York Plant
York, PA
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
York: accountability is the cross-cutting fix
York, PA, US
This is the financial close of the York 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.
York: accountability is the cross-cutting fix
York is friendly and underperforming. Nothing is dramatically broken, but supervisors do not enforce, problems do not escalate, and leaders coach inconsistently. The result is mediocre performance everywhere with elevated variance.
The value is broad rather than concentrated. The initiatives below target escalation discipline and leader standard work, the levers that lift the whole plant rather than any single function.
Things to notice below
- A broad, shallow value distribution is the financial fingerprint of a discipline problem.
- The de-confliction haircut is smaller here because the initiatives touch different finance lines.
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.
Restore escalation discipline and follow-through where consequences went soft.
Consistent coaching and leader routines to reinforce the standards.
Team engagement and the remaining accountability 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accountability & Escalationbelow gate | live y3 · 3y deploy | $13.3M | -$2.9M | never |
| Leader Standard Workbelow gate | live y3 · 3y deploy | $6.6M | -$784K | 5.9y |
| Frontline Engagementbelow gate | live y3 · 3y deploy | $6.4M | -$5.0M | never |
Budget lines (84) · 47 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
63 KPIs movedSafety Culture Maturity Index
+111.0%
Leadership Gemba Engagement Index
+68.8%
Problem-Solving Cycle Time
-43.6%
BBS Rate
+37.3%
Hazard Identification Rate
+28.6%
By strategic category
7 KPIs · 7↑
Top: +111.0% · Safety Culture Maturity Index
14 KPIs · 13↑ / 1↓
Top: -21.7% · Uncontrolled Temporary Change Duration
7 KPIs · 5↑ / 2↓
Top: -5.8% · Production Volume
7 KPIs · 7↑
Top: -2.7% · CPU
1 KPI · 1↑
Top: +0.9% · WIP Turns
13 KPIs · 12↑ / 1↓
Top: +68.8% · Leadership Gemba Engagement Index
8 KPIs · 8↑
Top: +13.9% · OEE
6 KPIs · 4↑ / 2↓
Top: -43.6% · Problem-Solving Cycle Time
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 York 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.