Washington State Department of Transportation is on a journey - a "10-hour" journey! Watch this 30 minute Success Story to find out how Anna Fisher and her team reduced lead time for fuel reconciliation from 10 hours to 30 minutes. With a staff of 6,800 and 70 Lean Practitioners, they've got a few stories to tell.

1. 7/14/17
Reducing Lead Time
for Fuel Reconciliation
A Lean Six Sigma Success Story
Presented by
Anna Fisher, Financial Consultant
WA State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)

2. Anna Fisher
• Financial consultant
• Accounting and Financial
Services team
• Washington Department of
Transportation for five years
About Our Presenter
2

3. WSDOT at a Glance:
• Operates and maintains 18,600 lane miles of state highways
• Owns, operates and maintains nearly 3,300 bridge structures
• Runs the largest ferry system in the nation that moves 24.2
million passengers and 10 million vehicles a year
• Partners with 31 public transportation systems to provide more
than 220 million passenger trips a year
• Owns three Talgo train sets in the Amtrak Cascades fleet and
manages the Palouse River and Coulee City Rail system
• Manages one of the world’s widest tunneling project and the
world’s longest floating bridge project.
About WSDOT
3

4. Lean Six Sigma Project Report Out
Fuels Balance Sheet Account Adjustment Process
Green Belt – Anna Fisher
WSDOT

5. Success Story:
How the Financial Reporting & Consulting Services (FRACS) team
achieved huge success after reducing lead time for completing
fuels reconciliations and adjustment process.
The FRACS team reconciles fuels activity on a monthly basis. Fuels
Transportation Reporting and Accounting Information System (TRAINS)
balance is adjusted to match the Fleet Equipment Management System
(FEMS) Fuel System for rounding issues and other variances. The
adjustment JV is processed for I-101 balance sheet account.
5

6. Team Members
Ø Facilitator- Anna Fisher
Ø Process Owner- Mellisa Ferris-Da Pron & Amanda Villani
Ø Senior Leadership- Mike Paquette
Ø Subject Expert- Jodie Stanton & Anna Fisher
6

7. Why This Project?
7
Long &
complicated
Training
time
Too
many
steps
Too many
templates
Too
many
defects
Takes
too long
Variance
Manual
process

8. DMAIC
We applied the DMAIC process to get to the root cause of a problem, also to follow the
logic of the process and to avoid jumping to solutions too quickly and without addressing
all issues.
8

9. DEFINE
SIPOC
Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers
Resource that is the result of a
Process -
Final Adjusted balance on I101
account.
Person / Organization that
recieves products or services -
OFM & TEF
Project Name: Fuels Adjustment
Person / Organization that
provides input to a process - TEF
IT staff supplies reports from M5
data.
Resource that is added to a
prcocess by a supplier - DATA
Stakeholders (Identify names for each functional area identified)
Series of steps where an input
converts to an output
- receive reports from M5 and
Cognos
- reconcile data
- process adjustments
-verify balances.
9
Tools Used
• Team ground rules
• Suppliers, Input, Process Output, Customers
(SIPOC) diagram
• Stakeholder analysis
Questions Addressed
• Who are the team
members?
• Who is the process owner?
• What are the project goals?
• Who are the customers?
• What is the problem
statement
• What resources are
required?
• What processes are
involved?

10. MEASURE
10
Tools Used
• Process flow diagram
• Data collection plan
Questions Addressed
• How is the process performed?
• How will data be collected?
• Is the process capable?
• What are the sources of variation in the process?
Process Steps 63
Decision Points 6
Current state

11. ANALYZE
11
Tools Used
• Value-add (VA) vs.
non-value-add (NVA)
analysis
Questions Addressed
• Which process steps are value/non-value
adding?
We identified the hidden costs that do not add
value, create process complexity, and don’t utilize
resources
NVA 53
VA 10
Current state

12. IMPROVE
12
Tools Used:
• Brainstorming
• Design of experiments
• New Process Map
Questions Addressed:
• What are potential solutions to improve on target
performance and reduce variation?
• What are the potential failure modes?
• What improvements should be made?
Brainstorming Accomplishments:
• Reviewed the problem definition
• Clarified the goal
• Identified types of data to collect
• Identified solution ideas
• Identified potential causes to investigate
5 VA
14 NVA

13. CONTROL
13
Tools Used:
• Process Control Plan
Questions Addressed:
• How will the process be controlled?
• What standards and procedures should be
implemented?
• How much improvement has the process shown?
• How should the improvements be handed off to the
process team and process owner?

14. RESULTS
Decreased processing time from 10hrs a month to 30 minutes resulting in a decrease
from 120 hrs a year down to 6 hrs a year saving 114 hrs annually.
14
Current State
• 10 Hrs
• 63 Steps
• 53 NVA/10 VA
Future State
• 30 Min
• 19 Steps
• 14 NVA/5 VA

15. Special thanks to…
• Sponsors/ Mentor: Jodie Stanton
• Project Team Members: Amanda, Mellisa, Mike
• WSDOT Lean team
• My fellow Green Belt class participants
15

16. Q & A
16

17. Getting Started
17
Check out more success stories from Go-Getters just
like you at GoLeanSixSigma.com/success

18. Thank you for joining us!
18
More Questions?
Ask us at contact@goleansixsigma.com!
Click here to download
free tools, templates, infographics and
more!