Use your work in Part A and Part B of your Course Project, and what you have learned so far in this course to identify a potential Six Sigma project that can benefit the value stream and your organiza
Part C - Six Sigma Project Charter
Six Sigma Projects under Consideration
Based on the value stream map title Value Stream Mapping and Analysis (Attachment 1), the following Six Sigma projects are recommended for consideration:
Total Lead Time Reduction. This metric (62-days) is being driven by the amount of process time that is specific to getting on a government customer’s (USG) calendar to review products on two occasions, coordinate schedules and clearances, and finally to get schedules aligned in order to execute an engagement. In other words, this reflects the total time it takes our field offices to deliver on internal and external customer requests for engagements.
Activity Ratio (AR) Improvement. The AR of .76% represents an extremely low value and indicates that workflow is idle nearly 99% of the time that it takes requests to flow through this process. It would appear that we spend a significant amount of our operations in a passive mode.
Percent Complete and Accurate Improvement (specific to Step 4). While on the surface it does not appear that field office operations have a problem with quality of product as reflected in each step of the value stream, the Rolled Percent C&A indicates that greater than 80% of the time, products have to be reworked to some extent across the value stream. The is a reflection of our quality output across our value stream but it begins with Step 4.
While correcting any one of these three metrics will have a positive impact to our value stream, I am recommending that we address percent complete and accurate as our priority Six Sigma project.
Why? Because % C&A across the value stream is not only impacting our Rolled % C&A but it is also adversely affecting total lead time and activity ratio which ultimately increase our operating costs and could potentially tarnish our customer-brand relationships. For example, referring to our government affairs value stream, we can see that steps 4, 5, and 6 in the process require either receiving or reviewing of briefing products. This equates to 22 of the 62 days in the process. While I hesitate to call out any goals for the project at this point, I have to believe that improving our percent complete and accurate at any one of these three steps (4, 5, or 6) will reduce total lead time, improve activity ratio, and ultimately result in advancing our business-like relationships with internal and external customers.
I am recommending we focus specifically on the percent complete and accurate in Step 4 of our value stream.
Project Charter
Project Name
Defense Industry Field Office Six Sigma Project No. 1
Problem Statement
Our recent Value Stream Mapping activity concluded that over the past year, it takes us three independent steps to receive and review briefing products in advance of an executive-level customer engagement. Those steps have percent complete and accurate figures of 60, 80, and 95 percent respectively and are ultimately contributing to our total led time for the process of 62 days resulting in increased costs and adverse customer relations – both internal and external.
Goal Statement
Our goal is to improve the quality of our briefing products when first received, to eliminate multiple reviews (internal and external), reduce operating costs, and contribute to improved customer-brand relations. Specifically, this project will target an increase in the percent complete and accurate of our briefing products (Power Point Presentations) received in Step 4 from 60% to 90% within five months of project kick-off.
Project Scope
In Scope
This project will focus on Step 4 of our Field Office Value Stream Map and research why % C&A for briefing products received by the field office is 60% - what are the drivers
Analysis will be limited to assessing the average number of pages per briefs (no more than five pages is the customer limit for executive-level briefs), defining accuracy (the brief must reflect our business unit’s current line of products), relevancy of content (the brief must specifically address the customer’s request for information), and quality (administrative errors) – percentage grades will be assigned by reviewers
We will conduct weekly, all day (eight hour) face-to-face meetings – not including project kick off, mid-course review, and final report debrief
Out of Scope
This project will not focus (initially) on process steps leading up to or after Step 4 in our Field Office Value Stream Map
Metrics other than % C&A will not be considered for analysis unless the team elects to modify scope
Critical-to-Quality Requirements of Processes within Scope
The below CTQs are directly traceable to scope as related to briefing products:
Length. Briefs can be no more than five pages in length
Accuracy. Briefs must only include material on our products that are currently in production and/or, available in inventory
Relevancy of Content. Company products referenced in briefing materials must be traceable to the customer’s request for information.
Quality. Briefing materials must conform to the corporation’s standard corporate format and color scheme and be error free on first pass
Key Metrics
In order to develop a clear understanding of why our products do not have a high % C&A in Step 4 of our value stream the following metrics will be analyzed:
Average length of Business Area briefs in number of pages
Accuracy measured in percent of products referenced in our briefs that are readily available to the customer
Relevancy of content measured in percent of content that is traceable to the customer’s request for information
Quality measured in number of format, spelling, and color scheme errors per brief (first pass)
Expected Benefits
Operational
Improved internal customer relations – speed to close on engagement by ultimately eliminating errors and redundancies in product reviews
Improved external customer relations – qualitative improvement in briefing products delivered to USG SMEs reducing review time with the potential to eliminate one industry and USG SME product review (Step 6)
Financial
30% improvement in process time in first pass review of briefing products by Field Office SME – should reduce process time by one eight-hour work day annually per field office producing savings of $1000+ annually per field office (considering 12 engagements per year per Navy field office)
The potential to eliminate one Field Office SME and USG SME Product Review (Step 6) – should save 1.5 work days annually per field office producing savings of $1500+ annually per Field Office (considering 12 engagements per year per service field office)
Milestones for DMAIC Phases
The expected level of effort will require 10 hours per week for the project lead and five hours per week by core team members (50% of which will be virtual to remain within budget).
Project Champion. Corporate Vice President - TBA
Project Leader. Field Office Senior Manager
Project Team Members (Core)
Corporate Six Sigma Black Belt
Field Office A Representative
Field Office B Representative
Field Office C Representative
Field Office D Representative
Ad-Hoc Team Members
Operations Analyst
Human Resources Manager
Financial Management Specialist
Administrative Assistant
IT/AV Specialist
Approved by & Date
/s/ Project Champion November 18, 2017
6
