P-M StepDescriptionRequired Forms1 – Regular3 – Good5 – Excellent
General
Has the team been properly formed considering the required skills to do a P-M analysis?
Very few members in the team, and basically the supervisor do a P-M analysis?
The team has a good number of members and some are engaged
The team was elaborated based on the required skills, important areas are represented and members are engaged
Has the team been trained to use P-M Analysis?
Less than 50%
Between 50% and 90%
More than 90% of the team was trained
Was there an initial meeting to communicate the objectives, roles and responsibilities?
The team does not understand the objectives and why it is so important to eliminate that loss
An informal way was used to communicate the team. They understand the objectives
A initial meeting was done and everyone understand the objectives, their roles and responsibilities in the team
Does the team have a clear and efficient way to communicate the P-M analysis?
The P-M analysis was communicated using an informal way, as document, graphs, etc.
The team has organized documentation, even a board, but it is not easy to communicate the Kaizen
A team use a structured board to communicate effectively. Alternative resources are used to understand the Principle of Operation, like OPLs, models, manuals, etc.
Is there a clear chronogram for all activities?
No
Yes, but the team is not aware
Yes, but the team is not aware
Presentation
How did the team participate during the presentation?
Few presented
Most presented
All presented. The supervisor just supported the team during the presentation
Was the team confident about the presentation, data and analysis?
They were not confident
They were confident, but some questions were not clearly answered
They were confident, but some questions were not clearly answered
Was the methodology correctly used?
The story was confusing
Good story and sequence, but missing important details
Very good story!. Data, analysis and others details are proved on the board and it is easy to understand the P-M analysis
1 Clarify the Phenomenon
Has the team charter been completed?
Charter
No charter
Charter is present, but missing some details
Charter filled out completely, in detail
Has the cascade loss tree been developed?
Cascade loss tree
Loss tree missing
Some loss tree, but not properly cascaded at each level
Fully developed
Has the subject of this P-M analysis been justified with the loss tree?
Justification is not clear
Justification doesn’t have enough supporting evidence
Clear justification for the problem and phenomena and impact on loss tree
Have all the phenomena been identified?
5W1H
Phenomena not clearly tied to problem
Some phenomena identified, but not complete
All phenomena properly identified with 5W1H
2 Examine in terms of physical principle involved
Has the P-M Gap Analysis form been completed for each phenomenon?
P-M gap analysis form
The analysis is missing important details, some phenomenon not completed
The Analysis is completed, but is unclear or confusing
The analysis is complete including a clear summary of the PM Gap contributing to the phenomenon
Does the team understand the physical principle contributing to each phenomenon?
less than 50% of team members understand
Between 50% and 90% understand
over 90% of team members demonstrate a clear understanding
3 Analyze Contributing Conditions
Has the P-M Gap Analysis form been completed for each phenomenon?
P-M gap analysis form
The analysis is missing important details, some phenomenon not completed
The Analysis is completed, but is unclear or confusing
The analysis is complete including a clear summary of the PM Gap contributing to the phenomenon
Can the team define the deviation of the “Work” subsystems from their principle of operation?
The team can not define the “Work” subsystems of the system
The team can define the “Work” subsystems but not their deviation from their principles of operation
The team can define the “Work” subsystems and their deviation from their principles of operation
Can the team define the deviation of the “Processing” subsystems from their principle of operation?
The team can not define the “Processing” subsystems of the system
The team can define the “Processing” subsystems but not their deviation from their principles of operation
The team can define the “Processing” subsystems and their deviation from their principles of operation
Has the team created a “Card-Board / Plastic” Model?
Cardboard / Plastic Model
No model has been created
The team has created a model but it is unclear
The team has created a clear model of the system
Has the team created a system diagram?
System diagram
No diagram has been created
The team has created a diagram but it is unclear
The team has created a clear system diagram
4 Study the relationship between 4M’s (Man(Skill), Machine, Material & Methods)
Has the relationship between the 4M’s (Man, Machine, Material & Methods) been established for each gap?
Main relationships for each gap is identified
Main relationships and primary relationships on the unit level subsystem are identified
Main relationships and primary relationships in the unit level subsystem and secondary relationships in the component level subsystem are identified
Is the P-M Analysis form used?
P-M analysis form
The contributing conditions are identified on the P-M Analysis Form
The contributing conditions and the 4M primary correlations are identified
The contributing conditions and the 4M primary & secondary are identified
Is a functional – structural family tree used?
Functional – structural family tree
A simple functional – structural family tree is used
A functional – structural family tree is used which includes the subsystem gap
A functional – structural family tree is used which includes the subsystem gap and primary/secondary 4M gaps
Subtotal for steps 1 – 4: 85% = 89; 100% = 105
5 Study of what the conditions must be
Has the optimal conditions for each phenomena been identified?
Less than 50% of the phenomena have identified optimal conditions
50% to 70% of the phenomena have identified optimal conditions
More than 70% of the phenomena have identified optimal conditions
Is the allowable range clearly identified on the P-M analysis form?
P-M gap analysis form
less than 50% of the contributing conditions and 4M correlations have identified allowable ranges
50% to 70% of the contributing conditions and 4M correlations have identified allowable ranges
More than 70% of the contributing conditions and 4M correlations have identified allowable ranges
6 Study of investigation methods
Has the team used appropriate predictive investigation methods?
No predictive methods used
Some demonstration of predictive methods, but not complete or appropriate
Appropriate method used for each phenomenon
Do the results from the investigation methods justify the phenomena identified?
Results do not justify identified phenomena
Some correlation, but not complete
Results from all investigation methods justify the identified phenomena
7 Find out All Potential Abnormalities
Have all potential abnormalities related to the phenomenon been identified for each gap?
Some abnormalities poorly identified
Most abnormalities identified adequately
All abnormalities identified and defined fully
8 Implement and Plan Countermeasures
Has the team proposed countermeasures to close gaps?
Countermeasures to 30% of gaps have been proposed
Countermeasures to 70% of gaps have been proposed
Countermeasures to 100% of gaps have been proposed
Has the team developed a plan to implement countermeasures? (Management of Change required for any countermeasure implemented)
No
Yes, but the plan is unrealistic
Yes, a detailed plan showing all actions, personnel responsible and timeline for implementation has been developed
What is the % action completion?
40% of actions were completed
75% of actions were completed
100% of actions were completed
Subtotal for steps 5 – 8: 85% = 34; 100% = 40
TOTAL SCORE: 85% = 123 points; 100% = 145 points
4M Analysis Process
The purpose of this procedure is to define the steps to do a 4M …
