September 30, 2026
Operational standardization with project management in a family dairy industry
Operational Standardization with Project Management in a Family Dairy Industry
Danila Santos; Bruno Henrique Sanches
DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602816
Article derived from a Final Course Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.
Abstract
The standardization of production processes is relevant for reducing losses and strengthening internal controls in industries. In family businesses, low standardization and dependence on operator experience represent challenges. This study analyzed how the application of project management tools contributed to the standardization of the colonial cheese production process in a family dairy industry, evaluating its impacts on losses, rework, production time, and adherence to operational planning. A single case study was adopted, with a qualitative and quantitative approach, using documentary analysis, direct observation, and internal records. The intervention involved diagnosis, planning with a project breakdown structure, schedule, and responsibility matrix, workflow redesign, training, standardized operating procedures, and monitoring through indicators, focusing on the coagulation procedure, interpreted by the PDCA cycle. The results indicated significant improvements in operational indicators. There was a reduction in production losses (from 4.8% to 3.1%) and rework (from 3.1% to 1.8%), a decrease in average batch time (from 6h10 to 5h20), and an increase in daily production plan adherence (from 82% to 93%). Greater internal traceability and clarity in responsibilities were also observed, with the procedure evolving from execution based on individual experience to a defined standard monitored by management. It was concluded that project management contributed to operational standardization, stabilizing the standard and establishing the foundations for continuous improvement. The application of these tools proved effective in reorganizing operational processes in industrial environments, generating measurable gains in efficiency, discipline, and adherence to planning.
Keywords: Internal control; Operational efficiency; Industrial management; Family business; Continuous improvement.
1. Introduction
The food industry plays a significant role in the Brazilian economy, contributing to job creation and the transformation of raw materials into products for domestic and international consumption. In this scenario, the dairy segment holds a strategic position due to its territorial capillarity, integration with rural production, and continuous presence in national supply (ABIA, 2024).
The milk chain, by articulating agricultural activities, refrigerated logistics, industrial processing, and commercial distribution, requires coordination among different economic agents and synchronization among successive stages. As a result of this complexity, the pursuit of operational efficiency gains, process stability, and loss reduction constitutes a constant challenge for companies in the sector, especially in an environment pressured by costs and sanitary requirements (Brazil, 2024; Embrapa, 2023). In the industrial environment, multi-stage production processes demand continuous control of time, quality, capacity, and resource utilization. Slack and Brandon-Jones (2022) observe that operations with sequential flow are more susceptible to bottlenecks, rework, and interruptions when execution standards exhibit a low level of formalization.
In the context of dairy products, small variations in temperature, processing time, handling, and packaging can impact productive yield, batch standardization, and final product characteristics, which intensifies the need for consistent controls throughout manufacturing. Lajnaf (2025) highlights that the production of dairy derivatives requires operational discipline and technical monitoring throughout the internal chain. However, family businesses and smaller organizations often develop their production routines based on accumulated knowledge, not always formalized in procedures, structured indicators, or clear accountability mechanisms. In these contexts, the production process operates with a low level of standardization, depending on the operators’ experience and non-formalized controls. Sebrae (2023) points out that the professionalization of management is a recurring challenge for these organizations, especially in defining responsibilities and standardizing processes.
The low formalization of procedures for long periods generates dependence on the experience of specific operators, hinders the training of new employees, causes performance fluctuations, and reduces operational predictability. Furthermore, corrective interventions become more frequent than preventive actions. Kerzner (2022) emphasizes that organizational environments with low formalization face greater obstacles in sustaining continuous internal improvements. Therefore, project management offers tools to organize operational changes through defined scope, structured schedule, clear responsibilities, and systematic monitoring, allowing for the coordination of transformations without compromising operational continuity. The Project Management Institute (PMI, 2021) highlights that planning and control tools are essential for converting organizational objectives into executable and measurable deliverables.
The application of these tools in industrial processes allows for a structured approach to operational problems, replacing isolated corrective actions with coordinated, priority-driven interventions. Recent studies indicate that improvement initiatives associated with standardization and control tend to increase productive performance, reduce waste, and enhance operational reliability in manufacturing environments (Carneiro et al., 2025; Loacker et al., 2025). It is therefore relevant to understand how project management tools can reorganize production routines in industrial companies, especially where operations grow before the formalization of internal processes, and to evaluate the concrete impacts of these instruments on operational indicators (PMI, 2021; Slack and Brandon-Jones, 2022). Thus, the present study aims to analyze how the application of project management tools contributes to the standardization of the colonial cheese production process in a family dairy industry, evaluating its impacts on losses, rework, production time, and adherence to operational planning.
2. Material and Methods
This research adopted an applied nature, seeking to generate solutions for a concrete organizational problem related to the standardization of critical procedures in a specific production process. According to Gil (2019), applied research aims at the production of knowledge with practical utility and directed towards the resolution of real demands in organizations. The methodological approach combined qualitative and quantitative elements, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the investigated phenomena (Creswell and Creswell, 2018).
Regarding the objectives, the study was characterized as descriptive and exploratory. The descriptive nature sought to portray the functioning of the analyzed process, its operational weaknesses, and the effects of the implemented changes. The exploratory nature aimed to broaden the understanding of the problem and identify managerial intervention alternatives in a specific context (Prodanov and Freitas, 2013). A single case study method was adopted, developed in a real organizational environment, as recommended by Yin (2018) to investigate contemporary phenomena in their context.
The unit of analysis corresponded to a family business in the dairy sector, composed of four productive units. Among the existing processes, the production of colonial cheese was selected. The choice of this process considered its representativeness as a recurring activity, its dependence on multiple operational steps, its relevance to the organization’s production routine, and the presence of operational variations that indicated a need for technical control and standardization opportunities.
The intervention execution period occurred between June and October 2025. During this interval, the initial diagnostic activities, project planning, operational improvements implementation, indicator monitoring, and consolidation of observed results were conducted. This temporal delimitation allowed for the monitoring of the complete operational transformation process within a timeframe compatible with the company’s organizational dynamics.
Data collection occurred through documentary analysis and direct observation of the process. Operational and managerial information was made available by the company’s board and responsible areas, including production, quality, and operational management. Flick (2018) observed that documentary analysis constitutes a relevant source for organizational research by allowing access to records produced in the institutional daily life.
Among the documents used, internal batch production records, production loss controls, average manufacturing time records, rework reports, daily production plan monitoring, operational sheets, and quality records stood out. Additionally, materials developed throughout the intervention were considered, such as the project breakdown structure (EAP), execution schedule, responsibility assignment matrix (RACI), standardized operating procedures (POPs), shift checklists, checkpoint records, and training materials applied to the teams.
The methodological procedures were organized into five successive stages. The first stage corresponded to the diagnosis of the current process, which involved mapping the existing flow, identifying bottlenecks, surveying recurring failures, and consolidating the initial performance indicators. Understanding the current process is a necessary condition for consistent interventions in productive operations (Slack and Brandon-Jones, 2022).
The second stage consisted of planning the improvement project. In this phase, the scope was structured through the WBS, activities were temporally distributed in a schedule, and responsibilities were formalized by the RACI matrix. The definition of scope, time, and roles favors greater predictability in the execution of internal projects (PMI, 2021).
The third stage corresponded to the implementation of improvements. The future process flow (TO BE), standardized operating procedures, control checkpoints, team-specific training, and initial execution monitoring were developed. Operational transformation projects require integration between technical aspects and the adherence of people impacted by the changes (Kerzner, 2022).
The fourth stage involved controlling the results obtained after implementation. For this, the previously defined indicators were measured again, allowing comparison between the initial situation and the subsequent situation. The analyzed indicators covered productive losses, average time per batch, rework, and compliance with the daily production plan. Continuous monitoring is essential to compare planned deliveries with results actually achieved (PMI, 2021).
The fifth stage consisted of systematizing the evidence generated throughout the study for the construction of a replicable framework for operational standardization. This proposition sought to transform the learnings obtained in the analyzed case into a managerial reference applicable to other productive units or similar processes. To deepen the analysis of standardization, coagulation was adopted as the focal procedure, interpreted according to the stages of the PDCA cycle.
The analysis techniques involved simple descriptive statistics and comparative analysis. Absolute values, percentages, and relative variations between the periods before and after the intervention were used. Comparative analyses in applied studies allow for the evaluation of the effects of implemented changes on organizational indicators (Martins and Theophilo, 2016). In addition, an interpretive analysis of the results was adopted, relating the observed indicators to the project management tools applied and the procedural changes introduced.
The data used in the study referred exclusively to operational and managerial information of the analyzed organization, without the use of sensitive personal data. The focus was concentrated on the performance of the production process and the management practices adopted during the intervention carried out. As a methodological limitation, it should be noted that the study was developed in a single organizational context and in a specific production process, a characteristic that restricts statistical generalizations to distinct realities. However, case studies can offer analytical generalization by allowing the conceptual application of findings in comparable contexts (Yin, 2018).
3. Results and Discussion
The analysis of the colonial cheese production process in the family dairy industry revealed an initial scenario characterized by low standardization and strong dependence on the individual experience of the operators. This condition, common in family businesses, resulted in significant variations in the execution of routines, with internal controls not fully formalized. The process, although recurrent and relevant to the production mix, presented weaknesses that impacted operational efficiency and predictability, aligning with the observations of Slack and Brandon-Jones (2022) on the susceptibility of sequential operations to bottlenecks and rework in scenarios of low formalization.
Before the intervention, the execution of the process was guided by informally disseminated operational practices, without the full formalization of parameters, times, and responsibilities. This informality generated variations between shifts and units, with important decisions based on the individual experience of operators, which indicated a critical need for stabilization and control. Kerzner (2022) emphasized that the absence of procedural integration in improvement projects tends to increase rework and decrease predictability, a problem evident in the company’s initial context.
The mapping of the colonial cheese production process flow, from milk reception to final product dispatch, revealed a sequence of interdependent steps: reception, initial inspection, raw material standardization, pasteurization, coagulation, curd cutting, stirring, pressing, salting, curing, packaging, storage, and dispatch. Each phase conditioned the performance of the subsequent stage, reinforcing the need for operational stability throughout the internal chain. The complexity of these interactions, with multiple control points, required standardization of inputs and clear operational criteria, as indicated by the Project Management Institute (PMI, 2021).
The understanding of the overall flow allowed for the consolidation of the main problems identified in the initial process, grouped into axes such as yield variation, quality oscillation between batches, rework in final stages, dependence on specific collaborators, production delays, and registration failures. These problems indicated a predominance of tacit knowledge and limited institutionalization of procedures. Kerzner (2022) argued that organizations with poorly formalized processes rely excessively on individuals, which reduces operational stability, while Loacker et al. (2025) highlighted the importance of formalization for quality consistency in food environments.
The presence of registration failures was particularly relevant, as it restricted process traceability and hindered the analysis of deviation causes. In productive environments, consistent operational data is fundamental to support decisions about capacity, quality, and costs. The absence of reliable records led to reactive management of problems, instead of preventive actions. This initial condition justified the need for a structured intervention to formalize and monitor routines.
The initial performance indicators quantified the situation observed before the implementation of improvements. Productive losses were 4.8%, the average time per batch was 6h10, rework was 3.1%, and adherence to the daily production plan was 82%. Only 38% of employees had been formally trained. These data revealed opportunities for improvement in efficiency, operational stability, and planning adherence, metrics considered relevant by Slack and Brandon-Jones (2022) for evaluating operational maturity.
The probability and impact matrix of operational risks identified greater exposure to events such as dependence on a specific operator, production record failures, delays due to low productivity, and errors in critical steps. These risks were directly related to the low level of standardization. The diagnosis showed that the analyzed procedure was in an early stage of maturity, requiring structuring and control, which justified the advancement to the planning and implementation stage of project management tools.
Project Planning
After the diagnostic stage was completed, the intervention was structured as an internal improvement project, aiming to organize the necessary actions to solve the identified problems. The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) was developed to transform the need for improvement into executable deliverables, acting as a mechanism for translating the diagnosis into an operational plan. The WBS was consolidated into five main fronts: complementary process diagnosis, operational redesign, team training, pilot implementation, and closure with performance evaluation.
The first front of the WBS, complementary diagnosis, focused on additional data collection, bottleneck confirmation, and current flow validation, seeking to reduce decisions based solely on perception. The second front, operational redesign, involved reviewing critical steps, defining minimum execution parameters, and developing standardized operating procedures for sensitive activities, such as coagulation, salting, and shift records. Loacker et al. (2025) highlighted that the formalization of routines in food environments contributes to greater quality consistency and lower batch variability.
The third front focused on team empowerment, recognizing that the low percentage of formally trained employees (38%) was a gap in the standardized dissemination of knowledge. Empowerment was treated as a central project deliverable, aiming to ensure role clarity and adequate training to support the implementation of operational changes, according to the Project Management Institute (PMI, 2021). The fourth front involved the pilot implementation, testing the new model on a controlled scale to allow for corrections before full expansion and reduce the risks of productive interruptions.
The fifth EAP front involved project closure and performance evaluation, comparing the indicators defined in the planning with the baseline from the initial diagnosis. Carneiro et al. (2025) observed that improvement projects in cheese industries are more effective when accompanied by objective metrics of capacity and waste. After defining the scope, the project schedule was structured, distributing the work fronts over four months, with an initial concentration on analysis and preparation, followed by training and controlled tests.
The formalization of responsibilities was carried out through the RACI matrix, which defined the roles of Directorate, Management, Quality, and Production for critical activities such as approving the project, creating SOPs, training the team, implementing the pilot, evaluating indicators, and communicating changes. The Directorate and Management had a decision-making role, while Quality and Production contributed with technical knowledge and practical execution. Kerzner (2022) observed that internal improvement initiatives are more effective when authority, knowledge, and execution remain integrated, which was observed in the distribution of roles.
Improvement Deployment
The implementation stage of the improvements marked the transition from routines based on individual experience to a model supported by formal parameters and control mechanisms. The implementation was progressive to preserve productive continuity. Initially, it was observed that part of the teams maintained a preference for previous practices, especially in stages where decisions were traditionally based on perception. This condition required direct leadership guidance, daily monitoring, and continuous reinforcement of the new established standards.
The Project Management Institute (PMI, 2021) indicated that the execution of internal projects requires active Change Management, as new procedures temporarily coexist with consolidated habits. This reality was observed in the first weeks of implementation, when full compliance with records and checkpoints demanded closer supervision. As a practical measure, the productive flow was redesigned to reduce variations between shifts, increase traceability, and insert formal verification points at critical stages.
The main structural change in the production flow consisted of the inclusion of formal checkpoints for entry, coagulation, salting, final inspection, and batch release. Before the intervention, these validations occurred non-uniformly. After implementation, each point began to have a minimum verification criterion and the need for corresponding registration. There was also a change in the way operational decisions were made, with activities such as milk release, coagulation time, and salting concentration following previously defined parameters, instead of individual judgment. Loacker et al. (2025) observed that food processes with formal criteria tend to exhibit lower quality dispersion.
Another relevant change was the expansion of internal traceability. Each batch began to be accompanied by records linked to critical steps, including incoming inspection sheet, pasteurization parameters, coagulation sheet, salting control, and final release. This set of documents increased the ability to locate causes of deviations and reduced dependence on the informal memory of the teams. Shraga et al. (2022) highlighted that structured operational data favors faster responses to non-conformities.
Concurrently with the redesign of the workflow, the training plan was executed, targeting the functions directly impacted by the operational changes. The “Best practices” training was applied to 18 operators in 4 hours, the “New process” training to 22 production collaborators in 6 hours, and the “Operational records” training to 6 leaders in 3 hours. The trainings prioritized the operational team, with the new process module concentrating a greater workload due to direct alteration of the production routine. The training occurred in short cycles, close to the work routine, which reduced the distance between training and execution, as indicated by PMI (2021).
In addition to training, operational documents were implemented to support standardization, transforming tacit knowledge into a permanent reference for consultation and control. The Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for coagulation and salting aimed to standardize time and parameters, and reduce batch variation, respectively. The shift checklist was introduced to ensure the execution of routines and act as a mechanism for operational discipline. Slack and Brandon-Jones (2022) observed that document standardization, although it does not replace management, creates a basis for process repeatability and operational stability.
Results Control
After the implementation of the improvements, the control of the results became essential to verify the measurable gains in operational performance. The performance indicators, previously defined in the initial diagnosis, were again measured to allow a direct comparison between the previous and the adjusted scenario. This continuous monitoring approach is fundamental for performance-oriented projects, according to the Project Management Institute (PMI, 2021).
The results observed after the implementation of the improvements indicated superior performance in all monitored indicators. Productive losses were reduced from 4.8% to 3.1%, the average time per batch decreased from 6h10 to 5h20, and rework fell from 3.1% to 1.8%. Furthermore, daily production plan adherence increased from 82% to 93%. These results suggested greater stability in the critical process steps and a more predictable operational flow, with a lower incidence of interruptions or corrections.
The reduction in rework, from 3.1% to 1.8%, was one of the most relevant signs of operational maturity, demonstrating that greater initial control reduced the need for subsequent corrections. In practical terms, this meant less additional consumption of time and resources, and less overload for production teams. Slack and Brandon-Jones (2022) observed that processes controlled at the source tend to shift efforts from correction to prevention, which was corroborated by the study’s findings.
The fulfillment of the daily production plan, which reached 93%, indicated greater operational reliability and increased adherence between planned and effectively executed capacity. In industrial environments, this convergence tends to improve the scheduling of purchases, shipping, and labor utilization. The observed gains did not stem from an isolated factor, but from the combination of project management tools applied to the production context, such as the WBS, the schedule, the RACI matrix, training, and standardized procedures.
The comparison between indicators before and after the intervention showed significant relative gains: a 35.4% reduction in productive losses, 13.5% in average time per batch, 41.9% in rework, and an increase of 11 percentage points in daily plan adherence. These results reinforced the interpretation that the project addressed structural causes of the process, not just specific symptoms. The standardization of critical steps and the formalization of checkpoints contributed to reducing accumulated errors along the production chain.
The 13.5% reduction in average batch time, although proportionally smaller than other variations, has high operational relevance, as it directly affects daily production capacity, equipment utilization, and flexibility to absorb demand fluctuations. Carneiro et al. (2025), in their study of the cheese industry, identified that moderate cycle time gains can produce relevant effects on total installed capacity. The increase of 11 percentage points in daily plan adherence indicated greater operational reliability, reducing conflicts between production, logistics, and sales.
Application of the PDCA Cycle to the Coagulation Procedure
To deepen the standardization analysis, the coagulation procedure was treated as the focal step, as it is critical and conditions yield, manufacturing time, and final batch characteristics. The intervention was interpreted according to the logic of the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle, applied to one procedure at a time, as recommended for standardization initiatives in processes with initial maturity.
In the planning stage (Plan), the diagnosis showed that coagulation had a low level of standardization, with distinct times between operators, poorly formalized parameters, and incomplete records. The identified deviations were associated with variations in yield, quality fluctuations, and rework in later stages. Based on this analysis, it was defined what should be controlled, such as coagulation time, minimum technical parameters, and mandatory registration per batch, and actions were planned through the WBS, schedule, and RACI matrix.
In the execution stage (Do), the defined standard was applied to the production routine. The coagulation SOP was developed, a formal checkpoint was inserted in the stage, and the corresponding registration form was implemented. In parallel, operators were trained in the new process and operational records modules, and adoption initially occurred on a pilot scale, which allowed the standardized procedure to be executed without interrupting production continuity.
In the verification (Check) stage, performance was monitored by the previously defined indicators. The comparison between the baseline and the post-implementation period indicated a reduction in productive losses from 4.8% to 3.1%, in average time per batch from 6h10 to 5h20, and in rework from 3.1% to 1.8%, in addition to an increase in daily plan compliance from 82% to 93%. The shift checklist and the registration forms served as daily verification instruments, allowing for the identification of execution deviations close to their occurrence.
In the corrective action stage (Act), deviations observed during the pilot were addressed by adjusting parameters, clarifying procedural points, and reinforcing guidance to the teams. With the corrections consolidated, the standardized procedure was incorporated into the routine through the SOP, the coagulation sheet, and periodic review by leadership, which concluded the first cycle and established the foundation for subsequent cycles of monitoring and continuous improvement.
Procedure Maturity Evolution
The comparison between the situation before and after the intervention allowed for the description of the evolution of the coagulation procedure’s maturity at two levels. Level 1, the initial situation, was characterized by execution based on operator experience, low formalization of parameters and responsibilities, high variation between shifts and units, incomplete records, restricted formal training, and predominantly corrective treatment of deviations.
Level 2, after the intervention, corresponded to a defined and documented procedure, with formalized parameters and established responsibilities. Variation between operators was reduced, execution became more uniform, and records and controls were incorporated into the routine. Operators were trained in the standardized procedure, management follow-up became periodic, and deviation management became structured based on records and checkpoints.
The transition from Level 1 to Level 2 was not limited to document elaboration, but combined the technical design of the procedure with people orientation, integrating training, monitoring during implementation, and direct leadership involvement. In the first weeks, the preference for previous practices required daily reinforcement of new criteria and systematic review of records. The stabilization of the procedure therefore depended on both the existence of the standard and the monitoring routine that supported its application.
The first conducted cycle aimed to establish and stabilize the coagulation execution standard, a condition that characterizes Maturity Level 2. Continuous improvement can only occur from the existence of this standard and the execution of new monitoring cycles, in which accumulated records will allow for parameter review, goal adjustment, and expansion of standardization to other production process procedures. Metric-based monitoring integrated the quality management and control process, guiding decisions on execution and deviation correction.
Replicable Framework for Operational Standardization
The consolidation of results indicated that the observed gains stemmed from the sequential combination of diagnosis, planning, implementation, and control. Based on this finding, a replicable framework was structured to guide new applications in other productive units or operational processes. The framework was built upon the evidence generated throughout the study, transforming practical experience into an applicable managerial model, with six integrated stages: diagnosis, planning, redesign, implementation, control, and replication.
The first stage, diagnosis, focused on understanding the current process, identifying losses, bottlenecks, and sources of rework. In the study, this phase highlighted that problems were associated with a low level of standardization, incomplete records, and reliance on tacit knowledge. Slack and Brandon-Jones (2022) observed that consistent improvements tend to start with a structured understanding of the existing process. The second stage, planning, converted the identified problems into a formal action plan, using WBS, schedule, and definition of responsibilities. PMI (2021) indicated that clear scope, deadline, and responsibilities increase predictability in internal projects.
The third stage, process redesign, allowed for the construction of a future flow, definition of operational parameters, development of SOPs, and insertion of critical checkpoints, translating the planning into a new operational model. Loacker et al. (2025) observed that standardized routines favor quality consistency in food environments. The fourth stage, implementation, required training, direct communication, initial monitoring, and management of natural resistance from the production environment, recognizing that process changes depend as much on technical design as on human adherence.
The fifth stage, results control, used indicators of losses, rework, batch time, and daily plan fulfillment to verify if the implemented changes produced real gains. Kerzner (2022) observed that improvement projects only consolidate when results are measured and compared to the initial situation. The sixth stage, replication and sustainability, involved documenting the model, transferring it to other units, adapting it to new processes, and periodic review, transforming a localized improvement into continuous organizational capability.
From a practical perspective, the framework suggested that family businesses or small and medium-sized enterprises can achieve operational gains by disciplined application of successive steps and simple tools, focusing on real problems. The model’s replicability, however, depends on adaptation to the local context, considering specific bottlenecks, team maturity levels, and resource constraints. The framework should not be interpreted as a rigid sequence, but as a structured reference to guide future interventions, integrating project management and operations management tools.
In summary, the combined application of project management tools, including structured diagnosis, Work Breakdown Structure, schedule, RACI matrix, production flow redesign, training, standardized operating procedures, and monitoring by indicators, contributed significantly to the standardization of the colonial cheese production process. The results demonstrated measurable improvements in production losses, average time per batch, rework, and adherence to operational planning, in addition to promoting greater formalization of routines, expanded internal traceability, and clarity in responsibilities, evidencing an evolution of the maturity of the execution procedure from individual experience to a defined standard monitored by management.
4. Conclusion
This study aimed to analyze how the application of project management tools contributed to the standardization of the colonial cheese production process in a family dairy industry, evaluating its impacts on waste, rework, production time, and adherence to the operational plan. It was found that the intervention, structured through diagnosis, Project Breakdown Structure, schedule, responsibility matrix, workflow redesign, training, and standardized operating procedures, promoted significant improvements in operational indicators. A reduction in production waste from 4.8% to 3.1% was observed, a decrease in rework from 3.1% to 1.8%, and in the average time per batch from 6h10 to 5h20. Additionally, adherence to the daily production plan increased from 82% to 93%. These findings indicated greater formalization of routines, increased internal traceability, and clarity in responsibilities, evidencing the evolution of the execution procedure’s maturity from individual experience to a defined standard monitored by management. Project management proved effective in reorganizing operational processes in industrial environments, generating measurable gains in efficiency, discipline, and adherence to planning, and establishing the foundations for continuous improvement.
The study’s main managerial contribution lies in proposing a replicable framework for operational standardization, which systematizes the stages and tools that have proven effective in practice, offering an applicable path for companies seeking to standardize processes and reduce losses. However, as a methodological limitation, it should be noted that the study was developed in a single organizational context and in a specific production process, which restricts statistical generalizations to other realities. The analyzed period comprised a delimited cycle of implementation and monitoring, and the available records did not allow for the conversion of losses and rework into monetary impact, keeping the analysis restricted to the physical and operational dimension. It is suggested that future studies explore the application of the framework in different contexts and evaluate the long-term results, in addition to incorporating cost analysis for a more comprehensive understanding of the financial gains resulting from standardization.
Bibliographic References
Associação Brasileira da Indústria de Alimentos (ABIA). 2024. Relatório anual da indústria de alimentos 2024. Disponível em: https://www.abia.org.br Acesso em: 02 abr. 2026.
Brasil. Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária. 2024. Panorama do agro brasileiro. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/agricultura Acesso em: 02 abr. 2026.
Carneiro, F. et al. 2025. Improving cheese production capacity in a dairy company: a Lean Six Sigma approach for enhanced efficiency and performance. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma. Publicação antecipada online.
Creswell, J. W.; Creswell, J. D. 2018. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 5ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, Estados Unidos.
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa). 2023. Indicadores da cadeia do leite no Brasil. Disponível em: https://www.embrapa.br Acesso em: 05 abr. 2026.
Flick, U. 2018. An introduction to qualitative research. 6ed. Sage, London, Reino Unido.
Gil, A. C. 2019. Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. 7ed. GEN Atlas, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Kerzner, H. 2022. Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. 13ed. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Estados Unidos.
Lajnaf, R. (Ed.). 2025. Milk processing and dairy products industry. IntechOpen, London, Reino Unido.
Loacker, P. et al. 2025. Process mining-enhanced quality management in food processing. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. Publicação antecipada online.
Martins, G. A.; Theóphilo, C. R. 2016. Metodologia da investigação científica para ciências sociais aplicadas. 3ed. Atlas, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Prodanov, C. C.; Freitas, E. C. 2013. Metodologia do trabalho científico: Métodos e técnicas da pesquisa e do trabalho acadêmico. 2ed. Feevale, Novo Hamburgo, RS, Brasil.
Project Management Institute (PMI). 2021. A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide). 7ed. PMI, Newtown Square, PA, Estados Unidos.
Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas (Sebrae). 2023. Governança e profissionalização em empresas familiares. Disponível em: https://www.sebrae.com.br Acesso em: 02 abr. 2026.
Shraga, R. et al. 2022. From limited annotated raw material data to quality production data: A case study in the milk industry. arXiv. Publicação antecipada online.
Slack, N.; Brandon-Jones, A. 2022. Operations and process management. 6ed. Pearson, Harlow, Reino Unido.
Yin, R. K. 2018. Case study research and applications: Design and methods. 6ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, Estados Unidos.
Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Project Management of the MBA USP/Esalq
To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform