# Lean Maturity Assessment in ETO Scenario
## 3 Case Study
### Tool Validation
#### 3.1.2 P4. Modularization  
The degree of modularization expressed in (2) was computed by approximating the product (Model A) as a reference for all the product types. The number of new and total components for Model A are, respectively, \(u=12\) and \(N=62\). With respect to substitutability, the value can be assumed as \(s=1\) because of the possibility of replacing any new component with an old one. Finally, the interface constraint factor \(\delta\) can be divided into two levels. At level 1:  
\[\delta_{1}=\delta_{component}+\delta_{sub\_circuit} \tag{5}\] \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Product Type** & \(d_{i}\) & \(p_{i}\) \\ \hline Model A & 13 & 13 \\ Model B & 16 & 16 \\ Model C & 10 & 10 \\ Model D & 15 & 15 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Four anonymized product types over a period of 2 months for the present case study. Market demand (\(d_{i}\)) [count], quantity produced (\(p_{i}\)) [count]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**ETO Lean Principle** & **Evidences** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Lean Maturity**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **Grade** & **Score** \\ \hline
**P1. * & Little clarity in the stakeholders’ roles in the company & & \\  & emerged. Absence of an organizational chart. & 2 & 30\% \\ \hline
**P2. *** & The management is responsibly committed to the & & \\  & achievement of goals and promotes active training on & 4 & 70\% \\  & the job. & & \\ \hline
**P3.** & The company adapts to customer requests easily. Result & & \\  & from (1) & 5 & 100\% \\  & \(FLEX_{t}=1\) & & \\ \hline
**P4.** & The reuse of standard solutions or parts to produce & & \\  & special machines is common practice. Result from (2) & 5 & 80\% \\  & \(M(u)=0.8\) & & \\ \hline
**P5.** & Result from (3) & & \\  & \(WIP=88\%\) & 5 & 88\% \\ \hline
**P6.** & For the machines analyzed, the assembly process starts & & \\  & after receiving the customer orders. Result from (4) & 4 & 60\% \\  & \(Pull\ Degree=60\%\) & & \\ \hline
**P7. *** & The company consults the interested parties before & & \\  & making decisions. Meetings are by department, not & 3 & 40\% \\  & collective. & & \\ \hline
**P8. *** & Average level of disclosure. There is no standard, tested & 4 & 60\% \\  & system for information disclosure. & & \\ \hline
**P9. *** & The company uses a specific management software & & \\  & (anonymized). The management software includes the & & \\  & customer orders, insertion of the bills of materials and & 5 & 80\% \\  & the purchase of the materials necessary for production. & & \\  & Commercial CAD software is implemented. & & \\ \hline
**P10. *** & Senior leaders and management are aware of the & & \\  & continuous improvement philosophy, but lean tools and & 2 & 20\% \\  & methods are not actually implemented. & & \\ \hline
**OVERALL** & Ten criteria average value & 4 & 63\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The ten criteria, evaluated on a manufacturer of woodworking machines and lines in an ETO/MTO scenario. Maturity grades and scores are shown. In addition, all evidence for each principle has been summarized. (*) denotes principles where a mathematical formula is not defined. where \(\delta_{component}\) in (5) has been expressed as:  
\[\delta_{component}=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{l}\delta_{i}}{I} \tag{6}\]  
where \(I\) in (6) is the number of subcircuits and the interface constraint value is \(\delta_{i}=\frac{\gamma\,K_{c}}{n_{c}}\), with \(K_{c}\) number of interfaces and \(n_{c}\) is the number of components in a subcircuit. Regarding the subcircuits \(\delta_{sub\_circuit}\):  
\[\delta_{sub\_circuit}=\frac{\sum K_{sub\_circuit}}{I} \tag{7}\]  
where \(K_{sub\_circuit}\) in (7) is the number of subcircuit interfaces. Using the data in Table 5: I = 5; \(\delta_{sub\_circuit}=1.4\); \(\delta_{component}=5;\delta_{1}\ =6.4\).