Six Sigma Project Report J .

Kirley




Document Control Improvement Project



Submitted to:

(deleted)


Prepared by:

J ennifer Kirley


Submitted:

J une 30, 2011











Executive Summary


In early 2009 the corporation underwent a reduction-in-force (RIF) necessitated by extreme
economic pressures. The South Portland site was compelled to downsize the Quality Assurance
Department by one member. The full-time Document Control Administrator position needed to
become a part-time collateral duty for remaining department personnel. This project describes the
process the improvement team used to identify and remove the constraints to administrating the
Document Control process on a half-time basis or less.

Summary of Problem-Solving Approach (methods used to solve problem)

The Document Control process is mostly a transactional one with many simultaneous users
experiencing a variety of issues. For these reasons the team used Shainin methods and
traditional quality management tools within the D-M-A-I-C project model instead of technical
tools such as SPC and process capability studies. The project team used checksheets to take data
about reasons for rework and set a baseline for noting performance measurements as
improvements took effect. We used value analysis, histograms, Pareto analysis and Ishikawa
(fishbone) diagramming to identify dominant causes of time drains that constrained transfer of
the function to a part-time job.

Major project results or findings and recommendations

Instead of a single dominant cause, our analysis found four causes that combined to total most
of the error types resulting in rejection of Engineering Change Notices (ECNs):
1) Technical issues with the document, including track changes not turned on (changes not
visible for approvers), headers or footers missing, and problems with hyperlinks.
2) Approvers name not added to Additional Signatures stage, as required by process
change procedure. For example, adding the Safety Engineer when the change
significantly affects occupational hazard types or levels.
3) Site Supplemental Form not attached in ECN.
4) Changed document attached in the wrong place in the ECN.

Based on our analysis, a three pronged approach was developed to address the issue types, many of
which had more than one cause:

Process: use fewer lifecycles; streamline transactions; simplify changing approvers
Technology: link tutorials in the web site; create an Excel database and simplify document
update notification indexes
People: train and support users; create and edit tutorials using customer input

After a six month review of the Document Control process following the Improvement phase, a
regression analysis confirmed an overall reduction in rework. That combined with yearly savings of
$58,496 from the RIF to bring a 2.14-to-1 return on investment.
Six Sigma Project Report J . Kirley

Page 1
1.0 Improvement Opportunity: Define Phase

The Document Control Administrators role is to screen Engineering Change Notice (ECN)
requests, process the ECNs after approvals, respond to customer service needs when questions or
issues arise, process annual reviews, install new documents, retire obsolete documents, and
maintain the lifecycles and notification systems.

At the Maine South Portland facility a full-time permanent employee had filled the role with her
manager acting as backup. Routine steps for screening ECNs are listed in Figure 1:

Originator Doc Admin Approval loop *Additional Signatures Stage

At this stage the ECN is screened
for completeness and accuracy:
1) The Originator selected the
correct lifecycle (approval group).
2) All needed additional signers are
listed as appropriate.
3) The spec attached is changed.
4) The attached spec has track
changes turned on; changes are
highlighted.
5) The spec has no technical issues
such as missing header or footer.
6) The changed spec is attached in
the right place: Document
Details.
7) The Site Supplemental Form is
attached as required.
Figure 1: Basic Engineering Change Notice (ECN) Process

In 2009 the site had 571 controlled process documents called specs, as well as FMEAs and
manuals for environmental and safety management systems. The repository database was called
Documentum; the ECN process was managed with software named iDMS.

In early 2009 the organization announced a set of emergency layoffs so as to cope with a sharp
recession-driven falloff in customer orders. The Document Control Administrator position was to
be cut, and the roles fulfilled by Internal Audit personnel in the Quality Assurance Department. It
became necessary to identify and execute needed process changes to turn a full time job into half
time or less, without compromising effectiveness or customer satisfaction.

Prepares
ECN and
submits
Additional
Signatures
stage*
Approvers
review
ECN
OK?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Install
(end)
OK?
Six Sigma Project Report J . Kirley

Page 2
2.0 Measure

Performance of Document Control process improvements is measurable in factors involving both
users and Document Control Administrators:
1) Iterations of the ECN process (how many ECNs must repeat the Additional Signatures stage
due to issues with one or more of the items listed in Figure 1.)
a. Percent of total number of documents that went through Additional Signatures
b. Cost of time to perform the reiterations, called rework:
i. Originator time, value averaged at $0.75 per minute based on total
compensation.
ii. Document Control Administrator time, valued at $0.47 per minute.

2) Administrator time to help users with problems and questions such as:
a. Finding which approver had the ECN in their assignments at any given point.
b. Assistance in completing the ECN for submission and resubmission.
c. Transferring assignments to other users.

A checksheet was used to collect and categorize data on issues with ECNs at the Additional
Signatures stage, where rework most often took place. Figure 2 shows the data over a six month
baseline period. Figure 3 shows relative costs for the rework by type of issue.

Figure 2: Baseline data: rework causes



Figure 3: Cost of rework, categorized by issue type
Missing
approver.
Forward vs.
returning
Changed
spec not
attached
Issues with
spec
Spec
attached in
wrong place
Wrong
lifecycle
No supp-
lemental
form
Series1 $29.76 $42.78 $154.02 $68.45 $8.56 $94.12
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
Cost of rework: 5/09-10/09
Month-
year
Number
processed
Needs
additional
approver
Changed
spec not
attached
Issues
with
spec
Spec
attached in
wrong place
Wrong
lifecycle
No supp-
lemental
form
May-09 53 0 3 2 1 1 6
J un-09 33 2 2 5 2 0 1
J ul-09 44 4 0 2 0 0 1
Aug-09 33 1 0 3 0 0 1
Sep-09 63 1 0 5 2 0 2
Oct-09 42 1 0 1 3 0 0
Portion 268 3.4% 1.9% 6.7% 3.0% 0.4% 4.1%
Six Sigma Project Report J . Kirley

Page 3

3.0 Analysis

3.1 Identified issues

3.1.1 Users found the software difficult

The iDMS softwares complexity has challenged users at the site since its installation. The
Document Control Administrator had worked with the site trainer to develop a video training
module and refresher presentation, but she still provided frequent customer service for users. When
interviewed, she described the top requests as:

1) How to use the software to originate ECNs.
2) Finding the current approver who had the ECN in their assignments.
3) Reassigning an approval or ECN task for a document to another user.

3.1.2 Time

The need to turn a full time Document Control Administrator position into a part time support role
drove a value analysis of the process:

Approval structures: the Document Control Administrator had set up customized lifecycles
(approval loops) as requested by document owners and users; by March 2009 over 250 of
these lifecycles were in use, with a few dozen being used most often. Maintaining these
lifecycles involved changing names as managers came and went, moved around and
received promotions. A reorganization like that in March 2009 could require hours to
perform reassignments in the lifecycles, or ECNs would sit in assignments that would never
get opened after the users left.

Document Control Process steps:
o Installations included a step of installing a copy of the old version into a history file
that was viewable via a hyperlink on the Document Control intranet site. This step as
much as doubled the time to install ECNs.
o ECNs were run without approvers in order to generate ECN numbers for:
Temporary process change (TPC) cancellations
Installing Emergency Temporary Process Changes (ETPCs)
Recording annual reviews of specs without changes to their processes.
Each of these transactions took up to 12 minutes to perform.

Notifications: the electronic notification system included 57 email distribution groups, with
site personnel appearing in as many as seven different distributions. Reorganization like that
in March 2009 required hours of distributions reassignments.

3.2 Priorities

A search for dominant cause revealed not one, but four issues that together comprised a total of over
90 percent of ECN rework issues. Figure 4 shows the Pareto analysis.

Six Sigma Project Report J . Kirley

Page 4


Figure 4: The top four target issues comprise 92.1% of rework

3.3 Key Variables

An analysis of variables in the ECN process revealed opportunities in Materials, Process, People
and Machine cause types. Figure 5 illustrates the various identified the primary cause factors. Some
of them work in tandem with each other to impact successful process outcomes and time spent on
administration.

















Figure 5: Cause-and Effect analysis of factors in identified rework types

4.0 Improve

In order to deal with the identified issues, a three-factored strategic approach was developed to
reduce or eliminate constraints to accurate and efficient performance of Document Control tasks.
Figure 6 shows the three-factored approach and the tactical elements of each factor. Figure 7 shows
the plans made and deployed to address the three factors and resolve the identified issues.
35.9%
20.6%
18.1% 17.4%
6.6%
1.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Issues with
spec
Needs
additional
approver
No
supplemental
form
Spec attached
in wrong place
Changed spec
not attached
Wrong
lifecycle
ECN rework causes, 5/09-10/09
Process
Materials
Switch from Lotus to Google e-mail
Lifecycle definition is vague
iDMS is complex for users


Users cant remember what to do
J IT info not available
Specs do not "teach"
Training on iDMS inadequate
Problem statement:
Need to turn a full time
job into half time or less,
with a target 50%
reduction of rework that
compromises process
effectiveness and
customer satisfaction.

Lifecycles are high maintenance
Machine People
Six Sigma Project Report J . Kirley

Page 5

Figure 6: Three factors of the improvement strategy


Figure 7: Actions taken to address and resolve the strategic factors of identified issues.
Process
Reduce the number of
lifecycles
Streamline Doc Ctrl
process steps
Simplify changing
approvers
People
Train and support users
in process changes
Create tutorials for JIT
support
Get feedback and
improve tutorials
Technology
Link reference materials
on the web site
Make a notification
database in Excel
Simplify notification
group indexes
Users found the software difficult
Process: Made a single-page reference of authorized ECN approvers for lifecycles.
People:
A tutorial was developed and test-driven by a group of users in "beginner," "infrequent" and
"experienced" competency levels.
Ongoing one-on-one ad-hoc training sessions raised awareness of the project's strategy and
corrected processing issues with a focus on self-troubleshooting. For example, we soon noted
two recurring reasons for technical glitches when users tried to process ECNs: browser type
(iDMS only functioned properly using MS Explorer) and computer cache. Users who had not
rebooted their computers recently learned to try that before making a help call.
Technology: Tutorials and the authorized approver reference were hyperlinked in the
Document Control intranet page for "just-in-time" (J IT) availability for users. Team members
actively used these materials during help calls, and encouraged users to refer to them in case
of the Admin's unavailability due to other job requirements as management system auditor.
Time
Process:
Found common structures in the 257 lifecycles and reduced them to 30 "generic" lifecycles in
which users added their own approvers' names from the single-page reference.
Eliminated the step of copying each revised spec into a history file; given simple instructions,
users can view their desired spec revisions, which the system already maintains.
Eliminated the practice of running an ECNs for annual reviews, ETPCs and canceling TPCs.
Instead, the Doc Admin team simply notes the event and date in the spec's Revision History.
People:
Tutorials for various user tasks were developed and test-driven by a cross functional group of
users in "beginner," "infrequent" and "experienced" competency levels.
Ongoing one-on-one ad-hoc training sessions raised awareness of the tutorials and the FAQs
section to modify user behavior and increase self dependency.
Technology:
A Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) section was added to the Document Control intranet
page for "just-in-time" (J IT) availability for users. Team members actively used these
materials during help calls, and encouraged users to refer to them in case of the Admin's
unavailability due to other job requirements as management system auditor.
An Excel database provided a single source for the Doc Admin team to plan and maintain
notifications. The database's matrix display allowed the Doc Admin team to reduce the
number of actively used distribution groups by 30 percent: from 57 to 40.
Six Sigma Project Report J . Kirley

Page 6
To monitor performance during the Improvement phase, the team used the same data collection
methods as the baseline, shown in Figure 8. We added the Ghost user field blank category to
identify unintended impacts of the generic lifecycles with their ghost user fields that required users
to enter the proper approver names.

Figure 8: Raw performance data in the 12 months of project improvement phase.

Overall improvement rates in rework occurrences were satisfactory. However, a review of data in
Figure 8 shows a new problem in the April 2010 to May 2010 period. This category, caused when
lifecycles were streamlined and users were now asked to add their own approvers names, now
clearly represented a dominant cause (see Figure 9). Intense mid-project intervention was deployed.
An information campaign was launched that raised user awareness of the process changes, and
sharp drop-off of these problems resulted. This issue remains the top focus in control efforts.


Figure 9: Rework percentages of processed ECNs during the Improvement phase.
46.3%
15.0%
13.1%
9.1%
6.8%
6.0%
3.7%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Ghost user
field blank
Issues with
spec
No
supplemental
form
Needs
additional
approver
Spec
attached in
wrong place
Changed
spec not
attached
Wrong
lifecycle
ECN rework causes, 11/09-10/10
Month-
year
Number
processed
Ghost
user field
blank
Approver
not listed
Changed
spec not
attached
Issues
with
spec
Spec
attached
in wrong
place
Wrong
lifecycle
No
supp-
lemental
form
Nov-09 59 2 0 1 0 0 0 3
Dec-09 43 1 0 1 5 1 0 1
J an-10 53 5 0 0 3 2 0 2
Feb-10 78 6 0 0 5 2 0 4
Mar-10 89 7 0 2 2 0 1 1
Apr-10 86 14 1 1 6 2 1 5
May-10 72 10 1 0 1 1 3 2
J un-10 64 5 1 0 0 1 0 1
J ul-10 44 5 1 0 1 0 0 0
Aug-10 123 7 2 1 0 0 1 0
Sep-10 73 8 1 1 0 1 0 0
Oct-10 109 1 6 1 2 1 1 1
Six Sigma Project Report J . Kirley

Page 7
5.0 Control

Tutorials and changes to the Document Control process document were used to standardize changes
made during the Improvement phase. Consistent in-person intervention (during which users were
directed to the new tutorials) to resolve user problems helped to reinforce changes.

Performance of ECNs is traceable over time, as can be seen in Figure 10. A line chart, though it
looks complex, is preferable to an x-bar and R chart because the process is being monitored among
many users and involves several types of
defects at once.


Figure 10: Trended rework as a percentage of processed ECNs.


Figure 11: Regression analysis of intervention effect

Intervention to control rework still focuses on as-needed training for users, especially in proper use
of the ghost user feature. Tutorials and Intranet page links continue to get updated based on users
suggestions, which has the added benefit of elevating the users from stakeholders to process
participants. Their consultation remains invaluable as the Document Control Team fine tunes the
process and makes it more user-friendly.

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Rework from 11/09 to 4/11
Name(s) not entered in ghost user Missing approver. Forward vs. returning
Changed spec not attached Issues with spec
Spec attached in wrong place Wrong lifecycle
No supplemental form
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
Name(s) not entered in ghost user
A period of targeted intervention with users
from May 2010 to October 2010 reduced
rework events resulting from failure to add
one or more approvers names in the
approval loops ghost user fields.
Since the process involves a mix of user
competencies and surges of ECNs
following corporate initiatives, a line
charts bouncing trend may be difficult to
draw a conclusion from. For this reason
the line chart is paired with a regression
analysis to add an overall linear
perspective. Figure 11 exhibits the same
Name(s) not entered in ghost user data
as in Figure 10, but progress is clearly
identifiable in the intervention period of
May 2010 to October 2010.
Six Sigma Project Report J . Kirley

Page 8

Site personnel need to be consistently notified of updates to pertinent specs as they are reassigned.
Streamlining Document Control administrative sub-processes provided additional benefits in
reducing the time needed to search for and change notification system attributes and ensure
notifications remain accurate. Since these attributes are shared among two wholly separate systems
(Novell and Documentum) a centralized reporting feature was not available. Figure 12 shows the
matrix method created in Excel to improve, and then control the attributes. Excels filter feature
allows the Administrator to view, plan and monitor who receives notification of updates to
documents listed in the index groups they are included in.


Figure 12: DCB Books matrix application for spec update notifications

In reducing the number of spec index groups by 30 percent, the controllability of administering the
notification function was enhanced by eliminating duplicate notifications for the same documents.
A tutorial for this process was created for Document Control Administrators to refer to as both a
help source and a standardized approach to notification control. This tutorial was listed along with
the others in an appendix of the Document Control process specification.

6.0 Conclusion

6.1 Discussion

Using a Six Sigma project to improve work life within existing constraints presents a different set of
considerations than proposing improvements with system upgrades. In spite of the softwares
Six Sigma Project Report J . Kirley

Page 9
challenges, exchanging it for a more user-friendly application wasnt possible. The improvements
instead were a series of efforts to more efficiently and effectively use the system already in place.
The projects focus was overwhelmingly one of changing user behaviors via increased competency
and an enhanced sense of ECN process ownership. Since staff reductions were organization-wide, it
was easy to explain the need to do more with less work smarter, not harder with the systems
and software already in place.

The issue of reliably filling ghost user fields with authorized approvers impacted the outcome. The
50 percent rework reduction goal was met in four out of six categories instead of the across-the-
board goal (see Figure 13).



Figure 13: Comparisons of baseline and improved rework factors



Figure 14: Regression analyses of ECN rework events

Name(s)
not
entered in
ghost user
Issues with
spec
Approver
not listed
No supp-
lemental
form
Spec
attached in
wrong
place
Changed
spec not
attached
Wrong
lifecycle
5/09-10/09 0.0% 4.3% 2.3% 2.2% 1.7% 1.2% 0.2%
11/09-10/10 5.5% 2.0% 0.8% 1.6% 0.9% 0.6% 0.4%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
Doc Control issues: % of total processed 11/09 - 10/10
-
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
S
e
p
-
0
9
O
c
t
-
0
9
N
o
v
-
0
9
D
e
c
-
0
9
D
e
c
-
0
9
J
a
n
-
1
0
F
e
b
-
1
0
M
a
r
-
1
0
A
p
r
-
1
0
A
p
r
-
1
0
M
a
y
-
1
0
J
u
n
-
1
0
J
u
l
-
1
0
A
u
g
-
1
0
A
u
g
-
1
0
S
e
p
-
1
0
O
c
t
-
1
0
N
o
v
-
1
0
N
o
v
-
1
0
D
e
c
-
1
0
J
a
n
-
1
1
F
e
b
-
1
1
M
a
r
-
1
1
M
a
r
-
1
1
A
p
r
-
1
1
M
a
y
-
1
1
Rework trend during Improvement and Control phases
Even with jumps in
rework due to user
difficulty with
adding approver
names in the ghost
user fields, rework
events have trended
downward as Figure
14 shows.

Six Sigma Project Report J . Kirley

Page 10

6.2 Return on Investment (ROI)

6.2.1 Description of the ROI model

In addition to the compensation of a full time Administrator, improvement in the ECN process was
measured in terms of time for:

1) Users time spent on rework. The time lost for errors in originating ECNs represents the
opportunity cost of both Originators and the newly assigned administrators not performing
normally assigned tasks. ECN originators and Document Control Administrators were both
impacted by rework, so both of their time costs were factored into the ROI.
a. Originators were factored at a rate of $0.75 per minute, averaged based on the fact
that most are process engineers or engineering technicians.
b. Administrators were factored at a $0.47 per minute rate.

Two normalization factors were used in order to ensure that trending in rework costs
represented only the effects of changes in error rate when originating ECNs:
Costs-per-minute were kept at a consistent $.047-per-minute rate for Administrators,
one of whom was factored at a $0.85-per-minute rate but performed fewer of these
transactions over the projects timeframe.
Time used for rework was averaged and counted at a consistent 7 minutes per
Additional Signatures stage transaction. This factor compensated for the variation in
time to both perform the rejection and, more rarely, provide intervention with users
to prevent recurrence.

2) Administrators work to perform process improvements. These were rated at:
a. $50.87 per hour of total compensation for the manager, and
b. $28.34 per hour of total compensation for the production level employee.

3) Administrators work, factored at the rates in #2, to perform routine Document Control
process tasks including:
a. Installations of ECNs, processing ETPCs, TPC cancellations and annual reviews
b. Installing new documents and retiring obsolete documents
c. Upkeep of notification indexes
d. Upkeep of authorized approvers

As shown in Figure 15, ROI was calculated as a ratio: total process costs/savings of a full time
Administrators total compensation. Trends in six-month increments called cycles compare the
progressive investment of time to improve and maintain the process, as well as rework trends. The
first cycle represents early process conditions and improvements such as eliminating the practice of
running ECNs for annual reviews. Cycles 2 and 3 are the Improvement phase, during which major
process interventions took place. Cycle 4 is data collected in the Control phase. Over a successive
four cycles, the total Document Control process costs decreased. A charted comparison of trends
can be seen in Figure 16.

The data thus show that over four measured six month periods, the initial time cost was rewarded by
a return that eventually reached 2.14:1.
Six Sigma Project Report J . Kirley

Page 11

Factors Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4
Savings in Admin compensation $29,248 $29,248 $29,248 $29,248
Name(s) not entered in ghost user $ - $ 299 $ 308 $ 163
Missing approver. Forward vs. returning $ 30 $ 3 $ 40 $ 7
Changed spec not attached $ 43 $ 43 $ 26 $ 9
Issues with spec $ 154 $ 51 $ 821 $ -
Spec attached in wrong place $ 51 $ 180 $ 34 $ 51
Wrong lifecycle $ 9 $ 17 $ 43 $ 51
No supplemental form $ 94 $ 137 $ 34 $ 26
Total rework costs $ 381 $ 731 $ 1,306 $ 306
Production time $28,297 $19,297 $16,172 $12,050
Manager time $25,254 $12,935 $ - $ -
Total time costs for improvements $53,551 $32,232 $16,172 $12,050
Total quality costs $53,932 $32,963 $17,478 $12,356
Time for routine Doc Control tasks $ 1,775 $ 757 $ 886 $ 1,299
Total process costs $55,706 $33,720 $18,364 $13,656
Return on investment 0.53 0.87 1.59 2.14

Figure 15: project ROI calculations.



Figure 16: ROI trend, charted as the total process cost-to-compensation ratio

The Control phase and their costs is ongoing, though costs are in slow decline with new users
requiring one-on-one training and tutorials getting updates as the process stakeholders see fit. ROI
is thus expected to continue to increase, though more slowly until it reaches and maintains an
average 2.5-to-1 ratio if current trends continue.

--END--
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4
Cost of quality compared to savings
Cost of
Document
Control process
Compensation
savings