Lean Six Sigma

1
Lean Six Sigma
Site Plan Routing Review Process
Heather Presley Department of Economic
Development
2
Project Description
Problem Statement
The process for routing projects for Improvement
Location Permit/Certificate of Compliance
approval is too long and complicated
Approve 95 of all projects routed for ILP/C of C
within 10-12 days.

• Objective

3
Goal 95 of all projects routed for ILP/C of C
are approved within 10-12 days
Project Objective

• Benefits
• Higher level of customer service
• Increased interest in building and/or expanding
  in Fort Wayne
• Fort Waynes ILP/C of C permit issuing process
  becomes competitive with other cities of its size
  in this area in terms of process predictability
  turnaround time

4
Project Team
Champion Andy Downs Black Belt Heather Presley

• Team Members Elissa McGauley DED
• Rick Kunkel Planning
• Stacey Stumpf PIO
• Michelle Kyrou Development Services
• Jim Norris Building Commissioner

5
Focus Group Members

• Internal
• City Planning
• Stormwater Engineering
• Traffic Engineering
• Fire Department
• Street Light Engineering
• Right of Way
• External
• Building Contractors Association
• Local Engineers Architects Landscape Architects

6
The Site Plan Routing Review Process(Macro)
Apply for ILP
Assemble Site Packages
Distribute Site Packages to Reviewing
Departments
Review Site Plans
Write Comments
Hold Routing Meeting
Approve/Request More Information
7
What Does The Customer Want
What Does the Customer Want

• Approval of Improvement Location Permit
  Certificate of Compliance
• Timely Review
• Objective Review
• Accurate Review
• Excellent Communication of Recommendations

8
What Process Step(s) Most Significantly Affect
Whether Customers Get What They Want
1. Site Package Review
2. Meeting Attendees (Customers)
3. Communication of Comments Recommendations
4. Review Tools and Specifications
9
Proposed Site Plan Routing Review Process
Apply for ILP
Brief Individual Review of Site Plans
Assemble Site Packages
Pre-Meeting (Roving or Stationary)
Distribute Site Packages to Reviewing
Departments
Reviewers Enter Comments InPermiTracker
Review Site Plans
Communicate Comments To Owner Applicant Using
PermiTracker
Write Comments
Hold Routing/Triage Meeting
Hold Routing Meeting
Approve/Request More Information
Approve/Request More Information
10
Summary of Resultant Changes

• Require complete submits using the Punch List
• PermiTracker software program
• Offer foundation-only permit
• Identify red flags at new project meetings
• Pre-meeting creates and internal TEAM of
  reviewers
• Routing meeting offers a more discussion-like
  format
• Unreleased Projects Report provides basis for
  discussion
• during weekly pre-meeting

11
Whats Next
Whats Next

• Follow Plan of Implementation.
• PermiTracker
• Advertise changes to process using the citys web
  site a local business publication and a forum
  hosted by the Building Contractors Association.
• Begin measuring turnaround times level of
  process stability using PermiTracker.

12
Resultant Changes

• Pat Fahey
• Planning Director

13
Recommendation/Implementation

• Recommendation Initiate internal staff review
  meeting to improve review staff communication and
  coordination communicate review comments to the
  applicant prior to the routing meeting
• Implementation Status As of October 3rd
  internal review meetings are being held every
  Wednesday at 200 p.m. in the 8th floor
  conference room review issues are being
  communicated to the applicants via phone calls on
  Wednesday after the meeting to allow the
  applicant to be aware of major issues allows for
  a discussion of those issues if necessary and
  give the applicant the opportunity to have
  someone at the meeting who can adequately address
  those issues.

14
Recommendation/Implementation

• Recommendation Initiate secondary routing
  submission where certain projects would be
  formally resubmitted to the Planning Department
  after the initial routing review and then
  re-routed and reviewed again based on the revised
  plans
• Implementation Status The secondary routing
  submission process has been initiated. The
  decision on whether to require a formal secondary
  review is made as part of the internal review
  meeting based on the number of departments
  unable to approve the project and the reasons.
  The intent is that formal re-submissions will be
  the exception not the rule.

15
Recommendation/Implementation

• Recommendation Track approval times for site
  plan routing projects exclude time spent
  waiting for submission of revised plans from
  overall review time
• Implementation Status PermiTracker tracking
  system is currently in use

16
Recommendation/Implementation

• Recommendation Improve follow up with applicants
  and property owners on the results of the
  meetings survey applicants and property owners
  on effectiveness of meetings and quality of
  project follow up
• Implementation status An initial survey has been
  completed and compiled future surveys will also
  be conducted

17
Recommendation/Implementation

• Recommendation Develop a submission punch list
  to review projects at the time of submission do
  not accept incomplete submissions for full
  routing review
• Implementation Status A formal submission punch
  list has been prepared and is being used it will
  be revised as necessary based on future issues
  that may be identified

18
Recommendation/Implementation

• Recommendation Encourage increased usage of the
  conceptual/preliminary and foundation only
  routing review options organize the checklist
  according to the minimum standards for each
  type of submission
• Implementation Status Staff is encouraging the
  use of both of these options in phone
  discussions with applicants and at the time of
  submission. An issue that has been identified is
  that the individuals bringing the plans in are
  not empowered to make a decision as to whether to
  submit for foundation only review

19
Recommendation/Implementation

• Recommendation Contact all individuals listed on
  application to remind them of the meeting and
  determine who will be attending
• Implementation Status Currently being done by
  Pat Biancaniello of the Planning Staff

20
Recommendation/Implementation

• Recommendation Incorporate additional
  introductory comments to the meetings (meeting
  introduction introduction of reviewers or other
  identification of reviewers etc.)
• Implementation Status Additional introductory
  comments currently being made by Ben Roussel of
  the Planning staff nametags have been made for
  all reviewers and are in use

21
Recommendation/Implementation

• Recommendation Evaluate via survey the
  desirability of the meeting location (Building
  Department Vs. City County Building)
• Implementation Status Based on the results of
  the first survey the location of the routing
  meeting has been kept at the Building Department

22
Survey Results

• Meeting Location the Allen County Building
  Department was preferred 14 more than the
  City-County Building

• Customer Satisfaction on Meeting Time 86

• Customer Satisfaction on Date 87

• Customer Satisfaction on Communication 86

• Customer Satisfaction on Follow-up 81.3

23
Whats Next

• Continuous Improvement

24
Preliminary Results

• Have These Changes Made a Difference

25
Process Capability Analysis
Before Six Sigma
After Six Sigma
Average Number of Days 51
Average Number of Days 11
26
Process Stability
Before Six Sigma
After Six Sigma Implementation
27
Since October 2001

• 32 projects have been tracked by PermiTracker
• 20 of which have been released

28
Preliminary Stats

• Turnaround time reduced 300
• Average turnaround time is 8.7 days for released
  projects
• Turnaround time is 13.5 without waiting time
  adjustment

29
Six Sigma Fair

• The City Takes The Next Step in Continuous
  Improvement

30
2005-2007 Status

• Since 2005 The City of Fort Wayne Land Use Staff
  has Continued to Improve the Lean Six Sigma
  Results.

Pat Biancaniello David Wright Ben Roussel
Staff 2007
31
2005 Continued Improvement

• Land Use added a 2nd Site Plan Routing position
  to assist in processing improvements and project
  follow up
• Presented an outreach Routing meeting with the
  Building Contractors Association (BCA) sponsored
  in March with over 45 attendees
• From the surveys Staff coordinated a beginners
  workshop in April of over 20 attendees
• Added a Project Status Sheet for customer to
  identify on one sheet the departments left for
  project approval

32
2005 Wait Time

• Average turnaround time is 12.9 days for 95 of
  released 95 projects

33
2006 Continued Improvements

• Added Parks Departments as a regular reviewer for
  Right of Way street trees
• Added Greenway as a regular reviewer to help
  coordinate the trail system
• Emphasized e-mail as a primary means of
  communication. Included an electronic copy of
  the sign off sheet in order for department to
  release by e-mail
• Create a Certificate of Compliance (C of C)
  database to proactively track projects
• Met with BCA and discussed process projects and
  future

34
2006 Wait Time

• Average turnaround time is 11.4 days for 95 of
  120 released projects

35
2007 and Beyond

• Continue to work to implement a new software
  package. It will be web based and allow for
  electronic tracking of project status. It will
  eventually allow for electronic filing
• Staff is scheduled to present our outreach
  Routing meeting sponsored by the Building
  Contractors Association at the annual Trade Show
  in March
• Create tools and improvements for C of C tracking
  and communication
• Keep the communication lines open for both
  internal and external customers. Provide the
  best customer service without sacrificing high
  City Standards