TPB Internal Review Process LSS Project Vision to

TPB Internal Review Process LSS Project

Vision to Action • Governor Mc. Crory’s Vision of Creating an Efficient and Effective State Government that Focuses on Customer Service Led to; • Secretary Tata’s Initiative to Implement the Lean Six Sigma Methodology Across DOT by; • Placing the Governance Office in the Lead Role of Directing Lean Six Sigma Projects, and by • Training DOT Staff to Lead Process Improvement Projects to Create an Efficient and Effective Agency with a Focus on Customer Service! 2

Lean Six Sigma – What Is It? Lean Six Sigma Is A Business Improvement Methodology that Integrates Tools and Techniques from Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma. 3

Lean • The Lean Methodology Incorporates Process Analysis and Value Stream Analysis to Identify and Eliminate Waste in Processes. The Aim of Lean is: • Eliminating Non-Value Added Steps in the Process • Reducing Process Complexity • Improving Process Flow • Examples: Defects, Waiting & Unnecessary motion 4

Six Sigma (6 ) • Six Sigma is a Methodology and a Management System that Utilizes a Defined Process and Tools to Reduce Process Variation and Eliminate Defects. • It Is a Top-Down Approach • Critical Improvement Efforts are Aligned with Key Business Goals • Problem Solving is Data-Driven 5

Lean and 6 Together – A Powerful Combination for Improvement • Lean and Six Sigma Are Complementary • By Reducing Waste AND Reducing Variation We Can Achieve Better Quality and Greater Speed, Contributing to Lower Cost 6

DMAIC 5 Distinct Phases • D – Define the Project, the Process and the Opportunity for Improvement • M – Measure the Process to Understand Process Performance • A – Analyze the Process to Identify Root Causes of Current Performance • I – Improve the Process to Achieve Desired Gains • C – Control the Process to Maintain the Gains 7

Project Participants Champion / Sponsor – Susan Pullium, Director of Strategic Planning Project Leads – Earlene Thomas, TPB Doug Cox, Governance Office Team Members – Brendan Merithew, TPB Suzette Morales, TPB Daniel Sellers, TPB Hemal Shah, TPB 8

Process Map 9

The Project Charter Problem Statement/Mission: • TPB's internal review process for approval of draft CTP maps, problem statements and reports is required to be completed within six weeks. • During the previous twelve months the target was met only 21% of the time. • Missing these target requirements results in delays in product delivery, missed PDA milestones, and poor customer service. 10

Voice of the Customer Who is the customer? TPB staff: Project engineers (~30) Planning group supervisors (6) Unit heads (2) Branch manager (1) 11

Voice of the Customer What did we learn from them? Project Engineers – Experiences: • Project Engineers do not always receive needed feedback • Comments/feedback from supervisors can be inconsistent • Expectations from supervisors are not always clear Project engineers: • Offer lowest ratings in the consistency of feedback received 12

Voice of the Customer What did we learn from them? (continued) Supervisors – Experiences: • Reports are frequently not up to standards (spelling, formatting) • Information and data in report is not always accurate/justified • Submission needs to follow prescribed preferences/guidelines Supervisors: • Offer lowest ratings regarding completeness and consistency of products submitted for review • 83% of supervisors say the number of errors in a submitted product was substantial 13

Measurement System Analysis Cycle Time MSA Start and end data collected from electronic records maintained by planning group supervisors, unit heads, and the branch manager of CTPs submitted for review. • End dates for the review/approval process maintained by the branch manager. • Start dates for the review/approval process maintained by the planning group supervisors are not as reliable. • Some CTPs did not have a start date. • Some CTPs had a start date that could not be verified. • Only those CTPs with a reliable start date were included in the study. Number of Iterations Data collected from electronic version of CTPs. Reviews conducted and maintained at supervisory level indicates for each CTP: • Number of iterations in review process • Total number of errors (formatting versus others) 14

Data Analysis Descriptive Statistics of Time in Process 1 Sample t-Test Count (number of products) Mean (number of days) Stdev Range Minimum 25 th Percentile (Q 1) 50 th Percentile (Median) 75 th Percentile (Q 3) Maximum Test Information 37 113 81. 81 285 8 45. 5 77 182 293 H 0: Mean (Mu) = 42 days Ha: Mean (Mu) Greater Than 42 days Count Mean p-value (1 -sided) LC (1 -sided, 95%) 37 113 0. 0000 90. 291 • Reject the null hypothesis (p <. 05) • Only 8 of 37 products met the target of six weeks for review/approval (42 days). • The average number of days required for review/approval is 113 days. Target Cycle Time Average Cycle Time (42 days) (113 days) 15

Data Analysis Comparison of Planning Groups/Units in Meeting Target Data suggest that delays are not related to any particular group or unit Data suggest that product type is not related to delays in the review/approval process. Reducing the number of errors in a product will require fewer iterations, thus reducing the number of days in the review/approval process. • • • Review of Process Flow Map • A review of the process flow map shows that each time a supervisor/unit head/branch manager does not approve the product it is returned to the project engineer for rework. These defects in the process are non-value added steps that contribute to the review/approval process taking longer than the target of 42 days. 16

Root Causes 17

Pilot the Solution Description of the Solution: • A peer review team that will review CTP products prior to being submitted will be piloted. • The purpose of the pilot is to determine if the proposed solution will result in shortening the review/approval cycle time by reducing the number of errors contained in the product and, thus, the number of iterations. Method: • Three products will be reviewed independently by the peer review team and the group supervisor. • The peer review team and the group supervisor concurrently review the product and quantifies the number of errors detected. • The results of the three product reviews will be compared to determine if the peer review detects an equal or greater number of errors than the group supervisors. 18

Effectiveness of the Pilot Demonstrated: • Peer Review detected 50 – 110% more errors than during the supervisory level review Inferences: • Having products reviewed prior to submittal for supervisory review/approval allows for errors to be detected and corrected in advance • Detecting common errors prior to supervisor review allows supervisors to focus more on specific details instead of general structure • Product reviews can potentially be completed within the target time of 42 days 19

Overview of what to expect: High-level review of CTP Products Looking for basic errors – NOT rewriting, researching or editing. Don’t need to be an expert on the CTP area. Meet as a group to briefly discuss comments Go over merged comments. Opportunity to discuss CTP standards and style. Project Engineer makes edits accordingly PE edits document on own time. It is up to the PE whether or not to implement comments. Mandatory participation, peer comments do NOT affect performance review Not being evaluated on quantity or type of comments. This is a “free” quality control check prior to submitting project to supervisor. 20

Implement the Solution – How make it Work • Starting July 1, 2015 Peer Review of all CTP Products is mandatory to every engineer in the Branch, it is aligned with the start of the new NCVIP cycle • Products for review: CTP Maps, PS and CTP Report • Procedure for the Peer Review process published • CTP tracking tool, schedules and milestones are updated accordingly • Training on process 21

Peer Review Team • Mandatory 4 person teams assignments – tracked by Staff Engineer • Branch wide balanced participation – at least one representative from each (not from the same group as PE) : Ø Eastern planning Ø Western planning Ø Non planning (forecaster or modeler or systems planner) • Selection based on the Random Numbers • Mixed levels teams: Contributing, Journey, Advanced • Tracking posted on the S drive S: SharedTPB TemporaryPeer Review 22

Time Requirements and Scheduling • Total estimated time at about 8 man hours • Product must be submitted to Staff Engineer by noon on Wednesday • Team assigned and products emailed to the team by EOB Friday • Peer review team provides comments by EOB Friday of the assigned week. • During the assigned review week PE schedules in person meeting with the team to review comments. • All conflicts should be brought to the attention of the Staff Engineer immediately 23

Peer Review Procedure https: //connect. ncdot. gov/projects/planning/Trans. Plan. Manuals/CTP_Peer. Review. pdf • PE submits products electronically (MS Word format for text and PDF for maps) to TPB Staff Engineer prior to NOON Wednesday each week. • TPB Staff Engineer selects/assigns products to the Peer Review team and uploads all the products to the TPB Teamsite Docs library on Inside NCDOT • TPB Staff Engineer notifies PE, Team Members, and all the supervisors about the assignment same week by EOB Friday • Team completes individual reviews on the Teamsite by EOB Friday. • During the assigned review week PE schedules in person meeting with the team to review comments. • PE downloads final document from the Teamsite to his/her own computer 24

Peer Review Procedure (continued) https: //connect. ncdot. gov/projects/planning/Trans. Plan. Manuals/CTP_Peer. Review. pdf • Comments should be made using the Comment feature for text in MS Word and Sticky Notes feature in Acrobat for pdf maps • During the team meeting with PE on the scheduled date, peer review comments are reviewed/discussed. 25

Benefits • • Improve internal review times Improve customer service Reduce labor costs Improve consistency of reports and reviews Meet standards before supervisory submission Learn from peers Allow other groups to have a better understanding of CTPs 26

Review Expectations/Criteria Review maps for completeness/display Maps and Problem Statements (PS) Match PE follows PS Standards PE follows Quick Tips PE uses correct grammar References in report match actual figures, tables, etc. • Learning opportunity for PE and Review Team • • • 27

What NOT to Expect Performance Evaluation Thorough review of technical analysis Detailed Local Knowledge Validation of Information Catch Everything Peer review to replace supervisory review Approval of Maps and Reports by Peer Review team • Full consensus on all comments • • 28

Example of Maps Peer Review Paper Copies: • Step 1: Print maps and write comments on the maps • Step 2: Scan/Email maps with comments using copier to send to PE OR Adobe Reader: • Step 1: Open the map in Adobe Reader • Step 2: Click on Comment tool to select “Add Sticky Note” • Step 4: Click on the map and write comment on the sticky note. • Step 5: Save and email map with comments to PE 29

Step: 1 Step: 3 Step: 2 Step: 4 30

Example of Report / PS Peer Review • Step 1: Open Internet Explorer (Recommended) • Step 2: Go to Transportation Planning Branch Team site on Inside NCDOT https: //inside. ncdot. gov/Teams/transportationplanningbranch/pages/default. aspx • Step 3: Open the file listed for Peer Review in Edit mode. • Step 4: Suggest edits and/or make comments. Step: 3 31

Utilizing Share Point • Multiple people can edit the word document at the same time on the TPB Team site, due to the Share. Point capabilities. • All the changes/ edits / comments made will be automatically saved in real time. • To see the changes made to the word document Ø Open word document > Go to Review tab. Ø Click on Show Markup Ø Choose Reviewers to display a list with each Reviewer's name 32

33

Conclusions • Opportunity to catch worst mistakes upfront • Bring uniformity to branch CTP products • Learn from each other • Understand what supervisors go through Questions? 34