Complete firstProcess Mapping
A documented process model with steps and handoffs exists for the analyzed section.
Without: Without process model, waste is identified only anecdotally and cannot be assigned systematically.
RunsheetOperations
Waste Analysis
ComplexityLow
Time45-120 min
Participants2-8
FormatWorkshop
MaturityCanonical
01
Prerequisite
What needs to be finished first
02
Preparation
What needs to be ready before start
Materials
TIMWOOD table template (Transport, Inventory, Motion, Waiting, Overproduction, Overprocessing, Defects); observation sheet; stopwatch; list of all process steps; layout plan or value stream.
People / roles
One facilitator with Lean experience; two to four operators or knowledge workers from the process; one process owner with decision authority; optional external Lean coach.
Pre-read
Current target process; KPI state of the last 30 days; previous waste discussions or audits; known compliance obligations that force waste.
Time needed
Half day to full day
Setup
Wall or board with columns per TIMWOOD category. Space per column for observations, estimated frequency, and impact. Separate observation phase and evaluation phase clearly.
03
Core question
The one question this method answers
Which types of waste occur in the analyzed process with which frequency and effort?
04
Flow
Marker: Phase
| Step | Duration | Action | Hint |
|---|---|---|---|
1Phase 1: Explain categories | 20 min | Introduce TIMWOOD categories with concrete examples from the process. Ensure everyone understands the difference between overprocessing and overproduction. | Knowledge work often needs adapted examples: waiting for approval, inventory as unfinished tickets. |
2Phase 2: Walk-through or observation | 2-4 h | Observe the process at gemba or walk through it step by step. For each step, check which TIMWOOD waste occurs and with what frequency. | If a step has "no waste", question it critically. Waiting is often hidden because it is considered normal. |
3Phase 3: Quantification | 60 min | Estimate rough damage per identified waste (time, money, defect rate). Sort top 7 by impact. Mark data gaps as follow-up. | Without rough quantification, prioritization becomes mood. Even plus/minus 50% is enough for priority. |
4Phase 4: Elimination candidates | 60 min | Mark top 3 wastes with high impact and low effort as immediate actions. Plan complex topics as Kaizen event or standard-work adjustment. | Waste forced by compliance is not an elimination candidate without talking to compliance owner. |
05
Artifact
What comes out at the end
Form
Waste heatmap per process step with TIMWOOD categories, estimated frequency and impact, top-7 waste list, immediate actions with owner/date, and follow-up list for complex topics.
Versioning / ownership
Date, process name, and facilitator in header. Follow-up analyses compare to previous version. Immediate-action completion as append log.
Tool alternatives
- Miro or FigJam board with snapshot
- Confluence page with table per step
- Excel heatmap with color coding
- Markdown in repo under docs/operations/waste/
waste-analysis-working-template.md
Compact working template for Waste Analysis with context, input, output artifacts, and next step.
Waste Analysis Canvas
Context
What is this method used for?
Core question
Which question should be answered at the end?
Input
Which data, observations, or materials are available?
Working area
- Area 1:
- Area 2:
- Area 3:
- Relationships / patterns:
Output artifacts
- Waste Map:
- Prioritized Waste:
- Improvement Backlog:
Open questions
- ...
Next step
Owner, date, and success signal.
06
Example output
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
waste-analysis-beispiel.md
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Waste Analysis - Onboarding Tickets Customer Success (2026-05-08)
Sample: 42 tickets from the last 14 days
Top 7 wastes:
- Waiting: average 2 d 4 h waiting for SSO approval by Security. Damage: 9 person-days lead time.
- Defects: 11 tickets returned because of wrong permissions. Damage: 16 h rework.
- Motion: CS agents switch between 4 tools per ticket. Damage: 6 min tool switching per ticket.
- Overprocessing: full data release created although 60% of customers only need basic set.
- Overproduction: weekly report created, nobody opens it.
- Inventory: 23 open tickets older than 30 days without owner.
- Transport: file manually copied between 3 systems.
07
Pitfalls
Recognize symptoms and steer against them
Trap
Waste interpreted as personal error
Symptom
Discussion lands on who does it wrong, not which process creates effort.
What to do
Assign waste to process step, not operator.
Trap
Prioritized without quantification
Symptom
Top wastes selected by gut feeling.
What to do
Require at least rough number per candidate.
Trap
Compliance waste eliminated
Symptom
Double documentation is removed, later audit finding appears.
What to do
Ask compliance owner before elimination.
Trap
Waiting normalized
Symptom
Long waits are considered normal and not captured.
What to do
Measure waiting actively and compare to processing time.
Trap
Solution before diagnosis
Symptom
Participants brainstorm measures immediately.
What to do
Separate phases strictly; park solution stickies until diagnosis is complete.
08
Stop criteria
Done signals checkable in under a minute
Process is in deep exceptional state, observation not representative.
Operators or knowledge workers excluded, only managers attend.
No data or observation possible, estimate becomes speculation.
Process owner has no authority to change process.
Elimination is political taboo, workshop remains without consequence.
Waste is forced by compliance and non-negotiable.
Finished the runsheet?
Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.