F1 Observation coverage
12 included; 0 excluded; 840.00 recorded seconds.
This is a descriptive sample of the declared boundary. Recorded durations may overlap; they are not automatically elapsed process time or paid labor hours.
MEASURE → LEARN → IMPROVE
FICTIONAL SAMPLE · Illustration only. No real customer results or validated improvement.
Fictional packing cell
Time-study decision report
Open this file in a browser. On a small screen, swipe the chart and wide tables sideways to see all labels and columns. Use Print → Save as PDF for a portable copy. The action-plan CSV is editable; this report records the original study and assumptions.
01 / Decision brief
Included observations12
Takt · seconds / unit60
Mean equivalent · seconds / unit70
Sample P9074.8
Indicative output · units385
Gap to takt · %16.67
The observed mean exceeds demand pace. Investigate before committing capacity. No root cause or cash saving has been established.
F2 Observed pace exceeds demand pace
Mean 70.00 s/unit; takt 60.00 s/unit; gap 16.7%.
Investigate the constraint before promising output. This comparison does not identify a root cause.
F3 Largest recorded category
Routine completion: 641.00 s; 76.3% of included recorded time.
A category label does not establish waste or recoverable time. Check whether the activity protects quality, safety or customer value.
F4 Variation remains visible
Sample median 70.50; P90 74.80 equivalent seconds/unit.
These are descriptive interpolated sample percentiles, not confidence limits or control limits.
02 / Measurement and coverage
| Study field | Recorded value |
|---|---|
| Boundary | Previous accepted carton → Next accepted carton |
| Output unit | accepted cartons |
| Model | completion |
| Scheduled / planned process stops (minutes) | 480 / 30 |
| Demand / basis | 450 / Illustrative plan of 450 cartons in this same day |
| Conditions and quality | One work family. Accepted output checked at the same boundary. Fictional data; no customer results. |
| Sampling coverage and omissions | Illustrative morning work sample only. Other shifts, peaks and product mixes are not represented. |
| Timing method / comparable family / quality definition | User confirmed all three before checkout. This is self-reported, not an independent audit. |
| Included / excluded | 12 / 0 |
The five-observation purchase minimum is an operational product rule, not a sample-size recommendation. Agree precision, variability, independence and coverage before drawing broader conclusions. No capability, confidence interval, standard time or control limit is estimated.
Completions must be consecutive accepted outputs at the same process boundary.
Exclusions remain in the appendix. A long duration alone is not a reason to exclude an observation. Recorded accepted output does not independently measure rejects or first-pass yield.
03 / What the observations show
Share of included recorded time
Routine completion · 641 seconds · 76.31%
Completion with interruption · 199 seconds · 23.69%
Step / task summaries
| Step | Observations | Mean raw seconds |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted completion | 12 | 70 |
Category shares describe recorded time, not automatically waste, elapsed time or cost. For task mode, compare equivalent steps under equivalent conditions.
04 / Options to investigate
Priorities for a small test, based on this study. These are hypotheses to validate with people who do the work.
O1 · Evidence F3
Observe the largest category at the work
Possible explanation: Its duration may reflect searching, waiting, repeated handling or an unclear sequence.
Competing explanation: It may be necessary work, a different work mix or a recording-boundary effect.
Next experiment: Observe Routine completion at its actual start and end. Separate necessary work from avoidable delays; test one reversible layout or sequence change only if direct evidence supports it.
Watch for harm or transfer: First-pass quality, safe work and workload transferred to the next step.
Trade-off: testing needs observation time and may interrupt the process. Obtain the process owner’s agreement and stop if safety or quality worsens.
O2 · Evidence F2
Test a flow constraint
Possible explanation: A queue, stop or mismatched handoff may limit accepted output.
Competing explanation: Demand peaks, a different product mix or losses outside the sampled interval may dominate.
Next experiment: Map arrivals, completion times and work in progress over the same period. Change one handoff rule in a small pilot; compare similar conditions.
Watch for harm or transfer: Waiting time, rejects, unfinished work and downstream congestion.
Trade-off: testing needs observation time and may interrupt the process. Obtain the process owner’s agreement and stop if safety or quality worsens.
O3 · Evidence F1
Extend the sample before scaling
Possible explanation: The observed period may differ from other shifts or demand conditions.
Competing explanation: The difference may come from measurement inconsistency rather than the process.
Next experiment: Repeat the same boundary under a contrasting planned condition. Agree precision and sampling needs before making a high-cost decision.
Watch for harm or transfer: Measurement consistency and sample coverage; preserve exclusions and reasons.
Trade-off: testing needs observation time and may interrupt the process. Obtain the process owner’s agreement and stop if safety or quality worsens.
05 / Your what-if scenario
| Measure | Baseline | Assumed scenario |
|---|---|---|
| Mean equivalent seconds / unit | 70 | 63 |
| Indicative capacity in the declared period | 385 | 428 |
| Assumed reduction | — | 10% |
| Cash saving | Not established | Not established |
You supplied the 10% reduction assumption. It is not a prediction or an expected saving. Capacity is floor(available seconds ÷ mean equivalent seconds/unit). This model does not establish bottleneck relief, demand, labor reduction or revenue.
Verify value in three separate measures
- Process: did comparable accepted output improve, or time at the constraint decrease?
- Capacity: was the released time usable and did downstream losses remain acceptable?
- Cash: did an actual expense fall? Record the owner, period and evidence separately.
Do not multiply all observed seconds by a labor rate and label the result cash savings.
06 / Run one experiment, then control it
| Before the test | Record in the editable action plan |
|---|---|
| Choose the option | O1, O2 or O3; name the evidence finding |
| Prediction | What do you expect to change, by how much and why? |
| Owner and permission | Who will run it; who owns the process? |
| Comparable baseline | Same output definition, work mix and measurement boundary |
| Success criterion | A measurable target and review date agreed before the test |
| Balancing measure | Quality, safety, waiting or work transferred elsewhere |
| Stop / rollback rule | What deterioration requires stopping and restoring the previous method? |
| Result and evidence | Record actual data and whether the hypothesis was supported |
Control plan after a successful test
| Control | To be completed by the process owner |
|---|---|
| Operating definition | The exact metric and unit |
| Routine check | Owner, source and frequency |
| Trigger | A locally agreed operational threshold; not an inferred statistical control limit |
| Reaction | Containment, escalation and rollback owner |
| Sustain check | Review date, evidence and follow-up status |
Use the supplied editable action-plan CSV. No field is pre-filled with an invented owner, promised improvement or achieved result.
07 / Observation appendix
| # | Included | Seconds | Units | Step / category | Note / exclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Yes | 60 | 1 | Accepted completion / Completion with interruption | Fictional observation |
| 2 | Yes | 64 | 1 | Accepted completion / Routine completion | Fictional observation |
| 3 | Yes | 66 | 1 | Accepted completion / Routine completion | Fictional observation |
| 4 | Yes | 70 | 1 | Accepted completion / Routine completion | Fictional observation |
| 5 | Yes | 68 | 1 | Accepted completion / Completion with interruption | Fictional observation |
| 6 | Yes | 72 | 1 | Accepted completion / Routine completion | Fictional observation |
| 7 | Yes | 75 | 1 | Accepted completion / Routine completion | Fictional observation |
| 8 | Yes | 69 | 1 | Accepted completion / Routine completion | Fictional observation |
| 9 | Yes | 71 | 1 | Accepted completion / Completion with interruption | Fictional observation |
| 10 | Yes | 80 | 1 | Accepted completion / Routine completion | Fictional observation |
| 11 | Yes | 73 | 1 | Accepted completion / Routine completion | Fictional observation |
| 12 | Yes | 72 | 1 | Accepted completion / Routine completion | Fictional observation |
Method references
Lean Enterprise Institute: takt · Cycle time · ASQ: DMAIC · IHI: improvement measures