Title: Lean Six Sigma
1Lean Six Sigma
Site Plan Routing Review Process
Heather Presley Department of Economic
Development
2Project 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.
3Goal 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
4Project 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
5Focus 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
6The 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
7What 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
8What 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
9Proposed 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
10Summary 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
11Whats 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.
12Resultant Changes
- Pat Fahey
- Planning Director
13Recommendation/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.
14Recommendation/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.
15Recommendation/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
16Recommendation/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
17Recommendation/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
18Recommendation/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
19Recommendation/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
20Recommendation/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
21Recommendation/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
22Survey 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
23Whats Next
24Preliminary Results
- Have These Changes Made a Difference
25Process Capability Analysis
Before Six Sigma
After Six Sigma
Average Number of Days 51
Average Number of Days 11
26Process Stability
Before Six Sigma
After Six Sigma Implementation
27Since October 2001
- 32 projects have been tracked by PermiTracker
- 20 of which have been released
28Preliminary Stats
- Turnaround time reduced 300
- Average turnaround time is 8.7 days for released
projects - Turnaround time is 13.5 without waiting time
adjustment
29Six Sigma Fair
- The City Takes The Next Step in Continuous
Improvement
302005-2007 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
312005 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
322005 Wait Time
- Average turnaround time is 12.9 days for 95 of
released 95 projects
332006 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
342006 Wait Time
- Average turnaround time is 11.4 days for 95 of
120 released projects
352007 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