Lean Six Sigma - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Lean Six Sigma PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 140165-OGNmY


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Lean Six Sigma


Pat Fahey. Planning Director. Resultant Changes ... Implementation Status: Currently being done by Pat Biancaniello of the Planning Staff ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:361
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 36
Provided by: windo7
Learn more at: http://www.performanceisthebestpolitics.com


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Lean Six Sigma

Lean Six Sigma
Site Plan Routing Review Process
Heather Presley, Department of Economic
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

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

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

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

The Site Plan Routing Review Process (Macro)
Apply for ILP
Assemble Site Packages
Distribute Site Packages to Reviewing
Review Site Plans
Write Comments
Hold Routing Meeting
Approve/Request More Information
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

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
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
Reviewers Enter Comments In PermiTracker
Review Site Plans
Communicate Comments To Owner Applicant Using
Write Comments
Hold Routing/Triage Meeting
Hold Routing Meeting
Approve/Request More Information
Approve/Request More Information
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
  • Routing meeting offers a more discussion-like
  • Unreleased Projects Report provides basis for
  • during weekly pre-meeting

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.

Resultant Changes
  • Pat Fahey
  • Planning Director

  • 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.

  • 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
  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

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

Whats Next
  • Continuous Improvement

Preliminary Results
  • Have These Changes Made a Difference?

Process Capability Analysis
Before Six Sigma
After Six Sigma
Average Number of Days 51
Average Number of Days 11
Process Stability
Before Six Sigma
After Six Sigma Implementation
Since October 2001
  • 32 projects have been tracked by PermiTracker
  • 20 of which have been released

Preliminary Stats
  • Turnaround time reduced 300
  • Average turnaround time is 8.7 days for released
  • Turnaround time is 13.5 without waiting time

Six Sigma Fair
  • The City Takes The Next Step in Continuous

2005-2007 Status
  • Since 2005, The City of Fort Wayne Land Use Staff
    has Continued to Improve the Lean Six Sigma

Pat Biancaniello David Wright Ben Roussel
Staff 2007
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

2005 Wait Time
  • Average turnaround time is 12.9 days for 95 of
    released 95 projects

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

2006 Wait Time
  • Average turnaround time is 11.4 days for 95 of
    120 released projects

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
About PowerShow.com