees in 2012 The high rate of temporary employment is not good; a high fluctuation has a bad impact on productivity and quality. Operational Excellence - Vue d'ensemble La vue d'ensemble "Operational Excellence" montre le modèle de référence sous-jacent à cette enquête, qui identifie le degré d '"excellence opérationnelle" de votre entreprise dans l'industrie du plastique. Page: 11/29 Moyenne Moyenne Médiane Total Productive Maintenance System - Enabler % % % Total Productive Maintenance System - Performance % % % Total Quality Management System - Enabler % % % Total Quality Management System - Performance % % % Just in Time System - Enabler % % % Just in Time System - Performance % % % Management System - Enabler % % % Figure 17: Operational Excellence Overview The Operational Excellence Overview shows the reference model underlying this survey, which identifies the degree of "Operational Excellence" of your company. The following overviews allow you to position your site in the superior categories JIT-System, TPM-System, TQM-System as well as Management System. Management System - Performance % % % Page: 12/29 37

38 Then we show a global view of the survey. For each Indicator we have an Enabler and a Performance part. The questions related to the type of Enabler are more related to organizational aspects. The answers are given from 0% (not at all) and 100% (completely). The answer to these questions is more a self-assessment of the company. The questions related to the type of Performance have clear answers; usually a value or a rate. Therefore, the answers are objective. We noticed that when the value of Enable is bigger than the value of Performance, the company overestimates itself. But when the value of Performance is more important than the one of Enabler, we can notice that there is an underestimation of the company. By looking at the report, we generated after the data collection, we can say that there is often an overestimation in the self-assessment of the companies. After having this global overview, we zoom in each one of the four indicators from the report: TPM, TQM, JIT, Management System. Total Productive Maintenance System - Enabler Moyenne Médiane C1 Maintenance préventive % % % Moyenne C2 Evaluation de la technologie et utilisation % % % C3 Entretien général % % % Total Productive Maintenance System - Enabler % % % Figure 18: Total Productive Maintenance System Enabler Here we zoom in the TPM Enabler. This company is better than the average for C1 and C2, but lower than the average concerning general maintenance. Page: 13/29 38

39 Total Productive Maintenance System - Performance Moyenne Médiane TPM_1 Overall Equipment Effectiveness % % % Moyenne TPM_2 Temps de redémarrage et nettoyage % % % TPM_3 Maintenance non planifiée % % TPM_4 Coûts de maintenance / Main d'oeuvre directe CHF CHF CHF TPM_5 Coûts de maintenance / Nombre de collaborateurs CHF CHF CHF Total Productive Maintenance System - Performance % % % Figure 19: Total Productive Maintenance System Performance Total Quality Management System - Enabler Moyenne Médiane Page: D1 14/29 Gestion des processus % % % D2 Développement fonctionnel croisé des produits % % % Moyenne D3 Intégration clientèle % % % D4 Gestion de la qualité des fournisseurs % % % Total Quality Management System - Enabler % % % Figure 20: Total Quality Management System Enabler Page: 15/29 39

40 Total Quality Management System - Performance Moyenne Médiane TQM_1 Taux de non- conformité Client 0.10 % 2.02 % 1.05 % Moyenne TQM_2 Taux de non-conformité fournisseur 0.30 % 2.42 % 1.28 % TQM_3 Taux de déchet matière première 2.10 % 2.82 % 2.05 % TQM_4 Taux de lots refusés 4.50 % 3.07 % 2.92 % TQM_5 Niveau de qualité moyen(aoq) 0.05 % % 0.15 % Collaborateurs contrôle qualité et assurance qualité / Main d'oeuvre TQM_6 directe Collaborateurs contrôle qualité et assurance qualité / Nombre de TQM_7 collaborateurs TQM_8 Coûts de qualité / Main d'oeuvre directe TQM_9 Coûts de qualité / Nombre de collaborateurs % % % % % % CHF CHF CHF CHF CHF CHF Total Quality Management System - Performance % % % Figure 21: Total Quality Management System Performance Just in Time System - Enabler Page: 16/29 Moyenne Médiane E1 Gestion du temps et flexibilité % % % Moyenne E2 Production en flux tiré % % % E3 Optimisation du layout % % % E4 Stabilité de planification % % % Figure 22: Just in Time System Enabler Just in Time System - Enabler % % % Page: 17/29 40

41 Just in Time System - Performance Moyenne JIT_1 JIT_2 JIT_3 JIT_4 Ration rotation stock matière première Ratio rotation produits finis Moyenne Médiane 6.00 Nombre 5.00 Nombre Nombre moyen de changements de moules par machine et par mois 7.00 Nombre Temps de changement moyen 2.56 Heures 8.25 Nombre 6.60 Nombre 6.00 Nombre 3.37 Heures 5.50 Nombre 6.00 Nombre 7.00 Nombre 2.62 Heures JIT_5 Taux de livraison client à date confirmée % % % JIT_6 Taux de livraison fournisseur à date confirmée % % % Just in Time System - Performance % % % Figure 23: Just in Time System Performance The tool and report we developed are of course designed to help the companies to improve their productivity. In this figure, the company can see that it is weaker than its competitors for almost all Just-In-Time Performance points. The best thing to do in this situation is to go back to the questions and see what the weak points are. If the company wants, it can share and do a dynamic coaching with the other participants. In this way, companies will share their know-how and best practices and help each other improve their technology transfer. Page: Management 18/29 System - Enabler Moyenne Médiane F1 Gestion par objectifs % % % Moyenne F2 Engagement de la direction et culture d'entreprise % % % F3 Implication des employés et amélioration continue % % % F4 Intégration fonctionnelle et qualification % % % Figure 24: Management System Enabler Management System - Enabler % % % 41

42 This figure shows the values of the Management System Enabler of the company in comparison with the average Industry level. In this way, the company can position itself and identify improvement possibilities. Management System - Performance Moyenne MS_1 Nombre de niveaux hiérarchiques Moyenne Médiane 9.00 Nombre 4.67 Nombre 4.50 Nombre MS_2 Le roulement du personnel 5.00 % 8.17 % 5.50 % MS_3 Absentéisme maladie 4.00 % 9.17 % 9.50 % MS_4 Formation 8.00 Jours Jours 6.00 Jours MS_5 Niveau de sécurité 7.00 Nombre 4.92 Nombre 6.50 Nombre MS_6 Polyvalence 6.00 % % % Management System - Performance % % % Figure 25: Management System Performance Enabler Overview (fr) The Enabler Overview gives you a more detailed insight into the implementation level of the single enabler. The following overviews allow you to position your cmopany in the categories JIT-Enabler, TPM-Enabler, TQM-Enabler, Management System Enabler as well as Basic Element (fr) C. Total Productive Maintenance System - Enabler C1. Maintenance préventive Page: 20/29 Nous avons un programme formel pour le maintien de nos C1.1 machines et de l équipment. C1.2 C1.3 Nous identifions une bonne maintenance comme stratégie d amélioration de la qualité et de la planification de la conformité. Toutes les machines à goulets d'étranglement potentiels sont identifiées et fournies avec des pièces de rechanges supplémentaires. C1.4 Nous optimisons continuellement notre programme de maintenance basée sur une analyse des défaillances. C1.5 Notre service de maintenance implique et forme les opérateurs machines à remplir leur propre entretien préventif. C1.6 Nos opérateurs sont activement impliqués dans le processus d'achat de nouvelles machines. C1.7 La maintenance de nos machines se fait principalement en interne. Nous évitons autant que possible l intervention d un service externe. 42 C2. Evaluation de la technologie et utilisation Page: 21/29

43 Nous cherchons constamment de nouvelles technologies de C2.2 production sur le marché. C2.3 Nous développons de nouvelles technologies en interne. Notre usine est à la pointe des technologies nouvelles dans C2.1 notre domaine. C2.4 Augmentation du niveau d'automation Nous cherchons constamment de nouvelles technologies de C2.2 C2. Evaluation production de sur la le technologie marché. et utilisation Page: 21/29 C2.3 Notre Nous développons usine est à la de pointe nouvelles des technologies nouvelles en interne. dans C2.1 notre domaine. C2.4 Nous Augmentation cherchons du constamment niveau d'automation de nouvelles technologies de C2.2 production sur le marché. C3. Entretien général C2.3 Nous développons de nouvelles technologies en interne. C3.1 Nos employés s'efforcent de garder notre usine propre et en ordre. C2.4 Augmentation du niveau d'automation Nos procédures d usine insistent sur le fait que tous les outils et C3.2 accessoires soient à leur place. C3. Entretien Nous avons général une liste de contrôle de l entretien afin de surveiller C3.3 en permanence l'état et la propreté de nos machines et de l équipement. Nos employés s'efforcent de garder notre usine propre et en C3.1 ordre. Nos procédures d usine insistent sur le fait que tous les outils et C3.2 accessoires soient à leur place. C3. Entretien général Nous avons une liste de contrôle de l entretien afin de surveiller C3.3 en permanence l'état et la propreté de nos machines et de Nos employés s'efforcent de garder notre usine propre et en C3.1 l équipement. ordre. Les processus sont bien documentés dans notre entreprise. D1.1 Nos procédures d usine insistent sur le fait que tous les outils et D. C3.2 Total accessoires Quality Management soient à leur place. System - Enabler Nous mesurons régulièrement la qualité de nos processus à D1.2 l'aide Nous d indicateurs. D1. Gestion des avons processus une liste de contrôle de l entretien afin de surveiller C3.3 en permanence l'état et la propreté de nos machines et de l équipement. L'entreprise a déléguée à ses responsables de processus la D1.3 planification, Les processus la gestion sont bien et documentés l'amélioration dans de leurs notre procédés. entreprise. Page: D1.1 22/29 Un large pourcentage de la production est sous contrôle D1.4 Nous mesurons régulièrement la qualité de nos processus à D. D1.2 Total statistique l'aide Quality (SPC). d indicateurs. Management System - Enabler Nous Gestion L'entreprise analysons des processus a déléguée les causes à ses de responsables défaillance à l'aide processus d'outils D1.5 la D1.3 standards planification, (DMAIC, la gestion AMDEC, et l'amélioration Ishikawa, ) de leurs procédés. Page: D1.6 22/29 Surveillance Un large pourcentage et contrôle de en la temps production réel des est processus sous contrôle D1.4 statistique (SPC). D. Total Quality Management System - Enabler D1.7 Réduction Nous analysons du taux les de causes déchetde défaillance à l'aide d'outils D1.5 D1. Gestion standards des (DMAIC, processus AMDEC, Ishikawa, ) D1.6 Surveillance et contrôle en temps réel des processus Page: 22/29 D1.7 Réduction du taux de déchet D2. Développement fonctionnel croisé des produits D2.1 Grâce à une étroite collaboration entre la R&D et la fabrication, nous avons réduit le délai de lancement de produits sur le marché («scale-up»). Nous n'avons pas eu de retards dans le lancement de D2.2 nouveaux produits ces deux dernières années. D2. Développement fonctionnel croisé des produits Pour le transfert de produit et de processus entre les différents D2.3 département Grâce à une et étroite sites collaboration de production entre il existe la R&D des procédures et la fabrication, D2.1 standardisées nous avons réduit qui garantissent le délai de lancement un de produits sur le marché («scale-up»). D2.2 Nous n'avons pas eu de retards dans le lancement de nouveaux produits ces deux dernières années. D2.3 Page: 23/29 Pour le transfert de produit et de processus entre les différents département et sites de production il existe des procédures standardisées qui garantissent un Page: 23/29 43

44 D3. Intégration clientèle D3.1 Nous menons régulièrement des enquêtes de satisfaction auprès de notre clientèle. Nous recevons régulièrement des évalutions qualitatives de la D3.2 part de nos clients. D3. Intégration clientèle D3.3 D3.1 D3.4 D3.2 Nous recherchons auprès de nos clients des sources d'innovation Nous menons pour régulièrement notre entreprise des enquêtes et nos produit. de satisfaction auprès de notre clientèle. Nous menons conjointement avec nos clients des programmes d'amélioration Nous recevons pour régulièrement accroître notre des évalutions performance. qualitatives de la part de nos clients. Nous recherchons auprès de nos clients des sources D3.3 d'innovation pour notre entreprise et nos produit. D3.4 Nous menons conjointement avec nos clients des programmes d'amélioration pour accroître notre performance. D4. Gestion de la qualité des fournisseurs D4.1 Dans la sélection des fournisseurs, la qualité est notre premier critère. Nous effectuons des qualifications et des audits auprès de nos D4.2 fournisseurs D4. Gestion de la qualité des fournisseurs Nous inspectons systématiquement notre marchandise reçue D4.3 Dans la sélection des fournisseurs, la qualité est notre premier D4.1 E. Just critère. in Time System - Enabler Nous menons conjointement avec nos fournisseurs des D4.4 programmes Nous effectuons d'amélioration des qualifications pour accroître et des audits nos performances. E1. auprès de nos D4.2Gestion du temps et flexibilité fournisseurs E1.1 Réduction Nous inspectons du temps systématiquement de cycle machine notre marchandise reçue D4.3 E. Just in Time System - Enabler Nous travaillons menons conjointement constamment avec à diminuer nos fournisseurs le temps d'installation des E1.2 E1. D4.4 Gestion d'une programmes production. temps d'amélioration et flexibilité pour accroître nos performances. E1.1 E1.3 Réduction du des temps temps de de cycle nettoyage machine des équipements Page: 24/29 Nous Afin d accroître travaillons la constamment flexibilité dans à diminuer notre usine, le temps nous mettons d'installation la E1.2 E1.4 d'une priorité production. sur la réduction de la taille des lots. Le processus de montage est documenté en tant que «Best E1.3 E1.5 Réduction Practices» des dans temps toute de l usine. nettoyage des équipements Importance accordée à un programme de réduction des délais Afin d accroître la flexibilité dans notre usine, nous mettons la Page: E1.6 E1.4 24/29 de livraison priorité sur la réduction de la taille des lots. E1.7 Le Précision processus des de livraisons montage (on-time est documenté ratio) en tant que «Best E1.5 Practices» dans toute l usine. Importance accordée à un programme de réduction des délais E1.6 de livraison E1.7 Précision des livraisons (on-time ratio) E2. Production en flux tiré E2.1 Notre calendrier intègre les commandes prévisionnelles de nos clients (Forcast) Nous utilisons un système «pull» (tickets Kanban, conteneurs E2.2 ou signaux visuels) E2. Production en flux tiré E2.3 E2.1 Nous privilégions une association à long terme avec les Notre fournisseurs calendrier plutôt intègre que d en les commandes changer fréquemment. prévisionnelles de nos clients (Forcast) Nous pouvons compter sur nos fournisseurs pour respecter les E2.4 Nous utilisons un système «pull» (tickets Kanban, conteneurs Page: E2.2 délais de livraions convenus. 25/29 ou signaux visuels) E2.5 E2.3 Au lieu d une approche axée sur le stock, nous livrons nos Nous clients privilégions selon une une demande association orientée à long «JIT terme». avec les fournisseurs plutôt que d en changer fréquemment. Page: 25/29 44 E3. Optimisation du layout

45 E3. Optimisation du layout E3.1 Nos procédés sont proches les uns des autres de sorte que la manutention soit minimisés (approche Lean). Les produits sont classés par groupes d exigences de procédés E3.2 similaires afin de réduire le temps d'installation d'une E3. Optimisation production. du layout E3.3 E3.1 E3.4 E3.2 E3.5 E3.3 Nous avons rassemblé les machines selon la nature des groupes Nos procédés de produits sont proches qu'elles les réalisent uns des (conception autres de d'ilots). sorte que la manutention soit minimisés (approche Lean). Nos procédés de fabrication à partir des matières premières jusqu'aux Les produits produits sont classés finis sont par en groupes "flux continu". d exigences de procédés similaires afin de réduire le temps d'installation d'une production. Nous utilisons «Value Stream Mapping» en tant que méthodologie Nous avons rassemblé afin de visualiser les machines et d'optimiser selon la les nature processus. des groupes de produits qu'elles réalisent (conception d'ilots). Nous connaissons les causes principales des variances dans E4.2 notre calendrier de production et essayons en permanence de les Nos réduire. procédés de fabrication à partir des matières premières E3.4 jusqu'aux produits finis sont en "flux continu". E4.3 E3.5 Afin d augmenter la fiabilité de notre planification, nous échangeons des informations avec nos clients et fournisseurs. Nous utilisons «Value Stream Mapping» en tant que méthodologie afin de visualiser et d'optimiser les processus. Nous connaissons les causes principales des variances dans E4.4 E4.2 Notre notre calendrier usine dispose de production d horaires et flexibles. essayons en permanence de les réduire. E4. Stabilité Afin d augmenter de planification fiabilité de notre planification, nous E4.3 échangeons des informations avec nos clients et fournisseurs. Nous avons pour habitude de satisfaire quotidiennement nos E4.1 plans de production. E4.4 Notre usine dispose d horaires flexibles. Nous connaissons les causes principales des variances dans E4.2 notre calendrier de production et essayons en permanence de Page: E4. Stabilité 26/29 les réduire. de planification Afin d augmenter la fiabilité de notre planification, nous Nous avons pour habitude de satisfaire quotidiennement nos E4.1 E4.3 échangeons des informations avec nos clients et fournisseurs. F. Management plans de production. System - Enabler F1. E4.4 Gestion Notre par usine objectifs dispose d horaires flexibles. Page: 26/29 Notre production a une vision claire et documentée de ses F1.1 processus. F. Management System - Enabler Notre vision et mission sont largement communiquée et vécue F1.2 F1. Gestion par nos par employés. objectifs F1.3 F1.1 Notre système de gestion des ressources est orienté objectif. Notre production a une vision claire et documentée de ses processus. Nos directeurs de fabrication (chef de fabrication, site-leader, F1.4 etc.) Notre ont vision une et bonne mission compréhension sont largement du communiquée découpage et vécue F1.2 F. Management organisationnel par nos employés. System de l'entreprise. - Enabler Notre système de gestion des ressources est orienté objectif. F1.3Gestion par objectifs F1.4 F1.1 Nos Notre directeurs production de fabrication a une vision (chef claire de et fabrication, documentée site-leader, ses etc.) processus. ont une bonne compréhension du découpage organisationnel de l'entreprise. Notre vision et mission sont largement communiquée et vécue F1.2 par nos employés. F2. Engagement de la direction et culture d'entreprise F1.3 Notre système de gestion des ressources est orienté objectif. Page: 27/29 Implication de l'ensemble des collaborateurs dans des projets F2.1 d'amélioration. Nos directeurs de fabrication (chef de fabrication, site-leader, F1.4 etc.) ont une bonne compréhension du découpage organisationnel de l'entreprise. F2.2 Coopération entre les départements F2. Engagement de la direction et culture d'entreprise Page: F2.3 27/29 L entreprise a une culture de communication ouverte. F2.4 Les défaillances sont toujours tracées jusqu à leur origine, afin d'identifier les causes et d'y remédier. Le système management de l'entreprise est orienté qualité F2.5 F2. Engagement (SMQ intégré). de la direction et culture d'entreprise Page: 27/29 F3. Implication des employés et amélioration continue F3.1 Nous avons un processus d'amélioration continue. 45 F3.2 Nos employés sont impliqués dans la rédaction des manuels et des procédures.

46 F3. Implication des employés et amélioration continue F3.1 Nous avons un processus d'amélioration continue. Nos employés sont impliqués dans la rédaction des manuels et F3.2 des procédures. F3. Implication des employés et amélioration continue Notre usine forme des équipes de projet inter-services afin de F3.3 F3.1 Nous résoudre avons les un problèmes. processus d'amélioration continue. Nos employés sont impliqués dans la rédaction des manuels et F3.2 des procédures. F3.3 Notre usine forme des équipes de projet inter-services afin de résoudre les problèmes. F4. Intégration fonctionnelle et qualification Notre usine à mis en place un programme afin d'accroître la F4.1 Page: 28/29 flexibilité de nos travailleurs. Nous avons régulièrement des réunions d'information dans F4.2 F4. Intégration l entreprise. fonctionnelle et qualification Les informations de ces réunions officielles sont utilisées dans F4.3 des actions correctives. Page: 28/29 F4.4 Nous investissons dans la formation et la qualification de nos employés. F4.5 Les formations sont menées principalement par des ressources internes. Figure 26: Enablers 5. Conclusion The Innoprod project already achieved concrete results. Three companies are already working together and coaching each other. For example, one of the three companies has good results in preventive maintenance therefore it is coaching the two other companies by sharing best practices. The other two companies have also advantages to share. This project allows a win-win exchange and dynamic collaboration between companies willing to improve their productivity. We promoted the tool in the Alpine Space through the ALPlastics project and did a workshop in Fribourg the 25 th of March The workshop was planned to comment a report example. We encourage the companies to invest one hour for the questionnaire and use the Innoprod benchmarking tool. By filling the questionnaire, a given company first realizes a shoot of its site. To Page: 29/29 take improvement action it is important to know how the others work, but also to know, what is possible or not with the current technology. According to Réseau plasturgie, this comparison is a starting point for further reflection. Before any innovation action regarding productivity, it is mandatory for a company to measure its organizational /and management skills. In order to be able to measure the effectiveness of the implemented progress areas, a reference base is necessary. This tool is providing these measuring and comparison points for 46

47 your organization/company and even provides a specific reference guide by comparing your company to other enterprises in your field at the same time. 47

48 Reference University of St-Gallen: Prof. Dr. Thomas Friedli Fri-Up: Mr. Pierre-Alain Gapany Réseau plasturgie: Mr. Jacques P. Bersier, Mrs. Farah Fawaz Members of: Contact WAGO, CEBO BCR Plastics, JESA, Johnson Electric International AG, KBS- Spritztechnik, Mecaplast 48

49 Annex I. Calculation for Benchmark in French II. Report example II.1. French II.2. German II.3. Italian III. User's document III.1. Documentation: Gestion de l interface utilisateur III.2. Dokumentation: Verwaltung des Benutzer-Interface III.3. Documentazione: Gestione dell interfaccia utente IV. Administrator s document IV.1. Documentation: Gestion de l interface administrateur V. IT s document V.1. Documentation technique V.2. Source code 49