The document was extensive and inconsistent, limiting comprehension. Analyzing tracking systems identified critical sections on current operations, future plans, and schools reservations. Mistake proofing through review processes and standardized templates can improve the document's organization and reduce content by 20% while maintaining purpose. The goal is to disseminate the most current data to subordinate units weekly in a simplified format.

1. LEAN SIX SIGMA PROJECT:
CONTENT REDUCTION TO
IMPROVE BRIGADE S3 NOTES
PREPARED BY:
Felix M. Ruiz
Operations Officer
(915) 449-7637

2. Project Name:
CONTENT REDUCTION TO IMPROVE BRIGADE S3 NOTES
Business Case:
DEVELOP A RECURRING DOCUMENT SUMMARIZING PREVIOUS ESTABLISHED ONE THAT COMPILES INTERNAL TRACKING SYSTEMS IN A MORE ORGANIZED FASHION AND
ENSURES MOST CURRENT DATA IS DISSEMINATED TO SUBORDINATE UNITS ON A WEEKLY BASIS.
Problem /Opportunity
-DOCUMENT WAS EXTENSIVE AND INCONSISTENT
-LIMITED COMPREHENSION AND ENGAGEMENT FROM SUBORDINATE UNITS
-ENRICH CONTENT BY ORGANIZING AND SIMPLIFY CONTEXT
Scope, Constraints, Assumptions:
-SUMMARIZE CONTENT TO EASE COMPREHENSION
-COMPILING INTERNAL TRACKING SYSTEMS ENRICHES CONTENT
-LISTING DIRECT LINES OF AUTHORITY INCREASES EFFECTIVE LINES OF COMMUNICATION
Goal:
IMPROVE DOCUMENT BY SUMMARIZING DATA TO APPROXIMATELY 20%
WITHOUT LOSING SIGHT OF PURPOSE NOR DEGRADE ITS QUALITY
Team Members:
CAPTAIN NATHANIEL WILLIAMS, U.S. ARMY (REVIEWER)
CAPTAIN MISON KANG, U.S. ARMY (REVIEWER)
CAPTAIN LEHA TOTTEN-WADE (LEAD REVIEWER)
Preliminary Project Plan:
DMAIC
Target Date Actual Date
Define
MARCH 8, 2014 MARCH 8, 2014
Measure
MARCH 22, 2014 MARCH 22, 2014
Analyze
APRIL 5, 2014 APRIL 5, 2014
Improve
APRIL 12, 2014 APRIL 12, 2014
Control
APRIL 26, 2014 APRIL 26, 2014
DMAIC Detailed Schedule Enclosure
Prepared by:
FELIX M. RUIZ
OPERATIONS OFFICER
915-449-7637
Approved by: Champion:
Process Owners:
Sponsors:
MAJOR HAILEYESUS BAIRU, U.S. ARMY (SUPERVISOR)

3. PROJECT NAME:
CONTENT REDUCTION TO IMPROVE BRIGADE S3 NOTES
Business Case: Develop a recurring document summarizing previous established one that compiles internal tracking systems in a
more organized fashion and ensures most current data is disseminated to subordinate units on a weekly basis.
Problem / Opportunity: Document is currently extensive and inconsistent limits comprehension and engagement from subordinate
units. Enrich its content by organizing and simplify context.
Scope, Constraints, Assumptions: Summarizing content to eases comprehension, compiling internal tracking systems enriches
content, and listing direct lines of authority increases effective lines of communication.
Goal: Improve document by summarizing data to approximately 20% without losing sight of purpose nor degrade its quality.
Team Members:
• Captain Nathaniel Williams, U.S. Army (Reviewer)
• Captain Mison Kang, U.S. Army (Reviewer)
• Captain Leha Totten-Wade, U.S. Army (Lead Reviewer)
Preliminary Project Plan: Target Date Actual Date
 Define March 22, 2014 March 22, 2014
 Measure March 29, 2014 March 29, 2014
 Analyze April 5, 2014 April 5, 2014
 Improve April 12, 2014 April 12, 2014
 Control April 26, 2014 April 26, 2014
Champion: Rudy Ayala, LSS BB
Process Owner and Sponsor: Major Haileyesus Bairu, U.S. Army (Supervisor)
PROJECTCHARTER

4. BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT
 DOCUMENT WAS EXTENSIVE AND INCONSISTENT
 QUANTITY V. QUALITY FACTORS
 COMPLEXITY OF VARIABLES DUE TO NON-TRADITIONAL SS PROCESS
 LESSON LEARNED SHARED AT END OF PRESENTATION
BOTTOMLINE

5. DEFINE “WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO THE
BUSINESS?”

6. A3 REPORT
DEFINE

7. PROJECT ACTION PLAN
DEFINE
Project Action Plan:
Project: Content Reduction to Improve Brigade S3 Notes Black Belt/Consultant:
Rudy Ayala
Process Owner: Felix M. Ruiz Date: 8 March 2014
What How Who When Deliverables
Phase (Action Steps) (Accountable) Start
2014
Finish
2014
Required
Define Coordination,
Customer Feedback,
Management Buy-in,
Champion 100% Support
Sponsor, Brigade S3 Notes
Team
1 March 22 March Deliverables for Define
Steps 1-9
Measure Brainstorm Sessions,
Coordination,
Customer Feedback,
Management Buy-in,
Champion 100% Support
Brigade S3 Notes Team 22 March 28 March Deliverables for Measure
Steps 1-5
Analyze Brainstorm Sessions,
Coordination,
Customer Feedback,
Management Buy-in,
Champion 100% Support
Brigade S3 Notes Team 28 March 5 April Deliverables and Culminate with
Analyze Phase
Improve Brainstorm Sessions,
Coordination,
Customer Feedback,
Management Buy-in,
Champion 100% Support
Brigade S3 Notes Team 5 April 12 April Deliverables and Culminate with
Improve Phase
Control Brainstorm Sessions,
Coordination,
Customer Feedback,
Management Buy-in,
Champion 100% Support
Brigade S3 Notes Team 12 April 26 April Deliverables and Culminate with
Control Phase
DMAIC Project Microsoft PowerPoint Felix M. Ruiz 26 April 26 April Final Presentation

8. SIPOC
DEFINE
S I P O C
Suppliers Input Process Output Customers
(Direct/
Indirect)
Start:
8 Mar 2014
Decision Maker Guidance & Intent
Final document
Verification & Validation
(V&V)
Document ready for
distribution
Subordinate Organizations
Lead Reviewer
Review Draft
document
Draft document
Verification & Validation
(V&V)
Proposed document
shell
Decision Maker
Reviewers
Incorporate
Guidance & Intent
Draft document
Verification & Validation
(V&V)
Review Draft
document
Lead Reviewer
Subordinate Organizations Tracking Systems Collection of units’ data
Finalized Tracking
Systems
Process Owner
Champion LSS Tools LSS LSS Process Process Owner
End:
26 Apr 2014

9. HIGH LEVEL PROJECT MAP
DEFINE

10. STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
DEFINE

11. VOC MATRIX
DEFINE

12. COST OF POOR QUALITY MATRIX
DEFINE

13. MEASURE “HOW ARE WE DOING?”

14. VALUE STREAM MAP “AS IS”
MEASURE

15. ISHIKAWA FISHBONE “AS IS”
MEASURE
Why?
Current document used is
lengthy and lacks
structure. As a result is
incomprehensible for
audience (customers) who
are recipients of
document on weekly basis
degrading purpose.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
DocumentSubordinate
Organizations
Operational
Channels
Historical
Archive
Target audience?
Why?
Why?
Why?
Why?
To deliver
relevant information
No communication issues observed
Secure slotted time during week to
deliver end product
Delays in Takt Time or
coordination issues?
Storing useful information?
To maintain a historical archive
To ensure stored information
is beneficial
Maintain historical data to serve
for future reference
Utilize as resource in future
planning requirements
Delivering via right channels?
Rapid means of
distributing information
Audience receptive?
Information disseminated
to right people
Standardized process?
Is agenda of document
well structured?
Document require edits?
Adhere to Brigade S3 structure
for transparency?
Does document length adhere to
audience expectancy and frequency?
Is content in the right format?
Document requires
signature approval
Information available
to make edits?
Key players cooperative with
providing tracking systems
Formal review process?

16. DATA COLLECTION PLAN
MEASURE
Variable (Xn) Practical Hypothesis Ho Ha Data Needed
X Continuous
(C) or Discrete
(D)
Analysis
Test
Conclusion
XmR
/Histogram
Critical X1 Section has abundance of
information that is vital
towards mission
accomplishment of short
term objectives
Internal Tracking
Systems makes a
difference on content
reduction of document
Internal Tracking
Systems does not
make a difference on
content reduction
Internal Tracking
Systems
C
ANOVA applies to
sub-section
(groups), not
individual BSN
model: Single
Factor
Reject Null
Hypothesis
because
P=.001 < 0.05
(Means are
different)
and conclude the
alternate hypothesis
XmR shows stable
(two TEMPs close to
UCL); Cp=1.26,
Cpk=1.25 both < 1.33
this needs centering
(unstable)
Current Operations
(OPS) SECTION
Critical X2 Section covers critical
information projecting
future muscle movement for
the organization
Internal Tracking
Systems makes a
difference on content
reduction of document
Internal Tracking
Systems does not
make a difference on
content reduction
Internal Tracking
Systems
C
ANOVA applies to
sub-section
(groups), not
individual BSN
model: Single
Factor
Reject Null
Hypothesis
because
P=.001 < 0.05
(Means are
different)
and conclude the
alternate hypothesis
XmR shows stable,
Cp=1.4, CpK = 1.4
both .> 1..33 Stable.
Sigma = 5.5
Future Operations/Plans
(PLNS) SECTION
X3
Section schedules and
reserves resident and Army
education system for
assigned personnel
Internal Tracking
Systems makes a
difference on content
reduction of document
Internal Tracking
Systems does not
make a difference on
content reduction
Internal Tracking
Systems from
subordinate
organizations
C
ANOVA applies to
sub-section
(groups), not
individual BSN
model: Single
Factor
Reject Null
Hypothesis
because
P=.001 < 0.05
(Means are
different)
and conclude the
alternate hypothesis
XmR, all values
Special Cause
Variables, unstable
phase.
Cp>Ppk or Cpk>Ppk,
means IT Phase is
unstable.
Schools Reservations
(SCH) SECTION
X4
Section oversees CBRN-
related training to ensure
compliance and
standardization
Internal Tracking
Systems makes a
difference on content
reduction of document
Internal Tracking
Systems does not
make a difference on
content reduction
Internal Tracking
Systems from
subordinate
organizations
C
ANOVA applies to
sub-section
(groups), not
individual BSN
model: Single
Factor
Reject Null
Hypothesis
because
P=.001 < 0.05
(Means are
different)
and conclude the
alternate hypothesis
Cp=1.05, Cpk=1.06
both < 1.33, unstable
phase.
Sigma = 4.45
Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, and
Nuclear
(CBRN) SECTION
X5
Section is in charge of
standardization for Air
Defense certifications and
operations
Internal Tracking
Systems makes a
difference on content
reduction of document
Internal Tracking
Systems does not
make a difference on
content reduction
Internal Tracking
Systems
C
ANOVA applies to
sub-section
(groups), not
individual BSN
model: Single
Factor
Reject Null
Hypothesis
because
P=.001 < 0.05
(Means are
different)
and conclude the
alternate hypothesis
XmR, All Special
Cause Variables,
unstable phase.
CP>Ppk of Cpk>Ppk,
means RDBMS Phase
is unstable
Air Defense Fire Control
Officer/Electronic
Missile Maintenance
Officer
(A/E) SECTION
BDE S3 Notes If document does not appeal
to subordinate
organization’s expectations,
it does not meet intent and
loses purpose
If document does not
appeal to target
audience’s expectations,
it makes a difference on
document’s
intent/purpose
If document does not
appeal to target
audience’s
expectations, it does
not make a difference
on document’s
intent/purpose
Receive feedback
from subordinate
organizations
C
ANOVA applies to
sub-section
(groups), not
individual BSN
model: Single
Factor
Reject Null
Hypothesis
because
P=.001 < 0.05
(Means are
different)
and conclude the
alternate hypothesis
XmR shows Statistical
Control, Histogram
shows unstable
process (Cp=.81 &
Cpk=.71, both <
1.33)
Content Reduction to
Improve Brigade S3
Notes

17. RAW DATA “AS IS”
MEASURE

18. MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS
MEASURE

19. HISTOGRAM
MEASURE

20. CONTROL CHART
MEASURE

21. ANALYZE “WHAT IS WRONG?”

22. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
ANALYZE
F computed > F critical and P-Value < 0.05, therefore reject the null hypothesis and conclude each
Group (sub-section) data outputs are independent

23. PARETO CHART “AS IS”
ANALYZE
Contributors (Xs) to Document Output (Y)
Xs = OPS; PLNS; SCH; CBRN; A/E

24. CRITICAL XS AND CAPABILITIES IDENTIFICATION
Y(BSN)= X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5
ANALYZE
 OPS – Critical X1
 PLNS – Critical X2
 SCH – Potential X3
 CBRN – Potential X4
 A/E – Potential X5
BDE S3 Notes, Y(BSN)= X1(OPS)+ X2(PLNS)+ X3(SCH)+ X4(CBRN)+ X5(A/E), Process Capability Analysis Follows:
a) Histogram:
i. (Cp=.75 > Cpk=.71) =1.33 (σ = 3.46) thus statistically stable process , not within scope (Y(BSN)).
ii. LSL=18, USL=22, mean=20.10, data plotted seemingly contained but not within ideal target.
iii. σ= 3.46, DPMO = 25,000 with 1.6 sigma shift, plenty of room for improvement (target is σ = 6).
b) XmR control chart:
i. All data points between LCL=17 & UCL=22, showing process in control (statistically controlled).
ii. All common cause data (BSN processing days lead-time data).
c) Critical to Cost (CTC) = $64,901/(Annual Failure Cost), target reduction of 20% saves $12,980.
d) Ishikawa Fishbone: Shows Y(Effect)=X(Causes, Root Causes):
i. Immediate target (Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)): Improve document by summarizing data approximately 20% by 26 April 2014.
ii. Fishbone: Approximately 6 major causes identified that move/impact Y(BSN) process, e.g. Current document is extensive; lacks
structure and incomprehensible to target audience.

25. UNCOVER MISTAKE PROOFING
ANALYZE
Lean Assignment #3. “Uncover Mistake Proofing.”
a. Example of Mistake Proofing “Poka Yoke”.
As part of the reporting procedure within the organization, reports (tracking systems) go through the review
process prior to being submitted to higher headquarters (brigade).
b. Value Stream Map.
Implement “Mistake Proofing” through already established organizational structure within the Operations
section. Process Owner > Lead Reviewer > Decision Maker (who approves document to be published).
c. Jidoka.
Process Owner will possess the authority to not only collect information but to review as it is received from
the subordinate organizations. The Process Owner can then directly contact subordinate organizations if
errors are visible or clarification is needed to prior to inputting data into document.
d. Visual Control System.
Standardizing templates of internal tracking systems to be used as reporting requirements. This will
standardize the data required from all subordinate organizations. Discrepancies can be more visible as a
result and clarification, if needed, can be addressed opening lines of communication (Top-Down, Down-Top).

26. UPDATED A3 REPORT
ANALYZE

27. Project Name:
CONTENT REDUCTION TO IMPROVE BRIGADE S3 NOTES (UPDATED)
Business Case:
DEVELOP A RECURRING DOCUMENT SUMMARIZING PREVIOUS ESTABLISHED ONE THAT COMPILES INTERNAL TRACKING SYSTEMS IN A MORE ORGANIZED FASHION AND
ENSURES MOST CURRENT DATA IS DISSEMINATED TO SUBORDINATE UNITS ON A WEEKLY BASIS.
Problem /Opportunity
-DOCUMENT WAS EXTENSIVE AND INCONSISTENT
-LIMITED COMPREHENSION AND ENGAGEMENT FROM SUBORDINATE UNITS
-ENRICH CONTENT BY ORGANIZING AND SIMPLIFY CONTEXT
Scope, Constraints, Assumptions:
-SUMMARIZE CONTENT TO EASE COMPREHENSION
-COMPILING INTERNAL TRACKING SYSTEMS ENRICHES CONTENT
-LISTING DIRECT LINES OF AUTHORITY INCREASES EFFECTIVE LINES OF COMMUNICATION
-DEVELOP ONE-STEP-FLOW PROCESS (W. LEAD TIMES)
-CREATE AUTOMATED EMAIL REMINDERS
-IMPROVE BILATERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Goal:
IMPROVE DOCUMENT BY SUMMARIZING DATA TO APPROXIMATELY 20%
WITHOUT LOSING SIGHT OF PURPOSE NOR DEGRADE ITS QUALITY
Team Members:
CAPTAIN NATHANIEL WILLIAMS, U.S. ARMY (REVIEWER)
CAPTAIN MISON KANG, U.S. ARMY (REVIEWER)
CAPTAIN LEHA TOTTEN-WADE (LEAD REVIEWER)
Preliminary Project Plan:
DMAIC
Target Date Actual Date
Define
MARCH 8, 2014 MARCH 8, 2014
Measure
MARCH 22, 2014 MARCH 22, 2014
Analyze
APRIL 5, 2014 APRIL 5, 2014
Improve
APRIL 12, 2014 APRIL 12, 2014
Control
APRIL 26, 2014 APRIL 26, 2014
DMAIC Detailed Schedule Enclosure
Prepared by:
FELIX M. RUIZ
OPERATIONS OFFICER
915-449-7637
Approved by: Champion:
Process Owners:
Sponsors:
MAJOR HAILEYESUS BAIRU, U.S. ARMY (SUPERVISOR)

28. IMPROVE “HOW DO WE PRIORITIZE THE
VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES?”

29. VALUE STREAM MAP “TO BE”
IMPROVE

30. “TO BE”
DETAILED ACTION PLAN
OVERVIEW/CONTENT
IMPROVE
Type What How Who When Where
Why? Why?
Why? Why?
Why?
Status
Deliver-
able
Strategy Proposed
Improvement
Practical
Methods
Who Will Take
Action
Start Due Date
Where Will
This
Process
Be
Useful
Avoid Knee-
Jerk Reaction
Current Target
Summarize
data
Improve
by
20% or
more.
Develop
agenda &
doc shell
Process Owner
submits products
to TM/LR and
ultimately to DM
22
Mar 2014
12
Apr 2014
Improve
Phase
Summarize
document using
internal
tracking
systems
Current doc
is extensive
and
inconsistent
Improve
BSN shell

31. DETAILED ACTION PLAN
IMPROVE

32. “TO BE”
PROCESS FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS
INFORMATION PRIORITIZATION OVERVIEW
IMPROVE
Process Severity/Cause Highest RPN
Priority (Mitigate the
ones with “Highest RPN”
1st)
Potential Action
Results
RPN
Document Shell
9/not approved on
time
189 1st 126
Agenda
9/not approved on
time
126 3rd 63
Federal Holidays 7/shift of timeline 105 5th 23
Availability of Data 5/data not available 150 2nd 48
Accessibility of Data 5/data not accessible 120 4th 30
Re-work
5/failure to receive
approval the first time
80 6th 20
Digital Correspondence
2/automated email
not created or
network disruption
40 7th 16

33. PROCESS FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS
(PFMEA)
IMPROVE

34. PROCESS FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS
(PFMEA)
IMPROVE

35. PROCESS FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS
CHECKLIST
IMPROVE

36. CONTROL “HOW CAN WE GUARANTEE
PERFORMANCE?”

37. “TO BE” RAW DATA
CONTROL

38. CONTROL PHASE
QUICK LOOK
CONTROL
“As Is” to “To Be”
Potential to improve BSN end product from “As Is” to “To Be” by 45%.
“As Is” to “To Be”
Potential to improve BSN final document lead time from “As Is” to “To Be” by 40%.
“To Be”
BSN document process has undergone LSS BB DMAIC phases, and is ready for
implementation & control.
“To Be”
Process will improve, and not re-design from scratch “As Is” BSN process.
“Buy-In”
Team Members have solicited, Project Champion (Decision Maker) has considered
implementation and all functional areas.

39. LESSONS LEARNED
 QUANTITY V. QUALITY
 DATA COLLECTION
 BOILING THE OCEAN
LESSONSLEARNED
NOTE: 4x PAGES PER PAGE SHOWN

40. QUESTIONS?