Green Belt Six Sigma Project Report Out C. Aaron Shaw … · 2014. 10. 1. · OPT REPORT CONTENT...

OPT REPORT CONTENT REVIEW

Green Belt Six Sigma Project Report Out C. Aaron Shaw Auditor of State’s Office September 30, 2014

1

SUPPORT & TEAM

Project Mentor: Tom Melfo (OOD) Project Sponsor: Joe Rust (AOS OPT) Process Owners:

Max Uhl (AOS OPT) Melissa Rohr (AOS OPT)

2

BACKGROUND- SCOPE

AOS OPT Content reviews incur significant time and resources to correct defects found in the audit report draft. Scope: All projects reviewed since workshop implementation (January – June 2014) First Step: Project manager writes final report draft Last Step: Report is sent to Director

3

PROJECT GOALS

4

Project Benefits: • High report quality at the source • Less Loopbacks • Shorter time spent in content review • Earlier delivery of the final report client • Increased value of content within reports

HIGH LEVEL PROCESS - SIPOC

5

THE REVIEW LOOPBACK

6

Changes and

comments are made

Project lead

revises the report

New version of the report is created

Director Review

Draft is written

Report is reviewed

DATA

• Limited ready-to-use report data • Track changes were kept inconsistently • Not every version was kept

• Solution • Use of the Word “compare” feature from initial draft

to director draft

7

DATA COLLECTION PLAN

• Compliance: Addition or deletion of recommendation; Any change of a number not related to rounding (unless that number was part of a recommendation; e.g. Reduce 1.2 FTEs compared to 1 FTE) – Per occurrence

• Style and Structure: Addition, rewording, or deletion of text not compliance related – Per Sentence

• Grammar: Correction of punctuation and spelling – Punctuation: Per occurrence – Spelling: Per word

• Formatting: Correction in visual presentation; e.g. incorrect font style and size – Formatting within Table: Per table – Formatting within Text: Per page

8

BASELINE DATA

9

895

310

846

1,954

545

256

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Report 1 Report 2 Report 3 Report 4 Report 5 Report 6

Chart 1: Total Edits per Report

BASELINE DATA

10

34.4

12.4

24.2

36.9

16.5

10.7

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Report 1 Report 2 Report 3 Report 4 Report 5 Report 6

Ave

rage

Def

ects

per

Pag

e

Chart 2: Total Edits per Report Adjusted for Report Length

BASELINE DATA

11

Content 14%

Style & Structure 68%

Grammar 5%

Formatting 13%

Chart 3: Total per Edit Type

BASELINE DATA

12

51

7

23

67

37 36

70

8

30

92

50 49

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Report 1 Report 2 Report 3 Report 4 Report 5 Report 6

Day

s

Chart 4: Content Review Duration

Business Days Calender Days

BASELINE DATA

13

AND THE SURVEY SAYS…

• A survey was conducted to gauge report writers thoughts on report writing and their perspective of the content review process • Results are still being collected

14

IMPACT MATRIX

15

FORMATION OF A REVIEW SCORECARD…

16

Type Description Example Grade Grade DescriptionA No compliance errorsD Supplemental explanations in the report are necessaryF Significant compliance concern

A No consistency errorsB Rare consistency errorsC Infrequent consistency errorsD Frequent consistency errors, requiring minimal correctionsF Frequent consistency errors, requiring significant corrections

A No grammatical errorsB Rare grammatical errorsC Infrequent grammatical errorsD Frequent grammatical errors, requiring minimal correctionsF Frequent grammatical errors, requiring significant corrections

A No formatting errorsB Rare formatting errorsC Infrequent formatting errorsD Frequent formatting errors, requiring minimal correctionsF Frequent formatting errors, requiring significant corrections

A No appropriateness concernsB Rare appropriateness concernsC Infrequent appropriateness concernsD Frequent appropriateness concerns, requiring minimal correctionsF Frequent appropriateness concerns, requiring significant corrections

Content Review Scorecard

Extent to which supplemental content may or may not be included in an appendixAppropriateness

Identified concerns of a compliance nature Issue For Further Study (IFFS) instead of recommendation

Correction in report-to-report content variations (not formatting) Standard financial impact table missing

Sentence structure and composition Errors regarding syntax, punctuation, and spelling

Correction in visual presentation

Concerns regarding relevance of report information

Incorrect font style and/or size

Compliance

Consistency

Grammar

Formatting

SPECIAL THANKS TO…

Dave Yost, Auditor of State Dan Cecil, OPT Director Joe Rust: OPT Supervisor Tom Melfo: Project Sponsor OPT Project Leads and Content Reviewers, including: • Max Uhl, Melissa Rohr , Tyson Hodges, Matt Pettella,

Amanda Larke, Mike Day, and Cody Koch

17

QUESTIONS/COMMENTS

18