FOREWORD

With business conditions getting tougher, resources running short, market dynamics becoming unpredictable and fewer and fewer good people available, companies today don’t have many options: either they optimize their processes and empower their people, or they suffocate in daily firefighting.

That is exactly why this practical guide was written: as a tool that helps companies become resilient, organized and stable; not through theory, but through real application of the LEAN approach in practice.

This guide is not academic literature. It is a summary of years spent in factories, among machines, talking with people who know what it means to fight for every piece and every hour. It was made to be used, not read once and forgotten. You won’t find complicated expressions, unnecessary jargon or detailed ready-made solutions in it: instead, you’ll find a roadmap to solutions that work in both small and large companies, in real conditions, in the real world.

Who is it for? This guide is for young and ambitious managers who want to set things up the right way and know how to do it.

For business owners who want a system that isn’t based on luck. For directors who no longer want to listen to excuses, but want to see results.

For managers who want to transform into leaders. And let’s be honest: it is not for those who know everything best. They can wait for the next audit.

If you have a clear strategy, if you don’t mind taking a hard look at both yourself and the system, and if you want a team that knows what it’s doing and why, this guide will help you get there. And remember:

“Our only security is our ability to change.” (John C. Lilly)

What LEAN really is: breaking the myth

According to McKinsey research, only 30% of companies that try to implement LEAN achieve lasting results. The other 70% give up, put makeup on their processes, or go back to the old way of organizing things.

Why? Because they think LEAN is “something you can buy, learn at a seminar and wrap up in three months.” The common practice today is for companies to send their employees to various seminars where they earn certain belts (yellow, green, black belt…), and then the company considers that it has gained a LEAN expert who will be “in charge” of LEAN.

The same thing happened for years with safety, when companies appointed people responsible for it: walk the shop floor, talk to one of the production managers about safety topics, and he’ll tell you that some guy named Marko is in charge of and responsible for that. The situation changes at the root when global trends change, in Europe and in our region too, where legislation, taking safety as an example, makes it clear that there is no single “responsible person” for safety, but rather a safety advisor or safety officer. This clearly implies that this person is obliged to teach colleagues in the company about safety, and that everyone is responsible for safety within their own scope of work. The same principle applies to LEAN.

Let’s go back to one of the official LEAN definitions everyone quotes: “Lean is a management philosophy focused on maximizing customer value by eliminating waste in the process.” It sounds smart and seems useful. But let’s be honest: how many of the people who say it actually know what “waste” means? And how many of them have ever spent more than 10 minutes standing next to an operator who assembles 800 pieces of a product a day, actually observing the process that way? In most cases the process is analyzed with standard tools, such as bottleneck analysis, VSM and similar tools learned at seminars, but without any deeper connection to the reality on the shop floor.

Based on my many years of experience, we could come up with a definition of LEAN, but through the lens of practical work and working with people on the shop floor:

LEAN is a brutally honest company mirror: it shows what’s wrong, every single day, and demands that leaders have the courage to fix it, together with their people, not over their heads.

Here are a few general examples so we can tell the difference:

In a LEAN company, the director doesn’t sit in the office all day, but goes to the shop floor once a day: not to control, but to see, ask and learn. He leads by example: during the walk he wears all the required protective equipment, just like the workers he visits, and follows all the rules.

In a LEAN company, the manager doesn’t make plans in Excel that have nothing to do with reality, but plans according to the rhythm of production and the voice of the operators.

In a LEAN company, when a problem occurs, the first question is: “What did the system fail to support?”, not “Who is to blame?”

In a LEAN company, the manager doesn’t pull targets out of thin air: he uses data from the floor, from production, and aligns it with the real capacity of people and machines.

In a LEAN company, problems are not hidden until “after the audit”, but are flagged immediately, because hiding a problem is a disgrace and solving it is an honor.

In a LEAN company, the daily meeting lasts 10 minutes at most, standing, with one board and a clear focus: safety, quality, and what must not stop today.

In a LEAN company, the best worker is not the one who works fastest, but the one who sees a problem and says: “This makes no sense: let’s change it.”

In a LEAN company, the line supervisor doesn’t shout “Faster!”, but asks: “Why are we behind? What do you need to make it run smoothly?”

In a LEAN company, a Kaizen suggestion doesn’t die in a box: a worker’s idea is dealt with within 5 days and the person who suggested it gets feedback.

In a LEAN company, when new equipment arrives, engineering doesn’t decide alone: operators give their input, because they are the ones who will work with it every day.

Before we go deeper into the analysis, a few words about me, the person who took the trouble to put together this little guide, looking at things from a slightly different, practical and above all unusual angle😊.

My name is Nemanja Krstić, and for more than 17 years I have been working on improving production processes, occupational safety and implementing LEAN principles across different industries: from food, textile, electrical and construction to chemical and defense manufacturing. I hold a master’s degree in engineering, and I built my practical knowledge through direct work on the shop floor, with people and machines, in real conditions where every hour and every piece makes the difference between profit and loss.

I have worked as a LEAN, EHS and QA manager, HR manager, logistics and planning manager, production director and facility specialist in domestic and international companies, and at the start of my career I volunteered at a large multinational company, Inbev. Later I moved into consulting through my own company, EHS & LEAN Consulting.

My practice is not based on “textbook examples”, but on real challenges in factories weighed down by chaos, paperwork, subjective decisions and a lack of systems. My goal was never to implement LEAN so the company would have a “nice report”, but to create an environment where people can work without wasting time, without stress and with clarity at every step. Over the years I have developed my own methods for connecting teams, building mutual trust and securing lasting results that don’t depend on one person or one system, but on daily learning and stable process management.

This guide is not a theoretical handbook. It is the result of work on the shop floor, conversations with workers, my own failures and shared ones, ups and downs, attempts, and finally results. I am writing this to help managers who have a real chance to make a difference, but need the right framework to know where to start.

How LEAN came to be: the truth many people skip

Today a lot of people talk about LEAN as some modern management method that comes from the West. The truth is completely different. LEAN was not born in the offices of wealthy businessmen, it did not come out of American university labs, and it was not the result of research by multinational corporations. LEAN was born out of poverty and desperation, in postwar Japan, where there was no money, no resources and no time for mistakes.

After World War II, Japan was devastated. Industry had collapsed, there were no materials, and the workforce was exhausted. Toyota, at the time still a small local company, could not compete with the big Western giants that produced in large batches and held huge inventories. So they had to come up with a different way of producing. Not faster or harder, but smarter.

That is how they began developing what would later become known as the Toyota Production System (TPS), a system built on common sense, respect for people and solving problems every day. What is special about Toyota is not just the system, but the culture, where everyone has the right to stop the line if they see a defect, and where a leader is chosen not because of a title, but because he knows how to listen, how to see, and how to ask “why” five times if needed.

LEAN was not called LEAN. They never called it that. Even today the term is hardly used at Toyota. The name came much later, when Western experts tried to “package” what they had seen at Toyota into some universal method.

The term “Lean production” was first used in 1988, in MIT research that led to the book “The Machine That Changed the World”. In that book Toyota was presented as the best example of efficient production in the world, and the word “lean” was chosen to describe a system that uses less of everything: less inventory, less space, fewer defects, less time, but with more value for the customer.

Unfortunately, what happened next is that many people took LEAN as a tool, as a project, as something that can be “implemented” through four workshops and 3 spreadsheets. And that is where the decline starts. Because LEAN was never a reporting system; it was a way of thinking and behaving at every moment, in every place.

So when someone says to me today, “Let’s implement LEAN”, my first question is: “Are you ready to question everything you are doing right now, including your own habits, attitudes and decisions? Are you ready to change yourselves, as the top of the hill, as management?”

If management is not ready, it is better not to start. Even the beginning will just be one more PowerPoint file in your recycle bin.

The core elements of LEAN: a house you don’t build with PowerPoint

LEAN is not a theoretical model from a book. And it is not that “Toyota house” from a slide. In the real world, where products are made, LEAN is built out of chaos. And the foundation of that house is not Just in Time, not Kanban (which everyone grabs first), and not Jidoka for quality management; those come later, as an upgrade. The real foundation of LEAN, from my many years of experience, is 5S and safety. These are the elements management must put in place right away, while also opening up room for workers to actively take part in process optimization, and that is Kaizen. I see Kaizen (the process of suggesting ideas) as the waterproofing on the foundation of a stable building, which keeps the foundation from “cracking” in the future.

Whoever doesn’t understand this can forget about belts, certificates, flow charts and bottleneck analysis. All of it stays a dead letter on paper if the three basic elements (5S, safety and Kaizen) don’t exist, and if they are not carried by genuine empathy from management. These three principles are not technical matters, they are the basis of the company culture. When that is the foundation, the house can grow.

I always start from one simple truth: the operators on the machines are the ones who bring money into the company. They are the heart. Everything else, including us in management, HR, quality control, planning, logistics, and even sales itself, is just support. A service. And like any service, we can speed up that flow of money, take the load off it, or simply ruin it.

If a worker doesn’t know where his tools are, if he has no room to turn around normally, if there is a wheel under his feet and a cable hanging over his head, and he has to put his hands into a machine without guarding: there is no LEAN there. There is improvisation. And improvisation is the most expensive item in a company, it just usually isn’t measured right away.

That is why my LEAN house looks like the one in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The LEAN house from my perspective

This LEAN house is not a drawing for a presentation, it is the mirror of a serious organization. Each layer has its own role, and together they work as a system capable of withstanding the pressure of daily production, market unpredictability and the increasingly frequent internal crises in companies.

The foundation of the house is made up of three deeply rooted layers. The first is the company’s long-term strategy, vision and mission. That is not words on paper for the website, the way companies usually write that text because they consider it a “formality”, but a clear direction that gives meaning to all everyday decisions. If a company changes course every six months, LEAN cannot take root, because everything people build is wiped out by the first change in priorities. The long-term strategy and key policies are defined by the owners, with clearly defined development milestones. The vision is the end point the company should reach once it achieves that strategy, and the mission is the path taken to reach that strategic point. The mission is defined by the director and his team, through operational goals, procedures and plans.

On top of that strategic layer sits 6S, the combination of the 5S methodology and occupational safety. Without order, organization and safety there is no stable process. If a worker doesn’t know where his tools are, if cables are tangled under his feet, if he doesn’t know whether he is allowed to touch the machine, the system is not under control.

What connects stability with everything above it is Kaizen, everyday, common-sense improvement. It is not a big project. Kaizen is the question: “Does this make sense?” Kaizen is the waterproofing between the foundation and the wall. You can’t see it, but without it the system soon starts cracking from the inside.

The house then rises on three pillars. The first is management and leadership. Both terms are there on purpose, because one does not automatically come with the other. You can be a manager without leadership, and then people fear you but don’t follow you. You can be a leader without a position, and then people listen to you because they trust you, not because they have to. The real pillar is formed when management knows it is not there to command, but to serve. That is called leadership.

The second pillar is people and teamwork. Without engaged people there is no LEAN culture. Without mutual trust, every change is experienced as a threat. If a company has “them up there” and “us down here”, the house splits in half.

The third pillar is LEAN tools. Only here do we get to visualization (visual management), VSM, A3, Takt time, standard work, SMED, JIT, Kanban and the rest. They are important, but they are not the essence. Without the first two pillars, the tools become one more PowerPoint file in the archive.

All the pillars are tied together by the layer of KPIs, targets, triggers and the DMAIC process. Without measurement, everything is subjective. Goals without numbers are just wishes. A KPI must be clear, fair and functional, not so that people can be punished, but so that we know where help is needed. A KPI is a formula that gives us a measuring scale. On that scale we add a point we define as the goal, the so-called target, and we precisely define the process we are measuring. What I insist on in practice, and what you very rarely see in companies because everyone deals only with targets, is a lower value point on the KPI scale, the so-called trigger. It is what sets off the DMAIC investigation process when the value of a KPI drops to a critical level. DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control) is a very powerful LEAN tool that enables a team investigation of nonconformities. It includes Ishikawa, 5 Why, brainstorming and other approaches.

Finally, the roof is satisfied customers and quality. That is what can be seen from the outside. If the customer is satisfied and quality is stable, it means all the layers below are working.

At the very top is the guiding star. That is Business Excellence. It is what we strive for in every process. Companies can define the KPIs they will use to measure business success: efficiency, effectiveness, OEE and others. Top management sets the targets for them every year. For example, the target for process efficiency might be around 75 percent, but for a company to reach business excellence, efficiency must be at least 95 percent, quality 99 percent, and effectiveness at least 90 percent. That means overall OEE must be at least 85 percent.

Important LEAN tools and concepts

LEAN is not a single tool. LEAN is a philosophy. But like every good philosophy, without practical tools it stays just a story for PowerPoint. In my practice I use specific, basic tools that work, although much more demanding tools can of course be applied as well. Here are the basic ones:

5S + Safety = 6S (organizing workspaces to speed up processes and reduce risk)

5S is not some Japanese exotica or “some methodology for cleanliness”; it is the first thing a serious company has to introduce before it even says the word LEAN.

The name 5S comes from five Japanese words that describe the order of activities:

Seiri (Sort): removing everything that is not needed from the workstation. Screws that are never used, tools kept “just in case”: all of it creates confusion and takes up space. On the shop floor this means: if you don’t need it, get rid of it. In this phase we put red tags on all the equipment and tools we don’t need, and after a certain period they are moved to the 5S zone and taken away from the workstations.

Seiton (Set in order): once we have removed everything we don’t need from the workstation, we analyze what we use and how often (frequency of use), and then we arrange tools and equipment so that the things we use most are at hand (close to us) and, where possible, in the golden zone (Golden Area: from waist to chest).

Seiso (Shine): cleaning the workspace, not for the shine, but for control and maintenance. When we wash the machines, we also see leaks, for example. When we clean, we are actually inspecting.

Seiketsu (Standardize): once we have arranged and cleaned everything, we standardize it (we photograph how the workstation should look, put outlines behind hanging equipment, and create a visual standard for each workstation). A visual standard is essentially a poster that shows where everything belongs at that workstation.

Shitsuke (Sustain): maintenance and habit. For 5S to live, you have to live it every day. If you ignore it for a day or two, the system falls apart. If you repeat it, it becomes natural. That is why we do cross audits with checklists, so that over time each workstation is constantly reviewed by several levels of employees.

In my practice, I never talk about 5S without adding a sixth S: Safety. Safety is not an add-on. Safety is the precondition for everything. If a person has to step over boxes to get to the machine, if a cable hangs above their head, or if a screwdriver stays stuck in the table: that is not messy, that is dangerous. And everything that is dangerous eventually becomes expensive too.

5S + Safety means that when you finish a 5S inspection, you don’t just say “it looks nice”, but also “it is safe for a person to spend eight hours here”. And that is the difference between a company that plays at LEAN and a company that lives LEAN.

In some companies I have seen 5S exist “on paper”: they have nice before and after photos, everything shines for one day. And after that everything goes back to how it was. Why? Because they had no leader who would be the first to “put the tools in order” (launch the project and lead by example), and they had no culture in which order is maintained because everyone believes it should be, not because an inspection is done pro forma or for an audit.

So 5S and Safety are not a tool. They are a habit. And habits are built every day. If you miss that: there is no LEAN. There is no production either. There is only the struggle to catch up with what you made complicated for yourself.

Bottleneck Analysis

Bottleneck analysis is the basic step in understanding the capacity of a production system. There is always a point in the process that limits the flow, and it is not determined arbitrarily, but by precise measurement. In my practice I rely on time study methodology, through which I define standard times for every operation in the process. By comparing those times and analyzing how often stoppages occur, it is possible to clearly identify where things are being held up. The bottleneck does not have to be on the line only; it can also appear in preparation, inspection, logistics or planning. That is why the analysis has to be comprehensive and done periodically. Once the bottleneck is identified, you move on to removing it, which does not always mean new investment. In a large number of cases, smaller operational adjustments are enough: changes to the work schedule, adjusting the takt time, or redistributing tasks. A properly conducted bottleneck analysis allows a company to increase its total capacity without extra stress on resources and without complicated reorganizations.

It often happens in practice that production managers, not knowing this analysis, assign more workers to some process on the production line (a specific point) where they are pure surplus and not needed, while somewhere else workers are missing. When you talk to them before the analysis, they consider this impossible and flatly reject it. The goal of these analyses is not to “wrestle” with anyone or prove who is right, but to use an engineering approach to prove that the process is not set up well and that the company has an unnecessary loss.

GEMBA (shop floor walks and control with checklists)

A Gemba walk is a LEAN practice in which a manager goes directly to the place where the work is actually done: where value is created (the shop floor). It is not about supervision or control, but about learning through observation and conversation. In my practice, a Gemba walk includes structured observation of the process with checklists, which are used for cross audits: not only of 5S and safety, but of all key work processes. This checks whether the work is really being done according to standards, whether there are hidden obstacles, and where time or quality is being lost.

The walk has to have a clear focus and must not last longer than a few minutes per location. The most important thing is to ask the right questions: what makes your work harder, where is the process unclear to you, what bothers you every day. Only that way do we get to the real problems, and also to real improvement suggestions. A Gemba walk is most effective when it becomes a routine and when people realize that the manager does not come to look for mistakes, but to remove obstacles. We come across workers who do their job in different ways; regardless, we always first praise what they do well (even if it is only 10 percent; before that we “break the ice” with some positive conversation), then we ask open questions so they can explain how they work, and we never leave the spot and the conversation until we get a promise (with a smile) that the worker and the process will improve.

Heijunka (production planning optimization)

Heijunka is a method of production leveling whose goal is to reduce variation in the load on the line, the material flow and the use of people. In practice, this means planning production so that you avoid working in waves: days of overload and days when activity drops. For example: instead of making ten thousand pieces of one item and then not making that item for days, Heijunka means rhythmic, evenly distributed production of different items in line with real customer demand.

The biggest challenge with Heijunka in local companies is planning; companies often make a plan that “looks nice” on paper but does not follow the actual production takt, the available resources or the process capacities. Because of that, the plan puts pressure on people, creates inventory or leads to stoppages. In my work I use a combination of LEAN tools and real shop floor feedback to bring Heijunka down to the level of operational planning: so that it doesn’t just exist as an Excel file, but as a system that lives. The first thing I do is introduce one of the principles of the WCSC concept (World Class Supply Chain): production planning and production execution are separated into different departments, the sales department cannot communicate directly with the production department, and the production department cannot make its own plan (which is a kind of conflict of interest). That is why the job structure and the organizational structure are reformed, and a logistics department with a planning function is set up as a buffer zone between sales and production, to balance their demands on each other.

Leveling does not only mean an even number of pieces per shift; it also includes stability in delivery time, quality and machine load. When that is achieved, companies manage resources more easily, reduce stress on workers, and eliminate the need for unplanned overtime or constantly moving people from one position to another.

Hoshin Kanri (cascading business strategy down to the lowest levels of the hierarchy)

Hoshin Kanri is a method for translating a company’s strategy into specific goals and activities at all levels of the organization. The point is to ensure alignment between what management plans and what happens in operations. In practice, this means the strategy does not stay a document in a drawer (for example, a company’s ISO policy written pro forma), but every department knows its part of the road, how it measures progress, and what it needs to do if a deviation occurs.

The biggest advantage of Hoshin Kanri is that it introduces two-way communication. Goals are not handed down one way. The question is asked whether they are achievable, whether resources are provided, and what the possible obstacles are. In companies where this does not exist, it often happens that goals are defined, but nobody on the shop floor knows what they are or why they matter.

When I apply this tool, I use a simple format: every strategic direction has linked goals, clear indicators, a task owner and a control mechanism. The key to success is keeping the review rhythm and tying KPI results to concrete actions, not just to presentations. When people understand where the company is going and see how their role contributes to that direction, the strategy starts to make sense and is actually lived in everyday work.

Just in Time (the principle of planning production and materials)

Just in Time is a principle of production and delivery based on the customer’s real needs, without surpluses and inventory that needlessly take up space, tie up money and put extra pressure on the system. The idea is simple: produce only what is needed, in the quantity that is needed, at the moment it is needed. In practice, we often see the production director ignore the customer’s needs and plan on his own what gets made and in whatever way suits him, so we end up with large batches that create delays, excess inventory and shortages. That is why I described above that we work on the WCSC principle and that Logistics plans production and materials.

In practice, for JIT to work, every part of the system has to be stable. There is no room for improvisation. The plan has to be realistic (based on the efficiency actually achieved in production and the real capacity available right now), and the material has to be available. As soon as one link in the chain fails, the whole system suffers. That is why JIT cannot be introduced by declaration. It takes technical precision, organizational discipline and a clear chain of communication between planning, purchasing, production and logistics.

In companies used to “playing it safe” by building large inventories, introducing JIT requires a change in thinking. It is not about taking risks, it is about relying on facts and accurate planning. In the systems I have set up, JIT was always introduced in phases: first through internal logistics and pulling material to the line based on actual consumption, then through a Kanban system, and only later through make-to-order production planning.

Just in Time brings the most benefit when combined with standardized work and level scheduling (Heijunka). Then the constant need for rush deliveries and an overloaded warehouse disappears, and the process becomes transparent, predictable and financially healthy. Most companies immediately “grab onto” JIT and its implementation, but this is something you introduce only once the whole management team is running smoothly, there are precise scrum meetings at fixed times (very important so the team can solve problems right away), Logistics is separated from production and plans and acts independently, and so on.

Takt Time (time remaining until delivery / number of pieces ordered)

Takt Time is the basic rhythm of production that defines how often a product needs to be finished to meet customer demand. It is calculated as the ratio of available production time to the required quantity, and it is the basis for work balancing, capacity planning and line organization. This means sales cannot commit to delivery dates if the takt time is shorter than the cycle time, meaning the actual time needed to make one piece of the product. If this is not applied, we often end up with some customer always being late, production plans changing during the day, loading plans changing and so on, and that causes a huge drop in employee morale, confusion and a drop in productivity.

If takt is unknown or ignored, production is planned blindly, by gut feeling. That most often leads to overloaded operations, surpluses, delays and constant rushing. When takt time is used as the basis, you can clearly see how many operators are needed, where bottlenecks occur and what the work sequence should look like.

In companies with a wide product range and frequent changes, takt is used flexibly, with load estimates by product group or line. What matters is not to treat takt as pure math, but as a tool for aligning demand with real capability. Takt does not push the system to work faster, it pushes it to work smarter and to give the customer clear and accurate feedback on exactly which day they can expect their goods.

Kaizen (the idea suggestion process)

Kaizen is a way of thinking that, over the years, has proven to be the most stable framework for improving work. It does not bring sudden changes, it does not rely on big investments and it does not require complicated projects. Kaizen means asking a simple question every day: can something in our process be done more easily, more simply, more safely or with fewer errors?

I apply it by setting up a simple and transparent system in which anyone can suggest an improvement. We use a form where you enter a description of the problem and a proposed solution, and the whole process is tracked, approved and rewarded by procedure and as a team. Every suggestion has an owner, a set deadline and mandatory feedback to the person who made it. My experience is that people engage with the system honestly and willingly only if they see someone is listening and ideas are not ignored. That is why the rule is that no suggestion may go unanswered, whether it is implemented right away, postponed for later or rejected with an explanation.

We do not apply Kaizen only in production. Practice has shown me that useful ideas often come from support departments (services), from people who seemingly are not directly in the process but feel its consequences every day. Kaizen succeeds only if its implementation does not come down to one person’s initiative. When every suggestion is treated with respect, you build a culture in which people genuinely want to contribute.

Kanban (production on the supermarket, self-service principle)

Kanban is a tool for managing materials and information that, in my practice, has proven most effective when it matters that the system itself signals that something is needed, without calls, requests or chasing people down. Its greatest strength is its simplicity. In practice, you use a Kanban card, bin, color or physical signal that clearly shows it is time to replenish, prepare or take action. For example, if production is split into two segments (main production and finishing), instead of finishing constantly telling main production what it needs and when, we do an analysis upfront and determine that daily production needs four pallets of semi-finished goods. A functional handover point is defined, pallet spots are marked, and the main production manager knows at a glance at that intermediate storage area what needs to be produced. The goal is for all pallet spots to always be full, and for finishing to take what it needs at any given moment.

When set up correctly, Kanban eliminates unnecessary ordering, overstocked inventory and wasted trips. I start implementation where the most time is lost waiting for materials, tools or semi-finished goods. We set a rule: when a signal leaves the zone, logistics reacts without further questions. The system is tuned using defined minimum and maximum quantities, tested beforehand on the real flow.

In companies with a chaotic material flow, Kanban often looks like too big a change. That is why I introduce it in phases. First in internal logistics, especially for packaging, consumables and tools. Later, once the team sees how it works, Kanban becomes part of the everyday system and nobody wants to go back to the old way. The key to success is not pretty cards, it is people respecting them and the system reacting on time.

KPI (defining formulas to measure value for each process)

KPIs, or key performance indicators, are a measurement framework that makes it possible to track, analyze and improve work processes based on facts. They are not a tool for controlling people, they are an instrument for understanding the system. A properly set KPI shows where the system runs stably and where deviations occur. In our approach, we use KPIs as the basis for operational and strategic management, and tracking them is an integral part of the LEAN board and daily meetings.

Besides the target value, which most companies define, we also introduce a mandatory trigger value (a lower limit below which a root cause analysis is launched). We do this through the DMAIC approach, where the process is broken down, the cause is identified and measures are proposed. The trigger is not a punishment, it is a signal we agreed on together to help us react in time.

Every KPI has to be clear, measurable and functional. We link it to concrete tasks and responsibilities so teams have clear information on which to base decisions. If the result is below target, we do not look for someone to blame, we look for the cause. If it is above expectations, that is a signal we have an opportunity to standardize what is working well.

OEE (overall efficiency of the production process)

OEE is the key indicator we use to measure the real utilization of equipment, and it is the product of three components: Availability (effectiveness), Performance (efficiency) and Quality. It does not just show how long the machine ran, but how much of the planned time was actually turned into good product. OEE gives us a picture of where the system is losing capacity: downtime, slow running or bad parts. For this concept, it is very important to know the difference between effectiveness and efficiency. Planned production time is 430 minutes. Using the Time Study methodology, we determined that, including all micro-stoppages and the specifics of our process, we need 100 seconds per piece (that is under ideal conditions and at 100 percent of the standard). The director set this year’s target at 75 percent efficiency, which is 133.3 seconds per piece. The worker works during the day and exceeds the 75 percent target, which is excellent, but works only 350 minutes (say, because of extended breaks, starting production late, inefficient machine maintenance and so on). That is why we use OEE, which gives us the wider picture, not just efficiency.

In practice, we use OEE as the basis for the daily assessment of process efficiency. Each component is looked at separately. If availability is low, we analyze why the machine is standing still. If performance is below expectations, we measure cycle time and compare it to takt time. If quality is below standard, we start a defect investigation. That way we do not draw conclusions from the overall number; we understand which part of the system needs intervention.

We do not use OEE only for measurement, but as a tool for dialogue between production, maintenance, planning and quality. When all departments look at the same metric, it is easier for them to agree on priorities. That is why OEE is displayed on the LEAN board, with daily and monthly results and clear trigger values that start the analysis and the corrective actions.

In companies that strive for business excellence, the target value for OEE is at least 85 percent. Anything below that can mean the system is still in the stabilization phase or that there are structural limitations in the processes. Regardless of the current value, the key is that the team knows how OEE is calculated, what it represents, and how to react when one of its elements drops below the expected level.

PDCA cycle (defining agreed actions)

The PDCA cycle (Plan, Do, Check, Act) is the basic theoretical framework for managing change and solving problems in a LEAN system. Although the method is simple and logical, in my experience it is rarely applied consistently. Most often a plan is made, something gets carried out, but the check and the correction are skipped or stay buried in email threads. That is why, instead of the classic PDCA model, in practice we rely on a simpler and more transparent tool: an Action log organized on the Kanban principle.

Every department and every project has its own Action plan, in the form of a coded and standardized Excel document. The good thing about it is that top management, auditors and anyone else who asks can quickly and easily get a clear picture of how a department has been operating, even a couple of years back. Actions are defined as a team, the action owner sets the deadline by which he will complete the action, and his superior adjusts that deadline if needed.

Poka-Yoke (a tool for eliminating errors)

Poka-Yoke is an approach whose goal is to make an error physically impossible, or to have it spotted immediately, before it reaches the next stage of the process. In other words, it is a form of protection against human error, not through punishment, but through a smart solution. In companies without stable processes, most problems come precisely from repeated errors that slipped through the system. Poka-Yoke is the way to cut that off.

Take the textile industry as an example, and the problem of some workers forgetting to sew the label onto a sweater before putting it on the counter for the next production step. In that case we introduce a rule: they no longer put the sweater on the counter. When they finish their operations, the last of which is sewing on the label, they have to hang that same sweater by its label on a mobile rack for the next stage. No label, no way to hang it😊

In some companies where we introduced this practice, the most important shift happened in understanding that an error must not repeat once it has already happened. A Poka-Yoke system forces us to change the process so that the error either cannot happen or is stopped immediately. This builds trust in the system and contributes significantly to quality.

Root Cause Analysis (5 Why)

Root cause analysis, most commonly known as the “5 Why” method, is used when we want to get to the real source of a problem instead of just putting out the consequences. By asking a series of “why did this happen” questions, we go deeper into the process each time until we reach the point that is the cause, not just a symptom. In most cases, the problem we see is only the consequence of something deeper that the system is not solving. If it is not clear how this works, think of a simple example with children: when a child asks “why does a bird fly” and we answer “because it has wings”, the next question is “and why does it have wings”… And so on, until we get to the essence. We can also look at this process as a fight against weeds. If we just cut them with a trimmer, they will grow back, probably even stronger. But if we pull them out by the roots, and do it before they go to seed, we have solved the problem at the right moment.

In our application of this tool, we work by one basic rule: we look for the cause, not the culprit. We do the analysis within the team closest to the process, involving operators, managers and support staff (if the problem is located in only one department, we use the basic 5 Why template, and if the problem cuts across several departments, I use DMAIC). We do not use prepared forms that nobody understands, but concrete questions, about a concrete situation, with a clear record and a conclusion. In some cases it does not stop at five questions, and sometimes the cause is found as early as the third. What matters is honesty and the willingness to look at your own organization’s failures, instead of shifting the problem onto someone else.

SMED (optimizing product changeover time)

SMED (Single-Minute Exchange of Die) is a method used to reduce the time needed to change a tool, a format or a machine setup, with the goal of completing the entire changeover in under 10 minutes. This does not mean it has to take exactly one minute, but that it stays in single digits: a maximum of nine minutes and 59 seconds.

In practice, we start SMED by observing the actual changeover and separating the activities: what can be done while the machine is still running, and what has to wait until it stops. The biggest losses come from searching for tools, waiting for documentation, or poor preparation. When everything that can be done in advance is done in advance, the changeover itself becomes faster and simpler.

The method is especially useful in companies that frequently switch products or batches. Besides saving time, SMED brings stability, less stress and more control over planning. When the system is set up well, it is possible to run shorter batches without building up inventory, and the machine is used more efficiently.

We speed this process up as much as possible by sorting the format parts as part of the 5S project.

Standardized work (multifunctional work procedures and instructions)

Standardized work is the agreed, best currently known way of doing a particular job. Its purpose is not to restrict workers, but to provide stability, a clear breakdown of steps and a measurable process. When everyone does the same job in different ways, it is hard to find where the error is made, and even harder to figure out how to improve something.

In practice, standardization starts with defining the key steps in an operation, the work sequence, the tools needed and the duration. We document all of this through simple visual standards that are clearly posted at the workstation. The goal is not to write instructions for an inspector, but to make the agreement clear to the worker and the team: how it is done, why it is done exactly that way, and what signals that something is off.

When introducing standardized work, we always involve the operators, because they know best where the deviations are and where things need to be made easier. Then each function gives its input as needed, so for work procedures in production the sequence is as follows:

suggestions and feedback from the machine operators are the foundation

technology (engineering) provides the description of the process steps

the LEAN department or technology provides the standard times for the operations

the quality department provides the quality requirements

the HS department provides the safety and occupational health requirements

the technical service defines LOTO (Lock Out Tag Out) and the machine maintenance requirements

And logistics, for production and material planning

Once the standard is set, it does not stay fixed. It changes whenever someone offers a better solution that we test and confirm. That way the standard is not an obstacle to improvement, but the foundation that Kaizen builds on.

TPM (the machine and equipment maintenance process)

TPM, or Total Productive Maintenance, is an approach in which everyone in the organization takes part in keeping the equipment stable. Unlike the classic model, where the operator runs the machine until it breaks down and then calls the mechanic, TPM involves the operator in daily activities that prevent breakdowns. These are not complex repairs, but simple tasks: cleaning, visual inspection, basic checks. That way, maintenance becomes part of daily work, not an emergency reaction. The technical team no longer deals with small interventions, but analyzes and improves the system.

In practice, we introduce TPM gradually:

we choose the critical machines,

we define the daily check points,

we use simple checklists and

we track the condition through the LEAN board.

TPM does not replace classic maintenance, but it gives it an advantage, because it allows problems to be detected earlier, reduces the number of emergency interventions and extends the service life of the equipment. Most importantly: the worker no longer waits for something to break, but knows how to prepare the machine for stable operation every day.

VSM (process flow mapping)

VSM, Value Stream Mapping, is a tool we use to visually show the entire flow of one product, from order to delivery. By mapping every step, including inventory, waiting, handoffs and transport, we get a clear picture of where time is lost, where material piles up and where the flow breaks. The goal is not for the map to look neat, but to reveal inefficiencies that are not visible in everyday work.

In practice, we start by walking through the actual process with the team, right on the shop floor, step by step. First we measure every operation with a Time Study, then we record the times between operations; all of this goes onto that dashed line (the timeline). We don’t rely on theoretical flows. We draw what actually exists: how many pieces sit between operations, how long the waiting lasts, whether there is a parallel flow, how quality control is done. Based on that, we separate the activities that create value from the ones that only take up space and time (and then comes elimination).

Once the map is done, it is used to make concrete decisions: where we can combine steps, where to reduce inventory, where to put a signal, where to introduce a standard. A VSM is not made to hang on the wall. It is made to drive change. Once we have done the VSM, we have the Cycle Time (the time we need to make one piece). By comparing it with the Takt Time, we can tell customers exactly when to expect their goods, we can plan material, and we can build the foundation for JIT.

The visual factory (Visual Management)

A visual factory means that all important information is available where the work is done, in real time, with no need for extra explanation. Instead of employees asking what to do, where things are or what is happening right now, the system shows them through colors, markings, lines, boards, signal cards or light indicators.

In practice, this means the workplace layout is clearly marked, tools and materials are in their place, order status is visible without opening a computer, and every change in the process is immediately recognizable. For example, we use a LEAN board with sections for safety, quality, production and Kaizen activities, along with shadow boards for tools, signs for material flow, marked aisles and signals for downtime.

The goal of visual management is not looks, it is efficiency. Good visual organization shortens decision time, reduces verbal communication and prevents mistakes. Once it is in place, it becomes the basis for standardization and transparency in every department. The foundation of Visual Management is 5S. Best practice is to install large monitors on the production lines that display KPIs (a dashboard) and all the important, relevant information on the shop floor.

LEAN boardLEAN board

The LEAN board is a product of my many years of work and of seeing the need to have key information in one place and a single way of communicating. It is the central spot on the shop floor that shows key information about the team’s work, production, quality, safety and improvements. Its purpose is not to “look nice,” but to make sure the team knows at every moment what matters, what is happening and where they need to react. The board has to be up to date, accessible to everyone and organized so that it gives a clear overview with no extra interpretation needed.

In practice, we divide the LEAN board by function: safety (e.g. incidents, protective equipment), quality (defects, customer complaints, samples), production (plan, output, downtime) and improvements (Kaizen suggestions, action log). The middle often holds the action section, where a Kanban approach tracks the status of every open activity: planned, in progress, done. This captures the PDCA logic visually, without extra paperwork.

Meetings in front of the board are short (the scrum principle), with a clear order, and driven by questions, not by pulling up reports. When the board is used consistently, it becomes a decision-making tool, not just a notice board. The value of a LEAN board is not in laminated columns, but in the fact that it starts conversations, builds shared responsibility and drives a fast reaction when something goes off track.

Andon (stopping the line because of a nonconformity)

Andon is a tool that lets an operator stop the line or signal a problem the moment they spot it, to prevent a defect, a breakdown or a loss of quality. The point is that the problem does not travel further down the process, but gets solved right away, while it is still small. This is the tool that lifted Toyota the most, simply because the director at the time put his trust in a “crazy” worker (the creator of the LEAN concept, whom his colleagues laughed at) to put his ideas into practice. At first there were more stoppages than before, but the production lines kept getting better and better!

In practice, this is hard to implement, because many production managers try to keep everything under control, don’t allow the line to be stopped without their approval and keep decisions to themselves: they are micromanagers. Andon requires trust: the operator has the right to react, and the team leader responds without blame. Where there is fear or micromanagement, the system gets introduced on paper, but nobody uses it. In companies that have truly embraced it, Andon becomes the basic reflex for preventing bigger problems.

This is only part of the LEAN tools we use in practice. There is a wider range, but I believe that range is meant for really well-organized systems, and that implementing just these tools is absolutely enough to deliver a five-year strategy and noticeable growth.

How we do a LEAN analysis: seeing through the worker’s eyes

We never start a LEAN analysis from the office. We don’t look at reports first, we don’t open spreadsheets and we don’t listen to managers’ presentations. We start by standing at the production entrance and trying to see everything through the worker’s eyes. As if we were walking into the company for the first time and had to do a job, and nobody had explained anything to us.

We look at where the worker comes in (what the entrance is like, whether it is safe, whether it holds people up unnecessarily, whether it is properly marked with vertical and horizontal signage), where they change clothes, whether they know where to go, how long it takes them to get to the workstation. Are the tools already ready, or do they have to look for them? Do they know where their documents are, and how often do they have to ask someone something? We watch how they move: do they walk around things that are in their way, do they bend, turn, carry something by hand that could be wheeled? We observe how much “unconscious effort” there is: the things they no longer even see because they have gotten used to them, but that we notice because we are looking with fresh eyes.

In the example we used: a new worker comes into the production area and tries to get started. There is no clear tool layout, they have to ask a coworker where the next part is, and they go by the logic of “this is how we’ve done it for years.” The table isn’t adjusted to their height, a cable hangs over their head, and every step makes them bend or stretch a little. At that point we already have the first ten potential wastes. And that’s before the product has even started being assembled.

In practical terms, we use a form prepared in advance that doesn’t look like an audit checklist, but more like an observation map: what the worker searches for with their eyes, how clear the next step is to them, whether everything is in its place, whether they feel safe. We record observations without judgment and without comment: facts only. When we come back later, we go through every point together with the team and ask: why is it like this, and what could we change so it isn’t like this?

This approach doesn’t require any special technology, just open eyes, empathy and the will to see things the way the person who actually does the job sees them. When we start the analysis from the worker and not from the numbers, the solutions we propose make sense and have a chance to last.

If we have managers who insist on a “it’ll be the way I say” approach, without observing the process and without listening to the people who do the job every day, then we are not introducing a system, we are imposing authority. In practice, what happens then is that problems just get moved around, but never solved. Mistakes get covered up, ideas never come to light, and workers start withdrawing to the bare minimum of engagement, because they feel that nothing they say changes anything. This directly affects quality, safety and work speed. In the end, the line runs, but far below its potential (which we see a lot in practice), and the losses pile up over time.

A LEAN analysis is not a challenge to anyone’s ego, but an opportunity to see what can never be understood from the office. Being a manager doesn’t mean knowing more: it means being entrusted with a greater responsibility to see the bigger picture. When the manager is the first to get up, ask, observe, take notes and ask for workers’ opinions, that creates a culture in which people want to cooperate. When, on the other hand, everything comes down to orders (“do it the way I tell you” and “I’m the boss here”), spreadsheets and criticism, the system goes into resistance. That is a disastrous situation for a company, because the main gear brakes and jams, and very often, almost always 😊, the ones braking it are exactly the people the owners and the director (sometimes including the director himself) trusted to “grease” that gear and set it up properly.

The most successful teams are not the ones where everyone stays silent while the boss talks, but the ones where people speak freely because they know someone is really listening. And a LEAN analysis, if it is done honestly, shows exactly that: where the system is holding people back, not where people are holding the system back.

LEAN vs. ISO standards: two worlds, two logics

One of the most common misconceptions in companies is the belief that if there is an ISO standard in place, then all processes are already well enough organized and there is no need for LEAN. In practice, though, that falls apart very quickly. ISO is an excellent framework for setting up a management system, but it is focused on proving compliance, not on efficiency. Its goal is for documentation to exist, for a procedure to exist and for a record to exist. ISO doesn’t ask how much time is being lost, whether the worker understands the process, or whether there is unnecessary movement and waiting in production. And that is the best case, when ISO is fully alive and implemented. Now picture the situation in most companies where the ISO standard was introduced “pro forma,” there is “some employee over there who is in charge of ISO,” and it all comes down to a last-minute scramble to gather documentation before the upcoming certification 😊.

LEAN, on the other hand, starts with different questions: where are we losing time, money, energy and motivation? Where is the work fundamentally harder than it should be? Where does the system slow people down instead of supporting them? Lean doesn’t care whether a document exists: it cares whether what the worker does every single day makes sense, has a rhythm and has support.

That’s why it is entirely possible, and it happens very often, for a company to hold ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and ISO 45001 and still have chaos in the process, downtime, unhappy people, high costs and overloaded managers. ISO doesn’t solve those problems because it wasn’t designed to. It asks for records, procedures and control, but it doesn’t go deep into the everyday flow of work. That is exactly what Lean does: it goes to the place where value is created, watches the flow, involves the people and removes what isn’t needed.

In my work, we don’t set ISO and Lean against each other. Quite the opposite: we use the best of both worlds to show customers and clients that our system works efficiently and that they have no reason to worry. ISO provides the structure, Lean brings it to life. When you combine them, you get a system that doesn’t exist just for the certificate, but a system that works because people know what they are doing, why they are doing it and how to do it better every day.

Who can’t lead LEAN, and why not every company pulls it off

In theory, LEAN looks simple. The tools are well known, processes can be mapped, and a visual system can be put in place relatively quickly. But that is only the form. The substance lies in the people, and that is where most companies fail. Not because of the tools, but because it is led by people who see the organization as their own territory, and not as a living system that has to grow and develop together with its people, not around them. It often happens that people in the company ask “in the hallways” why exactly that person was hired when most of them feel it isn’t the right choice. This happens because companies don’t pick managers for their ability to develop a system, but for their ability to “look decisive.” In a culture where authority is confused with volume and control with pressure, people who shout, give orders and “restore order” are easily seen as capable managers. They are often visible, always involved, reactive and the first to “do something,” and at first glance they give the impression of action.

But that is where the trap is, because people like that don’t lead the system, they compensate for it. Everything that isn’t solved through structure, they try to solve through themselves. And as long as they are around and keep everything under their hand, the system somehow works. But when they are gone, chaos follows. And worst of all, they know it, which is why they keep centralizing control more and more.

On the other hand, quieter, calmer, system-minded people, who would probably run the company better in the long run, often lack “stage presence.” They don’t make noise. They ask, they listen, they introduce things through people. And that is why many people wrongly judge them as “weak.” In a culture that wants fast results, clear orders and someone who “takes charge,” people like that are often ignored or passed over, because they don’t seem like “leaders.”

The core of the problem is that companies still reward control more than building a system. And Lean exposes exactly that model, because it shows that a company’s real strength isn’t in the energy of one individual, but in the stability of a system that doesn’t depend on any one individual.

It is also a misconception that anyone who is “flexible enough” and “likes people” can lead Lean. In practice, the opposite extreme happens too: the person leading Lean has no authority, can’t set boundaries, avoids conflict and keeps backing down in the face of resistance. Then Lean turns into theory: the board fills up with tasks, meetings are held, but nothing really changes. People quickly figure out that there is no decision behind the words, and the system starts falling apart from the inside.

So Lean can’t be led by someone who is afraid to ask a question, to ask for a change, or to make someone unhappy. But it also can’t be led by someone who gives commands without understanding the process and without connecting with people. You need balance. You need a person who has the character to withstand resistance and the humility to know that the system isn’t there for them, but for the team and the customer. Only then can Lean take root: not as a project, but as a way of working.

The person leading Lean has to know that they are not at the center, but on the side, serving the process. It can’t be led by someone who doesn’t go down to the shop floor, who doesn’t know how to listen to an operator, and who believes problems get solved from the command office. Even worse, it can’t be led by someone who keeps everything to themselves, who doesn’t delegate, who micromanages, and who thinks Lean means “I’m the one who knows how it should be done.”

Micromanagement is Lean’s biggest enemy. It kills initiative, turns managers into passive order-takers, and sends the message that nothing changes without permission. In a system like that, people don’t make suggestions because they know they will be ignored, and the Kaizen box just collects dust. Instead of the Lean system developing people, the opposite happens: the system depends on one person who “pulls” everything. And that never lasts long.

That is why not every company succeeds. Not because it lacks resources, tools or support, but because there is no one who knows how to let the system breathe, and how to lead through other people, not over them.

That is why it matters that the person leading Lean knows how to build a team and how to make decisions through collaboration. In my practice, we use an approach based on the Scrum model, inspired by a rugby team. Unlike a traditional sport where one player gets the ball and everyone waits for him to make a move, in rugby the whole team pushes together, at the same time, with the same force, in the same direction, and those agreed plays are very short and efficient. Nobody waits for a command, nobody looks around to see who the leader is: everyone knows their role and they move together, because they know the goal is reached only if nobody stops.

That is exactly what we carry over into the way we run the team and meetings: everyone takes part, everyone knows where the obstacle is, and everyone is part of the solution. A Scrum team doesn’t work like a chain of command, but like a dynamic unit that organizes itself, adapts every day and makes micro-decisions without needing approval “from above.” That is why this model doesn’t just speed up the work, it also strengthens accountability and mutual trust, and those are the foundations of every Lean system that actually works.

Conclusion: Lean is not a system, Lean is a mirror

Implementing Lean is not a project. It isn’t a spreadsheet, a tool or a report for an audit. Lean is a mirror, and the most honest one a company can hold up to itself. And every mirror can show two pictures: what we are proud of, and what we are hiding.

In companies that aren’t ready to look into that mirror, Lean stays a laminated board on the wall. Managers deal with numbers they don’t understand, meetings turn into reading out problems without the courage to dig into them, and workers learn to keep quiet and just do “their thing.” The system still works, but it creaks, it loses, it wears people out, it frustrates partners, and in the end it costs. Not on paper, but in profit. In time. In the health of the team.

But in companies that dare to look at things honestly, Lean changes everything. Not overnight, not as an advertisement, but from the foundation up. It changes the rhythm. It changes the logic. And most importantly, it changes the relationships between people. In companies like that, managers don’t shout, they listen. They don’t solve everything themselves, they get others to think. And they don’t ask for reports to “cover themselves,” but to know where to help.

Many people look for a “solution” the way modern medicine often works: fast, something to relieve the symptom. Lean doesn’t do that. Lean doesn’t treat symptoms. Lean digs down to the cause. And that takes patience, discipline and character. That is why not just anyone can lead it. That is also why it doesn’t succeed everywhere. But where it does succeed, the company doesn’t just survive, it becomes an example for others.

To wrap up: if you are a director, an owner, or someone who has been trusted to run a company, a process or people, Lean is not a cost, it is an investment in common sense. In a system that doesn’t depend on one person. In a culture where work has meaning. And in companies that no longer work “under pressure,” but with a purpose.

If you are ready to question everything, including yourself, Lean may be the healthiest thing you have ever introduced.