Ten-Second Coherence Test — Which Perspective-Gate Most Disrupts Your Production-to-Market Flow

ICMG Enterprise Anatomy™ Diagnostic Blog

Ten-Second Coherence Test - Manufacturing

Diagnostics Question:

Which P-gate most disrupts your production-to-market flow?

P1 — Strategy (Demand vs capacity)

P2 — Process (Planning, QA, dispatch)

P3 — Systems / Logic (BOM, ERP rules)

P4 — Component Specs (PLC, interface configs)

P5 — Implementation Tasks

P6 — Operations

Which Gate Slows Your Factory Flow?

Vote P1–P6 • Find the weak coherence link.

Executive Context (P1–P2)

Manufacturers have invested billions in ERP, robotics, and supply-chain automation—yet production lines still halt, materials arrive early, and finished goods wait for clearance. The real cause isn’t technology; it’s the loss of structural coherence between P1 (Strategy) and P2 (Process).

Planning assumes stability; reality delivers volatility.

Demand forecasts, supplier variability, and production schedules drift apart. Without a unified anatomy linking these perspectives, efficiency becomes an illusion of motion.

Hidden Anatomy (P3)

Across diagnostics in automotive, heavy engineering, and FMCG plants, the recurring fault line sits at P3 (Systems / Logic).

ERP systems encode planning logic; MES platforms run shop-floor logic; and quality systems track their own thresholds.

Each is “correct” locally—and incompatible globally.

Example: the ERP’s definition of lot complete differs from the MES trigger for inspection start, producing untraceable WIP.

This is not a data error; it’s an anatomy drift in logic.

Component & Implementation (P4–P5)

P4 (Component Specs): PLC tags, interface configurations, and data-mapping tables rarely share one canonical definition.

A line sensor sends OK/Reject signals while the ERP expects Pass/Fail Codes. Minor vocabulary gaps multiply into major stoppages.

P5 (Implementation Tasks): Integrators implement per spec—never per anatomy. Each automation project closes “successfully,” yet coherence across systems keeps eroding.

In one diagnostic, 60 % of machine stoppages labeled communication fault traced back to mismatched field definitions, not hardware.

Operations & Impact (P6)

When the anatomy breaks, operators compensate manually: exporting spreadsheets, re-entering batch data, or delaying dispatch until reports reconcile. These invisible corrections consume 8–12 % of total production time.

Measured impact across three plants:

• OEE loss ≈ % loss due to reconciliation lags

• Data re-entry ≈ Y hours per week per shift supervisor

• Quality release delays ↑ 2× post new ERP integration

Diagnostic Map

Perspective	Anatomy Meaning	Common Manufacturing Failure	Observable Symptom
P1 – Strategy	Product and capacity objectives	Volume targets ignore line constraints	Constant expediting
P2 – Process	Planning → Production → Dispatch	Poor handoffs between planning and QA	Excess WIP & waiting
P3 – Systems / Logic	ERP vs MES vs QMS rules	Conflicting state definitions	Double entry & data mismatch
P4 – Component Specs	PLC tags / APIs / configurations	Inconsistent data types or fields	Frequent interface patches
P5 – Implementation	Build and deploy tasks	Delivered per project, not per enterprise	Correct code, wrong behavior
P6 – Operations	Daily run and maintenance	Manual bridging of logic gaps	Shadow sheets & late reports

Pattern Recognition — Why the Drift Repeats

1. Functional Optimization: Each unit (Production, Quality, Planning) perfects its own logic. Nobody maintains the connective tissue.

2. ERP Dominance Myth: Assuming one platform ensures coherence ignores sub-system autonomy.

3. Vendor Silos: Automation vendors guard their specs instead of adopting a shared anatomy.

4. Project Metrics Bias: Success = go-live, not coherence.

The result: high local efficiency, low enterprise resilience.

Governance Implications — The Leadership Drift

Manufacturing leadership tracks KPIs like OEE and Throughput, but rarely asks which gate failed structurally. True governance means owning the entire P1–P6 chain as one coherent mechanism.

The Chief Enterprise Architect becomes as critical as the Plant Manager—maintaining the Enterprise Anatomy that keeps machines and decisions in sync.

From Diagnosis to Restoration of Coherence (Advisory Path)

1. Model the Manufacturing Enterprise Anatomy (P1–P6 × D1–D15 departments).

2. Run Coherence Tests on order planning, production, and QA flows.

3. Apply ICMG X-Ray Protocol to find rule and spec mismatches.

4. Establish Gate Governance reviews across engineering, IT, and supply.

5. Publish Fast-Track Ratings to quantify drift and track restoration.

Turning Insight into Action

1. Join the Manufacturing Enterprise Architecture & Anatomy Forum to share your gate results.

2. Read the full Factory Flow X-Ray Series on the Rating Site.

3. Request a Fast-Track Coherence Rating for your plant or network.

One Manufacturing. One Anatomy™ | ICMG Enterprise Anatomy™ Diagnostics