Jason Riggs

(Available by permission of the student)

Write Up #3

Business Process Model and Improvement Recommendation

MBA 8125 Tuesday 4:30

February 2nd 2009

Date: 2/1/09

To: Professor Duane Truex

From: Jason Riggs

Subject: Work System Analysis for fulfilling laboratory service requests

Consolidated Container Company (CCC) Bottle Testing Laboratory Service Request Fulfillment Process

Executive Summary

A Work System Analysis for Consolidated Container Company’s Bottle Testing Laboratory has been performed utilizing the framework developed by Steven Alter in his article “Navigating the Collaboration Triangle” (Alter 2002). The analysis first yields a high level snapshot of the process used to satisfy laboratory service requests.This is followed by an examination of the snapshot where a significant problem with the time required to complete service requests is identified. Opportunities for improvement of this problem located in sub-processes of the major process elements are recognized. Finally, recommendations for improvementof the sub-processes and the impact of these improvements on lessening the time to complete requests are discussed.

In the analysis we have identified the major steps in the process used to fulfill laboratory service requests submitted to Consolidated Container Company’s Bottle Testing Laboratory. Briefly, laboratory service requests are received and the nature and requirements of the request are understood. Appropriate test protocols are completed and the results of the testing are then compiled and analyzed in relation to the objectives of the request. Finally, the results are summarized and reported to the requestor. In the second phase of the analysis, the fact that it takes 5 business days to complete a service request is recognized as a serious problem since it is determined that our requestors would like to have results in 3 business days. Incomplete submissions of service requests, overwhelming work loads leading to rework, and the rewriting of overly technical laboratory reports are identified as opportunities to improve this problem. In order to ultimately achieve faster completion times some recommendations are made which include identifying and understanding the drivers of incomplete submission forms and correcting, reducingwork loads from 5 requests per technician to 2, and writing laboratory reports in a simpler style. Justifications for each recommendation are also discussed. Finally, the importance of measuring the impact of improvement activities and continuing to identify opportunities for improvement is discussed.

Background

Consolidated Container Company (CCC) is a manufacturer of blow molded plastic bottles with sales in excess of $900 MM in 2008. Bottles manufactured by CCC’s nationwide network of 70 plants contain a wide array of consumer goods that includes such things as water, milk, motor oil, and household chemicals. CCC is headquartered in Atlanta as is their Engineering and Development Center. The Engineering and Development Center houses the corporate Bottle Testing Laboratory. The laboratory was created to provide expert investigative and measurement services to CCC’smanufacturing plants as well asto support external customers. The Work System Analysis performed here is based on an article by Steven Alter and it focuses on a key process within this Bottle Testing Laboratory (Alter 2002). Namely, the process for receiving, completing, and reporting laboratory testing services is examined.

System and Problem

Utilizing Alter’s methodology a snapshot of the system was captured and the major process steps were identified (Appendix I)(Alter 2002). Laboratory service requests for plastic bottle testing are submitted to the laboratory by the requestor via our corporate intranet. The requests are routed to the laboratory manager and initially scrutinized. A follow up is then initiated with the requestor if needed to ascertain a better understanding of the requestor’s objectives as they relate to the service request. A laboratory technician is then assigned to the request by the laboratory manager. Next, a test plan that meets the objectives of the request is developed by the laboratory manager with minimal input by the technician. After this, the technician executes the test plan on the bottles and collects the data outlined in the test plan. The technician completes the test plan by summarizing the data collected and submitting it to the laboratory manager for review. The data is now scrutinized by the laboratory manager in terms of meeting the objectives of the requestorand the manager either orders follow-up testing by the technician or if the data is deemed sufficient a laboratory report is completed by the manager. The goal of this report is to explain how the data meets the requestor’s objectives.The completed laboratory report is communicated electronically to the requestor and the laboratory manager follows up with the requestor to make sure the requestor’s objectives have been met satisfactorily and the laboratory service request is then closed out.

A significant problem with this process is that the time to complete laboratory service requests takes an average of five business days. As Alter references in the point of his second triangle, the process must provide a positive experience for customers (Alter 2002). The length of time to complete the service request exceeds the needs or our internal and external customers and ultimately delays the resolution of the issue that generated the service request. After surveying internal and external customers a new target duration for completion of service requests was determined. A positive experience will be derived for customers if laboratory service requests are completed within three business days.

Analysis and Possibilities

To improve this overall process we have identified that a significant decrease in the time it takes to complete laboratory service requests must be achieved. In order for this to occur we must examine each of the major steps identified in the work system for potential bottlenecks or non-value added activities (Verner 2004). Using a top down approach as discussed by Verner, we can drill down into each of these steps or sub processes and identify areas for improvement (Appendix II)(Verner 2004). One of the first possibilities uncovered is that incomplete service requestsare submitted by the requestor 66% (est., observed w/o 1/26) of the time. Each occurrence must be resolved and completed before work can begin. In another step, it’s observed thattechnicians are often assigned 5 or more requests simultaneously. This often results in reports of technicians being overwhelmed which ultimately lead to short cuts detrimental to process time since they frequently result in rework. During the measurement portion of the process, test plans and procedures are executed incorrectly at least 2 times per month (est., 12/08) and this leads to rework and delays. In at least 50% of cases (est., w/o of 1/26) the test data collected is found to exceed what is needed to meet the objectives of the requestor and thus represents non-value added activity.At least once every 2 weeks (est.,1/09) either serious or minor errors appear in the reporting of results to the laboratory manager which results in lost time due to double checking of results. In one of the last stages of the process, it’s noted that service requestors ask at least 3 times per month (est., 1/09) that completed laboratory reports be communicated in simpler terms and this utilizes time that could be devoted to closing waiting requests. Possibilities for improvement have been identified in a number of the stepsrequired to complete laboratory service requests. By correcting each one, a contribution to achieving the goal of reducing service completion times to three business days will be made made.

Recommendation and Justification

In order to reach the objective of completing service requests in three business days, recommendations on how the opportunities that we identified can be corrected and why the action is justified are needed (Appendix III and IV). The first possibility is improving the completion rate of service request forms by interviewing requestors and then understanding how and why the service request forms are only partially completed. Incomplete forms drive 50% of follow up contacts andby getting to an understanding of the requestors objectives sooner this time can be recovered and applied to value added work. To reduce rework delays resulting from technicians feeling overwhelmed, we will reduce the number of projects assigned concurrently to each technician from five to two. By lowering the apparent work load on technicians they will concentrate more on what is at hand and not overly rush to complete work that appears to pile up. This renewed focus will reduce the number of reporting errors and the number of test plans executed incorrectly thus eliminatingwasted time. The next recommendation is that laboratory technicians take a more active role in formulating the test plans that are executed. This requires a more fundamental understanding of the requestor’s objective by the technician and the collection of pertinent data needed for meeting the requestor’s objective will more likely be met the first time. The time it takes to generate test plans for service requests can be reduced by developing a set of generic test plans. This can be achieved by performing a cluster type analysis on a sufficient set of previous requests and developing a test plan for each of the resulting clusters. By using a predetermined test plan properly, one hour of time will be saved in each instance. The final recommendation is to consider the audience for the laboratory reports more carefully when writing and then employ simpler language when at all possible. This will eliminate the time spent rewriting reports and will certainly contribute to lowering overall process time. When deployed, the recommendations presented should all work together to lower the overall time to complete laboratory service requests. It will be important that the results of each of the actions be measured periodically to ensure that progress toward the goal is being made. Further opportunities should continue to be identified and implemented as well to drive continued improvement.
References

Alter, S. (2002) “Navigating the Collaboration Triangle.” CIO Insight.

Verner, L. (2004) “The Challenge of Process Discovery.” BPTrends.

Appendix I

Customers / Products and Services
  • Plant Managers
  • Quality Control Managers
  • Product Integration Managers
  • Package Designers
  • Sales Engineers
  • Package End Users
/
  • Expert Opinions
  • Laboratory Reports
  • Laboratory Data

Work Practices (Major Activities or Processes)
  • Laboratory service requests for plastic bottle testing are submitted by the requestor via our corporate intranet utilizing Sharepoint functionality.
  • Laboratory service requests are routed to the laboratory manager and initially scrutinized
  • A follow up is then initiated with the requestor if needed to ascertain a better understanding of the requestor’s objectives as they relate to the service request.
  • A laboratory technician is assigned to the request by the laboratory manager.
  • A test plan that meets the objectives of the request is then developed by the laboratory manager and the technician.
  • The technician executes the test plan on the bottles and collects the necessary data outlined in the test plan.
  • The technician completes the test plan by summarizing the data collected and submitting it to the laboratory manager for review.
  • The data is scrutinized by the laboratory manager in terms of meeting the objectives of the requestor and either orders follow-up testing by the technician or if the data is deemed sufficient a laboratory report is completed that explains how the data meets the requestor’s objectives.
  • The completed laboratory report is communicated electronically to the requestor and the laboratory manager follows up with the requestor to make sure the requestor’s objectives have been met satisfactorily.
  • The laboratory service request is then closed out.

Participants / Information / Technologies
  • Requestor
  • Laboratory Manager
  • Laboratory Technician
  • Materials Scientist
  • Internal Subject Matter Expert
  • External Subject Matter Expert
/
  • Laboratory Service Request
  • Problem Description
  • Requestor Interview
  • Package Specifications
  • Industry Test Methods
  • Laboratory Test Data
  • Laboratory Reports
/
  • Corporate Intranet
  • Sharepoint
  • Microsoft Excel Template
  • Microsoft Word Template
  • Laboratory Test Equipment
  • Telephone and E-Mail

Appendix II

Problems, issues, and opportunities for the system as a whole

  • The laboratory objective is to complete service requests within 3 business days of request receipt but the current average time is greater than 5 days (est.)
  • Incomplete submission of the service request by the requestor occurs 66% (est.) of the time which must be followed up with and completed before work can begin.
  • Technicians are often assigned 5 or more requests simultaneously and this often results in reports of technicians being overwhelmed.
  • Test plans and procedures are executed incorrectly at least 2 times per month (est.) and this leads to rework and delays.
  • In at least 50% of cases (est.) the test data collected is often much more than is needed to meet the objectives of the requestor and thus represents non-value added activity.
  • At least once every 2 weeks (est.) either serious or minor errors appear in the reporting of results to the laboratory manager which results in lost time due to double checking of all results.
  • Laboratory technicians report once per month (est.) that they did not understand the purpose of the test plan and this sometimes leads to the omission of significant observations that can be relevant to the requestors objectives
  • Service requestors request 3 times per month (est.) that completed laboratory reports be communicated in more of a laymen’s fashion

Problems, issues, and opportunities by step

Provider Activity or Responsibility / Customer Activity or Responsibility / Problems, Issues, Opportunities
Laboratory personnel completes service request in 3 business days / Requestor utilizes results of service request to meet business objectives /
  • Requests exceed 3 days

Laboratory manager understands objectives of requestor through laboratory test request / Requestor presents a clear description of what needs to be achieved by fulfillment of the service request /
  • Incomplete request forms

Laboratory manager must distribute the work load evenly among technicians / Technicians must complete all assigned test plans /
  • Large work loads

Laboratory manager provides guidance and help creating a test plan / Technician inputs on test plan formulation and then executes against the plan /
  • Tests executed improperly

Laboratory manager provides guidance and help creating a test plan / Technician inputs on test plan formulation and then executes against the plan /
  • Too much data collected

Laboratory technician collects and summarizes test plan data / Laboratory manager uses the assembled data to formulate a report /
  • Data reporting errors

Laboratory manager communicates the objectives of the requestor to the technician / Technician understands the purpose of the testing and evaluates fitness of results against objectives /
  • Lack of test understanding

Laboratory manager communicates results clearly / Requestor utilizes results of service request to meet business objectives /
  • Results in laymen’s terms

Appendix III

Recommendations for the system as a whole

  • In order to meet the objective of completing work requests in 3 business days we will initiate improvement activities in 5 of the major activity areas captured in the work system snapshot presented in Appendix I.
  • Understand how and why the service request form is only partially completed and then improve thus communication of requestor objectives will happen the first time and time will not be wasted.
  • To reduce feelings of being overwhelmed we will reduce the number of projects assigned concurrently to technicians from 5 to 2. They will concentrate more on what is at hand and not rush to lower the pile. Reductions in reporting errors will also be addressed by this recommendation since more quality time will be utilized in the testing.
  • Laboratory technicians will take a more active role in formulating test plans which will drive a more fundamental understanding of the requestor’s objective and what is needed for it to be met. The result will be technicians that better understand the objectives and a more meaningful examination.
  • An analysis of service requests will be completed and clusters will be identified. Tests plans for each cluster type will be developed and then followed where applicable thus reducing extra testing and unneeded time formulating a plan for routine service requests
  • A review of laboratory reports that were requested to be put in more laymen’s terms will be analyzed. A comparison of before and after versions of laboratory reports and recognition of their requestors identity will drive improved communications by achieving a better understanding of the audience.

Recommendations by step

Provider Activity or Responsibility / Customer Activity or Responsibility / Recommendation
Give complete information in regards to service needed and objectives / Understand drivers of incomplete requests and take corrective action /
  • Improve degree of completeness on service request form

Laboratory manager will not assign more that 2 service requests to a technician / Technician will complete service request in an accurate and timely matter /
  • Reduce assigned work load to technicians

Laboratory manager will delegate more of the test plan genesis / Technician will take a more active role in developing test plans /
  • Increase technician role in formulating test plans

Laboratory manager will generate generic test plans based on clusters / Technician will use generic test plans and only add tests as needed /
  • Cluster analysis of laboratory requests

Laboratory manger simplifies language in laboratory reports / Provide feedback on understanding of laboratory reports /
  • Improve readability of laboratory reports

Appendix IV

Potential effectiveness of recommendations for the system as a whole

  • By instituting the recommendations in Appendix III we can lower the average time it takes to complete laboratory service requests from 5 days to 3 days.
  • Improving the completeness of the submitted laboratory service requests will cut down on the number of follow up contacts by at least 50%. The result will be increased time to devote to value added activities that complete service requests.
  • Lowering the number of work requests assigned from 5 to 2 will allow technicians to worry less about a mounting pile of work. This will lead to errors and rework caused by rushing to complete assignments for less than 1% of service requests.
  • Technicians generating test plans will help them understand the objectives of the test plan. By understanding the objectives more intimately they will be more likely to capture pertinent data at the time of testing. This will eliminate non-value added testing and instances where retesting is necessary to less than 5% of service requests.
  • Identifying clusters and building generic test plans will eliminate the need for a custom test plans offers a form of standardization. Each time a generic test plan is used at least 1 hr of time is saved and this could be employed for at least 1/3 of service requests.
  • Writing laboratory reports in easier to understand language will eliminate the need to rewrite reports and delay the finish of other reports. Implementing this recommendation will result in rewrites less than 2% of service requests.

Potential effectiveness of recommendations by step