Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Map the Process and Identify the Binding Constraint
2–3 weeks
Select a real operational process in an organisation you have access to. Map the end-to-end process, measure throughput and capacity at each stage, and identify the primary bottleneck using the Theory of Constraints (TOC) or a compatible framework (value stream mapping, Little's Law analysis). The bottleneck must be identified with data — throughput rates, queue depths, or cycle times — not through intuition.
Proof required
Submit: (a) a process map for the chosen process (minimum 8 steps, with throughput rates or cycle times at each stage), (b) a bottleneck identification document showing the specific data (queue depth, WIP, or cycle time variance) that identifies the binding constraint, and (c) confirmation from a process owner or manager that the process and data are real and that the bottleneck identification aligns with operational experience.
What gets checked
- Process map shows actual measured throughput rates — not estimated or assumed values
- Bottleneck is identified with specific data — not qualitative judgement alone
- Process owner confirmation from a named stakeholder
Common mistakes
- Selecting a process where the bottleneck is obvious rather than one where data analysis adds value
- Process map at too high a level — individual operations must be mappable to identify throughput constraints
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Is the bottleneck identified by data or by assumption? Ask the submitter: 'What specific measurement confirmed this is the binding constraint rather than the adjacent step?'
- Is the process owner confirmation genuine — can you contact them to verify?
Develop and Quantify the Improvement Proposal
2–3 weeks
Develop a specific, costed improvement proposal for the identified bottleneck. Quantify the expected throughput improvement, the implementation cost, the payback period, and any risks. The proposal must be grounded in the process data from milestone 1.
Proof required
Submit the bottleneck improvement proposal (minimum 1,500 words) including: (a) executive summary of the current bottleneck impact (in throughput or cost terms), (b) proposed solution with implementation steps and timeline, (c) financial model showing implementation cost, expected throughput improvement, and payback period, and (d) risk analysis identifying the top three implementation risks with mitigation strategies.
What gets checked
- Financial model is grounded in actual process data from milestone 1 — not assumed improvement rates
- Payback period calculation is explicit with stated assumptions
- Risk analysis addresses implementation risks specifically, not generic project risks
Common mistakes
- Proposal recommends adding resources (headcount or equipment) without first exploiting the existing constraint — TOC requires exploiting the constraint before elevating it
- Financial model uses aspirational improvement assumptions without benchmarking against similar improvements
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Review the financial model: are the improvement assumptions benchmarked against something real — a similar improvement elsewhere, a vendor specification, or an industry benchmark?
- Does the proposal exploit the current constraint before elevating it (a core TOC principle)? A proposal that skips exploitation and jumps straight to capacity expansion suggests the methodology was not applied correctly.
Present Proposal to Operations Professional and Incorporate Feedback
1–2 weeks
Present the bottleneck improvement proposal to an operations professional (operations manager, process engineer, supply chain professional, or Lean/Six Sigma practitioner) who will challenge the bottleneck identification, the improvement logic, or the financial model. Incorporate at least one substantive piece of feedback into a revised proposal.
Proof required
Submit: (a) a Q&A log from the review session (minimum 300 words documenting at least two challenges and your responses), (b) the revised proposal or a revision memo (minimum 200 words) explaining what feedback was incorporated and why, and (c) attendance record with reviewer name and credentials.
What gets checked
- Q&A log shows the reviewer challenged the analysis — not just asked clarifying questions
- Revision memo identifies a specific change and explains the rationale
- Reviewer has relevant operational experience — not just general management background
Common mistakes
- Review session is with someone who agrees with everything without challenge — the adversarial component is the credibility mechanism
- Revision memo claims 'no changes needed' without explanation
What a verifier looks for
- Challenge the bottleneck identification: 'You identified Station 3 as the bottleneck — what would happen to throughput if you doubled the capacity at Station 3? And at Station 4?' The answer reveals whether the submitter understands bottleneck dynamics.
- Provide a written confirmation (minimum 150 words) of your credentials and the specific challenges you raised.