“They took their time to get to the PD, spent time on root causes. That is good.”

“They start with PD, and then jump about, which is good although I would have expected them to take more time. It seems a bit restless.”

“I think they are doing quite well. You see them jumping but I think this is their way of exploring the problem.”

“It seems they get a bit stuck in the PD phase. They're doing quite well on the phases.”

“In the first phase, they mixed PD and GI up, a bit like playing ping pong, which might be a way of exploring the problem.”

5.22 (1.03)

“They discuss more phases, but over time it becomes chaotic, looks like lack of consensus and decision making, so probably a confusing meeting.”

“Very interesting, as if they are going nowhere. I don't expect good outcomes.”

“Seems very chaotic, goes everywhere, and they discuss the PD rather late”

“They know the solution before the problem; a complex group, seems they have some collaboration issues, and no effective goal.”

“It seems they have a solution and now they are looking for a problem, you can call it iterative, but I think it is just going everywhere.”

2.67 (0.47)

“They finish something before they continue, PD is fast, RA takes longer, that's what you want to see, the problem seems clear.”

“They don't go back to PD: it seems there is consensus on that, that is positive. Looks structured.”

“They really start with the PD discussion, rather step by step, looks good.”

“Rather structured, they seem to recap before moving to the next phase, that is good.”

“Seems structured, not wobbly. If they continue this way, I expect they will learn how to attain a working countermeasure.”

6.00 (0.82)

“They start with experiments and this will lead, at some point, to a working solution, but it is not a kaizen process.”

“It seems like they are firefighting, this is not about doing kaizen.”

“This looks like non-structured problem solving; will they be lucky and find a solution?”

“Oops, interesting group dynamics but not kaizen.”

“Low expectation; they jump to solutions. It looks like the kata approach. I really can’t see the root cause analysis and the ‘stairs’.”

1.89 (0.74)

Note(s): The abbreviations in the left column stand for: KE = Kaizen event; PD = Problem Definition; RA = Root-cause Analysis; GI = Generate Ideas; PI = Plan Implementation; I = implement; CS = Check and Sustain. SD = Standard deviation. The experts rated the example graphs on a 7-point Likert scale, 1 = very poor, 7 = very strong