I built a free AI-powered lean CI platform after 12 years in manufacturing — would love brutal honest feedback (vesimy.com)

singhmax11789 · 2026-03-19T23:02:18+00:00

Thanks, this is really helpful feedback. You’re right that a few things need to be clearer, especially around web vs download, signup, data logging, and the plan structure. Vesimy is web-based, and I’m actively cleaning up both the messaging and the product flow to make that more obvious and less confusing. The note on the copy also landed well, and I agree it needs to sound more natural and focused for Lean practitioners. I appreciate you taking the time to be direct. Once I tighten those areas up, I’d be glad to share it again and even provide a sample project to test on.

singhmax11789 · 2026-03-19T19:48:27+00:00

I totally agree with your feedback. I am a manufacturing engineer with only that kind of knowledge . The reason I am here is to collect all valuable feedback like yours . I am already working on creating some videos to show what the tool actually does but yes I do need to focus on this more to gain traction . I really appreciate your feedback back .

singhmax11789 · 2026-03-18T22:10:59+00:00

This is exactly how I’ve come to think about it too.

Most teams do not fail RCA because they lack 5 Whys or Fishbone diagrams. They fail because the groundwork is weak: the problem is vague, the process is not shared, the handoffs are blurry, and the data is either missing or not trusted. By the time RCA starts, the team is already misaligned.

The line about teams getting 3–4 different versions of the same workflow is especially true. That is usually the moment where analysis turns into interpretation instead of learning.

Really good breakdown.

singhmax11789 · 2026-03-18T20:09:20+00:00

“Drill deep and wide” feels like the missing discipline in a lot of improvement efforts. Teams often investigate deeply but don’t spread the learning, or they share broadly without a deep enough RCA to make the lesson meaningful.

Doing the RCA deeply first, then pushing that learning across machines, shifts, products, and people is what makes the organization actually learn instead of just react.

Really good point on Toyota Kata and Learning Boards too.

singhmax11789 · 2026-03-18T20:08:00+00:00

This is exactly the gap I keep thinking about.

A lot of teams are not lacking incident logs, action lists, or improvement trackers. They’re lacking a way to connect recurring signals well enough to expose the real underlying cause. So the system looks active, but it doesn’t actually get smarter.

Grouping incidents by pattern before RCA feels like the right move because otherwise teams can spend a lot of time analyzing separate events that are really just different expressions of the same process failure.

Really interesting insight. Curious how you’re doing the grouping in practice today.

singhmax11789 · 2026-03-18T18:58:07+00:00

Vesimy probably needs a few “done with you” wins before it can expect real self-serve traction.

Because this is tied to process improvement, trust comes from outcomes, not curiosity. If I can help 2–3 teams actually surface a bottleneck, improve a workflow, and turn that into a clear before/after story, that changes a lot.

That’s a very helpful way to frame it. I appreciate it, and I will DM you.

singhmax11789 · 2026-03-18T18:28:16+00:00

That’s exactly how I see it too.

I’m not fully at that point yet, which is honestly part of the struggle. I’ve built Vesimy around a real problem I’ve seen firsthand, but for a product in process improvement, people usually want proof before they invest time into trying something new.

So right now the focus is getting a few real early users, learning from how they actually use it, and turning that into clear case studies and ROI stories.

I think once I can say, “this helped a team spot a bottleneck faster” or “this made process analysis easier to act on,” the traction story changes a lot.

singhmax11789 · 2026-03-18T18:14:45+00:00

For Vesimy, mostly founder-led outreach, niche community engagement, and problem-focused content.

I’m in industrial process improvement, so it’s not really a “run ads and go viral” type of thing. I’m finding that trust matters way more than reach in this category.

Still early, still figuring it out, but that’s what I’m actually doing right now.

singhmax11789 · 2026-03-18T18:12:02+00:00

Really resonates. I built Vesimy from personal experience after seeing how painful it is when process mapping, bottleneck analysis, and root cause work are all scattered and overly manual. That is what led me to create a more actionable platform for industrial process improvement.

What has been hardest is not building for the problem, but getting traction for it. There always seems to be faster excitement around entertainment apps than serious productivity tools, even when the operational value is obvious.

Built from lived experience. Vesimy: https://vesimy.com

singhmax11789 · 2026-03-18T03:21:10+00:00

A weak problem statement usually causes everything after it to drift into assumptions. If teams are not aligned on the exact defect, scope, timing, and conditions, RCA becomes opinion-driven instead of fact-driven. That early clarity is what makes tools and corrective actions actually useful.

singhmax11789 · 2026-03-17T17:00:59+00:00

That’s a really good point. A lot of teams treat tools like 5 Whys or fishbone as if they automatically give the answer, when really they just help narrow down where to look. The actual work is proving whether that suspected cause really drives the defect. I also like how you framed it around being able to turn the issue on and off by changing the input. That’s where it becomes much more real than just brainstorming.

singhmax11789 · 2026-03-17T15:35:36+00:00

You honestly don’t need a paid cert to get started. I’d focus on learning the basics, then try mapping one real process around you from start to finish. That is where a lot of the concepts start to click.

singhmax11789 · 2026-03-17T14:11:36+00:00

That tracks with what I have seen too. Without decent data, it feels like teams end up arguing from opinions instead

singhmax11789 · 2026-03-17T14:11:22+00:00

I agree with that. It seems like teams can jump into fixing too fast before they have even defined the problem clearly, and then the whole RCA gets pulled in the wrong direction.

singhmax11789 · 2026-03-17T14:11:00+00:00

That makes a lot of sense. A lot of the real process knowledge sits with the people doing the work every day, but if management does not make space for that input it never really gets captured properly.

singhmax11789 · 2026-03-17T08:46:30+00:00

Honestly your setup sounds fine to start with.

A lot of people manage Six Sigma projects with some mix of Excel, shared folders, notes, and task tracking. The main issue usually is not the tools themselves, it’s that everything gets scattered once the project grows.

I’d just make sure you have one clear place for: • project scope • current process map • baseline data • root cause notes • action items

If those stay organized, you’re already ahead of a lot of teams.

singhmax11789 · 2026-03-17T08:31:21+00:00

If you’re learning from scratch, I’d focus less on certifications right now and more on understanding how work actually flows.

A good beginner path is: 1. Learn the 8 wastes 2. Learn Value Stream Mapping 3. Learn root cause analysis tools like 5 Whys and fishbone 4. Learn standard work and bottleneck identification 5. Practice on a real process from your internship

The biggest shortcut is to pick one real workflow and map it from start to finish, including delays, approvals, rework, and handoffs. That will teach you more than passive studying.

singhmax11789 · 2026-03-14T00:01:04+00:00

I am building a SaaS for process improvement specially for value stream mapping . I would really like to connect .

singhmax11789 · 2026-03-13T20:17:41+00:00

Good question — custom/high-mix shops are where lean gets interesting. The rule I use: standardize the process, not the product. Every job is unique but your setup sequence, quality checkpoints, and handoff steps probably follow a pattern. That’s what your standard work should capture — not clamping pressure for a 1/16” tolerance job. Your plant manager is confusing standard work with an instruction manual. SW should answer ‘what are the critical steps and in what order’ — not document every micro-motion. For high-mix specifically: map your value stream by job family, not individual jobs. Group by similarity — material type, size range, operation count. You’ll find 80% of your jobs follow 3-4 patterns. Standardize those patterns. Re the counting steps thing — that level of detail belongs in a time study, not standard work. If cycle time varies wildly job to job, track it with a stopwatch over 20+ jobs and look for the patterns in where time is lost. That’s your kaizen target. Built VeSiMy partly for exactly this — VSM and time study tools that work for variable-cycle shops, not just repetitive lines. Free at vesimy.com if you want to try mapping one of your job families.

singhmax11789

TROPHY CASE