Lean Product and Process Development Exchange Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 412251298
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2018, Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- West Hartford, CT, USA
- Phone
- 8103384419
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Management & Technical Assistance
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $14,648
- Expenses
- $15,018
- Assets
- $81,823
- Liabilities
- $9,656
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Peter Palmer (President)
People named in this filing
- Carolyn Carter (Board Member)
- Dan Caputo (Secretary)
- Christer Lundh (Board Member)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of LPPDE is to organize and facilitate educational conferences and networking forums in the interest of promoting greater efficiency and progress in engineering, product and services development, manufacturing, and other areas.
What it reported doing in 2024
Biannual in-person conferences held in Stockholm, Sweden, during May of 2025 and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA during October 2025. Both conferences focus on the Science of Improving Innovation. A total of 45 persons attended.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 86% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 52
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 80.5%; rating input score 81
- Program expense ratio: 87.3%; rating input score 87
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -2.5%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.45; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -10.5% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -11.3% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 80.5% of revenue deployed · 87.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $13K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.