RunMark.No registration

Manufacturing readiness assessment

How ready is your plant for better production scheduling?

A 2–3 minute self-assessment for plastics extrusion manufacturers with 2–20 production lines. No registration. Just a clearer view of your next steps.

10 focused questionsTransparent scoringNo answers saved or sent

Optional Google Analytics: count starts, completions, copies and RunMark link clicks. No answers, scores or campaign URLs are sent. Google receives connection metadata. Consent lasts only until reload.

QUESTION 01 / 10Plant profile

How many production lines do you operate?

Count the extrusion lines you actively plan production for.

How many production lines do you operate?
Plant size is context only—not scored.
Model calibration & scoring rubric Version 1.1

Directional self-assessment, not an industry benchmark. This model reflects the practices and planning pressures you report, not your team’s competence, actual delivery performance or suitability for a particular product. It is not an audit, a delivery forecast or regulatory-compliance validation.

Each scored answer earns 0, 1, 2 or 3 points. Readiness = round(100 × sum of weight × points ÷ 3 / sum of answered weights). Weights sum to 100. Line count provides context only. Skipped answers are excluded and reduce coverage; a partial score is not comparable to a complete score. With no scored answers, no score is shown.

Weights are editorial assumptions, not empirically calibrated or validated with plant outcomes. Constraints receive 20% because eligibility and demonstrated rates shape feasible line assignments. Planning, changeovers and visibility receive 15% each because shared orders, setup allowances and timely progress updates underpin a usable plan. Urgent-order handling and delivery confidence receive 10% each; traceability, imports and communication receive 5% each as supporting handoffs. Urgent-order frequency is not scored: the response to disruption is. Line count does not affect the score.

A partial result describes answered areas only, even if its score is 100. Software ownership is not proof of sound planning: select answers based on your usual checks. ERP order records alone do not establish constraint-aware scheduling. Traceability points describe consistent identifiers, not compliant lot management. No answer measures audited delivery performance.

0–39 · Building foundationsFocus on shared data and explicit planning assumptions.

40–69 · Developing consistencyConnect existing practices and close specific gaps.

70–100 · Established foundationsReview exceptions and verify assumptions with the team.

Opportunity drivers are the top three answered areas with the largest weighted gaps: weight × (3 − answer points) ÷ 3. Ties follow question order. They are potential bottlenecks to investigate, not confirmed root causes. Unanswered areas are not ranked. The score bands are descriptive conventions, not industry percentiles.

Plant profile · not scored

  1. — · 2–5 lines
  2. — · 6–10 lines
  3. — · 11–20 lines
  4. — · Outside 2–20 lines

Planning process · 15% weight

  1. 0/3 · Paper, whiteboard or individual files
  2. 1/3 · A shared Excel spreadsheet
  3. 2/3 · ERP orders, with planning in Excel
  4. 3/3 · A shared scheduling system

Line constraints · 20% weight

  1. 0/3 · Mostly from the planner’s memory
  2. 1/3 · Some constraints are documented
  3. 2/3 · A maintained line-and-product matrix
  4. 3/3 · Constraints are checked in the plan

Urgent-order handling · 10% weight

  1. 0/3 · Insert first, resolve conflicts later
  2. 1/3 · Planner checks the immediate impact
  3. 2/3 · Affected capacity and due dates reviewed
  4. 3/3 · Impact reviewed and changes confirmed

Changeover planning · 15% weight

  1. 0/3 · We fit them in as we go
  2. 1/3 · One general time allowance
  3. 2/3 · Estimates by product or material
  4. 3/3 · Sequence-specific, reviewed estimates

Production visibility · 15% weight

  1. 0/3 · When an order is already late
  2. 1/3 · At the end of the shift or day
  3. 2/3 · During the shift, through updates
  4. 3/3 · Current progress and due-date risk together

Lot & label traceability · 5% weight

  1. 0/3 · Manual labels, separate records
  2. 1/3 · Order references on labels
  3. 2/3 · Consistent order and lot references
  4. 3/3 · Linked order, run and lot records

Order data · 5% weight

  1. 0/3 · Retyped or copied cell by cell
  2. 1/3 · Pasted from a standard template
  3. 2/3 · Imported with validation checks
  4. 3/3 · Structured, checked flow without re-entry

Schedule communication · 5% weight

  1. 0/3 · Verbal updates or messages
  2. 1/3 · Printed schedules, updated when needed
  3. 2/3 · One shared plan with shift handovers
  4. 3/3 · A current shared plan with acknowledged changes

Delivery confidence · 10% weight

  1. 0/3 · Dates are mostly a best guess
  2. 1/3 · We check the current backlog
  3. 2/3 · We check capacity and key constraints
  4. 3/3 · We check capacity and review risk after changes