Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Payroll Remittance Six Sigma Case Study

658 vues

Publié le

Lean Six Sigma Group Free Project Case Study Overviews http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Lean-Six-Sigma-37987
Sponsored by the International Standard for Lean Six Sigma, e-Zsigma http://www.e-zsigma.com, IQPC, and PEX Network.

Please contact Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belt, Steven Bonacorsi, Owner of the Lean Six Sigma Group to have your project case studies to be added to the Lean Six Sigma Group Library. Steve Bonacorsi sbonacorsi@comcast.net

  • Login to see the comments

Payroll Remittance Six Sigma Case Study

  1. 1. Six Sigma in Action GE Capital IT Solutions Michael J Spofford Customer Engineer, Green Belt September 12, 2002Master Black Belt: Steven Bonacorsi
  2. 2. Six Sigma in Action Time Tracking (Payroll)Customer Profile – GE IT Services Process Capability – BeforeBusiness Problem & ImpactNon-Exempt employees have to submit time-tracking twice,using Antenna and Excel payroll form. Cycle time is onaverage 30 min. weekly. Non-exempts have complained aboutthe nonproductive rework.Measure & AnalyzeData Collection: Cycle time for payroll remittance wasmeasured across two weeks by GEAE account non-exempts.Root Causes: Submitting time-tracking in two forms results inincreased cycle time and decreased productivity. Process Capability Analy Process Capability Analysis for Time Process Capability – AfterImprove & Control USL Process DataAntenna web based solution was developed to track employee USL Process Data USL 15.0000 15.0000 ST LTtime and submit to payroll. Cycle time and accuracy wasTarget LSL * Target * * LSL *measured during the first two weeks of rollout. Mean Sample N 8.2731 Mean 26 8.2731 StDev (ST) 3.34791 Sample N 26Results/Benefits StDev (LT) 5.14295 StDev (ST) 3.34791 StDev (LT) 5.14295After Antenna Payroll Implementation, median cycle time was Potential (ST) Capability Cp *reduced from 23.17 minutes to 8.27 minutes. The result is an CPU CPL 0.67 * Potential (ST) Capabilityexpected efficiency savings < 200 K (annually), as well as Cpk Cpm 0.67 Cp * * CPU -10 -5 0.67 0 5 10 15 20 25increased employee productivity.. CPL * Overall (LT) Capability Observed Performance Expected ST Performance Expected LT Performance Pp Cpk * PPM < LSL 0.67 * PPM < LSL * PPM < LSL * PPU Cpm 0.44 PPM > USL * 115384.62 PPM > USL 22253.27 PPM > USL 95438.54 A GEITS indirect Savings of $217K Annually! PPL Ppk * 0.44 PPM Total 115384.62 -10 PPM Total -5 22253.27 0 PPM Total 5 95438.54 10 Overall (LT) Capability Observed Performance Expected ST Perf