Home Work

Example Lean Six Sigma Charter

Enclosure 2, LSS Project Charter

Project Name: Improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the BB computer acquisition process

Date: November 15, 2014

Organization: CIO Deployment Champion: Mark Laptop Project Sponsor: John Puter Black/Green Belt: Bill Desktop Business Impact ($) This project will address the computer acquisition process for LSS BB training courses. The first two waves of training have experienced delays and customer dissatisfaction due to late delivery of computers and class disruptions to load required software. Due to exceptional work by Tom Peoples, the first two waves were able to receive their computers during week 1 of training, but since pre-work is required before attending week 1 of training, it is ideal for the BB’s to receive properly loaded computers during Team Accelerator training in order to complete the Minitab pre-work and get comfortable with the George Group Virtual Coach software tool.

The impact of late computers in worker non-productivity costs, expediting costs, possible higher computer costs, and customer dissatisfaction estimated at: • $12K of Type 1 o Assumptions - 6 waves of BB training over the next 12 months following completion of project, $2000/wave of additional

computer costs for expediting, etc. • $48K of Type 2 o Assumptions - 6 waves of BB training over the next 12 months following completion of project, 40 hours of extra expediting

and handling per wave, $75 per hour of labor • Other Benefits (Type 3) o Increased student learning and ultimately better project success

Problem Statement Where: The problem has been noticed at Shangri-la Higher Education Training Center, the only training location to-date When: The problem has been noticed since October 2004 to date, covering the first two waves of LSS BB training. What (output metrics): • Quality metric #1: % of properly loaded laptop computers with designated software load as measured by % of total

computers loaded correctly the 1st time • Quality metric #2: % computers delivered by day 1 of Team Accelerator training as measured by % of total computers

delivered late. • Speed metric #1: time to prepare BB training computers as measured by the time from final wave roster to all computers ready

for delivery. • Cost metric #1: Cost per fully loaded computer as measured by total costs of computer readiness divided by total

computers delivered. Costs should not include expediting, temporary computer costs, or excessive labor costs. Extent: Baseline Quality metric #1: To date, X% of computers are loaded correctly first time

Baseline Quality metric #2: To date, 0% of computers are delivered by day 1 of Team Accelerator Training Baseline Speed metric #1: To date, the average cycle time to have a computer ready for delivery is 4 weeks Baseline Cost metric #1: Current cost is $X,000 per computer load.

Goal Statement (output metrics) • Quality metric #1: Increase the percentage of BB computers correctly loaded to 75% for wave 3, and 100% for all waves

thereafter • Quality metric #2: Deliver 100% of the computers by day 1 Team Accelerator training for each wave, beginning with Wave 3 • Speed metric #1: Reduce the average cycle time per computer load to 2 weeks, with minimal variation • Cost metric #1: Reduce the cost per computer load to $YY,000 per computer

Project Scope (Horizontal and Vertical Scoping) Start/stop point of process: the computer loading process begins upon of delivery of BB wave roster to the IT department and ends with the delivery of the computer to the BB on the first day of Team Accelerator training (vertical scoping)

In Scope: This project will address the laptop computer acquisition process for LSS BB waves 3-10 (horizontal scoping). The team will implement process changes. There is a small project budget of $1000 available for process changes or other project work.

Out of scope: This project will not address network log-in logistics, GB courses or any other course requiring computers. Changes to the overall computer acquisition system are out-of-scope.

Example Lean Six Sigma Charter

Enclosure 2, LSS Project Charter

Project Plan Define – 12/5/2004 (Start date, first Monday after first week of training + 2-4 weeks Measure – 1/20/05 (allow for holidays and extra time need to collect data) Analyze – 2/15/05 Improve – 4/10/05 (allow time for pilot and results) Control – 5/8/05 (start date plus 5 months)

Team Selection Project Sponsor: John Puter 10% Black Belt: Bill Desktop 100% Master Black Belt coach: Ann C. Drive Team Members:

IT person, Samual Harddriver 20% IT person, Willis Thumbdrive 20% Procurement, Julie Externaldrive 10% Contracts, TBD 10% Network Expert, TBD 5%

Signatures: _______________________ ________________________ ________________________ Deployment Champion Project Sponsor Financial Rep _______________________ ________________________ Black Belt / Green Belt Master Black Belt

Lean Six Sigma Project Charter

Enclosure 2, LSS Project Charter

Project Name: Date: Organization: Deployment Champion: Project Sponsor: Black/Green Belt: Business Impact ($) Problem Statement (What and Extent stated in terms of the project output metrics)

Goal Statement (stated in terms of the project output metrics) Project Scope (Horizontal and Vertical Scoping) Project Plan (dates)

Lean Six Sigma Project Charter

Enclosure 2, LSS Project Charter

Team Selection

Signatures: _______________________ ________________________ ________________________ Deployment Champion Project Sponsor Financial Rep _______________________ ________________________ Black Belt / Green Belt Master Black Belt

1. Project Name: DMOSQ
2. Date: 2NOV16
3. Organization: JFHQ-IN-J3-Training Branch
4. Deployment Champion_2: Mr. Joshua Clark
5. Project Sponsor_2: COL Timothy Winslow
6. BlackGreen Belt: MAJ Chris Dalrymple
7. Business Impact Row1: The Indiana Army National Guard must be able to select, retain, and develop Soldiers throughout their career from initial entry to separation or retirement. The average cost to train a Soldier is $150,000.00 just to send a soldier through Basic and AIT, which is the lowest level of training required to have a DMOSQ'd soldier. The cost goes up exponentially depending on the training, level, and length of time of the course. DMOSQ is part of the 2015-2019 strategic plan p. 10 as objective 3-4 to obtain NLT 85% DMOSQ and 100% AFSC. Objective 3-4 states, "Train and retain Soldiers, Airmen, and officers who are qualified in current position. Identify Soldiers, Airmen, and officers requiring military schools and duty position training and enroll as required. Ensure that funding is secured and available for AFSC/DMOSQ schools."
8. Problem Statement What and Extent stated in terms of the project output metricsRow1: The percent DMOSQ is currently around 83%, which is below the NGB goal of 85% and is under performing when compared with its key competitor states of: California, Georgia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Force structure opportunities, mission selection, and training opportunity could potentially be missed due to competitors ability to meet personnel readiness and training. Where: The problem has been notice at the state level through metrics measured internally by JFHQ-IN-J3 and DPROS database. When: The problem has been noticed since 7 July 16 as part of the organizational self assessment. What: (Output Metrics): Quality Metric #1: % DMOSQ Quality Metric #2: Ratio of School Seat Traps to Non MOSQ Quality Metric #3: %Allocation of school seat traps filled Speed Metric #1: # of months to obtain DMOSQ for position once vacancy is filled. Cost Metric #1: Total cost lost school money due to school failure and school reservation cancellations.
9. Goal Statement stated in terms of the project output metricsRow1: The goal is to increase DMOSQ to exceed the NGB Goal and to outperform 3 out of 4 of our key competitors in DMOSQ. Quality metric #1: 90% DMOSQ Quality metric #2: 1:1 Quality metric #3: 95% School seats obligated Speed metric #1: Average of 10 months to obtain DMOSQ (Certain DMOSQ schools are much longer in length and will cause average to skew average) Cost metric #1: To reduce wasted school money by 80%.
10. Project Scope Horizontal and Vertical ScopingRow1: To properly trap training allocations, then to allocate training seats that has the best impact at improving the DMOSQ level in the INARNG. In Scope: This project will address the process for how JFHQ-IN-J3 achieves DMOSQ as part if its strategic plan, Objective 3-4, which the team will recommend process changes to increase qualification percentages. Out of scope: This project will not address OES and NCOES requirement as part of the Service Member's development. This is an important part of the overall development of the officer or enlisted soldier but such changes to this system are out-of-scope.
11. Project Plan datesRow1: Define-11/14/2016 (Starts first day of course and last for 4 weeks) Measure-12/15/2016 (Allow for holidays and extra time to collect data) Analyze- Improve-3/15/2017 (Training seat traps conducted annually, allocation are provided to MSC annually, metric that can be improved are %DMOSQ, cost reduction, and school seat obligation) Control-4/15/2017(start date plus 5 months)
12. Team SelectionRow1: Project Sponsor: COL Timothy Winslow Black Belt: Master Black Belt Coach: Team Members: (J3 Training shop, BDE S3 Section, Unit S3 and S1) LTC Bradly Compton,
13. Deployment Champion_3:
14. Black Belt Green Belt_2:
15. Project Sponsor_3:
16. Financial Rep_2:
17. Master Black Belt_2: