productivity benchmarking

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.

3

Table of content 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1. Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2. The Innoprod Project .......................................................................................................................... 5 1.3. The Innoprod Product ........................................................................................................................ 5 1.4. Dissemination in the Alpine Space trough ALPlastics ........................................................... 6

2. Methodology: Model OPEX (Operational Excellence) .................................................................. 7 2.1. The four indicators (Enabler / Performance) .............................................................................. 8 2.1.1. Total Productive Maintenance ..................................................................................................... 9 2.1.2. Total Quality Management ........................................................................................................... 9 2.1.3. Just-In-Time .................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.4. Effective Management Systems ............................................................................................... 11

3. The Questionnaire ..................................................................................................................................... 11 3.1. Overview of the seven question pools of the questionnaires ............................................. 12 3.2. Question pool: A. Your company ............................................................................................... 13 3.3. Question pool: B. Cost structure and workforces of the site in {year} .......................... 15 3.4. Question pool: C. Total Productive Maintenance System – Enabler .............................. 16 3.5. Question pool: D. Total Quality Management System – Enabler .................................... 18 3.6. Question pool: E. Just in Time System – Enabler ................................................................. 19 3.7. Question pool: F. Management System – Enabler ................................................................ 21 3.8. Question pool: G. Performance of the company .................................................................... 23

4. Report and interpretation of results ..................................................................................................... 25 4.1. Calculations for the benchmark ................................................................................................... 25 4.2. Report Examples ............................................................................................................................... 28

5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 46 Reference .............................................................................................................................................................. 48 Annex ..................................................................................................................................................................... 49

I. Calculation for Benchmark in French ............................................................................................ 49 II. Report example .................................................................................................................................... 49 II.1. French .................................................................................................................................................. 49 II.2. German ................................................................................................................................................ 49 II.3. Italian ................................................................................................................................................... 49 III. User's document ................................................................................................................................. 49

III.1. Documentation: Gestion de l’interface utilisateur .......................................................... 49 III.2. Dokumentation: Verwaltung des Benutzer-Interface .................................................... 49 III.3. Documentazione: Gestione dell’interfaccia utente ........................................................ 49

IV. Administrator’s document .............................................................................................................. 49 IV.1. Documentation: Gestion de l’interface administrateur ................................................. 49

V. IT’s document ....................................................................................................................................... 49 V.1. Documentation technique ........................................................................................................ 49 V.2. Source code ................................................................................................................................... 49

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: www.innoprod.ch.

With this tool the company can generate automatically a benchmarking report after successfully

completing the whole questionnaire.

1.1. 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.

5

1.2. The Innoprod Project

The Innoprod project began in 2009. 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.

1.3. The Innoprod Product

Today, the Innoprod product became an online tool on www.innoprod.ch. 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

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.

1.4. 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

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 (www.pst-fr.ch) and

Platinn (www.platinn.ch), 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:

8

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.

2.1. 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.

Standardized((replenishment((

Standardized((equipment(

Standardized(processes(

High(con/nuous((improvement(rates((

Low(absenteeism(&((fluctua/on((

Flexible((workforce((

SelfWdirected((teams((

Stable(running(machines( Stable(processes( Low(inventory((

TPM( TQM( JIT(

Management(System(Direc/on(seang(

Management(commitment(and(company(culture(Employee(involvement(&(con/nuous(improvement((

Func/onal(integra/on(&(qualifica/on((

(Preven/ve!!Maintenance!(

((Technology!!assessment((

and(u/liza/on(((

Process((Management((

Customer!!integra/on((

CrossW(func/onal((product((

development((

((Supplier((quality((

management((

Time((management((and(flexibility((

Pull((produc/on((

Planning((adherence(

Layout((op/miza/on((

General((Maintenance((

OPERATIO

NAL(EXCELLEN

CE(

9

2.1.1. 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.

2.1.2. 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.

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.

2.1.3. 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.

11

2.1.4. 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 2013. 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

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.

3.1. 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 Cost structure and workforces of the site in {year}

This pool of questions contains information about the cost structure of the production site and the number and occupation rate of the collaborators.

C Total Productive Maintenance System – Enabler

In the section C, there are the questions for the enabler part of the indicator TPM.

D Total Quality Management System – Enabler

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

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.

3.2. 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 company put the percentage of sourcing from each region. To save the answers and not get an error message, it has to have a total of 100%. In the last line we have a special space with the sum to help.

2. Eastern Europe 3. North America 4. South America 5. Middle East 6. Asia 7. Rest of the world

A3 Geographic segmentation of customers

1. Western Europe In the question A3, we would like to know where the customers are located. The answers are in %. The sum has to be equal 100%.

2. Eastern Europe 3. North America 4. South America 5. Middle East 6. Asia 7. Rest of the world

14

A4 Production

structure

1. Molds In the question A4, the company is asked to put the numbers of produced molds, multi-component molds and over molds in the reference year.

2. Multi-component molds

3. Over molds

A5 Vertical integration of production in {year}

1. Percentage of colored materials on-site

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.

2. Percentage of hot runner molds

3. Percentage reuse ground materials

A6 Innovation structure and audit

1. Number of new products launched in the past three years (new for production)

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.

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

A7 Age of the

production technology in {year}

1. Percentage of machines that have less than 5 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. 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

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 equal to 100%. Here we would like to know the degree of automation for the output of products.

2. The product fall from itself in a box

3. The output is done on a conveyor belt

4. The output is done by a robot and put on a

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

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.

2. With a centralized system for grinding

3. No grinding

A10 Degree of automation in {year}

1. Centralized supply of granules (% of total materials used)

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.

2. Automated quality control on the machine (% of equipped machines)

3.3. 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

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.

2. Consumable costs of production necessary to operations and other services

B2 Cost of manpower 1. Direct Costs of

laboratory staff involved in the production

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).

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 all the cost of maintenance in the selected currency (Swiss francs or euro).

16

tools and molds, including electricity, water, etc.

B4 Number of collaborators in {year} (Full Time Equivalent)

1. Production Here we would like to know the number of FTEs for each activity. Please mention the number of FTE even if they don’t figure on the payroll.

2. Packaging 3. Quality Control

(quality tests, analysis, batch control and 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)

The sum of the two answer is equal to 100%. Here we would like to know the percentage of fix and temporarily employed people. 2. Percentage of

temporarily employed FTE people (fixed-term contract)

3.4. 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.

17

2. We identify a good maintenance as improving strategy for the quality and compliance planning.

Maintenance is important for the company; it is a synonym of goo quality.

3. All machines with potential bottlenecks are identified and provided with additional spare pieces.

The bottlenecks have a big impact on the productivity. The more you care about it, the better your production will be.

4. We continually optimize our maintenance program based on an analysis of failures.

Failures are analyzed. The maintenance program is continuously improved from learning through failures.

5. Our maintenance service involves and trains machine operators to fulfill their own preventive maintenance.

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.

6. Our operators are actively involved in the process of buying new machines.

The operators of machines know a lot about the machines they are responsible for. Involving them in the buying process is an added value.

7. The maintenance of our machines is mainly internal. We avoid as much as possible the intervention of an external service.

The empowerment of the responsible persons for the maintenance, intern to the company, gives more flexibility to the production and raises the productivity.

C2 Technology assessment and utilization

1. Our factory is at the forefront of new technologies in our field.

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.

2. We are constantly looking for new production technologies on the market.

3. We develop new technologies internally.

4. Increased level of automation.

C3

General Maintenance

1. Our employees are committed to keep our factory clean and in order.

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.

2. Our factory procedures insist that all tools and accessories are in place.

3. We have a checklist of

18

maintenance to continuously monitor the condition and cleanliness of our machines and equipment.

3.5. 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




Question# Question Answers Comments D1 Process

Management 1. Processes are well

documented in our company.

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.

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.

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

19

2. We do not have delays in the launch of new products in the past two years.

collaboration is standardized in the company.

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.

D3 Customer integration

1. We regularly carry out satisfaction surveys of our customers.

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.

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.

D4 Supplier quality management

1. In selecting suppliers, quality is our first criterion.

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.

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.

3.6. 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


20



Question# Question Answers Comments E1 Time management

and flexibility 1. Time reduction of

machine cycle 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.

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)

In this part we would like to know how the company manager the orders from the suppliers and the production. 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.

E3 Layout optimization

1. Our processes are close to each other so that the handling is minimized (Lean)

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.

2. The products are classified into groups of similar requirements processes to reduce the installation time of a

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.

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.

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

3.7. Question pool: F. Management System – Enabler In the table bellow, the entire questions related to the group of questions F about the indicator MS




Question# Question Answers Comments F1 Management by

Objectives 1. Our production has a

clear and documented vision of its processes.

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

2. Our vision and mission are widely shared and experienced by our employees.

3. Our resource

22

management system is objective oriented

better it is.

4. Our manufacturing directors (production manager, site-leader, etc.) have a good understanding of the organizational division of the company.

F2 Management commitment and corporate culture

1. Involvement of all employees in improvement projects.

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

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).

F3 Employee involvement and continuous improvement

1. We have process of continuous improvement.

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.

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.

F4 Functional integration and qualification

1. Our factory has implemented a program to increase the flexibility of our workers.

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.

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.

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 non-compliance rat

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

2. Supplier non-compliance 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)

All costs that are caused by the discovery and elimination of errors. All costs generated by non-compliant products that must be rejected. All personnel costs for quality (per machine).

2. Costs of waste

3. Staff costs per machine

G3 JIT performance of the previous year

1. Ratio raw material stock rotation

Annual Purchase / average stock value of raw material Annual sales / average stock value 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

G4 TPM performance of the previous year

1. Charging schedule

Planned annual production capacity per machine (OEE opening time). Ratio of time spent in the start of production and cleanings on total

2. Maintenance costs of equipment and peripherals

3. Recovery time and cleaning

24

opening time of the production site. Ratio of the total unplanned maintenance (repair, other unplanned stops) on the opening time.

4. Unplanned maintenance work

G5 Overall Equipment Effectiveness in {year}

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. (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. (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).

2. (OEE) Performance

3. (OEE) Quality

G6 Performance Indicators of the Management System in {year}

1. Number of hierarchical levels

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

2. Training

3. Security level

4. Versatility

5. Employee turnover

6. Sickness absenteeism

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.

4.1. 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


• C3 General Maintenance


• 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

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


• D3 Customer integration


• D4 Supplier quality management


• 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)

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


• E3 Layout optimization


• E4 Planning stability


• 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))

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

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

Figure 2: Information on the first page

This is the only time where the name of the company is mentioned; the rest of the report is

anonymous.

After each graph we have a comment box to permit the company or auditing entity to put remarks,

explanations, improvement propositions, etc.

Figure 3: Comment box

The report is the structured in three parts. First we have general information about the production site.

Benchmarking de

EIA-FR

Pérolles, 1700 Fribourg

Comparaison avec 6 entreprises, Europe

10/07/13 20:44

C2.1 Notre usine est à la pointe des technologies nouvelles dansnotre domaine.

C2.2 Nous cherchons constamment de nouvelles technologies deproduction sur le marché.

C2.3 Nous développons de nouvelles technologies en interne.

C2.4 Augmentation du niveau d'automation

Commentaire

C3. Entretien généralVotre site

Valeure moyenne

Meilleure performance

C3.1 Nos employés s'efforcent de garder notre usine propre et enordre.

C3.2 Nos procédures d’usine insistent sur le fait que tous les outils etaccessoires soient à leur place.

C3.3Nous avons une liste de contrôle de l’entretien afin de surveilleren permanence l'état et la propreté de nos machines et del’équipement.

Commentaire

D. Total Quality Management System - Enabler

D1. Gestion des processusVotre site

Valeure moyenne


Page: 22/29

30

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”.

Production Structure

Typologie de l'échantillon

Commentaire

Page: 1/29

31

Figure 5: Sourcing by region

In the figure of the sourcing by region, the company can compare itself with the other companies of

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:

Approvisionnement par région

Votre site[%]

Moyenne[%]

Médiane[%]

A2.1 Europe de l'Ouest 80 50 39

A2.2 Europe de l'Est 5 22 15

A2.3 Amérique du Nord 5 11 8

A2.4 Amérique du Sud 10 14 10

A2.5 Moyen-Orient 0 3 0

A2.6 Asie 0 1 0

A2.7 Reste du monde 0 0 0Votre site

Valeure moyenne

Meilleure

Page: 2/29

32

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.

Figure 7: Production structure

Commentaire

Segmentation géographique des clients

Votre site[%]

Moyenne[%]

Médiane[%]

A3.1 Europe de l'Ouest 55 65 62

A3.2 Europe de l'Est 15 16 14

A3.3 Amérique du Nord 10 12 8

A3.4 Amérique du Sud 10 4 2

A3.5 Moyen-Orient 5 2 0

A3.6 Asie 5 1 0

A3.7 Reste du monde 0 0 0Votre site

Valeure moyenne

Meilleure

Page: 3/29

Commentaire

Structure de la production

Votre site[Pièces]

Moyenne[Pièces]

Médiane[Pièces]

A4.1 Moules 7 000 000 25 051 50 9 754 500

A4.2 Moule multi-composants 500 000 1 106 667 375 000

A4.3 Surmoulage 100 000 56 667 60 000Votre site

Valeure moyenne

Meilleure

Page: 4/29

Commentaire

Structure de la production

Votre site[Pièces]

Moyenne[Pièces]

Médiane[Pièces]

A4.1 Moules 7 000 000 25 051 50 9 754 500

A4.2 Moule multi-composants 500 000 1 106 667 375 000

A4.3 Surmoulage 100 000 56 667 60 000Votre site

Valeure moyenne

Meilleure

Page: 4/29

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.

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.

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.

Commentaire

Intégration verticale de la production en 2012

Votre site[%]

Moyenne[%]

Médiane[%]

A5.1 Pourcentage de matières colorées sur site 85 66 68

A5.2 Pourcentage de moules à canaux chauds 80 71 80

A5.3 Pourcentage de réutilisation de matières broyées 20 40 35Votre site

Valeure moyenne

Meilleure

Commentaire

Structure d'innovation et audit

Votre site[Nombre]

Moyenne[Nombre]

Médiane[Nombre]

A6.1 Nombre de nouveaux produits lancés au cours des trois 5 16 10

A6.2 Nombre d'audits réalisés sur le site au cours des trois dernières 12 8 10



Page: 5/29

Commentaire

Intégration verticale de la production en 2012

Votre site[%]

Moyenne[%]

Médiane[%]

A5.1 Pourcentage de matières colorées sur site 85 66 68

A5.2 Pourcentage de moules à canaux chauds 80 71 80

A5.3 Pourcentage de réutilisation de matières broyées 20 40 35Votre site

Valeure moyenne

Meilleure

Commentaire

Structure d'innovation et audit

Votre site[Nombre]

Moyenne[Nombre]

Médiane[Nombre]

A6.1 Nombre de nouveaux produits lancés au cours des trois 5 16 10




Page: 5/29

Votre site

Valeure moyenne

Meilleure

Commentaire

Age de la technologie de production en 2012

Votre site[%]

Moyenne[%]

Médiane[%]

A7.1 Pourcentage des machines qui ont moins de 5 ans 25 20 18

A7.2 Pourcentage des machines qui ont entre 5 et 10 ans 25 18 18


A7.4 Pourcentage des machines qui ont plus de 21 ans 25 25 18Votre site

Valeure moyenne

Meilleure

Page: 6/29

34

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

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.

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.

Votre site

Valeure moyenne

Meilleure

Commentaire

Age de la technologie de production en 2012

Votre site[%]

Moyenne[%]

Médiane[%]

A7.1 Pourcentage des machines qui ont moins de 5 ans 25 20 18



A7.4 Pourcentage des machines qui ont plus de 21 ans 25 25 18Votre site

Valeure moyenne

Meilleure

Page: 6/29

Commentaire

Degré d'automatisation en 2012: Comment s'effectue la sortie produit sur vos différentes machines?

Votre site[%]

Moyenne[%]

Médiane[%]

A8.1 Sortie manuelle 10 5 5

A8.2 La pièce tombe d'elle-même dans une caisse 10 8 10

A8.3 La sortie s'effectue sur un tapis roulant 10 16 10

A8.4 La sortie se fait par un robot de dépose sur un tapis roulant 10 32 15

A8.5 La sortie se fait au moyen d'un robot qui conditionne 60 40 55Votre site

Valeure moyenne

Meilleure

Page: 7/29

35

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.

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.

Commentaire

Degré d'automatisation en 2012: Comment s'effectue le processus de broyage des carottes?

Votre site[%]

Moyenne[%]

Médiane[%]

A9.1 A l'aide d'un broyeur mobile juxtaposé 10 37 30

A9.2 A l'aide d'un système centralisé de broyage 10 15 15

A9.3 Pas de broyage 80 48 45Votre site

Valeure moyenne

Meilleure

Commentaire

Degré d'automatisation en 2012

Votre site[%]

Moyenne[%]

Médiane[%]

A10.1 Alimentation centralisée des granulés (en % du total des 15 64 88

A10.2 Contrôle de qualité automatisé sur la machine (% de machines 25 49 55

Page: 8/29

Commentaire

Degré d'automatisation en 2012: Comment s'effectue le processus de broyage des carottes?

Votre site[%]

Moyenne[%]

Médiane[%]

A9.1 A l'aide d'un broyeur mobile juxtaposé 10 37 30

A9.2 A l'aide d'un système centralisé de broyage 10 15 15

A9.3 Pas de broyage 80 48 45Votre site

Valeure moyenne

Meilleure

Commentaire

Degré d'automatisation en 2012

Votre site[%]

Moyenne[%]

Médiane[%]

A10.1 Alimentation centralisée des granulés (en % du total des 15 64 88

A10.2 Contrôle de qualité automatisé sur la machine (% de machines 25 49 55

Page: 8/29

Votre site

Valeure moyenne

Meilleure

Commentaire

Structure des coûts et effectif du site en 2012

Votre site[%]

Moyenne[%]

Médiane[%]

B_1.1 Coûts des matières 35 46 45

B_1.2 Coûts de main d'oeuvre 64 47 52

B_1.3 Coûts d'entretien 2 7 7Votre site

Valeure moyenne

Meilleure

Page: 9/29

36

Figure 14: Cost structure and staff on site in 2012

The cost structure graph presents how the costs of the company are distributed.

Figure 15: Number of collaborator in 2012 (Full Time Equivalent)

Here we have the distribution of the workforces on the different tasks.

Votre site

Valeure moyenne

Meilleure

Commentaire

Structure des coûts et effectif du site en 2012

Votre site[%]

Moyenne[%]

Médiane[%]

B_1.1 Coûts des matières 35 46 45

B_1.2 Coûts de main d'oeuvre 64 47 52

B_1.3 Coûts d'entretien 2 7 7Votre site

Valeure moyenne

Meilleure

Page: 9/29

Commentaire

Nombre de collaborateurs en 2012 (Equivalent Plein Temps)

Votre site Moyenne Médiane

B4.1 Production 15 43 30

B4.2 Emballage 5 11 8

B4.3 Contrôle Qualité (tests de qualité, analyses, contrôles des lots et 4 10 8

B4.4 Assurance de la Qualité (homologation de procédés, procédures 3 8 8

B4.5 Achats, Stocks, Logistique 4 12 10

B4.6 Maintenance des équipements: machines, moules, 5 6 6

B4.7 Environnement, Santé et Sécurité 6 3 4

B4.8 Support Informatique 7 6 6

B4.9 Divers (Ventes, Direction générale et administrative) 9 11 10Votre site

Valeure moyenne

Meilleure

Page: 10/29

37

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.

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.

Commentaire

Nombre de collaborateurs fixes et temporaires en 2012

Votre site[%]

Moyenne[%]

Médiane[%]

B5.1 Pourcentage de personnes EPT employées de manière fixe (CDI) 95 96 96

B5.2 Pourcentage de personnes EPT employées de manière 5 4 4Votre site

Valeure moyenne

Meilleure

Commentaire

Page: 11/29

Operational Excellence - Vue d'ensemble

La vue d'ensemble "Operational Excellence" montre le modèle de référence sous-jacent à cette enquête, qui identifiele degré d '"excellence opérationnelle" de votre entreprise dans l'industrie du plastique.

Votre site

Moyenne


Total Productive Maintenance System - Enabler 73.88 % 50.95 % 59.46 %

Total Productive Maintenance System - Performance 32.50 % 70.00 % 72.50 %

Total Quality Management System - Enabler 71.36 % 60.36 % 62.94 %

Total Quality Management System - Performance 42.22 % 52.22 % 41.11 %

Just in Time System - Enabler 70.57 % 62.03 % 62.91 %

Just in Time System - Performance 70.00 % 62.78 % 61.67 %

Management System - Enabler 61.58 % 66.94 % 62.84 %

Management System - Performance 56.67 % 54.44 % 55.00 %

Page: 12/29

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.

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.

Total Productive Maintenance System - Enabler

Votre site

Moyenne


C1 Maintenance préventive 85.14 % 60.50 % 61.43 %

C2 Evaluation de la technologie et utilisation 79.50 % 53.42 % 55.25 %

C3 Entretien général 57.00 % 69.72 % 71.50 %

Total Productive Maintenance System - Enabler 73.88 % 50.95 % 59.46 %

Commentaire

Page: 13/29

39

Figure 19: Total Productive Maintenance System – Performance

Figure 20: Total Quality Management System – Enabler

Total Productive Maintenance System - Performance

Votre site

Moyenne


TPM_1 Overall Equipment Effectiveness 89.38 % 69.67 % 85.76 %

TPM_2 Temps de redémarrage et nettoyage 15.00 % 11.83 % 13.50 %

TPM_3 Maintenance non planifiée 103.57 % 96.92 %

TPM_4 Coûts de maintenance / Main d'oeuvre directe 4545.45CHF

5722.35CHF

2963.46CHF

TPM_5 Coûts de maintenance / Nombre de collaborateurs 862.07CHF

1989.23CHF

607.09CHF

Total Productive Maintenance System - Performance 32.50 % 70.00 % 72.50 %

Commentaire

Page: 14/29

Total Quality Management System - Enabler

Votre site

Moyenne


D1 Gestion des processus 55.29 % 60.90 % 60.86 %

D2 Développement fonctionnel croisé des produits 73.67 % 48.78 % 56.67 %

D3 Intégration clientèle 88.50 % 59.79 % 54.12 %

D4 Gestion de la qualité des fournisseurs 68.00 % 71.96 % 68.00 %

Total Quality Management System - Enabler 71.36 % 60.36 % 62.94 %

Commentaire

Page: 15/29

40

Figure 21: Total Quality Management System – Performance

Figure 22: Just in Time System – Enabler

Total Quality Management System - Performance

Votre site

Moyenne


TQM_1 Taux de non- conformité Client 0.10 % 2.02 % 1.05 %

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 % 16.76 % 0.15 %

TQM_6 Collaborateurs contrôle qualité et assurance qualité / Main d'oeuvredirecte 29.17 % 22.56 % 28.13 %

TQM_7 Collaborateurs contrôle qualité et assurance qualité / Nombre decollaborateurs 12.07 % 12.39 % 14.72 %

TQM_8 Coûts de qualité / Main d'oeuvre directe 13333.33CHF

8861.39CHF

10168.82CHF

TQM_9 Coûts de qualité / Nombre de collaborateurs 4310.34CHF

1790.84CHF

1702.65CHF

Total Quality Management System - Performance 42.22 % 52.22 % 41.11 %

Commentaire

Page: 16/29

Just in Time System - Enabler

Votre site

Moyenne


E1 Gestion du temps et flexibilité 77.71 % 67.62 % 66.29 %

E2 Production en flux tiré 69.80 % 62.10 % 60.80 %

E3 Optimisation du layout 73.00 % 58.17 % 61.70 %

E4 Stabilité de planification 61.75 % 60.25 % 67.38 %

Just in Time System - Enabler 70.57 % 62.03 % 62.91 %

Commentaire

Page: 17/29

41

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.

Figure 24: Management System – Enabler

Just in Time System - Performance

Votre site

Moyenne


JIT_1 Ration rotation stock matière première 6.00Nombre

8.25Nombre

5.50Nombre

JIT_2 Ratio rotation produits finis 5.00Nombre

6.60Nombre

6.00Nombre

JIT_3 Nombre moyen de changements de moules par machine et par mois 7.00Nombre

6.00Nombre

7.00Nombre

JIT_4 Temps de changement moyen 2.56Heures

3.37Heures

2.62Heures

JIT_5 Taux de livraison client à date confirmée 98.00 % 96.33 % 98.00 %

JIT_6 Taux de livraison fournisseur à date confirmée 95.00 % 93.50 % 96.50 %

Just in Time System - Performance 70.00 % 62.78 % 61.67 %

Commentaire

Page: 18/29Management System - Enabler

Votre site

Moyenne


F1 Gestion par objectifs 77.25 % 75.67 % 71.75 %

F2 Engagement de la direction et culture d'entreprise 52.40 % 75.47 % 74.40 %

F3 Implication des employés et amélioration continue 74.67 % 60.94 % 60.33 %

F4 Intégration fonctionnelle et qualification 42.00 % 55.67 % 57.00 %

Management System - Enabler 61.58 % 66.94 % 62.84 %

Commentaire

Page: 19/29

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.

Figure 25: Management System – Performance

Management System - Performance

Votre site

Moyenne


MS_1 Nombre de niveaux hiérarchiques 9.00Nombre

4.67Nombre

4.50Nombre

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 8.00Jours

14.50Jours

6.00Jours

MS_5 Niveau de sécurité 7.00Nombre

4.92Nombre

6.50Nombre

MS_6 Polyvalence 6.00 % 28.17 % 13.50 %

Management System - Performance 56.67 % 54.44 % 55.00 %

Commentaire

Page: 20/29

Enabler Overview (fr)

The Enabler Overview gives you a more detailed insight into the implementation level of the single enabler. Thefollowing 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 préventiveVotre site

Valeure moyenne


C1.1 Nous avons un programme formel pour le maintien de nosmachines et de l’équipment.

C1.2Nous identifions une bonne maintenance comme stratégied’amélioration de la qualité et de la planification de laconformité.

C1.3Toutes les machines à goulets d'étranglement potentiels sontidentifiées et fournies avec des pièces de rechangessupplémentaires.

C1.4 Nous optimisons continuellement notre programme demaintenance basée sur une analyse des défaillances.

C1.5Notre service de maintenance implique et forme les opérateursmachines à remplir leur propre entretien préventif.

C1.6 Nos opérateurs sont activement impliqués dans le processusd'achat de nouvelles machines.

C1.7La maintenance de nos machines se fait principalement eninterne. Nous évitons autant que possible l’intervention d’unservice externe.

Commentaire

C2. Evaluation de la technologie et utilisationVotre site

Valeure moyenne


Page: 21/29

43

Enabler Overview (fr)

The Enabler Overview gives you a more detailed insight into the implementation level of the single enabler. Thefollowing 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 préventiveVotre site

Valeure moyenne


C1.1 Nous avons un programme formel pour le maintien de nosmachines et de l’équipment.

C1.2Nous identifions une bonne maintenance comme stratégied’amélioration de la qualité et de la planification de laconformité.

C1.3Toutes les machines à goulets d'étranglement potentiels sontidentifiées et fournies avec des pièces de rechangessupplémentaires.

C1.4 Nous optimisons continuellement notre programme demaintenance basée sur une analyse des défaillances.

C1.5Notre service de maintenance implique et forme les opérateursmachines à remplir leur propre entretien préventif.

C1.6 Nos opérateurs sont activement impliqués dans le processusd'achat de nouvelles machines.

C1.7La maintenance de nos machines se fait principalement eninterne. Nous évitons autant que possible l’intervention d’unservice externe.

Commentaire

C2. Evaluation de la technologie et utilisationVotre site

Valeure moyenne


Page: 21/29C2.1 Notre usine est à la pointe des technologies nouvelles dans

notre domaine.




Commentaire


Valeure moyenne





Commentaire



Valeure moyenne


Page: 22/29





Commentaire


Valeure moyenne





Commentaire



Valeure moyenne


Page: 22/29





Commentaire


Valeure moyenne





Commentaire



Valeure moyenne


Page: 22/29D1.1 Les processus sont bien documentés dans notre entreprise.

D1.2 Nous mesurons régulièrement la qualité de nos processus àl'aide d’indicateurs.

D1.3L'entreprise a déléguée à ses responsables de processus laplanification, la gestion et l'amélioration de leurs procédés.

D1.4 Un large pourcentage de la production est sous contrôlestatistique (SPC).

D1.5 Nous analysons les causes de défaillance à l'aide d'outilsstandards (DMAIC, AMDEC, Ishikawa,…)

D1.6 Surveillance et contrôle en temps réel des processus

D1.7 Réduction du taux de déchet

Commentaire

D2. Développement fonctionnel croisé des produitsVotre site

Valeure moyenne


D2.1Grâce à une étroite collaboration entre la R&D et la fabrication,nous avons réduit le délai de lancement de produits sur lemarché («scale-up»).

D2.2 Nous n'avons pas eu de retards dans le lancement denouveaux produits ces deux dernières années.

D2.3Pour le transfert de produit et de processus entre les différentsdépartement et sites de production il existe des procéduresstandardisées qui garantissent un

Commentaire

Page: 23/29

D1.1 Les processus sont bien documentés dans notre entreprise.

D1.2 Nous mesurons régulièrement la qualité de nos processus àl'aide d’indicateurs.

D1.3L'entreprise a déléguée à ses responsables de processus laplanification, la gestion et l'amélioration de leurs procédés.

D1.4 Un large pourcentage de la production est sous contrôlestatistique (SPC).

D1.5 Nous analysons les causes de défaillance à l'aide d'outilsstandards (DMAIC, AMDEC, Ishikawa,…)

D1.6 Surveillance et contrôle en temps réel des processus

D1.7 Réduction du taux de déchet

Commentaire

D2. Développement fonctionnel croisé des produitsVotre site

Valeure moyenne


D2.1Grâce à une étroite collaboration entre la R&D et la fabrication,nous avons réduit le délai de lancement de produits sur lemarché («scale-up»).

D2.2 Nous n'avons pas eu de retards dans le lancement denouveaux produits ces deux dernières années.

D2.3Pour le transfert de produit et de processus entre les différentsdépartement et sites de production il existe des procéduresstandardisées qui garantissent un

Commentaire

Page: 23/29

44

D3. Intégration clientèleVotre site

Valeure moyenne


D3.1 Nous menons régulièrement des enquêtes de satisfactionauprès de notre clientèle.

D3.2 Nous recevons régulièrement des évalutions qualitatives de lapart de nos clients.

D3.3 Nous recherchons auprès de nos clients des sourcesd'innovation pour notre entreprise et nos produit.

D3.4Nous menons conjointement avec nos clients des programmesd'amélioration pour accroître notre performance.

Commentaire

D4. Gestion de la qualité des fournisseursVotre site

Valeure moyenne


D4.1 Dans la sélection des fournisseurs, la qualité est notre premiercritère.

D4.2 Nous effectuons des qualifications et des audits auprès de nosfournisseurs

D4.3 Nous inspectons systématiquement notre marchandise reçue

D4.4Nous menons conjointement avec nos fournisseurs desprogrammes d'amélioration pour accroître nos performances.

Commentaire

Page: 24/29

D3. Intégration clientèleVotre site

Valeure moyenne


D3.1 Nous menons régulièrement des enquêtes de satisfactionauprès de notre clientèle.

D3.2 Nous recevons régulièrement des évalutions qualitatives de lapart de nos clients.

D3.3 Nous recherchons auprès de nos clients des sourcesd'innovation pour notre entreprise et nos produit.

D3.4Nous menons conjointement avec nos clients des programmesd'amélioration pour accroître notre performance.

Commentaire

D4. Gestion de la qualité des fournisseursVotre site

Valeure moyenne


D4.1 Dans la sélection des fournisseurs, la qualité est notre premiercritère.

D4.2 Nous effectuons des qualifications et des audits auprès de nosfournisseurs

D4.3 Nous inspectons systématiquement notre marchandise reçue

D4.4Nous menons conjointement avec nos fournisseurs desprogrammes d'amélioration pour accroître nos performances.

Commentaire

Page: 24/29

E. Just in Time System - Enabler

E1. Gestion du temps et flexibilitéVotre site

Valeure moyenne


E1.1 Réduction du temps de cycle machine

E1.2 Nous travaillons constamment à diminuer le temps d'installationd'une production.

E1.3 Réduction des temps de nettoyage des équipements

E1.4 Afin d’accroître la flexibilité dans notre usine, nous mettons lapriorité sur la réduction de la taille des lots.

E1.5 Le processus de montage est documenté en tant que « BestPractices » dans toute l’usine.

E1.6 Importance accordée à un programme de réduction des délaisde livraison

E1.7 Précision des livraisons (on-time ratio)

Commentaire

E2. Production en flux tiréVotre site

Valeure moyenne


E2.1 Notre calendrier intègre les commandes prévisionnelles de nosclients (Forcast)

E2.2 Nous utilisons un système « pull » (tickets Kanban, conteneursou signaux visuels)

E2.3 Nous privilégions une association à long terme avec lesfournisseurs plutôt que d’en changer fréquemment.

Page: 25/29

E. Just in Time System - Enabler

E1. Gestion du temps et flexibilitéVotre site

Valeure moyenne


E1.1 Réduction du temps de cycle machine

E1.2 Nous travaillons constamment à diminuer le temps d'installationd'une production.

E1.3 Réduction des temps de nettoyage des équipements

E1.4 Afin d’accroître la flexibilité dans notre usine, nous mettons lapriorité sur la réduction de la taille des lots.

E1.5 Le processus de montage est documenté en tant que « BestPractices » dans toute l’usine.

E1.6 Importance accordée à un programme de réduction des délaisde livraison

E1.7 Précision des livraisons (on-time ratio)

Commentaire

E2. Production en flux tiréVotre site

Valeure moyenne


E2.1 Notre calendrier intègre les commandes prévisionnelles de nosclients (Forcast)

E2.2 Nous utilisons un système « pull » (tickets Kanban, conteneursou signaux visuels)

E2.3 Nous privilégions une association à long terme avec lesfournisseurs plutôt que d’en changer fréquemment.

Page: 25/29E2.4 Nous pouvons compter sur nos fournisseurs pour respecter les

délais de livraions convenus.

E2.5 Au lieu d’une approche axée sur le stock, nous livrons nosclients selon une demande orientée « JIT ».

Commentaire

E3. Optimisation du layoutVotre site

Valeure moyenne


E3.1 Nos procédés sont proches les uns des autres de sorte que lamanutention soit minimisés (approche Lean).

E3.2Les produits sont classés par groupes d’exigences de procédéssimilaires afin de réduire le temps d'installation d'uneproduction.

E3.3Nous avons rassemblé les machines selon la nature desgroupes de produits qu'elles réalisent (conception d'ilots).

E3.4Nos procédés de fabrication à partir des matières premièresjusqu'aux produits finis sont en "flux continu".

E3.5Nous utilisons «Value Stream Mapping» en tant queméthodologie afin de visualiser et d'optimiser les processus.

Commentaire

E4. Stabilité de planificationVotre site

Valeure moyenne


E4.1 Nous avons pour habitude de satisfaire quotidiennement nosplans de production.

Page: 26/29

45

E2.4 Nous pouvons compter sur nos fournisseurs pour respecter lesdélais de livraions convenus.


Commentaire


Valeure moyenne







Commentaire


Valeure moyenne



Page: 26/29

E2.4 Nous pouvons compter sur nos fournisseurs pour respecter lesdélais de livraions convenus.


Commentaire


Valeure moyenne







Commentaire


Valeure moyenne



Page: 26/29E4.2

Nous connaissons les causes principales des variances dansnotre calendrier de production et essayons en permanence deles réduire.

E4.3Afin d’augmenter la fiabilité de notre planification, nouséchangeons des informations avec nos clients et fournisseurs.

E4.4 Notre usine dispose d’horaires flexibles.

Commentaire

F. Management System - Enabler

F1. Gestion par objectifsVotre site

Valeure moyenne


F1.1 Notre production a une vision claire et documentée de sesprocessus.

F1.2 Notre vision et mission sont largement communiquée et vécuepar nos employés.

F1.3 Notre système de gestion des ressources est orienté objectif.

F1.4Nos directeurs de fabrication (chef de fabrication, site-leader,etc.) ont une bonne compréhension du découpageorganisationnel de l'entreprise.

Commentaire

F2. Engagement de la direction et culture d'entrepriseVotre site

Valeure moyenne


Page: 27/29

E4.2Nous connaissons les causes principales des variances dansnotre calendrier de production et essayons en permanence deles réduire.



Commentaire



Valeure moyenne






Commentaire


Valeure moyenne


Page: 27/29

E4.2Nous connaissons les causes principales des variances dansnotre calendrier de production et essayons en permanence deles réduire.



Commentaire



Valeure moyenne






Commentaire


Valeure moyenne


Page: 27/29F2.1 Implication de l'ensemble des collaborateurs dans des projetsd'amélioration.

F2.2 Coopération entre les départements

F2.3 L’entreprise a une culture de communication ouverte.

F2.4 Les défaillances sont toujours tracées jusqu’à leur origine, afind'identifier les causes et d'y remédier.

F2.5 Le système management de l'entreprise est orienté qualité(SMQ intégré).

Commentaire

F3. Implication des employés et amélioration continueVotre site

Valeure moyenne


F3.1 Nous avons un processus d'amélioration continue.

F3.2 Nos employés sont impliqués dans la rédaction des manuels etdes procédures.

F3.3 Notre usine forme des équipes de projet inter-services afin derésoudre les problèmes.

Commentaire

F4. Intégration fonctionnelle et qualificationVotre site

Valeure moyenne


Page: 28/29

46

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 25th of March 2013. 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

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

F2.1 Implication de l'ensemble des collaborateurs dans des projetsd'amélioration.





Commentaire


Valeure moyenne





Commentaire


Valeure moyenne


Page: 28/29

F2.1 Implication de l'ensemble des collaborateurs dans des projetsd'amélioration.





Commentaire


Valeure moyenne





Commentaire


Valeure moyenne


Page: 28/29F4.1 Notre usine à mis en place un programme afin d'accroître la

flexibilité de nos travailleurs.

F4.2 Nous avons régulièrement des réunions d'information dansl’entreprise.

F4.3 Les informations de ces réunions officielles sont utilisées dansdes actions correctives.

F4.4 Nous investissons dans la formation et la qualification de nosemployés.

F4.5 Les formations sont menées principalement par des ressourcesinternes.

Commentaire

Page: 29/29

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.

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

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

productivity benchmarking

Documents