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

1. Six Sigma in Action
GE Capital IT Solutions
Michael J Spofford
Customer Engineer, Green Belt
September 12, 2002
Master Black Belt: Steven Bonacorsi

2. Six Sigma in Action
Time Tracking (Payroll)
Customer Profile – GE IT Services Process Capability – Before
Business Problem & Impact
Non-Exempt employees have to submit time-tracking twice,
using Antenna and Excel payroll form. Cycle time is on
average 30 min. weekly. Non-exempts have complained about
the nonproductive rework.
Measure & Analyze
Data Collection: Cycle time for payroll remittance was
measured across two weeks by GEAE account non-exempts.
Root Causes: Submitting time-tracking in two forms results in
increased cycle time and decreased productivity. Process Capability Analy
Process Capability Analysis for Time
Process Capability – After
Improve & Control USL
Process Data
Antenna web based solution was developed to track employee
USL
Process Data
USL
15.0000 15.0000 ST
LT
time 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 26
Results/Benefits StDev (LT) 5.14295
StDev (ST) 3.34791
StDev (LT) 5.14295
After 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) Capability
expected efficiency savings < 200 K (annually), as well as
Cpk
Cpm
0.67
Cp
*
*
CPU -10 -5 0.67
0 5 10 15 20 25
increased 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