R1 - Demotivation of those involved after the first changes Evidence: people's lack of interest in participating in activities related to the process after a few months or years |
R2 - Lack of knowledge of the support areas (engineering, maintenance, and areas dedicated to LP) to guide the progress of LPI Evidence: application of isolated LP practices without integration or vision of the systemic impacts of the implementation of each practice. Insecurity and fear of support areas in guiding and applying LP practices. Difficulty in identifying what practices are needed and how they should be implemented. |
R3 - Lack of human or financial resources allocated to the process Evidence: not enough time for people to do LP training and application activities. No allocation of enough financial resources to train employees in LP. |
R4 - Lack of communication clarity for all employees about deployment, start, and progress Evidence: no official dissemination of results achieved, activities carried out, participants in the process, or objectives |
R5 - Difficulty proving the financial return of the actions performed Evidence: adherence to traditional indicators that do not indicate results, such as customer service, excess inventory, or liberated area, among others. Prioritization of actions to impact short-term indicators, without valuing qualitative improvements or greater results in the medium and long term. |
R6 - Lack of support from middle management Evidence: Middle management does not control deadlines and results of the process, does not provide the time to clarify doubts and solve deployment problems, or has no commitment to the application of LP practices and their benefits. |
R7 - Lack of support from upper management Evidence: Upper management does not control and assist in the process, does not link actions to goals and objectives of the business, or prioritizes other actions to the detriment of those involving LPI. |
R8 - The operational level does not support the implementation Evidence: no interest from operators or supervisors in applying or using LP practices. Operators’ and supervisors’ fears of losing their jobs due to LPI leading to use of fewer resources (operators, inventory, or machines). |
R9 - Operators’ insecurity in carrying out new tasks Evidence: lack of support from supervisors and support areas in improvements, teamwork, standardization, use of production monitoring frameworks, calls from the aid chain, and production stoppages. Supervisors do not respect ideas and suggestions for improvements from operators and do not empower operators for these new assignments. |
R10 - Dismissal of operators due to the excess of manpower generated by the improvements implemented Evidence: After performing improvement activities (or kaizens) in the factory, operators who are no longer needed due to productivity gains achieved are dismissed. Operators are dismissed according to demand fluctuations. |
R11 - Operators do not feel responsible for using LP practices and solving problems Evidence: Operators are not involved in making improvements in the factory and in LPI practices. Lack of participation of operators in the deployment process. |
R12 - Managers and directors do not have enough knowledge about LP Evidence: Upper and middle management difficulty in setting goals for implementation, monitoring, and ensuring the use of LP principles and practices. Upper and middle management do not guide LPI. |
R13 – Mid- and long-term improvements are not sustained Evidence: Improvements made in applying practices or solving problems end up returning to the original state after a few months. There is no follow-up through audits, nor any standardization of improvements. |
R14 - Difficulties in managing the deployment process Evidence: Those responsible for the process do not collect deadlines or follow up on the planned activities. Lack of audits in the progress of the process. Lack of commitment to deadlines and objectives of the process. |