 The risks to the organization if the initiative is not implemented (or not implemented successfully)

Running Head: COURSE PROJECT PART C 1

COURSE PROJECT PART C 2

Course Project Part C

Shan-Torria Tillman

JWI 550

Dr. Richard Chua

May 24, 2020

Course Project Part C

Explaining the Six Sigma Project

The Department of Corrections is one of the most vital components of the community given the monumental role they play in society. There have been numerous common challenges that affect the Departments of Correction almost all over the country. The department is accused of a great level of inefficiencies emanating from lack of coordination between departments that drive key service delivery functions. The department's key service delivery processes are characterized by delays and generally high levels of inefficiency (Elias, 2016). The core function that is believed to be central to the service delivery to the community is to help desk responses to customers, the management, and inmates. The desk’s activities are then tracked using software that mathematically determines the call duration. A project has been instituted where Six Sigma tools are utilized for purposes of achieving breakthrough improvements at the desk.

The above brief case study together with the previous Part B course work shows how Lean tools Six Sigma methods complement one another hence forming a more effective application. The project utilizes Six Sigma’s DMAIC methodology which comprises a total of seven steps namely definition and measuring as the first step, followed by analysis, improvement or/ and /generation and test countermeasure ideas, and implementing the idea. Other steps include checking the results, standardization, and finally exerting control.

Problem Definition

A team comprising members of the senior management of the Department of Correction brainstormed a couple of problems via the weighted average tool where a consensus was quickly built over the “Build Quality Capacity.” From the new theme, the characteristics comprising Critical-to-Quality was agreed as “Customer Service Improvement.”

Selection of the Project

The first project pick advocated for significant truncation of customer response time. A team was quickly formed for the sole purpose of defining the problem as an existing gap between the actual results and what a customer wants. The customer's voice was then characterized to create three extra elements. The first element in this respect is that closed calls could be taken to mean resolving the issue brought forward by a customer (Hylton, 2017). Another element is different types of calls requiring varying amounts of time closing up and taking different service standards. The call center (or help desk) equally depends on other many departments in the facility hence which may agree or refuse to corporate in the closing calls.

Different Call Types: Three categories of call bearing particular service standards were all named CALL A (two days and below), CALLB (five days and below), and CALL C (seven days and below). At this juncture, the concept of Six Sigma was explained to the team so that the process of prioritization and making decisions regarding the project task could begin.

Objective

To achieve Six Sigma results of 85% reduction by Week 5 and Week 6

Scope

CALL A comprised 98% of calls hence selected as the project’s scope. CALL A’s response time data were subjected to analysis of one month and issued problem definition as shown below:

The then status (E=): Average + 6 sigma = 12.7 days

Intended status: a maximum of 2 days and below

As such, the problem the project is to deal with involved reduction of response time by 85% hence representing a total of 10.7 days.

Critical-to-quality requirements

It all began by asking the kind of information customers wanted to get from the call center. The requirements pertaining to the customer were summarized as bellow:

When is visiting most appropriate?

What is the problem?

When is the problem scheduled be resolution?

The project team was then asked that in the event there was an answer to “when”, for what time period a call closure should take. Opinions expressed by individuals covered between 3 to 60 minutes. An agreeable closure time of 20 minutes resurfaced in the event information was present at a help desk.

Key metric Y (or key metrics Ys

Through various methods of Lean, there is a clear recognition of the fact that waiting time bears a huge influence on cycle time and can be reduced through a number of methods such as:

· Processes change emanating from batch to flow (process change)

· Limiting stages required (create ideal process map)

· Good housekeeping (reduce inventory)

The Department's current process map is full of confusion tangle of communication lines between the call centers/help desk, the community, and a potential head or supervisor of the help desk who can actually solve customer-related problems. All incoming calls during the month were grouped into who closed them and here is the result.

CAT 1 was 67% of the total calls as per information availed from the desk while CAT 2 was 33% of calls as per information provided operating personnel. The plan below which is for improvement was subject to test using call desk personnel for Category 1 calls:

Measuring of average plus 6 sigma response times, selecting 2 days for which staff attended to backlog of cumbersome calls and trying to answer each of the calls in the queue while observing the approach of first-in-first-out (FIFO).

Implement the Countermeasures

The project team implemented the above plan successfully.

Check the Result

The progress took a chronological order as shown below:

Week 1 and Week 2 – starting engulfed in hesitation/system cleaned

Week 3 and Week 4 – drastic change involving 66% reduction

Week 5 and Week 6 – Six Sigma results achieved involving 85% reduction

Standardize the Result

With the introduction of an x-bar control chart accompanied by root cause analysis for each day and dying off out three calls believed to be the worst of the day before, the fall of average + 6 sigma continued.

Call desk directly responded calls:

Average + 6 sigma = 0.58 days Sub-category 1

Average + 6 sigma = 1.52 days Sub-category 2

Expected operational and financial benefits of the project

After the project team had gone through all the required stages, they prepared a report detailing quality improvement and had it presented it to the Department of Corrections’ administration for consideration. It put into perspective a few issues including common belief that service or product quality improvement, like in this project, responding to queries made by customers, in the long run reduces cost (Mahalingam, 2018). With the response time registered by customers falling by 85% as result of their average + 6 sigma, the department’s employees had had their capacity increase as they could now manage 250 calls in a single day dwarfing their previous normal103 prior to the project. That alone is an indication that there was a significant increase in staff productivity as well as the assets exceeding 140%.

Project Team

The team comprised of the Project manager and other members including 8 staff from the call center/ call desk of the Department of Corrections who needed to build their capacity over the subject matter.

Project Champion

The head of customer relations at the Department of Corrections assumed the responsibility of ensuring everyone board member is behind the success of the project. The champion undertook responsibilities such as identification of the project objectives, working hand in hand with the project team to ensure all the requirements are translated into the envisaged solution, and working together with the project team to collect data from the requisite sources.

References

Elias, A. A. (2016). Stakeholder analysis for Lean Six Sigma project management. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma.

Hylton, L. C. (2017). Improving learning center usage verification processes using Six Sigma.

Mahalingam, S. (2018). An empirical investigation of implementing Lean Six Sigma in higher education institutions. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management.