Dayton Plant
Dayton, OH
Maturity lever: Your maturity · as of June 24, 2026
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.
Maturity lever
Benefit scales to how much headroom each use case actually has.
Demo data · ValueMaps · Plant
Dayton: make more of an already-good product
Dayton, OH, US
This is the financial close of the Dayton Plant 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.
EBITDA against the baseline
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.
Dayton: make more of an already-good product
Dayton's quality and engineering are strong, but the line cannot keep up with demand. Scheduling, line balancing, and bottleneck management drag throughput, and in a demand-constrained plant that translates directly into unrealized revenue.
The initiatives below separate the flow and throughput work from the scheduling and planning discipline that protects it.
Things to notice below
- Value concentrates on revenue and capacity-recovery lines, the signature of a throughput-limited plant.
- The flow initiative and the scheduling initiative overlap; the de-conflicted total shows the realistic combined number.
How the value de-conflicts across initiatives
Run on their own, these initiatives would each claim their full standalone value. Run together against one P&L, they compete for the same finance lines, so the realistic combined value is lower. The engine removes that double counting, then allocates the de-conflicted total back to each initiative pro-rata.
Line balancing, bottleneck management, and flow stability to lift output.
Schedule adherence and planning discipline to protect throughput.
The remaining cross-functional gaps.
Solid bar = allocated (de-conflicted) value. Faint bar = standalone value.
Investment gate — net of what it costs to deploy
Each initiative needs capabilities to deliver. Those roll up to solution budget lines (an MES, a CMMS…) bought once even when several initiatives share them, plus standalone programs. Cost, deploy lead time, and a 7-year NPV at 8% turn de-conflicted benefit into a net investment case.
| Initiative | Timing | Investment | Marginal NPV | Payback |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flow & Throughput | live y3 · 3y deploy | $24.2M | +$31.9M | 4.4y |
| Scheduling & Planningbelow gate | live y3 · 3y deploy | $4.1M | -$2.4M | never |
| Supporting Improvementsbelow gate | live y3 · 3y deploy | $2.7M | -$1.7M | never |
Budget lines (93) · 22 shared, funded once
Operational impact (functional KPIs)
The same portfolio, viewed as movement in operational KPIs rather than dollars. Rolled up by SQDCI category.
Top KPI movements
79 KPIs movedDead Stock %
-55.2%
Worker Fatigue Rate
-42.3%
Leadership Gemba Engagement Index
+28.1%
BBS Rate
+23.4%
Incident Response Time
-20.5%
By strategic category
8 KPIs · 8↑
Top: -42.3% · Worker Fatigue Rate
14 KPIs · 11↑ / 3↓
Top: -15.5% · Uncontrolled Temporary Change Duration
10 KPIs · 7↑ / 3↓
Top: +6.3% · Capacity Utilization
9 KPIs · 7↑ / 2↓
Top: -6.9% · TCO
5 KPIs · 3↑ / 2↓
Top: -55.2% · Dead Stock %
16 KPIs · 15↑ / 1↓
Top: +28.1% · Leadership Gemba Engagement Index
1 KPI · 1↑
Top: -2.8% · Waste Generation Rate
10 KPIs · 10↑
Top: +12.2% · Predictive Maintenance Coverage %
6 KPIs · 4↑ / 2↓
Top: -13.7% · Manual Data Entry Time per Shift
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.
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.
Top value drivers
Use cases ranked by EBITDA contribution across the portfolio. The maturity tag shows the headroom multiplier this use case earned.
Individual KPI movements
Every KPI that moved, sorted by magnitude. Expand any KPI for its per-measure and per-use-case breakdown.
All KPI movements
sorted by absolute changeHow KPI deltas are computed
Each KPI's % change is a small-delta linearization across its formula roles: numerator measures contribute +, denominator measures contribute −, factors contribute +. Per-measure deltas sum the contributions of every use case touching that measure (with the portfolio cap already applied). Direction-of-improvement is inferred per KPI from its primary measure: a downward move on a "lower is better" KPI reads green, the same move on a "higher is better" KPI reads red. Compound formulas defined in metrics.formula_expression are linearized — values may overstate. KPI baselines (the from X to Y framing) come in a later release.
This value map was derived from the ExampleCo Dayton Plant 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.