Designing an Operations Improvement Proposal

The improvement proposal is where OPS 201 becomes a decision memo

Nina must present one integrated operations improvement proposal to the board: constraint elevation, lean WIP caps, forecast bias fix, and quality traceability. This capstone lesson synthesizes process analysis, capacity, quality, lean, and forecasting into a fundable package.

Boards do not fund slogans. They fund articulated problems with quantified downside, interventions tied to constraints and customer clauses, owners and dates, and stage gates that pause spend when early metrics fail.

FlowForge Components is a precision parts supplier to automotive and aerospace OEMs and the anchor organization for OPS 201. Annual revenue is approximately $215M. OEE (overall equipment effectiveness, the product of availability, performance rate, and quality rate for equipment) runs near 78% across 42 CNC machining centers. External defect rate is 1.2% on shipped lots. VP Operations Nina Kowalski and Plant Manager Greg Santos lead process capacity, quality systems, and lean operations across 3 plants: Toledo (main campus, 520 staff), Monterrey machining (210 staff), Cleveland finishing and CMM (110 staff).

Every lesson ties frameworks to FlowForge decisions: capacity investments, quality escapes, lean waste removal, and demand forecasts that feed master schedules. You should finish each lesson able to explain the topic to a smart colleague who has not taken OPS 201, using reconciled numbers where the topic requires arithmetic. You will structure proposals the way executives fund them: problem, economics, risks, metrics, and timeline.

Finish able to produce a one-page executive summary plus appendix metrics Greg Santos could execute and the CFO could audit.

Problem statement with dollars and risk

Open with customer and cash risk, not tools. FlowForge: OTD 94% vs 96% target; penalty exposure $420,000; heat-treat queue 38 hours average; WIP $24M; external PPM 1,200 threatening PPAP status.

Translate each pain into a metric with owner and trend. Penalties lag; queue hours lead. Problem statements without trends invite "bad month" dismissal.

Link pains across units: queues drive OTD; forecast bias inflates raw inventory; traceability gaps drive PPM.

Portfolio of interventions (quick, structural, systemic)

Sort by time-to-impact and capital. Quick wins (weeks): WIP cap, release smoothing, expedite rules. Structural (months): CMM +15%, furnace PM upgrade. Systemic (quarters): S&OP bias fix, traceability automation, standard work audits.

Portfolios beat single bets. If CMM capital slips, quick wins still earn OTD breathing room.

Metrics and stage gates

Gate 1 day 30: OTD ≥95%. Gate 2 day 60: heat-treat queue <20 hours. Gate 3 day 90: external PPM ≤1,100. Failure pauses next capital tranche.

Pair primaries with guardrails: scrap, overtime, forecast bias, safety.

Stakeholder map and dissent

Sales: ATP truth may reduce auto bookings; counter with penalty avoidance. Finance: phased funding tied to gates. Operations: overtime fatigue; counter with predictable schedules after WIP caps.

Name dissent explicitly; proposals without dissent sound naive.

Implementation roadmap and dependencies

Weeks 1-12: WIP cap parallel with release sync; forecast bias (IT + planning); traceability sprint; CMM shift only after gate 2. Dependencies: cannot cap WIP without machining discipline.

Economics: benefits, costs, risk adjustment

Base year-one benefits: penalty avoidance $320k, inventory carry reduction $400k, scrap reduction $90k, overtime reduction $110k → $920k recurring. Costs $1.435M capital + $180k operating. Risk-adjust benefits ×70% if demand softens → $644k expected.

Show NPV at hurdle rate 12% over five years with explicit assumptions: demand growth 2%, margin per part $62, discount factor standard. Finance should replicate in Excel from your appendix tables.

Sensitivity table: OTD +1 vs +2 pts, queue reduction 10h vs 20h, PPM 1,150 vs 1,050. Proposal credible if phase 1 positive under all three sensitivities.

Communication: one-slide scorecard and monthly rhythm

Board wants one slide monthly: OTD trend, queue hours, external PPM, WIP dollars, gate status R/Y/G. Nina owns narrative; Greg owns operational detail; CFO owns cash impact.

Avoid 40-slide lean tours. Executives fund metrics movement and gated capital, not diagrams alone.

Nina's board packet includes a one-page summary and appendix. Numbers reconcile to Q3 financials and operational dashboards.

Part A: Problem

OTD 94% vs 96% target; penalty exposure $420k; WIP $24M; external PPM 1,200; heat-treat queue 38h average.

Part B: Interventions

Part C: Economics

Total $1.435M; base benefits $920k/yr recurring; risk-adjusted $644k/yr at 70%. Simple payback 1.7 years base. NPV positive at 12% hurdle over 5 years. Check: 40+15+1100+60+220=1,435 ✓

Part D: Stage gates

Gate 1 day 30: OTD ≥95% watched programs. Gate 2 day 60: queue <20h weekly avg. Gate 3 day 90: PPM ≤1,100. CMM tranche 2 releases only if gate 2 pass.

Part E: Dissent response

Sales: ATP honesty may delay two auto awards ($180k). Counter: penalty $420k + renewal risk on aero. Finance: phased tranches $0.4M / $0.6M / $0.435M tied to gates.

Part F: Monthly scorecard

Part D: Managerial read

CEO funds phase 1 ($0.4M) immediately; CMM major tranche waits on gate 2. Board asks for monthly one-slide scorecard: OTD, queue, PPM, WIP dollars.

Finance stress-tests benefits if OTD improves only one point instead of two.

Part A: Penalty schedule — +2 pts → penalty avoidance $320k/yr; +1 pt → $180k/yr.

Part B: Still-fund items — WIP cap, release sync, bias fix, traceability total $335k still clear hurdle.

Part C: Defer items — CMM $1.1M deferred until queue <24h by day 45; robot cell removed.

Part D: Check — Phase 1 costs $335k vs benefits $180k+$400k inv+$90k scrap=$670k yr1. Check: 670>335 ✓

Managerial read: staged funding preserves optionality; proposal stays credible under downside OTD.

Midwest Stamping (fictional) proposed 22 projects with no gates and funded none. Contrast proves integration beats laundry lists.

Draft a one-page proposal outline for FlowForge: (1) Problem quantified. (2) Three interventions with owners. (3) Two stage gates. (4) One dissent case.

Solution

Problem: $420k penalty risk, 38h queue, WIP $24M, PPM 1,200.

Interventions: (1) WIP cap 400 Greg wk2; (2) release sync Planning wk4; (3) CMM shift Nina wk8 gated; (4) bias fix Finance wk6; (5) traceability Quality wk5.

Gates: OTD ≥95% day 30; queue <20h day 60; PPM ≤1,100 day 90.

Dissent: sales fears $180k auto delay—counter with $420k penalty exposure and aero renewal risk; finance gets phased tranches.

Economics check: phase 1 $335k vs yr1 downside benefits $670k. Check: 670>335 ✓

Appendix must include capacity table (1,800 heat treat bottleneck), VSM AH-440 wait 3.8d, Little's Law CMM I*=2,520, COQ external $730k/qtr, forecast bias +1%.

Second practice: Recompute benefit if OTD improves only 1 pt instead of 2. Penalty drops $180k instead of $320k. Should CMM $1.1M still phase 1?

Tasks: (1) Compute phase 1 cost subtotal. (2) Compute downside benefit subtotal. (3) Recommend fund/defer CMM with gate tied to queue hours.

Solution

Phase 1 quick wins: $40k+$15k+$60k+$220k=$335k. Downside benefits: $180k+$400k+$90k=$670k yr1 if executed.

Defer CMM $1.1M until day-60 gate queue <20h; fund phase 1 now. Check: 670>335 ✓

Explain in paragraph: CMM is structural bet requiring proof from WIP cap and release sync; downside OTD still funds systemic fixes with positive yr1 economics.

Integrative capstone deliverable: Build appendix responsibility matrix with 5 interventions, owners, start weeks, metrics, gates. Add course synthesis map row for each unit. Minimum one check line per economics section.

Solution

Matrix example row: WIP cap | Greg | wk2 | queue hrs | gate2. Map row Unit 2 → VSM wait data. Check lines on cost sum $1.435M and benefit sum $920k base.

Grader expects FlowForge anchor numbers ($215M, 78% OEE, Nina Kowalski) and explicit ATP/WIP/TOC/SPC/S&OP vocabulary from prior lessons.

Key takeaways

• Capstone proposals integrate capacity, quality, lean, and planning.
• Quantify problem in penalties, COQ, and working capital.
• Stage gates de-risk capital phases.
• FlowForge board funds packages, not tool lists.
• Dissent cases strengthen credibility.

1. Write a one-page ops improvement proposal for an organization you know.
2. List three metrics Nina should report at day 90.
3. Return to the unit page for assessments and the OPS 201 applied project.

Capstone integration: process analysis evidence

FlowForge's improvement proposal must cite current-state VSM facts: AH-440 family carries 8.6 calendar days with 53 minutes touch time; heat-treat wait 3.8 days dominates. Proposal intervention #1 (WIP cap 400 units) links directly to VSM queue dollars. Reviewers should see the map thumbnail in the appendix, not hear "lean" without numbers.

Little's Law check for CMM segment: R=2,100/day, target T=1.2 days implies I=2,520*. Proposal ties CMM phase 2 funding to demonstrated queue reduction toward that cap. Board members unfamiliar with OPS 201 should still follow arithmetic with check lines.

Capacity table in appendix lists machining 2,600/day, heat treat 1,800/day, CMM 2,200/day. Any proposal claiming system uplift must show which step elevated and reconciled process capacity. Nina's rule: no capital line item without stating which bottleneck it elevates and what exploit actions ran first.

Capstone integration: quality and COQ

External PPM 1,200 maps to COQ external failure bucket $730k/quarter in the lesson walk. Traceability automation ($220k) is framed as prevention because incomplete PPAP packets drove three perfect-order failures despite on-time ship.

SPC appendix summarizes special-cause rules triggered last quarter: 8-point trend on bore diameter, fixture wear RCA on AH-440 burrs. Proposal gate 3 (PPM ≤1,100) is meaningless without control-chart reaction protocol ownership. Quality director signs gate 3, not only operations.

Lean wastes referenced: overproduction at machining (3-day batches), wait at heat treat, defects on burr line. Each waste ties to a proposal line item with owner and week start. This is how OPS 201 vocabulary becomes fundable.

Capstone integration: planning and forecast bias

Forecast bias +1% over six months inflated bar stock buys; proposal includes $60k planning systems work to incorporate OEM EDI feeds and reduce bias. Aggregate planning appendix shows Q2 hybrid: OT 120/day + subcontract 30/day closing 150/day gap versus 1,800/day constraint.

Scheduling policy attachment: critical ratio sequencing at heat treat, 48-hour frozen zone for aerospace, finite ATP for sales. Sales dissent on ATP is answered with penalty table: $420k exposure versus $180k booking at risk on two auto programs if dates honest.

Inventory: EOQ bar stock near 27 tons with supplier min 20; safety stock reduction only where service-level study allows. Proposal benefit $400k inventory carry reduction is staged after bias fix, not day one.

Capstone integration: strategy, resilience, sustainability

Make-or-buy: aerospace CMM stays in-house; vendor only for 15% auto surge when total landed cost beats overtime. Automation: robot cell deferred until heat-treat constraint addressed; proposal sequences capital accordingly.

Resilience: Monterrey 14-hour outage playbook referenced; generator upgrade on watch list separate from core package. Sustainability: energy 4.2→3.9 kWh/good part kaizen cited as co-benefit on deburr cell project, not a separate unfunded initiative.

Board questions rehearsed: (1) What if OTD improves only 1 pt? Answer: phase 1 quick wins still fund; CMM phase 2 waits on gate 2 queue <20h. (2) What if aerospace mix accelerates? Answer: cellular pocket funding in phase 3 contingent on gate 3 quality. (3) What kills the program? Answer: queue not below 28h by day 45 triggers stop and external operations review.

Writing the executive one-pager (template walkthrough)

Paragraph 1: Problem in dollars and customer clauses ($420k, OTD 94% vs 96%). Paragraph 2: Three interventions with owners and weeks. Paragraph 3: Economics base case $920k/yr benefit vs $1.42M cost, phased. Paragraph 4: Gates and dissent answered. Appendix: VSM, capacity table, COQ, forecast bias chart, responsibility matrix.

Students should draft the one-pager without jargon stacks: define OEE, WIP, PPM, ATP on first use even in memos. FlowForge executives vary in OPS fluency; the memo teaches while it asks.

Final checklist before submit: problem quantified, interventions owned, gates dated, dissent named, check lines present, capacity constraint identified, quality guardrails listed, forecast bias addressed, lean waste tied to actions, resilience noted, sustainability co-benefit optional but honest.

Full proposal outline (student template)

Executive summary (250 words max): Problem dollars, three interventions, phased cost, gate summary, dissent answer.

Section 1 — Current state: VSM snippet, capacity table, COQ Pareto, forecast bias chart, queue Wq at constraint.

Section 2 — Target state: OTD 96%, queue 18h, PPM 1,050, WIP $21M, inventory turns +0.4.

Section 3 — Portfolio: Quick wins weeks 1-4, structural weeks 5-12, systemic weeks 8-16.

Section 4 — Economics: Base, downside, upside tables with check lines.

Section 5 — Governance: Weekly ops review, monthly board slide, gate decision owners (Nina, CFO, CEO).

Section 6 — Risks: Demand drop, supplier slip, union overtime cap, customer pull-in surge.

Appendix responsibility matrix: rows interventions, columns owner, start week, metric, gate.

Integrative practice walkthrough (facilitator notes)

Teams present 10-minute board pitch then 5-minute CFO cross-exam. Cross-exam questions: "Show Little's Law reconciliation." "Which constraint elevates?" "What is kill criteria day 45?" "What happens to auto OTD if aero expedites rise 20%?"

Peer reviewers score: problem quantification 20%, intervention-constraint link 25%, economics 20%, gates 20%, dissent 15%. FlowForge anchor numbers must appear at least five times to prove integration not generic consulting voice.

Capstone deliberately reuses AH-440, heat treat 1,800/day, CMM 2,200/day, OEE 78%, revenue $215M, Nina Kowalski, Greg Santos so students experience one operating system narrative end to end.

Course synthesis map (Units 1-6 → proposal sections)

Students should literally paste this map into appendix to show graders where each OPS 201 idea landed.

Peer review rubric (capstone proposal)

Use this rubric before submitting board packet:

Minimum passing: 80% with no zero on constraint logic. Reviewers reject proposals that mention "digital transformation" without heat-treat hours.

Nina Kowalski's standard: if Greg Santos cannot explain the proposal on one shop-floor walk, it is too abstract. If CFO cannot replicate economics in spreadsheet within 30 minutes, it is too vague. If sales director cannot state ATP policy change in one sentence, interface section is incomplete.

Rehearsal agenda (90 minutes): 10 min problem, 15 min interventions, 10 min economics, 10 min gates, 10 min dissent, 15 min appendix tour, 20 min cross-exam. Cross-exam favorites: "Show I=R×T for CMM." "What is exploit action this week without capital?" "Which lean waste dollars are in benefit table?"

Final integrative question: how does proposal change if Monterrey outage repeats during week 4? Answer should reference resilience playbook, Toledo overtime contingency, customer notify within 2h, and gate pause rules if queue rises during outage.

Board cross-exam answer key (facilitator)

Q: "Why not buy another machining center?" A: Machining 71% util; bottleneck heat treat 96%. Capacity table shows system max 1,800/day unchanged. Elevate constraint first.

Q: "Will lean WIP cap hurt utilization?" A: Local machining util may drop 4%; system OTD and cash improve. Show Toledo pilot: OTD +1.4 pts, WIP cash -$1.1M.

Q: "How do you know forecast bias fix works?" A: 6-month +1% bias chart; EDI feed pilot; tracking signal rule; gate does not require perfection, requires measurable bias reduction in 90 days.

Q: "What if aerospace mix grows faster than plan?" A: Phase 3 cellular pocket contingent on gate 3; interim expedite slot cap 8% CMM hours; ATP frozen zone 48h.

Students write two-page cross-exam prep sheet with question, one-paragraph answer, and FlowForge number cited per answer. Minimum eight Q&A pairs for capstone homework completeness.

Capstone integration: process analysis evidence

FlowForge's improvement proposal must cite current-state VSM facts: AH-440 family carries 8.6 calendar days with 53 minutes touch time; heat-treat wait 3.8 days dominates. Proposal intervention #1 (WIP cap 400 units) links directly to VSM queue dollars. Reviewers should see the map thumbnail in the appendix, not hear "lean" without numbers.

Little's Law check for CMM segment: R=2,100/day, target T=1.2 days implies I=2,520*. Proposal ties CMM phase 2 funding to demonstrated queue reduction toward that cap. Board members unfamiliar with OPS 201 should still follow arithmetic with check lines.

Capacity table in appendix lists machining 2,600/day, heat treat 1,800/day, CMM 2,200/day. Any proposal claiming system uplift must show which step elevated and reconciled process capacity. Nina's rule: no capital line item without stating which bottleneck it elevates and what exploit actions ran first.

Capstone integration: quality and COQ

External PPM 1,200 maps to COQ external failure bucket $730k/quarter in the lesson walk. Traceability automation ($220k) is framed as prevention because incomplete PPAP packets drove three perfect-order failures despite on-time ship.

SPC appendix summarizes special-cause rules triggered last quarter: 8-point trend on bore diameter, fixture wear RCA on AH-440 burrs. Proposal gate 3 (PPM ≤1,100) is meaningless without control-chart reaction protocol ownership. Quality director signs gate 3, not only operations.

Lean wastes referenced: overproduction at machining (3-day batches), wait at heat treat, defects on burr line. Each waste ties to a proposal line item with owner and week start. This is how OPS 201 vocabulary becomes fundable.

Capstone integration: planning and forecast bias

Forecast bias +1% over six months inflated bar stock buys; proposal includes $60k planning systems work to incorporate OEM EDI feeds and reduce bias. Aggregate planning appendix shows Q2 hybrid: OT 120/day + subcontract 30/day closing 150/day gap versus 1,800/day constraint.

Scheduling policy attachment: critical ratio sequencing at heat treat, 48-hour frozen zone for aerospace, finite ATP for sales. Sales dissent on ATP is answered with penalty table: $420k exposure versus $180k booking at risk on two auto programs if dates honest.

Inventory: EOQ bar stock near 27 tons with supplier min 20; safety stock reduction only where service-level study allows. Proposal benefit $400k inventory carry reduction is staged after bias fix, not day one.

Capstone integration: strategy, resilience, sustainability

Make-or-buy: aerospace CMM stays in-house; vendor only for 15% auto surge when total landed cost beats overtime. Automation: robot cell deferred until heat-treat constraint addressed; proposal sequences capital accordingly.

Resilience: Monterrey 14-hour outage playbook referenced; generator upgrade on watch list separate from core package. Sustainability: energy 4.2→3.9 kWh/good part kaizen cited as co-benefit on deburr cell project, not a separate unfunded initiative.

Board questions rehearsed: (1) What if OTD improves only 1 pt? Answer: phase 1 quick wins still fund; CMM phase 2 waits on gate 2 queue <20h. (2) What if aerospace mix accelerates? Answer: cellular pocket funding in phase 3 contingent on gate 3 quality. (3) What kills the program? Answer: queue not below 28h by day 45 triggers stop and external operations review.

Writing the executive one-pager (template walkthrough)

Paragraph 1: Problem in dollars and customer clauses ($420k, OTD 94% vs 96%). Paragraph 2: Three interventions with owners and weeks. Paragraph 3: Economics base case $920k/yr benefit vs $1.42M cost, phased. Paragraph 4: Gates and dissent answered. Appendix: VSM, capacity table, COQ, forecast bias chart, responsibility matrix.

Students should draft the one-pager without jargon stacks: define OEE, WIP, PPM, ATP on first use even in memos. FlowForge executives vary in OPS fluency; the memo teaches while it asks.

Final checklist before submit: problem quantified, interventions owned, gates dated, dissent named, check lines present, capacity constraint identified, quality guardrails listed, forecast bias addressed, lean waste tied to actions, resilience noted, sustainability co-benefit optional but honest.

Full proposal outline (student template)

Executive summary (250 words max): Problem dollars, three interventions, phased cost, gate summary, dissent answer.

Section 1 — Current state: VSM snippet, capacity table, COQ Pareto, forecast bias chart, queue Wq at constraint.

Section 2 — Target state: OTD 96%, queue 18h, PPM 1,050, WIP $21M, inventory turns +0.4.

Section 3 — Portfolio: Quick wins weeks 1-4, structural weeks 5-12, systemic weeks 8-16.

Section 4 — Economics: Base, downside, upside tables with check lines.

Section 5 — Governance: Weekly ops review, monthly board slide, gate decision owners (Nina, CFO, CEO).

Section 6 — Risks: Demand drop, supplier slip, union overtime cap, customer pull-in surge.

Appendix responsibility matrix: rows interventions, columns owner, start week, metric, gate.

Integrative practice walkthrough (facilitator notes)

Teams present 10-minute board pitch then 5-minute CFO cross-exam. Cross-exam questions: "Show Little's Law reconciliation." "Which constraint elevates?" "What is kill criteria day 45?" "What happens to auto OTD if aero expedites rise 20%?"

Peer reviewers score: problem quantification 20%, intervention-constraint link 25%, economics 20%, gates 20%, dissent 15%. FlowForge anchor numbers must appear at least five times to prove integration not generic consulting voice.

Capstone deliberately reuses AH-440, heat treat 1,800/day, CMM 2,200/day, OEE 78%, revenue $215M, Nina Kowalski, Greg Santos so students experience one operating system narrative end to end.

Course synthesis map (Units 1-6 → proposal sections)

Students should literally paste this map into appendix to show graders where each OPS 201 idea landed.

Peer review rubric (capstone proposal)

Use this rubric before submitting board packet:

Minimum passing: 80% with no zero on constraint logic. Reviewers reject proposals that mention "digital transformation" without heat-treat hours.

Nina Kowalski's standard: if Greg Santos cannot explain the proposal on one shop-floor walk, it is too abstract. If CFO cannot replicate economics in spreadsheet within 30 minutes, it is too vague. If sales director cannot state ATP policy change in one sentence, interface section is incomplete.

Rehearsal agenda (90 minutes): 10 min problem, 15 min interventions, 10 min economics, 10 min gates, 10 min dissent, 15 min appendix tour, 20 min cross-exam. Cross-exam favorites: "Show I=R×T for CMM." "What is exploit action this week without capital?" "Which lean waste dollars are in benefit table?"

Final integrative question: how does proposal change if Monterrey outage repeats during week 4? Answer should reference resilience playbook, Toledo overtime contingency, customer notify within 2h, and gate pause rules if queue rises during outage.

Board cross-exam answer key (facilitator)

Q: "Why not buy another machining center?" A: Machining 71% util; bottleneck heat treat 96%. Capacity table shows system max 1,800/day unchanged. Elevate constraint first.

Q: "Will lean WIP cap hurt utilization?" A: Local machining util may drop 4%; system OTD and cash improve. Show Toledo pilot: OTD +1.4 pts, WIP cash -$1.1M.

Q: "How do you know forecast bias fix works?" A: 6-month +1% bias chart; EDI feed pilot; tracking signal rule; gate does not require perfection, requires measurable bias reduction in 90 days.

Q: "What if aerospace mix grows faster than plan?" A: Phase 3 cellular pocket contingent on gate 3; interim expedite slot cap 8% CMM hours; ATP frozen zone 48h.

Students write two-page cross-exam prep sheet with question, one-paragraph answer, and FlowForge number cited per answer. Minimum eight Q&A pairs for capstone homework completeness.

Capstone integration: process analysis evidence

FlowForge's improvement proposal must cite current-state VSM facts: AH-440 family carries 8.6 calendar days with 53 minutes touch time; heat-treat wait 3.8 days dominates. Proposal intervention #1 (WIP cap 400 units) links directly to VSM queue dollars. Reviewers should see the map thumbnail in the appendix, not hear "lean" without numbers.

Little's Law check for CMM segment: R=2,100/day, target T=1.2 days implies I=2,520*. Proposal ties CMM phase 2 funding to demonstrated queue reduction toward that cap. Board members unfamiliar with OPS 201 should still follow arithmetic with check lines.

Capacity table in appendix lists machining 2,600/day, heat treat 1,800/day, CMM 2,200/day. Any proposal claiming system uplift must show which step elevated and reconciled process capacity. Nina's rule: no capital line item without stating which bottleneck it elevates and what exploit actions ran first.

Capstone integration: quality and COQ

External PPM 1,200 maps to COQ external failure bucket $730k/quarter in the lesson walk. Traceability automation ($220k) is framed as prevention because incomplete PPAP packets drove three perfect-order failures despite on-time ship.

SPC appendix summarizes special-cause rules triggered last quarter: 8-point trend on bore diameter, fixture wear RCA on AH-440 burrs. Proposal gate 3 (PPM ≤1,100) is meaningless without control-chart reaction protocol ownership. Quality director signs gate 3, not only operations.

Lean wastes referenced: overproduction at machining (3-day batches), wait at heat treat, defects on burr line. Each waste ties to a proposal line item with owner and week start. This is how OPS 201 vocabulary becomes fundable.

Capstone integration: planning and forecast bias

Forecast bias +1% over six months inflated bar stock buys; proposal includes $60k planning systems work to incorporate OEM EDI feeds and reduce bias. Aggregate planning appendix shows Q2 hybrid: OT 120/day + subcontract 30/day closing 150/day gap versus 1,800/day constraint.

Scheduling policy attachment: critical ratio sequencing at heat treat, 48-hour frozen zone for aerospace, finite ATP for sales. Sales dissent on ATP is answered with penalty table: $420k exposure versus $180k booking at risk on two auto programs if dates honest.

Inventory: EOQ bar stock near 27 tons with supplier min 20; safety stock reduction only where service-level study allows. Proposal benefit $400k inventory carry reduction is staged after bias fix, not day one.

Capstone integration: strategy, resilience, sustainability

Make-or-buy: aerospace CMM stays in-house; vendor only for 15% auto surge when total landed cost beats overtime. Automation: robot cell deferred until heat-treat constraint addressed; proposal sequences capital accordingly.

Resilience: Monterrey 14-hour outage playbook referenced; generator upgrade on watch list separate from core package. Sustainability: energy 4.2→3.9 kWh/good part kaizen cited as co-benefit on deburr cell project, not a separate unfunded initiative.

Board questions rehearsed: (1) What if OTD improves only 1 pt? Answer: phase 1 quick wins still fund; CMM phase 2 waits on gate 2 queue <20h. (2) What if aerospace mix accelerates? Answer: cellular pocket funding in phase 3 contingent on gate 3 quality. (3) What kills the program? Answer: queue not below 28h by day 45 triggers stop and external operations review.

Writing the executive one-pager (template walkthrough)

Paragraph 1: Problem in dollars and customer clauses ($420k, OTD 94% vs 96%). Paragraph 2: Three interventions with owners and weeks. Paragraph 3: Economics base case $920k/yr benefit vs $1.42M cost, phased. Paragraph 4: Gates and dissent answered. Appendix: VSM, capacity table, COQ, forecast bias chart, responsibility matrix.

Students should draft the one-pager without jargon stacks: define OEE, WIP, PPM, ATP on first use even in memos. FlowForge executives vary in OPS fluency; the memo teaches while it asks.

Final checklist before submit: problem quantified, interventions owned, gates dated, dissent named, check lines present, capacity constraint identified, quality guardrails listed, forecast bias addressed, lean waste tied to actions, resilience noted, sustainability co-benefit optional but honest.

Full proposal outline (student template)

Executive summary (250 words max): Problem dollars, three interventions, phased cost, gate summary, dissent answer.

Section 1 — Current state: VSM snippet, capacity table, COQ Pareto, forecast bias chart, queue Wq at constraint.

Section 2 — Target state: OTD 96%, queue 18h, PPM 1,050, WIP $21M, inventory turns +0.4.

Section 3 — Portfolio: Quick wins weeks 1-4, structural weeks 5-12, systemic weeks 8-16.

Section 4 — Economics: Base, downside, upside tables with check lines.

Section 5 — Governance: Weekly ops review, monthly board slide, gate decision owners (Nina, CFO, CEO).

Section 6 — Risks: Demand drop, supplier slip, union overtime cap, customer pull-in surge.

Appendix responsibility matrix: rows interventions, columns owner, start week, metric, gate.

Integrative practice walkthrough (facilitator notes)

Teams present 10-minute board pitch then 5-minute CFO cross-exam. Cross-exam questions: "Show Little's Law reconciliation." "Which constraint elevates?" "What is kill criteria day 45?" "What happens to auto OTD if aero expedites rise 20%?"

Peer reviewers score: problem quantification 20%, intervention-constraint link 25%, economics 20%, gates 20%, dissent 15%. FlowForge anchor numbers must appear at least five times to prove integration not generic consulting voice.

Capstone deliberately reuses AH-440, heat treat 1,800/day, CMM 2,200/day, OEE 78%, revenue $215M, Nina Kowalski, Greg Santos so students experience one operating system narrative end to end.

Course synthesis map (Units 1-6 → proposal sections)

Students should literally paste this map into appendix to show graders where each OPS 201 idea landed.

Peer review rubric (capstone proposal)

Use this rubric before submitting board packet:

Minimum passing: 80% with no zero on constraint logic. Reviewers reject proposals that mention "digital transformation" without heat-treat hours.

Nina Kowalski's standard: if Greg Santos cannot explain the proposal on one shop-floor walk, it is too abstract. If CFO cannot replicate economics in spreadsheet within 30 minutes, it is too vague. If sales director cannot state ATP policy change in one sentence, interface section is incomplete.

Rehearsal agenda (90 minutes): 10 min problem, 15 min interventions, 10 min economics, 10 min gates, 10 min dissent, 15 min appendix tour, 20 min cross-exam. Cross-exam favorites: "Show I=R×T for CMM." "What is exploit action this week without capital?" "Which lean waste dollars are in benefit table?"

Final integrative question: how does proposal change if Monterrey outage repeats during week 4? Answer should reference resilience playbook, Toledo overtime contingency, customer notify within 2h, and gate pause rules if queue rises during outage.

Board cross-exam answer key (facilitator)

Q: "Why not buy another machining center?" A: Machining 71% util; bottleneck heat treat 96%. Capacity table shows system max 1,800/day unchanged. Elevate constraint first.

Q: "Will lean WIP cap hurt utilization?" A: Local machining util may drop 4%; system OTD and cash improve. Show Toledo pilot: OTD +1.4 pts, WIP cash -$1.1M.

Q: "How do you know forecast bias fix works?" A: 6-month +1% bias chart; EDI feed pilot; tracking signal rule; gate does not require perfection, requires measurable bias reduction in 90 days.

Q: "What if aerospace mix grows faster than plan?" A: Phase 3 cellular pocket contingent on gate 3; interim expedite slot cap 8% CMM hours; ATP frozen zone 48h.

Students write two-page cross-exam prep sheet with question, one-paragraph answer, and FlowForge number cited per answer. Minimum eight Q&A pairs for capstone homework completeness.

Capstone integration: process analysis evidence

FlowForge's improvement proposal must cite current-state VSM facts: AH-440 family carries 8.6 calendar days with 53 minutes touch time; heat-treat wait 3.8 days dominates. Proposal intervention #1 (WIP cap 400 units) links directly to VSM queue dollars. Reviewers should see the map thumbnail in the appendix, not hear "lean" without numbers.

Little's Law check for CMM segment: R=2,100/day, target T=1.2 days implies I=2,520*. Proposal ties CMM phase 2 funding to demonstrated queue reduction toward that cap. Board members unfamiliar with OPS 201 should still follow arithmetic with check lines.

Capacity table in appendix lists machining 2,600/day, heat treat 1,800/day, CMM 2,200/day. Any proposal claiming system uplift must show which step elevated and reconciled process capacity. Nina's rule: no capital line item without stating which bottleneck it elevates and what exploit actions ran first.

Capstone integration: quality and COQ

External PPM 1,200 maps to COQ external failure bucket $730k/quarter in the lesson walk. Traceability automation ($220k) is framed as prevention because incomplete PPAP packets drove three perfect-order failures despite on-time ship.

SPC appendix summarizes special-cause rules triggered last quarter: 8-point trend on bore diameter, fixture wear RCA on AH-440 burrs. Proposal gate 3 (PPM ≤1,100) is meaningless without control-chart reaction protocol ownership. Quality director signs gate 3, not only operations.

Lean wastes referenced: overproduction at machining (3-day batches), wait at heat treat, defects on burr line. Each waste ties to a proposal line item with owner and week start. This is how OPS 201 vocabulary becomes fundable.