LEAN SIX SIGMA PROJECT:CONTENT REDUCTION TO

IMPROVE BRIGADE S3 NOTES

PREPARED BY:

Felix M. Ruiz

Operations Officer

(915) 449-7637

Project Name:

CONTENT REDUCTION TO IMPROVE BRIGADE S3 NOTES

Business Case:

DEVELOP A RECURRING DOCUMENT SUMMARIZING PREVIOUS ESTABLISHED ONE THAT COMPILES INTERNAL TRACKING SYSTEMS IN A MORE ORGANIZED FASHION AND ENSURES MOST CURRENT DATA IS DISSEMINATED TO SUBORDINATE UNITS ON A WEEKLY BASIS. Problem /Opportunity

-DOCUMENT WAS EXTENSIVE AND INCONSISTENT-LIMITED COMPREHENSION AND ENGAGEMENT FROM SUBORDINATE UNITS-ENRICH CONTENT BY ORGANIZING AND SIMPLIFY CONTEXT

Scope, Constraints, Assumptions:

-SUMMARIZE CONTENT TO EASE COMPREHENSION-COMPILING INTERNAL TRACKING SYSTEMS ENRICHES CONTENT-LISTING DIRECT LINES OF AUTHORITY INCREASES EFFECTIVE LINES OF COMMUNICATION

Goal:

IMPROVE DOCUMENT BY SUMMARIZING DATA TO APPROXIMATELY 20% WITHOUT LOSING SIGHT OF PURPOSE NOR DEGRADE ITS QUALITY

Team Members:CAPTAIN NATHANIEL WILLIAMS, U.S. ARMY (REVIEWER)CAPTAIN MISON KANG, U.S. ARMY (REVIEWER)CAPTAIN LEHA TOTTEN-WADE (LEAD REVIEWER)

Preliminary Project Plan:DMAIC

Target Date Actual Date

DefineMARCH 8, 2014 MARCH 8, 2014

MeasureMARCH 22, 2014 MARCH 22, 2014

AnalyzeAPRIL 5, 2014 APRIL 5, 2014

ImproveAPRIL 12, 2014 APRIL 12, 2014

ControlAPRIL 26, 2014 APRIL 26, 2014

DMAIC Detailed Schedule Enclosure

Prepared by:FELIX M. RUIZOPERATIONS OFFICER915-449-7637

Approved by: Champion:Process Owners:Sponsors:MAJOR HAILEYESUS BAIRU, U.S. ARMY (SUPERVISOR)

PROJECT NAME:CONTENT REDUCTION TO IMPROVE BRIGADE S3 NOTES

Business Case: Develop a recurring document summarizing previous established one that compiles internal tracking systems in a more organized fashion and ensures most current data is disseminated to subordinate units on a weekly basis.

Problem / Opportunity: Document is currently extensive and inconsistent limits comprehension and engagement from subordinate units. Enrich its content by organizing and simplify context.

Scope, Constraints, Assumptions: Summarizing content to eases comprehension, compiling internal tracking systems enriches content, and listing direct lines of authority increases effective lines of communication.

Goal: Improve document by summarizing data to approximately 20% without losing sight of purpose nor degrade its quality.

Team Members:• Captain Nathaniel Williams, U.S. Army (Reviewer)

• Captain Mison Kang, U.S. Army (Reviewer)

• Captain Leha Totten-Wade, U.S. Army (Lead Reviewer)

Preliminary Project Plan: Target Date Actual Date Define March 22, 2014 March 22, 2014

Measure March 29, 2014 March 29, 2014

Analyze April 5, 2014 April 5, 2014

Improve April 12, 2014 April 12, 2014

Control April 26, 2014 April 26, 2014

Champion: Rudy Ayala, LSS BB

Process Owner and Sponsor: Major Haileyesus Bairu, U.S. Army (Supervisor)

PRO

JECT

CH

ART

ER

BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT

DOCUMENT WAS EXTENSIVE AND INCONSISTENT

QUANTITY V. QUALITY FACTORS

COMPLEXITY OF VARIABLES DUE TO NON-TRADITIONAL SS PROCESS

LESSON LEARNED SHARED AT END OF PRESENTATION

BOTT

OM

LIN

E

DEFINE “WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO THE BUSINESS?”

A3 REPORT

DEF

INE

PROJECT ACTION PLAN

DEF

INE

Project Action Plan:Project: Content Reduction to Improve Brigade S3 Notes Black Belt/Consultant:

Rudy AyalaProcess Owner: Felix M. Ruiz Date: 8 March 2014What How Who When DeliverablesPhase (Action Steps) (Accountable) Start

2014Finish2014

Required

Define Coordination, Customer Feedback, Management Buy-in, Champion 100% Support

Sponsor, Brigade S3 Notes Team

1 March 22 March Deliverables for Define Steps 1-9

Measure Brainstorm Sessions, Coordination, Customer Feedback, Management Buy-in, Champion 100% Support

Brigade S3 Notes Team 22 March 28 March Deliverables for MeasureSteps 1-5

Analyze Brainstorm Sessions, Coordination, Customer Feedback, Management Buy-in, Champion 100% Support

Brigade S3 Notes Team 28 March 5 April Deliverables and Culminate with Analyze Phase

Improve Brainstorm Sessions, Coordination, Customer Feedback, Management Buy-in, Champion 100% Support

Brigade S3 Notes Team 5 April 12 April Deliverables and Culminate with Improve Phase

Control Brainstorm Sessions, Coordination, Customer Feedback, Management Buy-in, Champion 100% Support

Brigade S3 Notes Team 12 April 26 April Deliverables and Culminate with Control Phase

DMAIC Project Microsoft PowerPoint Felix M. Ruiz 26 April 26 April Final Presentation

SIPOC

DEF

INE

S I P O CSuppliers Input Process Output Customers

(Direct/Indirect)

Start:8 Mar 2014

Decision Maker Guidance & IntentFinal document

Verification & Validation (V&V)

Document ready for distribution

Subordinate Organizations

Lead ReviewerReview Draft

document

Draft document Verification & Validation

(V&V)

Proposed document shell

Decision Maker

ReviewersIncorporate

Guidance & Intent

Draft document Verification & Validation

(V&V)

Review Draft document

Lead Reviewer

Subordinate Organizations Tracking Systems Collection of units’ dataFinalized Tracking

SystemsProcess Owner

Champion LSS Tools LSS LSS Process Process Owner

End:26 Apr 2014

HIGH LEVEL PROJECT MAP

DEF

INE

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS

DEF

INE

VOC MATRIX

DEF

INE

COST OF POOR QUALITY MATRIX

DEF

INE

MEASURE “HOW ARE WE DOING?”

VALUE STREAM MAP “AS IS”

MEA

SURE

ISHIKAWA FISHBONE “AS IS”

MEA

SURE

Why?

Current document used is lengthy and lacks

structure. As a result is incomprehensible for

audience (customers) who are recipients of

document on weekly basis degrading purpose.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

DocumentSubordinate Organizations

Operational Channels

Historical Archive

Target audience?

Why?

Why?

Why?

Why?

To deliver relevant information

No communication issues observed

Secure slotted time during week to deliver end product

Delays in Takt Time or coordination issues?

Storing useful information?

To maintain a historical archive

To ensure stored information is beneficial

Maintain historical data to serve for future reference

Utilize as resource in future planning requirements

Delivering via right channels?

Rapid means of distributing information

Audience receptive?

Information disseminated to right people

Standardized process?

Is agenda of document well structured?

Document require edits?

Adhere to Brigade S3 structure for transparency?

Does document length adhere to audience expectancy and frequency?

Is content in the right format?

Document requires signature approval

Information availableto make edits?

Key players cooperative with providing tracking systems

Formal review process?

DATA COLLECTION PLAN

MEA

SURE

Variable (Xn) Practical Hypothesis Ho Ha Data NeededX Continuous

(C) or Discrete (D)

Analysis Test

ConclusionXmR

/Histogram

Critical X1 Section has abundance of information that is vital

towards mission accomplishment of short

term objectives

Internal Tracking Systems makes a

difference on content reduction of document

Internal Tracking Systems does not

make a difference on content reduction

Internal Tracking Systems

C

ANOVA applies to sub-section

(groups), not individual BSN model: Single

Factor

Reject Null Hypothesis

becauseP=.001 < 0.05

(Means are different)

and conclude the alternate hypothesis

XmR shows stable (two TEMPs close to

UCL); Cp=1.26, Cpk=1.25 both < 1.33 this needs centering

(unstable)

Current Operations (OPS) SECTION

Critical X2 Section covers critical information projecting

future muscle movement for the organization

Internal Tracking Systems makes a

difference on content reduction of document

Internal Tracking Systems does not

make a difference on content reduction

Internal Tracking Systems

C

ANOVA applies to sub-section

(groups), not individual BSN model: Single

Factor

Reject Null Hypothesis

becauseP=.001 < 0.05

(Means are different)

and conclude the alternate hypothesis

XmR shows stable, Cp=1.4, CpK = 1.4

both .> 1..33 Stable.Sigma = 5.5

Future Operations/Plans (PLNS) SECTION

X3

Section schedules and reserves resident and Army

education system for assigned personnel

Internal Tracking Systems makes a

difference on content reduction of document

Internal Tracking Systems does not

make a difference on content reduction

Internal Tracking Systems from subordinate

organizations

C

ANOVA applies to sub-section

(groups), not individual BSN model: Single

Factor

Reject Null Hypothesis

becauseP=.001 < 0.05

(Means are different)

and conclude the alternate hypothesis

XmR, all values Special Cause

Variables, unstable phase.

Cp>Ppk or Cpk>Ppk, means IT Phase is

unstable.

Schools Reservations (SCH) SECTION

X4Section oversees CBRN-

related training to ensure compliance and standardization

Internal Tracking Systems makes a

difference on content reduction of document

Internal Tracking Systems does not

make a difference on content reduction

Internal Tracking Systems from subordinate

organizations

C

ANOVA applies to sub-section

(groups), not individual BSN model: Single

Factor

Reject Null Hypothesis

becauseP=.001 < 0.05

(Means are different)

and conclude the alternate hypothesis

Cp=1.05, Cpk=1.06 both < 1.33, unstable

phase. Sigma = 4.45

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and

Nuclear (CBRN) SECTION

X5Section is in charge of standardization for Air

Defense certifications and operations

Internal Tracking Systems makes a

difference on content reduction of document

Internal Tracking Systems does not

make a difference on content reduction

Internal Tracking Systems

C

ANOVA applies to sub-section

(groups), not individual BSN model: Single

Factor

Reject Null Hypothesis

becauseP=.001 < 0.05

(Means are different)

and conclude the alternate hypothesis

XmR, All Special Cause Variables, unstable phase.

CP>Ppk of Cpk>Ppk, means RDBMS Phase

is unstable

Air Defense Fire Control Officer/Electronic

Missile Maintenance Officer

(A/E) SECTION

BDE S3 NotesIf document does not appeal

to subordinate organization’s expectations, it does not meet intent and

loses purpose

If document does not appeal to target

audience’s expectations, it makes a difference on

document’s intent/purpose

If document does not appeal to target

audience’s expectations, it does not make a difference

on document’s intent/purpose

Receive feedback from subordinate

organizationsC

ANOVA applies to sub-section

(groups), not individual BSN model: Single

Factor

Reject Null Hypothesis

becauseP=.001 < 0.05

(Means are different)

and conclude the alternate hypothesis

XmR shows Statistical Control, Histogram

shows unstable process (Cp=.81 & Cpk=.71, both <

1.33)

Content Reduction to Improve Brigade S3

Notes

RAW DATA “AS IS”

MEA

SURE

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS

MEA

SURE

HISTOGRAM

MEA

SURE

CONTROL CHART

MEA

SURE

ANALYZE “WHAT IS WRONG?”

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

AN

ALY

ZE

F computed > F critical and P-Value < 0.05, therefore reject the null hypothesis and conclude each Group (sub-section) data outputs are independent

PARETO CHART “AS IS”

AN

ALY

ZE

Contributors (Xs) to Document Output (Y)Xs = OPS; PLNS; SCH; CBRN; A/E

CRITICAL XS AND CAPABILITIES IDENTIFICATIONY(BSN)= X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5

AN

ALY

ZE

OPS – Critical X1

PLNS – Critical X2

SCH – Potential X3

CBRN – Potential X4

A/E – Potential X5

BDE S3 Notes, Y(BSN)= X1(OPS)+ X2(PLNS)+ X3(SCH)+ X4(CBRN)+ X5(A/E), Process Capability Analysis Follows:

a) Histogram: i. (Cp=.75 > Cpk=.71) =1.33 (σ = 3.46) thus statistically stable process , not within scope (Y(BSN)).ii. LSL=18, USL=22, mean=20.10, data plotted seemingly contained but not within ideal target.iii. σ= 3.46, DPMO = 25,000 with 1.6 sigma shift, plenty of room for improvement (target is σ = 6).

b) XmR control chart:i. All data points between LCL=17 & UCL=22, showing process in control (statistically controlled). ii. All common cause data (BSN processing days lead-time data).

c) Critical to Cost (CTC) = $64,901/(Annual Failure Cost), target reduction of 20% saves $12,980.

d) Ishikawa Fishbone: Shows Y(Effect)=X(Causes, Root Causes):i. Immediate target (Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)): Improve document by summarizing data approximately 20% by 26 April 2014.

ii. Fishbone: Approximately 6 major causes identified that move/impact Y(BSN) process, e.g. Current document is extensive; lacks structure and incomprehensible to target audience.

UNCOVER MISTAKE PROOFING

AN

ALY

ZE

Lean Assignment #3. “Uncover Mistake Proofing.”

a. Example of Mistake Proofing “Poka Yoke”. As part of the reporting procedure within the organization, reports (tracking systems) go through the review process prior to being submitted to higher headquarters (brigade).

b. Value Stream Map.Implement “Mistake Proofing” through already established organizational structure within the Operations section. Process Owner > Lead Reviewer > Decision Maker (who approves document to be published).

c. Jidoka.Process Owner will possess the authority to not only collect information but to review as it is received from the subordinate organizations. The Process Owner can then directly contact subordinate organizations if errors are visible or clarification is needed to prior to inputting data into document.

d. Visual Control System.Standardizing templates of internal tracking systems to be used as reporting requirements. This will standardize the data required from all subordinate organizations. Discrepancies can be more visible as a result and clarification, if needed, can be addressed opening lines of communication (Top-Down, Down-Top).

UPDATED A3 REPORT

AN

ALY

ZE

Project Name:

CONTENT REDUCTION TO IMPROVE BRIGADE S3 NOTES (UPDATED)

Business Case:

DEVELOP A RECURRING DOCUMENT SUMMARIZING PREVIOUS ESTABLISHED ONE THAT COMPILES INTERNAL TRACKING SYSTEMS IN A MORE ORGANIZED FASHION AND ENSURES MOST CURRENT DATA IS DISSEMINATED TO SUBORDINATE UNITS ON A WEEKLY BASIS. Problem /Opportunity

-DOCUMENT WAS EXTENSIVE AND INCONSISTENT-LIMITED COMPREHENSION AND ENGAGEMENT FROM SUBORDINATE UNITS-ENRICH CONTENT BY ORGANIZING AND SIMPLIFY CONTEXT

Scope, Constraints, Assumptions:-SUMMARIZE CONTENT TO EASE COMPREHENSION-COMPILING INTERNAL TRACKING SYSTEMS ENRICHES CONTENT-LISTING DIRECT LINES OF AUTHORITY INCREASES EFFECTIVE LINES OF COMMUNICATION-DEVELOP ONE-STEP-FLOW PROCESS (W. LEAD TIMES)-CREATE AUTOMATED EMAIL REMINDERS-IMPROVE BILATERAL COMMUNICATIONS

Goal:

IMPROVE DOCUMENT BY SUMMARIZING DATA TO APPROXIMATELY 20% WITHOUT LOSING SIGHT OF PURPOSE NOR DEGRADE ITS QUALITY

Team Members:CAPTAIN NATHANIEL WILLIAMS, U.S. ARMY (REVIEWER)CAPTAIN MISON KANG, U.S. ARMY (REVIEWER)CAPTAIN LEHA TOTTEN-WADE (LEAD REVIEWER)

Preliminary Project Plan:DMAIC

Target Date Actual Date

DefineMARCH 8, 2014 MARCH 8, 2014

MeasureMARCH 22, 2014 MARCH 22, 2014

AnalyzeAPRIL 5, 2014 APRIL 5, 2014

ImproveAPRIL 12, 2014 APRIL 12, 2014

ControlAPRIL 26, 2014 APRIL 26, 2014

DMAIC Detailed Schedule Enclosure

Prepared by:FELIX M. RUIZOPERATIONS OFFICER915-449-7637

Approved by: Champion:Process Owners:Sponsors:MAJOR HAILEYESUS BAIRU, U.S. ARMY (SUPERVISOR)

IMPROVE “HOW DO WE PRIORITIZE THE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES?”

VALUE STREAM MAP “TO BE”

IMPR

OVE

“TO BE”DETAILED ACTION PLAN

OVERVIEW/CONTENT

IMPR

OVE

Type What How Who When WhereWhy? Why? Why? Why?

Why?Status

Deliver-able

Strategy Proposed Improvement

Practical Methods

Who Will Take Action

Start Due DateWhere Will

This Process

Be Useful

Avoid Knee-Jerk Reaction

Current Target

Summarize data

Improve by

20% or more.

Develop agenda & doc shell

Process Owner submits products

to TM/LR and ultimately to DM

22Mar 2014

12Apr 2014

Improve Phase

Summarize document using

internal tracking systems

Current doc is extensive

and inconsistent

Improve BSN shell

DETAILED ACTION PLAN

IMPR

OVE

“TO BE”PROCESS FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS

INFORMATION PRIORITIZATION OVERVIEW

IMPR

OVE

Process Severity/Cause Highest RPNPriority (Mitigate the

ones with “Highest RPN” 1st)

Potential Action Results

RPN

Document Shell9/not approved on

time189 1st 126

Agenda9/not approved on

time126 3rd 63

Federal Holidays 7/shift of timeline 105 5th 23

Availability of Data 5/data not available 150 2nd 48

Accessibility of Data 5/data not accessible 120 4th 30

Re-work5/failure to receive

approval the first time80 6th 20

Digital Correspondence2/automated email

not created or network disruption

40 7th 16

PROCESS FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS (PFMEA)

IMPR

OVE

PROCESS FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS (PFMEA)

IMPR

OVE

PROCESS FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS CHECKLIST

IMPR

OVE

CONTROL “HOW CAN WE GUARANTEE

PERFORMANCE?”

“TO BE” RAW DATA

CON

TRO

L

CONTROL PHASEQUICK LOOK

CON

TRO

L

“As Is” to “To Be”

Potential to improve BSN end product from “As Is” to “To Be” by 45%.

“As Is” to “To Be”

Potential to improve BSN final document lead time from “As Is” to “To Be” by 40%.

“To Be”

BSN document process has undergone LSS BB DMAIC phases, and is ready for implementation & control.

“To Be”

Process will improve, and not re-design from scratch “As Is” BSN process.

“Buy-In”

Team Members have solicited, Project Champion (Decision Maker) has considered implementation and all functional areas.

LESSONS LEARNED

QUANTITY V. QUALITY

DATA COLLECTION

BOILING THE OCEAN

LESS

ON

S LE

ARN

ED

NOTE: 4x PAGES PER PAGE SHOWN

QUESTIONS?