Maturity lever

Benefit scales to how much headroom each use case actually has.

Demo data · ValueMaps · Division

Consumer Products: throughput and accountability, two different fixes

US

This is the financial close of the Consumer Products worked example. The survey report shows the gap signature; the use-case roadmap turns it into a portfolio. This page scores that portfolio against a financial baseline and rolls it up across the company.

Annual EBITDA impact
+$27.2M
8.0% of revenue ($340.0M)
Use cases in scope
49
across 2 plants
Composition
Revenue+$14.5M
Costs+$12.1M
Capital+$636K
Positive = EBITDA-favorable.

Illustrative figures for a fictional company. The method is real; the company is not. Every dollar traces through a measure and a finance line to EBITDA. Benefit is scaled to each use case's current maturity from the survey, so a use case the plant has already mastered captures less from the same improvement. Use the maturity lever above to compare against industry-typical and best-in-class.

Plants in this division

Executive Summary

Consumer Products: throughput and accountability, two different fixes

Two plants, two distinct failure modes. Dayton makes excellent product but cannot make enough of it. York's numbers are mediocre everywhere because consequences went soft, not because any one function is broken.

The rolled-up total reflects both stories. The value-by-plant split below shows how differently they decompose once the math runs against each plant's baseline.

Things to notice below

  • Dayton's value lands disproportionately on revenue and throughput-linked finance lines.
  • York's value is broad and shallow, the financial fingerprint of a cross-cutting discipline problem.

Where the value sits across 2 plants

Each plant computes against its own baseline, so the total is a true sum. Click any to drill in.

Where the value comes from

Each ribbon flows EBITDA impact from a use case (left) to a P&L or balance-sheet section (right). Thickness = annualized dollar contribution. Hover for the exact value.

Basic Equipment ConditionsLine Balancing & Workload L…Breakdown Response & Mainte…Standard Work ImprovementStandard Work AvailabilityOnboarding & Training Effec…Inventory Strategy & Contro…Schedule AdherenceFlow StabilityQuality Learning & Preventi…Flow Stability ManagementOperator Basic CareOther use cases (37)RevenueCOGSOpExCurrent Assets
Revenue liftCOGS reductionOpEx reductionTotal mapped flow: $35.1M

Finance-line composition

How the annual EBITDA impact decomposes across the P&L and balance-sheet sections. Cost-line reductions and revenue-line gains both read green.

Revenue+$14.5M(7 lines)
COGS+$8.3M(38 lines)
OpEx+$3.8M(9 lines)
Current Assets+$636K(3 lines)

Top value drivers

Use cases ranked by EBITDA contribution across the portfolio.

Basic Equipment Conditions
Predictive Equipment Health Monitoring and Operator-Led Early Detection
+$3.5M
Breakdown Response & Maintenance Interface
Intelligent Breakdown Response & Root Cause Management
+$2.1M
Standard Work Availability
Digital Standard Work Management & Point-of-Use Deployment
+$1.4M
Line Balancing & Workload Leveling
Dynamic Line Balancing & Workload Leveling
+$1.4M
Onboarding & Training Effectiveness
Standardized Operator Onboarding & Competency Validation
+$1.4M
Inventory Strategy & Control (WIP, FG, RM)
Dynamic Inventory Optimization & Control—Real-Time WIP, Raw Material, and Finished Goods Management
+$1.3M
Quality Learning & Prevention
Closed-Loop Quality Learning & Defect Prevention
+$1.0M
KPI Architecture & Performance Measurement System
Hierarchical KPI Architecture & Real-Time Performance Measurement System
+$869K
Standard Work Improvement
Operator-Led Standard Work Evolution with Digital Validation
+$811K
Standard Work Governance
Digital Standard Work Governance & Enforcement
+$806K

This value map was derived from the ExampleCo Consumer Products survey responses and use-case roadmap. The same engine produces a CFO-grade value map for any real company that completes the surveys and curates a portfolio.