Inbound MIPR Process
- 1. James Foster, MBBc LTC Jeffery Cree, Sponsor Chris Biggs, Mentor Project Initiation Date: 03/09/18 Project Close Out Date: 2/21/2019 Lean Six Sigma Incoming MIPR Process Improvement Project LD# NG11377
- 2. Agenda Project Charter SIPOC VOC/VOB Initial Process Map Data Collection Plan Operational Definitions Measurement System Analysis Baseline Process Performance – External Agency Perspective Baseline Process Performance – Internal Cooperation Baseline Process Performance – Preparing the Invoice Proposed Short Term Process Map Proposed Long Term Process Map Root Causes & Proposed Solutions Solution Implementation Accountability Implementation Risk Analysis End State Success
- 3. Incoming MIPR Process Project Charter
- 4. SIPOC
- 6. Initial Process Map MTC GOR External Units Utilization Report of TY Used For Scheduling Reviews For Completeness & Accuracy MTC Calls Units To Coordinate Admin Info & Cost Contracting Comptroller Reviews For Completeness & Accuracy Reviews For Completeness & Accuracy Requirements entered into RFMSS Customer Value Add (Green); Non-Value Add - Required (Amber); Non-Value Added (Red) Customer Doesn’t Know Actual Cost MIPR Acceptance USPFO Accounting Tech USPFO Review & Approve Final Approval – Signed For Payment
- 7. Data Collection Plan Performance Measure Operational Definition Data Source and Location How Will Data Be Collected Who Will Collect Data When Will Data Be Collected Sample Size Stratification Factors How will data be used? Length of Packet processing Time from when the invoice is received to when the State receives reimbursement USPFO Accounting Tech & MTC Budget Analyst – Data not kept in a single tracking system; VKO & Spreadsheet Data will be pulled from MIPR packets are complete and located in their respective computer locations Dawn Meek; Ron Cochran; Tonya Gordon Once for FY17 Population 15 samples (approxima tely 100 packets a year) None; only external users To determine Processing time between stages of the packet lifecycle
- 8. Operational Definitions Terms: Requesting Agency - The requesting agency is the customer activity that places an order for goods or services to another federal agency or DoD component. The term is synonymous with and referenced throughout various Federal government agreements as the “ordering agency” Servicing Agency - The servicing agency is the provider activity that fills an order for goods or services from another federal agency or DoD Component. The term is synonymous with and referenced throughout various Federal government agreements as the “performing agency” Interagency Support - Transactions for goods or services between DoD and non-DoD Federal government agencies, also known as intergovernmental support Intra-agency Support - Transactions for goods or services within and between DoD and other DoD Components, also known as interservice support Fiscal Year Appropriation - An appropriation that is available for obligation only during a specific fiscal year. This is the most common type of appropriation. It is also know as a “one-year” or “annual” appropriation The Economy Act - Authority for federal agencies to order goods and services from major organizations within the same agency or other federal agencies and to pay the actual costs of those goods and services. The Congress passed the Act in 1932 to obtain economies of scale and eliminate overlapping activities of the Federal Government. Within the Department, an activity within a DoD Component may place an order for goods or services with (1) another activity within the same DoD Component, (2) another DoD Component, or (3) with another federal agency MIPR - DD Form 448, “Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request
- 9. Measurement System Analysis Type of Measurement Error Description Considerations to this Project Discrimination (resolution) The ability of the measurement system to divide measurements into “data categories” Packet Cycle Time; All stages of the packet have trackable dates Bias The difference between an observed average measurement result and a reference value No observation, Packet data – No automated system that tracks information, however the dates are from specific actions tracked in different stages Stability The change in bias over time The data is in a manual tracked spreadsheet tracking its lifecycle – will consider SE instead of STD Repeatability The extent variability is consistent Would be an issue if master tracker was altered. Reproducibility Different appraisers produce consistent results Data set has the name of Packets so anyone can pull the same sample set to get the exact same results. Variation The difference between parts N/a to this process.
- 10. Baseline Process Performance – External Agency Perspective Measure Phase DAYS BETWEEN TRAINING COMPLETE & DATE REIMBURSED 92 175 150 139 37 130 12 195 26 21 28 -27 The extremes are likely due to timing in fiscal year and not much emphasis by either party Touch time should be considered in these two waves This metric would more likely be a concern for the outside agency as it creates a ULO for them 1st Quartile 22.250 Median 64.500 3rd Quartile 147.250 Maximum 195.000 34.469 128.531 22.316 147.106 52.436 125.679 A-Squared 0.49 P-Value 0.175 Mean 81.500 StDev 74.021 Variance 5479.182 Skewness 0.17743 Kurtosis -1.52552 N 12 Minimum -27.000 Anderson-Darling Normality Test 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Median 95% Confidence Interval for StDev 200150100500-50 Median Mean 14012010080604020 95% Confidence Intervals Days Between Training Complete & Date Paid
- 11. Data appears normal at first glace but the Moving Range of the Samples suggests there is more to it Assumption is due to timing during the FY in regards to outside agency’s ULOs This likely has a negative impact on our workload due to multiple end of year requirements Baseline Process Performance – External Agency Perspective 121110987654321 300 200 100 0 -100 Observation IndividualValue _ X=81.5 UCL=287.3 LCL=-124.3 121110987654321 240 180 120 60 0 Observation MovingRange __ MR=77.4 UCL=252.8 LCL=0 I-MR Chart of Days Between Training Complete & Date paid
- 12. The time in- between data points is extreme The 77 day moving average is masking the large movements in regards to inconsistency Sample #12 shows at the end of the FY the bill was paid before training was complete Baseline Process Performance – External Agency Perspective 121110987654321 200 150 100 50 0 Number of runs about median: 6 Expected number of runs: 7.0 Longest run about median: 4 Approx P-Value for Clustering: 0.272 Approx P-Value for Mixtures: 0.728 Number of runs up or down: 8 Expected number of runs: 7.7 Longest run up or down: 3 Approx P-Value for Trends: 0.598 Approx P-Value for Oscillation: 0.402 Observation DaysBetweenTrainingComplete Run Chart of Days Between Training Complete & Date Paid
- 13. 5 of 12 samples had the billing date with the same day as the invoice date 8 of 12 samples had the invoicing date and bill date within 8 business days Late billing is likely to occur due to batch processing on bills in the USPFO – No standard batching time frame exists Baseline Process Performance – Internal Cooperation DAYS BETWEEN INVOICE DATE & BILL DATE 59 0 20 0 4 6 24 0 34 9 0 0 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Daysbetweeninvoicedateandb Individual Value Plot of Days Between Invoice Date & Bill Date
- 14. The 4 negative numbers at the bottom appear in the 4th Quarter of the FY due to a practice called “Pre-Billing” Pre-Billing happens in the 4th Quarter to help sub-entities spend money in the cooperative agreement process so that “grow back” does not occur Baseline Process Performance – Preparing the Invoice DAYS BETWEEN TRAINING COMPLETION DATE & INVOICE DATE 18 79 31 47 14 95 -39 76 -10 -15 0 -47 121110987654321 100 75 50 25 0 -25 -50 Observation DaysBetweenTrainingCompletio Run Chart of Days Between Training Complete & Invoice Date
- 15. Proposed Short Term Process Map MTC GOR External Units Utilization Report of TY Used For Scheduling Reviews For Completeness & Accuracy MTC Calls Units To Coordinate Admin Info & Cost Contracting Comptroller Reviews For Completeness & Accuracy Reviews For Completeness & Accuracy Requirements entered into RFMSS Customer Value Add (Green); Non-Value Add - Required (Amber); Non-Value Added (Red) Customer Doesn’t Know Actual Cost MIPR Acceptance USPFO Accounting Tech USPFO Review & Approve Final Approval – Signed For Payment XNeed to remove Contracting from VKO routing
- 16. Proposed Long Term Process Map MTC GOR External Units Reviews For Completeness & Accuracy Comptroller Reviews For Completeness & Accuracy Requirements entered into RFMSS Customer Value Add (Green); Non-Value Add - Required (Amber); Non-Value Added (Red) MIPR Acceptance USPFO Accounting Tech USPFO Review & Approve Final Approval – Signed For Payment Restructure RFMSS to show the layout with features of all buildings with costs built into the model (like a hotel) – Once an item is booked then another cant – no need to be on the phone
- 17. Root Causes & Proposed Solutions
- 18. RACI Analysis for Prioritized Solution Implementation R = Responsible – The person who performs the action/task. A = Accountable – The person who is held accountable that the action/task is completed. C = Consulted – The person(s) who is consulted before performing the action/task. I = Informed – The person(s) who is informed after performing the action/task.
- 19. Implementation Risk Analysis & Mitigation Plan Consequence Likelihood 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 • Risk: Contracting effort required on Inbound MIPR • Consequence: Missed billing opportunity • Mitigation: Beginning of FY contracting and MTC meet to review scheduled requests • Risk: Amenities are not fully captured in the cost model • Consequence: Missed billing opportunity • Mitigation: Stakeholders are informed of new initiatives impacting current capabilities
- 20. End State Success The Solution Objectives Operational: Reduced the possibility of missed external customers Ensured internal customers have information to forecast Cooperative Agreement Reimbursables Speed up MIPR lifecycle by removing unnecessary reviews Created external customer satisfaction by making the process efficient and costs clear up front The Solutions are Being Implemented The solution was approved XX Feb 19 with implementation slated for XX Feb 19 New/Improved Process Capability will be determined after RFMSS redesign