Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
