CLC key terms

A process-improvement approach that identifies and removes waste from workflows so that value flows steadily to the customer. It emphasizes respect for people, continuous improvement, and small, incremental changes made by frontline staff rather than top-down redesign.

A data-driven quality method that reduces variation and defects in processes. Practitioners define a problem, measure current performance, analyze root causes, improve the process, and control the gains, often using statistical tools and a belt-based training hierarchy.

The five-phase Six Sigma improvement sequence: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control. Each phase has defined deliverables, such as a charter in Define and a control plan in Control, and projects move forward only when phase gates are met.

Plan-Do-Study-Act, a small-scale test-of-change method. A team predicts what will happen, tries the change on a limited basis, compares results with the prediction, and then adopts, adapts, or abandons the change before the next cycle.

A visual tool that charts every step, delay, and information flow required to deliver a product or service. It distinguishes value-adding from non-value-adding steps and highlights where lead time and rework accumulate.

A Japanese term meaning continuous improvement. It refers to ongoing, incremental improvements made by the people who do the work, often through structured events, rather than large one-time redesigns led by outside experts.

The actual place where work happens, where value is created and problems are visible. Going to the gemba means observing processes firsthand rather than relying on reports, so that leaders and improvers see real conditions and constraints.

Any activity that consumes resources without adding value for the customer. Common categories include overproduction, waiting, transport, overprocessing, inventory, motion, and defects, plus unused employee talent in many models.

A documented, agreed-upon method for performing a task that specifies sequence, timing, and expected outcome. It serves as the baseline against which improvement is measured and is revised whenever a better method is proven.

The time required to complete one unit of work from start to finish of a given step or process. Comparing cycle time with customer demand reveals whether capacity is sufficient and where bottlenecks form.

The available production time divided by customer demand, expressed as the pace at which one unit must be completed to meet demand. It sets the rhythm a process must achieve and exposes imbalance across steps.

The step in a process with the least capacity relative to demand, which limits the throughput of the whole system. Improving non-bottleneck steps does not raise output until the bottleneck itself is addressed.

A management approach holding that every system has at least one limiting factor. Improvement focuses on identifying the constraint, exploiting it fully, subordinating other steps to it, elevating its capacity, and then repeating the cycle.

A structured investigation to find the underlying reasons a problem occurs, rather than treating symptoms. Techniques include the five whys, fishbone diagrams, and fault trees, and findings should be verified with data before countermeasures are chosen.

A questioning technique that repeatedly asks why a problem occurred, typically about five times, to move from surface symptoms toward a fundamental cause. It works best when each answer is checked against evidence rather than assumed.

Also called an Ishikawa or cause-and-effect diagram, it organizes possible causes of a problem into branches such as people, process, equipment, materials, measurement, and environment. Teams use it to broaden thinking before testing which causes matter.

A bar chart that orders categories by frequency or impact, often revealing that a small number of causes account for most of a problem. It helps teams prioritize where improvement effort will yield the greatest return.

The use of control charts to distinguish normal variation from signals of special-cause change in a process. It supports decisions about whether to adjust a process or leave it alone and whether improvements are sustained.

A time-ordered plot of a process measure with a center line and statistically derived upper and lower limits. Points outside the limits or nonrandom patterns indicate special-cause variation that warrants investigation.

A document that specifies how a process will be monitored after an improvement, including the measures, frequency, responsible person, and response when results drift. It is a key deliverable of the Control phase.

A change implemented to address a verified root cause and prevent a problem from recurring. Unlike a quick fix or workaround, a countermeasure is tested, measured, and adjusted until the problem no longer occurs.

The structured approach to helping people adopt new processes, behaviors, and tools. It addresses stakeholder engagement, communication, training, resistance, and reinforcement so that improvements persist after a project ends.

The process of identifying who is affected by or can influence a change, then assessing their interest, influence, and position. Results guide engagement and communication plans so that key voices are heard early.

The senior leader who authorizes a project, secures resources, and removes organizational barriers. An effective sponsor actively champions the work, makes timely decisions, and holds the team accountable for results.

A concise document that authorizes a project and states its problem, goal, scope, timeline, team, and measures of success. It aligns stakeholders on what is in and out of scope before work begins.

The uncontrolled expansion of a project's boundaries as new requests are added without adjusting time, resources, or goals. It is managed through a clear charter, an agreed change process, and disciplined prioritization.

A measure chosen to track progress toward a strategic objective. Good indicators are defined, owned, and reviewed on a regular cadence, and they balance outcome measures with process measures that explain results.

A performance framework that tracks objectives across financial, customer, internal process, and learning and growth perspectives. It links day-to-day measures to strategy and discourages reliance on any single metric.

Comparing an organization's processes or results with those of high performers to find performance gaps and adopt proven practices. Effective benchmarking studies the process behind the numbers, not just the numbers.

A staged framework describing increasing capability in a discipline, from ad hoc practice to optimized, continuously improving practice. Organizations use it to assess current state, set targets, and plan improvement roadmaps.

A comparison of current performance with a desired future state to identify what is missing and what must change. Results typically feed prioritization and action planning, distinguishing capability gaps from performance gaps.

A document that sets an organization's long-term direction, goals, and initiatives, and allocates resources accordingly. Improvement work should trace back to it so that projects support priorities rather than compete with them.

A schedule defining what messages will be shared with which audiences, by whom, through which channels, and how often. It supports transparency during change and reduces rumor and resistance.

The arrangements that keep an improvement in place after project support ends, such as standard work, training, ownership, monitoring, and periodic audits. It anticipates turnover and drift and defines who responds when performance slips.

The rate at which a system completes units of work over a period. It is governed by the constraint and is often a better improvement measure than local efficiency, which can rise while overall output stays flat.