Move from direct on-site observation through a structured DMAIC treatment to a new, anchored standard.
A data-based understood operations problem with an implemented improvement and a durably anchored new standard.
You can decide which improvement is implemented and how the new standard is controlled.
Re-check compliance with the new standard in a gemba walk after four to six weeks.
What is happening where work occurs, and which process question should we investigate together?
The gemba walk uncovers details that systematically get lost in reports and meetings.
The on-site observations show where waste actually arises in the process.
Which work creates customer value, which waste is immediately avoidable, which is currently necessary, and which unevenness or overburden produces it?
Waste analysis translates the observations into concrete, nameable types of waste.
The identified waste is treated in a structured way within the DMAIC cycle.
How will we improve an existing process through valid measurement, confirmed drivers, and sustainably controlled changes?
DMAIC ensures the improvement rests on measurement and analysis rather than a quick guess.
Before rolling out the improvement, possible new fault sources must be checked.
How can a function fail, what effects follow and which actions demonstrably reduce risk?
FMEA prevents the improvement from introducing new, as-yet-undetected fault sources.
The checked improvement is finally documented as a new standard.
Which safe, quality-capable sequence meets customer takt with the minimum required standard WIP?
Without a documented standard, the process reliably falls back into the old way of working.
The new standard is introduced in the team and regularly checked for compliance.
Artifacts stay collapsed until you actually need them.
Prepare Gemba Walk with a clear question, roles, and sources.
# Gemba Walk: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Plan the full method
Time: Set according to scope and available evidence
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** Shared workspace, accessible sources, and a decision log.
- **Roles:** Host · observing leader · frontline staff
- **Advance information:** Clarify the question, timeframe, data access, roles, and known uncertainties in advance.
- **Overall time needed:** 30–60 minutes for one bounded walk; repetition may be needed to verify observations.
- **Setup:** Create a shared version. Label facts, assumptions, and decisions separately.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Purpose: Clarify purpose and process boundary
- Learning purpose, host, and area
#### Observe: Observe work directly
- Real work item and process steps
#### Ask: Ask respectfully
- Open questions for people doing the work
#### Follow-up: Reflect and agree next step
- Validated observations and support needs
## Purpose, process observation, and agreed question
### Purpose
Record why the walk is happening and which process is in scope.
...
### Observation
Record observed steps, waits, and tools.
...
### Perspective
Capture perspectives with consent and context.
...
### Follow-up
Agree what the team will investigate or what obstacle to remove.
...
Blank worksheet: start with a bounded question. Enter observed facts only, mark assumptions, and record open questions and sources.
[How to Go to the Gemba · Lean Enterprise Institute](https://www.lean.org/the-lean-post/articles/how-to-go-to-the-gemba-go-see-ask-why-show-respect/)
## Purpose: Clarify purpose and process boundary
Expected artifact: Agreed observation purpose and process boundary
Agreed observation purpose and process boundary
Entry:
...
- [ ] Do people know why the work is being observed?
## Observe: Observe work directly
Expected artifact: Evidence-led process observations
Evidence-led process observations
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is the note observation rather than judgment?
## Ask: Ask respectfully
Expected artifact: Attributed frontline perspectives
Attributed frontline perspectives
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are the people doing the work speaking for themselves?
## Follow-up: Reflect and agree next step
Expected artifact: Validated learning and support question
Validated learning and support question
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is the observation kept separate from individual performance evaluation?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/gemba-walk/run-sheet
Set subject, evidence, roles, flow, and review.
# Waste Analysis: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Complete run
Time: 60–120 minutes for a bounded value stream; add gemba observation.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** Customer value, observed process, time/motion/inventory data, Muda-Mura-Muri matrix, and action log
- **Roles:** Frontline team · process/value-stream owner · customer perspective · facilitator · action owners
- **Advance information:** Set one concrete value stream, customer, and desired outcome; observe actual work at gemba.
- **Overall time needed:** 60–120 minutes for a bounded value stream; add gemba observation.
- **Setup:** Prepare a workspace with Value · Observe · Classify · Prioritise · Test; separate example from live data.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Value: Value criterion
- Set one concrete value stream, customer, and desired outcome; observe actual work at gemba.
- Customer value, observed process, time/motion/inventory data, Muda-Mura-Muri matrix, and action log
#### Observe: Observed flow
- Value criterion
#### Classify: Waste register
- Observed flow
#### Prioritise: Priority
- Waste register
#### Test: Improvement test
- Priority
## Waste Analysis · working structure
| Activity | Evidence | Muda | Mura | Muri | Cause | Test |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Unit search | | | | | | |
| Safety check | | | | | | |
- **Unit search:** Add evidence and rationale.
- **Safety check:** Add evidence and rationale.
The blank worksheet contains prompts only.
[Reference · original teaching example](https://www.lean.org/lexicon-terms/muda-mura-muri/)
## Value: Value criterion
Expected artifact: Value criterion
Define customer, outcome, and conditions under which an activity creates value.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is value defined by the recipient rather than internal utilisation?
## Observe: Observed flow
Expected artifact: Observed flow
Capture steps, times, paths, inventory, interruptions, and strain in actual flow.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Were data gathered directly over several cases?
## Classify: Waste register
Expected artifact: Waste register
Classify non-value work as Muda type 1 or 2, unevenness as Mura, and overburden as Muri.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is every classification evidenced by concrete behaviour and effect?
## Prioritise: Priority
Expected artifact: Priority
Assess risk, frequency, time, and relationships; choose system cause rather than visible symptom.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does priority address customer effect and system cause?
## Test: Improvement test
Expected artifact: Improvement test
Run a small countermeasure with prediction, owner, guardrails, and review.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does the test reduce waste without new Mura or Muri?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/waste-analysis/run-sheet
Set subject, evidence, roles, flow, and review.
# DMAIC: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Whole initiative
Time: Four to twelve weeks for a typical improvement project; each phase ends with an evidence gate.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** Project charter, voice of customer, process map, measurement system and baseline, cause evidence, pilot, and control plan
- **Roles:** Process owner/sponsor · DMAIC lead · process participants · data/measurement-system expert · control owner
- **Advance information:** Select an existing process with a measurable performance gap, customer requirement, sponsor, and clear boundary.
- **Overall time needed:** Four to twelve weeks for a typical improvement project; each phase ends with an evidence gate.
- **Setup:** Prepare a workspace with Define · Measure · Analyze · Improve · Control; separate example from live data.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Define: Project charter
- Select an existing process with a measurable performance gap, customer requirement, sponsor, and clear boundary.
- Project charter, voice of customer, process map, measurement system and baseline, cause evidence, pilot, and control plan
#### Measure: Valid baseline
- Project charter
#### Analyze: Confirmed drivers
- Valid baseline
#### Improve: Verified improvement
- Confirmed drivers
#### Control: Control plan
- Verified improvement
## DMAIC · working structure
### Project charter
Set problem, customer requirement, CTQ, goal, scope, business case, team, and sponsor in a charter.
...
### Valid baseline
Map current process, operationalise measures, validate the measurement system, and collect a stratified baseline.
...
### Confirmed drivers
Derive potential X drivers from process and data; confirm causes through analysis, comparison, or experiment.
...
### Verified improvement
Design solutions against confirmed Xs, assess risk, pilot, and verify against baseline.
...
### Control plan
Set process standard, monitoring, reaction plan, owner, and handover; verify stability after implementation.
...
The blank worksheet contains prompts only.
[Reference · original teaching example](https://asq.org/quality-resources/dmaic)
## Define: Project charter
Expected artifact: Project charter
Set problem, customer requirement, CTQ, goal, scope, business case, team, and sponsor in a charter.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is the gap measurable, with process, customer, goal, and out-of-scope explicit?
## Measure: Valid baseline
Expected artifact: Valid baseline
Map current process, operationalise measures, validate the measurement system, and collect a stratified baseline.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are definition, measurement system, sample, and baseline trustworthy?
## Analyze: Confirmed drivers
Expected artifact: Confirmed drivers
Derive potential X drivers from process and data; confirm causes through analysis, comparison, or experiment.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is every priority driver evidenced and distinguished from the symptom?
## Improve: Verified improvement
Expected artifact: Verified improvement
Design solutions against confirmed Xs, assess risk, pilot, and verify against baseline.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does the pilot target confirmed drivers and improve outcomes within guardrails?
## Control: Control plan
Expected artifact: Control plan
Set process standard, monitoring, reaction plan, owner, and handover; verify stability after implementation.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does the plan specify measure, limit, frequency, owner, and reaction?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/dmaic/run-sheet
Define scope, functions and agreed rating rules; prepare existing controls and failure data.
# Failure Mode and Effects Analysis: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Complete cycle
Time: Multiple work sessions; verify actions after implementation
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** FMEA table, function flow, failure data and anchored S/O/D rating scales.
- **Roles:** Cross-functional team covering design, operations, quality and affected users.
- **Advance information:** Define scope, functions and agreed rating rules; prepare existing controls and failure data.
- **Overall time needed:** Multiple work sessions; verify actions after implementation
- **Setup:** Create one row per failure chain; display rating legend and current controls, keeping planned actions separate.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Functions: Functions
- Functions
- Requirements
#### Controls: Causes and controls
- Failure chains
- Existing controls
#### Rating: S, O, D and RPN
- Controls
- Rating rules
#### Actions: Actions
- Prioritised risks
- Resources
#### Effectiveness: Effectiveness
- Implemented actions
- Evidence
## Failure Mode and Effects Analysis· worksheet
| Failure chain | Function | Failure mode | Effect | Cause | Current controls | S | O | D | RPN | Action / owner | Evidence / residual rating |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | | | | | | | | | | | |
- **1:** Enter function, failure chain, current controls and justified ratings; distinguish actions and evidence.
Define your own rating anchors first. S = severity, O = occurrence, D = poor detectability; RPN = S × O × D. Examine high severity separately; no universal RPN acceptance threshold. Reassess only after effectiveness evidence.
[ASQ: FMEA](https://asq.org/quality-resources/fmea)
## Functions: Functions
Expected artifact: Failure chains
Are failure mode and effect distinct?
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are failure mode and effect distinct?
## Controls: Causes and controls
Expected artifact: Control picture
Do controls exist and work today?
Entry:
...
- [ ] Do controls exist and work today?
## Rating: S, O, D and RPN
Expected artifact: Reasoned priority
Does high D mean poor detection?
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does high D mean poor detection?
## Actions: Actions
Expected artifact: Action plan
Does the action change a specific risk driver?
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does the action change a specific risk driver?
## Effectiveness: Effectiveness
Expected artifact: Verified residual state
Is reassessment based on evidence?
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is reassessment based on evidence?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/fmea/run-sheet
Set subject, evidence, roles, flow, and review.
# Standard Work Analysis: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Complete run
Time: 90–180 minutes per repeatable work cycle plus a pilot across several cycles.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** Customer demand and available time, observed element times, layout, standardized-work combination table, WIP and quality data
- **Roles:** Frontline operators · team lead · industrial/process engineering · safety/quality · standard owner
- **Advance information:** Choose a repeatable process and product/service family; capture demand, available time, and actual work at gemba.
- **Overall time needed:** 90–180 minutes per repeatable work cycle plus a pilot across several cycles.
- **Setup:** Prepare a workspace with Takt · Elements · Sequence · WIP · Confirm; separate example from live data.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Takt: Takt time
- Choose a repeatable process and product/service family; capture demand, available time, and actual work at gemba.
- Customer demand and available time, observed element times, layout, standardized-work combination table, WIP and quality data
#### Elements: Element times
- Takt time
#### Sequence: Work sequence
- Element times
#### WIP: Standard WIP
- Work sequence
#### Confirm: Confirmed standard
- Standard WIP
## Standard Work Analysis · working structure
| Sequence | Manual | Walk | Machine | Quality/Safety | Standard WIP |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Scan reservation | | | | | |
| Fetch unit | | | | | |
| Inspect and hand off | | | | | |
- **Scan reservation:** Add evidence and rationale.
- **Fetch unit:** Add evidence and rationale.
- **Inspect and hand off:** Add evidence and rationale.
The blank worksheet contains prompts only.
[Reference · original teaching example](https://www.lean.org/lexicon-terms/standardized-work/)
## Takt: Takt time
Expected artifact: Takt time
Divide net available time by customer demand and set validity boundary.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are time base, demand, and exclusions traceable?
## Elements: Element times
Expected artifact: Element times
Break actual work into safe observable elements and measure several cycles.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Do times show normal variation rather than best case or estimate?
## Sequence: Work sequence
Expected artifact: Work sequence
Combine manual, walking, and machine time in a sensible order against takt.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does sequence fit takt while retaining safety and quality steps?
## WIP: Standard WIP
Expected artifact: Standard WIP
Determine minimum standard inventory and material positions needed for stable flow.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is every WIP item justified for smooth operation?
## Confirm: Confirmed standard
Expected artifact: Confirmed standard
Pilot standard with operators, measure deviations, display it, and establish review.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Can several people reproduce takt, quality, and safety?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/standard-work-analysis/run-sheet