Bonacorsi Consulting Improve Master Template

Program Nam
Lean Six Sigm
<Project Title
(State From ... To)>
< Last Name, First Name >
DefineMeasure
AnalyzeImproveControl
Wave No: <xx>
Review Date: <xx/xx/xxxx>
LEAN
SIX SIGMA
Program Nam
Lean Six Sigm
DefineMeasure
AnalyzeImproveControl
LEAN
SIX SIGMA
Improve
Improve Phase Road Map
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
Activities Tools
• Develop Potential Solutions • Replenishment Pull/Kanban
• Evaluate, Select, and Optimize Best • Stocking Strategy
Solutions
• Process Flow Improvement
• Develop ‘To-Be’ Value Stream Map(s)
• Process Balancing
• Develop and Implement Pilot Solution
• Analytical Batch Sizing
• Confirm Attainment of Project Goals
• Total Productive Maintenance
• Develop Full Scale Implementation Plan
• Design of Experiments (DOE)
• Complete Improve Gate
• Solution Selection Matrix
• Piloting and Simulation
Bonacorsi Consulting 3
Improve
Analyze Overview
Hypothesis Tests Value-Add Analysis
Root Cause / Effect Tools Used

 Root cause:  Value Add Analysis  C&E Matrix
 One-Way ANOVA  Complexity
 Effect
 Two-Way ANOVA  Cause & Effect
 Root cause:  Pareto Plots Diagram
 Effect  Simple Linear Regression
 Kaizen/Quick Wins
 Multiple Regression
 FMEA
 Root cause:  Control/Impact Chart
 Test for Equal Variance
 Effect  Scatter Plots
 T-Test
 Other
Improve
To-Be Process Map
Client Notify HR of
Mgr employee exit date
Avg.
Cycle
Client Places information into
time = 0
HR HR EXIT database days
Utilize web tool to Avg.

Client submit a delete Cycle
Contact request to vendor time = 1
day
Avg.
Create Cycle
Access
NT Work time = 1
database daily
Admin Request day
Avg.
Cycle
Email Delete account time = 1
Vendor day
Avg.
Admin closes work request Cycle
and manager notified time = 1
Admin day
Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here
Evaluating Solutions Against Improve
Criteria
Example: Independent Solutions
% Contribution of Root Cause to Process Deficiency 250 100%
Solutions Root Cause #1Root Cause #2Root Cause #3 Root Cause #4 200 80%
40% 25% 20% 10% 150 60%
Solution A 80% 100 40%
50 20%
Solution B 20% 80%
0 0%
Solution C 30% 100%
Solution D
#1 #2 #3 #4
Solution E 20% 5%
Root Causes
Solution A = a 32% reduction in defects (80% of 40%)

Solution B = a 21% reduction in defects (20% of 25% + 80% of 20%)=(5%+16%)
Solution C = a 17.5% reduction in defects (30% of 25% + 100% of
10%)=(7.5%+10%)
Implementing Solutions A & B achieve a 53% reduction in defects.
(Assumes no interaction effects of the solutions)
Original goal is a 50% reduction.
Design of Experiments (DOE) Improve
Results
Main Effects Plot (data means) for Mean Fractional Factorial Fit: Response = Mean
Training Dollars J ets
Estimated Effects and Coefficients for Mean (coded units)
60
Term Effect Coef SE Coef T P
45 Constant 29.64 0.08610 344.22 0.000
30 Training 0.10 0.05 0.08610 0.60 0.573
15 Jets -0.08 -0.04 0.08610 -0.44 0.676
Mean of Mean
0 Employee -55.93 -27.97 0.08610 -324.81 0.000

-1 1 -1 1
% Overbo 0.36 0.18 0.08610 2.11 0.088
Employees %Overbooked
60 Training*Jets -0.10 -0.05 0.08610 -0.57 0.591
45 Training*Employee 0.05 0.02 0.08610 0.28 0.788
30 Training*% Overbo 0.09 0.05 0.08610 0.53 0.619
15 Jets*Employee 0.10 0.05 0.08610 0.57 0.591
0
Jets*% Overbo -0.40 -0.20 0.08610 -2.34 0.066
-1 1 -1 1 Employee*% Overbo 0.17 0.09 0.08610 1.01 0.359
The number of Employees is the  Employee is the only statistically significant

biggest driver for Mean Time Late
factor for Mean besides the constant term.
Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects
(response is Mean, Alpha = .05) All other main effects & 2-way interactions
2.6
C
F actor
A
B
Name
Training Dollars
J ets
have a p-value > 0.05.
BD C Employees
D % O verbooked
Ymean=f(x) equation is:

D
CD 
A
Pareto Chart for
Term
BC Mean Time Late

AB
AD
Ymean = -27.97(Employee) + 29.64
B
AC
Enter Key Slide Take Away
0 50 100 150 200
Standardized Effect
250 300 350
(Key Point) Here
Number of Employees is the only
significant
Bonacorsi factor for Mean - Time Late
Consulting 7
Improve
Pugh (Selection) Matrix
Pugh Matrix
Benchmark Option
Importance Rating
Solution Alternatives
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 5
Alternative 1
Alternative 4
Concept Selection Legend
Better +
Same S
Worse -
Key Criteria
Criteria 1 4 + S + + - -
Criteria 2 2 S - S + + +
Criteria 3 3 - + - + S S
Criteria 4 2 + S + + - +
Criteria 5 5 S - S S + S
Criteria 6 6 - - - - - -
Criteria 7 10 + + + + + +
Criteria 8 8 S S S S S S
Criteria 9 5 - - - - - -
Criteria 10 6 + + - + + +
Sum of Positives 4 3 3 6 4 4
Sum of Negatives 3 4 4 2 4 3
Sum of Sames 3 3 3 2 2 3
Weighted Sum of Positives 22 19 16 27 23 20
Weighted Sum of Negatives 14 18 20 11 17 15
Totals 8 1 -4 16 6 5
Improve
Benefit-Effort Matrix
Benefit
Highly Desirable Opportunities

16 1 8 12 Projects in upper left are the most
7
desirable projects.
High
3
Potentially Desirable Opportunities
Projects in the upper right are potentially
4 desirable, but usually require more
17 10 analysis to ensure good decision making.
Med
9 13
6 “Potential Quick Hits”

Possibility for Kaizen event or small GB
project
Low
14
11 15 2 Least Desirable Opportunities
5 Projects in the lower right are the least
desirable.
Low Med High
Effort

Improve
Stakeholder Analysis

Improve
Influence Strategy

Improve
Pull System
1. Always pull stock from bin with GREEN
card if it is there.
2. Store/supply room replaces stocked items
and switches RED card to items just
replaced.
3. The cards are attached to magnetic strip
labels (for ease of movement for resizing).
Bin 1 Order Cards

2-Bin
Bin11Bin 2 Bin 1 Bin 2
Bin Bin 1 Bin 2
Mailbox
Bin
Bin 1
1 Bin
Bin 22
Bin 1Bin22 Bin 1 Bin 2
Bin1Bin Bin 1 Bin 2
Bin 1 Bin 1 Bin 2 Bin 1
Bin 1Bin 2 Bin 1 Bin 2 Bin 1 Bin 2

Improve
Setup Reduction

Improve
Kaizen
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
 Typical Kaizen Weekly Schedule 8AM
Future State Des
Mid-Week Review Finalize Future State
Measure
Implement Complete Training
(Present State Future State Des
Finalize Improvements on Std Work
Analysis)
10AM Pre-Event Perform Process
Prep Participant Training
Implement
Tweak Design
Improvements
Final Presentation
Analyze
12PM
Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch and
Celebration
Kaizen Kickoff
Lean/Kaizen Training Create and
2PM Analyze Implement Standard
Specialized Training Brainstorm Ideas Implement
Work
Improvements
Idea Effort/Impact Measure Future
Perform Process
Idea Prioritization State
Participant Training
Future State Design Calculate Actual
Tweak Design
4PM Benefits
Measure
(Present State
Analysis)
Process Part Design Create Final
Review Presentation
6PM
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6
Time Time Time Time Time Time
Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity

1-1 2-1 3-1 4-1 5-1 6-1
Time Time Time Time Time Time
Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity

1-2 2-2 4-2 5-2 6-2
Time Time Time Time Time
Activity Activity Activity Activity

1-3 2-3 4-3 5-3
Time Time Time Time
Activity Activity Activity

1-4 2-4 4-4
Time Time Time

Improve
Pilot Plan
Pilot Test Description Success Criteria Test Team Schedule
• Sample Check-in Data Sets entered in Hand- • Data Set Entry Accuracy SB, plus Start 3/1
Hand-Chek/ Chek device < 3.4 DPMO Hot-Chek Complete
Hot-Chek • Sample Data Sets Transmitted to Hot-Chek • Data Time < 6 Sec tech rep 3/3
Interface System – All Hotel Floors, All Hotel Rooms • Data Set Transmission/
Test • Confirmation Data Received from Hot-Chek to Reception Accuracy <
Hand-Chek Device – All Hotel Floors &Rooms 3.4 DPMO
• Sample Guest Data Entered in Hot-Chek System • Data Set Entry Accuracy SB, + 6 Start 3/6
(variety of room requirements) < 3.4 DPMO Check-in Complete
• “Guests” (Hotel Employees) Walked Through • Data Set Entry Time < 6 Staff 3/7
Check-in Seconds
Check-in Process (90% Pre-Registered, 10%
Verificatio • Data Set Transmission/
Non-Pre-Registered)
n Test Reception Accuracy <
• Volume Stress Test – Simulated Arrival 20
Guests in a “Tour Bus” 3.4 DPMO
• Design Scorecard CCRs
• Process Measurements recorded via Observer
(see Design Scorecard); “Guest” Observations
Recorded.
• 25 Guests invited to experience hotel check-in • Data Set Entry Accuracy SB, + 6 Start 3/10
• Guests “pre-registered” with their room < 3.4 DPMO Check-in Complete
requirements in Hot-Chek system. • Data Set Entry Time < 6 Staff 3/10
Check-in • Guests Walked Through Check-in Process (90% Seconds
Validation Pre-Registered, 10% Non-Pre-Registered) • Data Set Transmission/
Test • Process Measurements recorded via Observer Reception Accuracy <
(see Design Scorecard) 3.4 DPMO
• Guests Debriefed Following Experience. • Design Scorecard CCRs

Improve
Verify Pilot Results
Measurement Plan:
Plan Pilot
Measure Target x s Comments
CTQs
1 minute 0.5 min. 0.05 min.
Process time
CTQs
Data Transmission < 3.4 DPMO 100 DPMO
Accuracy
Pilot Observations: 1) Data Reception Weak – 12th Floor, SW
Rooms
2) Data Entry Sequence Confusing
GAP Analysis/Root Causes: 1) Insufficient radio transceivers,

12th Floor
2) Order of questions confusing staff
Follow-up Actions: 1) Add four more radio transceivers

2) Resequence guest questions
Improve
Summarizing Pilot Conclusions
 Once all the pilot data has been collected and the results verified, the
team can determine the next steps toward solution implementation. Only
after an objective and comprehensive assessment of the pilot can
responsible “next step” decisions be made.
 Some questions a team should ask upon the completion of a pilot to help
guide them toward identification of the proper next steps are:
 Did pilot have anticipated results?
 Was the plan for conducting the pilot effective?
 What improvements can we make to the solution?
 Can the solution be implemented “as-is”? Should it be?
 Can the solution remain in place at the pilot location?
 What lessons learned and best practices can we apply during solution
implementation?
 Did the solution achieve the required design goals?
Improve
FMEA
 Risk Analysis recommended actions (Key Speaking Points)
 Rating Index
 Total Current RPN Risk
Value Stream Map (VSM) - Improve
“Future State”
< ERP >
Questions
What is the VA to NVA percentage?
Supplier Customer
<Right Click, and select Add Text>
<Step1> <Step3> <Step3> What is the Improved state VSM?
1 2 1
What is the Improved state VSM?
Improve
Kaizen - Action Workout
Planning Execution Before
 ?  ?  ?
 ?  ?  ?
 ?  ?  ?
 ?  ?  ?
 ?  ?  ?
Root Causes / Quick Wins Graphical Analysis After

 Root cause:  ?  ?
 Quick Win #1  ?  ?
 Quick Win #2  ?  ?
 Quick Win #3

Improve
Multi-Generational Project Plan
Improve
Cost/Benefit Analysis
 Identify the various solution options
 Describe the Type 1 solution $ gained from the expected process
improvement
 Calculate the total cost of ownership to fully implement the
solution Cost/Benefit Analysis
Financial Benefits: Solution A Solution B Solution C
First 12 months after
Budget Increase $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Implementation
Expense Reduction $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Loss Avoidance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Other $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Benefits $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Financial Cost: $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Labor $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Pre-Implementation &
Technology $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
first 12 months after
Materials $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Other $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Cost/ Benefit $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Improve
Business Impact
 State financial impact of project
 Separate “hard or Type 1” from “soft Type 2 or 3” dollars
 State financial impact of future project leverage opportunities
Annual Estimate Replicated Estimate
Revenue • Type 1: ? • Type 1: ?
• Type 2: ? • Type 2: ?
Enhancement • Type 3: ? • Type 3: ?
Expenses • Type 1: ? • Type 1: ?

• Type 2: ? • Type 2: ?
Reduction • Type 3: ? • Type 3: ?
Loss • Type 1: ? • Type 1: ?

• Type 2: ? • Type 2: ?
Reduction • Type 3: ? • Type 3: ?
Cost • Type 1: ? • Type 1: ?

• Type 2: ? • Type 2: ?
Avoidance • Type 3: ? • Type 3: ?
Total Savings • Type 1: ? • Type 1: ?

• Type 2: ? • Type 2: ?
• Type 3: ? • Type 3: ?

Improve
Business Impact Details
 Type 1: Describe the chain of causality that shows how you determined the Type 1 savings. (tell
the story with cause–effect relationships, on how the proposed change should create the
desired financial result (savings) in your project )
 Show the financial calculation savings and assumptions used.
 Assumption #1 (i.e. source of data, clear Operational Definitions?)
 Assumption #2 (i.e. hourly rate + incremental benefit cost + travel)
 Type 2: Describe the chain of causality that shows how you determined the Type 2 savings. (tell
the story with cause–effect relationships, on how the proposed change should create the
desired financial result (savings) in your project )
 Show the financial calculation savings and assumptions used.
 Assumption #1 (i.e. Labor rate used, period of time, etc…)
 Assumption #2 (i.e. contractor hrs or FTE, source of data, etc…)
 Describe the Type 3 Business Impact(s) areas and how these were measured
 Assumption #1 (i.e. project is driven by the Business strategy?)
 Assumption #2 (i.e. Customer service rating, employee moral, etc…)
 Other Questions
 Stakeholders agree on the project’s impact and how it will be measured in financial terms?
 What steps were taken to ensure the integrity & accuracy of the data?
 Has the project tracking worksheet been updated?

Improve
Current Status
 Key actions
completed
 Issues
 Lessons
learned
 Communication
s, team
building,
organizational
activities
Improve
Next Steps
 Key actions
 Planned Lean Six Sigma Tool use
 Questions to answer
 Barrier/risk mitigation activities
Lean Six Sigma Project Issue Log
Last Revised:
Status Revised Due
No. Description/Recommendation Due Date Resp Comments / Resolution
Open/Closed/Hold Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Improve Summary Improve
Solution Selection Criteria Pilot and Implementation Plan

How the solution was determined: 1. ?
• What was the solution selection tool used? 2. ?
• What project management tools were used? 3. ?
• Cost/benefit analysis? 4. ?
• Include any other tools or methods used 5. ?

Improve
Has the team developed
Stop improvement solutions for
the critical X’s, piloted the Improve
Tollgate
Tollgate Checklist Review
solution and verified that the
solution will solve the
problem?
 What techniques were used to generate ideas for potential solutions?

 What narrowing and screening techniques were used to further develop and qualify potential solutions?
 What evaluation criteria were used to select a recommended solution?
 Do the proposed solutions address all of the identified root causes, or at least the most critical?
 Were the solutions verified with the Project Sponsor and Stakeholders? Has an approval been received to implement?
 Was a pilot run to test the solution? What was learned? What modifications were made?
 Has the team seen evidence that the root causes of the initial problems have been addressed during the pilot? What are
the expected benefits?
 Has the team considered potential problems and unintended consequences (FMEA) of the solution and developed
preventive and contingency actions to address them?
 Has the proposed solution been documented, including process participants, job descriptions and if applicable, their
estimated time commitment to support the process?
 Has the team developed an implementation plan? What is the status?
 Have changes been communicated to all the appropriate people?
 Has the team been able to identify any additional ‘Quick Wins’?
 Have ‘learning's’ to-date required modification of the Project Charter? If so, have these changes been approved by the
Project Sponsor and the Key Stakeholders?
 Have any new risks to project success been identified and added to the Risk Mitigation Plan?
Sign Off Improve
• I concur that the Improve phase was successfully completed on

MM/DD/YYYY
• I concur the project is ready to proceed to next phase: Control
Enter Name Here Enter Name Here

Green Belt/Black Belt Deployment Champion
Enter Name Here
Enter Name Here Sponsor / Process Owner
Enter Name
Financial Representative
Here
Master Black Belt
Bonacorsi Consulting
This Training Manual and all materials, procedures and systems herein contained or
depicted (the "Manual"), are the sole and exclusive property of Bonacorsi Consulting,
L.L.C.
The contents hereof contain proprietary trade secrets that are the private and
confidential property of Bonacorsi Consulting. Unauthorized use, disclosure, or
reproduction of any kind of any material contained in this Manual is expressly
prohibited. The contents hereof are to be returned immediately upon termination of any
relationship or agreement giving user authorization to possess or use such information
or materials. Any unauthorized or illegal use shall subject the user to all remedies, both
legal and equitable, available to Bonacorsi Consulting. This Manual may be altered,
amended or supplemented by Bonacorsi Consulting from time to time. In the event of
any inconsistency or conflict between a provision in this Manual and any federal,
provincial, state or local statute, regulation, order or other law, such law will supersede
the conflicting or inconsistent provision(s) of this Manual in all properties subject to that
law. Steven Bonacorsi is a Senior Master
Black Belt instructor and coach.
© 2006 by Bonacorsi Consulting, L.L.C. Steven Bonacorsi
All Rights has trained
Reserved.
hundreds of Master Black Belts, Black
Belts, Green Belts, and Project
Sponsors and Executive Leaders in
Lean Six Sigma DMAIC and Design for
Lean Six Sigma process improvement
methodologies.

Bonacorsi Consulting Improve Master Template

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bonacorsi Consulting Improve Master Template

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Program Nam

Lean Six Sigm

Root Cause / Effect Tools Used

Utilize web tool to Avg.

Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here

Solution A 80% 100 40%

Solution C 30% 100%

Solution A = a 32% reduction in defects (80% of 40%)

0 Employee -55.93 -27.97 0.08610 -324.81 0.000

The number of Employees is the  Employee is the only statistically significant

Ymean=f(x) equation is:

BC Mean Time Late

Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here

Highly Desirable Opportunities

6 “Potential Quick Hits”

Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here

Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here

Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here

Bin 1 Order Cards

Bin 1 Bin 1 Bin 2 Bin 1

Bin 1Bin 2 Bin 1 Bin 2 Bin 1 Bin 2

Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here

Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6

Time Time Time Time Time Time

Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity

Time Time Time Time Time Time

Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity

Time Time Time Time Time

Activity Activity Activity Activity

Activity Activity Activity

Time Time Time

Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here

Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here

GAP Analysis/Root Causes: 1) Insufficient radio transceivers,

Follow-up Actions: 1) Add four more radio transceivers

Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here

<Step1> <Step3> <Step3> What is the Improved state VSM?

Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here

Root Causes / Quick Wins Graphical Analysis After

Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here

Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here

Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here

Expenses • Type 1: ? • Type 1: ?

Loss • Type 1: ? • Type 1: ?

Cost • Type 1: ? • Type 1: ?

Total Savings • Type 1: ? • Type 1: ?

Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here

Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here

Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here

Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here

Solution Selection Criteria Pilot and Implementation Plan

Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here

 What techniques were used to generate ideas for potential solutions?

Enter Key Slide Take Away (Key Point) Here

• I concur that the Improve phase was successfully completed on

Enter Name Here Enter Name Here

You might also like