PROJECT STORYBOARD: Reducing Learning Curve Ramp for Temp Employees by 2 Weeks

Black Belt Project Storyboard
Reducing Pack-Singles Learning Curve Ramp
for Temp Employees
Sean Halpin

Storyboard Checklist
Submit all required Storyboard elements (T) = Template available
- For any requirement with more than one option - please include one or more of the options Green = Green Belt slides
Black = Black Belt slides
Introduction Phase Requirements Slides
What is the story of your project? Control 4.6
(Webinar)Black Belt Storyboard (T)
Have you completed all the required elements of the Storyboard? Download-
ableBlack Belt Storyboard Checklist (T)
What is the one-page summary of your work?
Control 4.6
Executive Summary (T) Note: Includes "Before & After" Project Y graphic showing improvement
Define Phase Requirements
What was the problem, goal, scope and reason for this project to exist? Define 2.1 -
2.19Project Charter (T)
Who is (are) the customer of the process and what are their measurable requirements? Define 3.32 -
3.38VOC Translation Matrix (T)
What is the high-level view of the process being addressed? Define 4.24 -
4.29SIPOC (T)
What is the detailed view of one or more of the steps in the SIPOC ("As Is" Map)? Define 4.19 -
4.48Detailed Map Swimlane (T) Value Stream (T) Flow Map
Measure Phase Requirements
What was the plan for collecting data? (list only plans for collected data - See Appendix for inclusion) Measure 3.1 -
3.38Data Collection Plan (T) Include Sample Size Calculation Measure 4.1 - 4.31
How did you ensure data collection methods were repeatable, reproducible, accurate and precise? Measure 3.1 -
3.33Measurement Systems Analysis (MSA) Or - an explanation of why one is not needed
How will you display your baseline data? Analyze 3.1
3.41Baseline Data Display (Run Chart required) Run Chart and Histogram or ☐Boxplot
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X

Storyboard Checklist (part 2)
Analyze Phase Requirements
What were the suspected root causes of the problem with the Project Y? Analyze 4.7 - 4.19
& WebinarFishbone Diagram (T) with key root causes circled Note: Must include at least one 5 Whys (T)
What issues or opportunities did you discover by studying the process?
Analyze 2.1 - 2.34
Project Specific Map Value-Added Flow Analysis (T) VA/NVA on "As Is" Map
What data analysis led to root cause verification?
Analyze 3.1 3.41
Data Display Pareto Chart Histogram Run Chart Boxplot
What are the Null & Alternative Hypothesis Statements for each test?
Analyze 2.1 - 2.19
Hypothesis Testing Plan (T)
Which hypothesis tests did you use and what were the results of those tests? Analyze 2.20 - 2.56
& WebinarVerification of Root Cause Note: Must display Hypothesis Test Results
Improve Phase Requirements
What were the solutions you developed to solve the problem at the root?
Improve 3.4 - 3.19
List of Improvements Solution Selection Matrix Impact Effort Matrix (T)
What were your detailed plans to implement or test solutions?
Improve 5.24
Implementation Plan (T) Note: Can include DOE, Pilot, other Improve 2.1 - 2.66
How did you mitigate any risks related to changing the process? Improve 4.1 - 4.29
& WebinarRisk Management Plan ☐FMEA (T) and/or Mistake-Proofing Plan
What does the improved process look like with waste removed and solutions implemented?
Improve 4.1 - 4.29
"To Be" Map (or segment) Swimlane (T) Value Stream (T) Flow Map
Spaghetti
(T)
What measurements or graphs do you have to show the "after" process is better?
Improve 4.14
Proof of Improvement Run Chart Box Plot Histogram Other
Control Phase Requirements
What this the plan for ongoing monitoring of the process and how to respond to dips in performance?
Control 6.3
Monitoring & Response Plan (T)
What does the Control Chart of the improved process look like?
Control 2.1 - 2.116
Control Chart of Project Y Should include other Control Charts from Monitoring Plan
What are the lessons learned? Soft/hard savings? Potential replication? Process Owner sign off?
Control 5.3 - 5.5
Project Clousure (T)
If solution will be repurposed, include Transfer
Opportunities (T)
Appendix
What terms and acronyms did you use that people outside your might need explained?
Key Words - Definitions of non-DMAIC, industry specific terms
Additional Slides as needed
What are some samples of the data you collected in your Data Collection Plan
☐Sample Spreadsheet for each line item listed in the Data Collection Plan
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X

Executive Summary
Key Take Away: The learning curve ramp was successfully reduced by 2 weeks. The run chart showing pack
performance progression over 5 weeks in role demonstrates that by the third week, those who received the
improved training were packing at 96.26 UPH compared to 95.48 UPH in week 5 (previous state) – success!
Executive Summary
Business Case Project Results
What is the importance of doing this project? (State in lost dollars, productivity loss,
customer dissatisfaction, cost avoidance, risk, etc.)
What are the measureable process improvements/wins?
• Increased LC1 average UPH from 62.8 to 78.5 by second day of training
• Increased labor utilization rate from 83.5% (LC1 average) to 90.3% for LC1X
associates
• Reduced cycle time for LC1s to find/grab box from 4.8 to 2.3 seconds
• Reduced cycle time for LC1s to pack dunnage from 17.8 to 15.1 seconds
• Reduced cycle time for LC1s to make box from 11.8 to 9.3 seconds
• Reduced process time for LC1s to package boxes from 44.5 to 35.4 seconds
• Reduced defect rate for LC1s from 0.17% to 0.06%
These Learning Curve level 1 (LC1) temp employees performed at a rate of 62.78 units per hour
in pack singles representing $5.00 per hour costs against the performance of more experienced
LC3 associates who performed at 79.66 units per hour. The opportunity to reduce the learning
curve ramp up by 2 weeks, improve the performance of LC1 packers to LC3 performance
expectations would have represented a value of up to $13,500 at our fulfillment center per
month in Peak 2017.
Root Cause Analysis
What are the critical findings/root causes that were discovered?
LC1 packers do not immediately know where boxes are located at the station
LC1 packers have less labor utilization since they do not know how to perform corrective
actions and require PA or water spider assistance to fix issues
LC1 packers do not know much dunnage & how to properly pack dunnage in box
Training Ambassadors are not equipped with training standard process and diagnostic
tools to assess LC1 performance and coach LC1s on improving UPH
Graphical Display of Improvement
Insert a chart, graph or visual demonstrating process improvement
Current State vs Improved Learning Curve Ramp –
UPH pack performance progression over 5 weeks in role
Solutions Implemented
List key solutions that were implemented to address root causes
Added Pack Console on-screen box map informing associate where appropriate box is
located at station; added virtual training videos to teach trouble-shooting common issues
Designed pack dunnage training station with documented process & visual aids; added
quality school training to address concerns that improving cycle time may create
increased quality issues
Provided training ambassadors with detailed training instructions and diagnostic tools to
identify performance gaps & help LC1s address performance deficiencies
62.78
73.81
79.66
84.90
95.48
78.45
87.91
96.26
98.1
99.1
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5
Current State Learn
Curve Ramp
Improved Learning
Curve Ramp
Time (weeks)
UPH

Project Charter
Key Take Away: This project will improve average seasonal hire employee performance metrics (Key
performance indicators on scorecard), allowing management more time for hiring decisions based on
more accurate sales & operations planning (S&OP) forecasts
Project Charter
Reducing Pack-Singles Learning Curve Ramp for Temp Employees
Problem Statement Business Case & Benefits
Pack-Singles associate on-boarding training for seasonal new-
hires is missing the goal having associates being able to pack
79.66 units per hour (learning curve level 3 performance) by the
end of the second day of training (2 business days) 91% of the
time. The average time for a seasonal new-hire associate to
achieve 79.66 units per hour takes 12 business days. This delay is
adding costs of $13,500 per peak month (June, July, October,
November, December) in overtime and contractor labor.
An inefficient training process contributed to overstaffing during last peak season at our fulfillment center.
During Peak 2017 ramp up, our fulfillment center hired 124 temporary employee associates from Integrity
Staffing Solutions (ISS) to support outbound labor forecasts for Peak 2017. These Learning Curve level 1 (LC1)
temp employees performed at a rate of 62.78 units per hour in pack singles representing $5.00 per hour costs
against the performance of more experienced LC3 associates who performed at 79.66 units per hour. The
opportunity to reduce the learning curve ramp up by 2 weeks, improve the performance of LC1 packers to LC3
performance expectations would have represented a value of up to $13,500 at our fulfillment center per month
in Peak 2017. In Peak 2017, our fulfillment center was assigned 24.9% less workable outbound assignments than
originally forecasted, directly contributing to overstaffing. By reducing the learning curve rates by improving
training, this would allow postponement of hiring decisions for improved accuracy of labor demand forecasts
and increased average labor productivity rates for efficient shift scheduling.
Goal Statement Timeline
Decrease the learning curve ramp (progression from LC1 to LC5)
lead time from 5 weeks to 3 weeks by 10/1/2018
Phase Planned Actual
Define: 15-Aug 13-Aug
Measure: 24-Aug 22-Aug
Analyze: 7-Sep 31-Aug
Improve: 23-Sep 10-Sep
Control: 1-Oct 20-Sep
Scope In/Out Team Members
Process Start: Employee scans tote from conveyor Position Person Time Commitment
Process End: Employee logs out of Fulfillment Center (FC)
Pack Console, completing shift
Team Lead Sean 100%
Sponsor Derek 10%
In: pack-singles station design layout, training
process and program (explored during Define
Phase), new technology, training ambassador
selection process
Team Member Thomas 20%
Out: New employee HR selection
policies/procedures/processes, safety training
program and compliance policies
Team Member Denise 20%
Team Member Eric 10%
Team member Tracey 20%

Voice of the Customer
Key Take Away: For the fulfillment process, customers are primarily concerned about
on-time delivery for their orders and ensuring their product arrives undamaged
Voice of the Customer Translation Matrix
Base these comments and requirements on the main project customer - (listed under Customer in the SIPOC)
Customer Comment
(What Are They Saying?)
Identifying the Issue
(What's the Priority? -
Choose from Dropdown List)
Customer Requirement
(What's the Measurable Target?)
Why is my order late? Timeliness
Meet daily designated distributor SLA
times for ensuring on-time delivery
Why are some of my product orders
damaged during transit?
Quality
Package orders with sufficient dunnage
to protect products during transit ;
empty space of box should be filled with
50-75% dunnage
Why are my orders cancelled and
rerouted to other fulfillment centers?
Timeliness
Ensure daily process cycle times for
orders is equal to or less than takt time
(2.4 seconds/order)
The product I received does not match
the online description. Why did I receive
the wrong item?
Accuracy
Ensure the DPMO is less than 3.4 for
product selection during pick process to
establish six sigma system for order
accuracy

SIPOC
Key Take Away: The scope of the project is from the moment the pack associates grab the tote
from the conveyor and scan to the moment the pack associate scans SPOO and sends the
package

Value Stream Map –
LC1 Pack Associate ‘as is’ Detailed Map
Key Take Away: The Value Stream map helped identify grab box, make box and pack
dunnage as opportunities for improvement for reducing the overall lead time.

Data Collection Plan
Key Take Away: Since this is a cycle time project, most measures will be continuous measures
based on a time motion study to identify cycle times by learning curve rate.
Data Collection Plan
Measure Data Type Operational Definition Stratification Factors Sampling Notes Who and How
Total Pack-singles
processing time
Continuous
Cycle time in seconds from the
moment a pack associate scans
item to the moment when the
associate places packaged item
on the conveyor
By Learning Curve
Level
By package/box type
Conduct time motion study for three pack
associates at each learning curve level
Video record associates at the beginning
of each quarter for 40 minutes each;
randomize selection and quarter
Place video record stand behind
associate pack station so can upload
video to excel macro VBA file for time
motion recording between two people
(measurement systems analysis)
Trainee Performance
Ratings (count of
completed boxes by
type in given timeframe)
Discrete
Internal audit rating on pack
associate performance graded on
UPH for different box types
By package/box type
Utilize ACES Caliber (internally developed
tool; existing process) on tracking
associate performance rating by training
ambassador
Quality assurance team conducts
randomized performance audits of
training associates, performed within
3-5 business days of completing
training program; quality measures
how many completed boxes in a given
timeframe
Grab Box cycle time Continuous
From the time that the associate
scans an item order to the time
that they place their hand on the
box/package type
By Learning curve
By package/box type
During time motion study, record for each
order, how long it takes for associate to
find the correct box
Utilize same methodology as time
motion instructions in the total pack-
singles processing time
Make Box cycle time Continuous
From the time the associate grabs
the box to the moment that the
item order is in the box with
scanned package slip
By Learning curve
By package/box type
During time motion study, record for each
make the box and place item order and
package slip in the box
Pack Dunnage and seal
cycle time
Continuous
From the time the associate has
item order in the box with packing
slip to the time that the associate
has sealed the box closed
By Learning curve
By package/box type
During time motion study, record each
place dunnage in box and seal the
package
Scan SPOO and place
item on conveyor cycle
time
Continuous
From the time the associate has
sealed the package to the time
that the associate has scanned
the SPOO label, placed SPOO on
box and placed package on
conveyor belt
By Learning curve
By package/box type
During time motion study, record each
scan SPOO, place SPOO on box and
place finished package on conveyor belt
Pack Associate
perceived familiarity
with process and
corrections
Continuous
Perceived comfort levels with
process steps on continuous scale
from 0-5. Will gather pack
associate UPH from FC Console
database.
By Learning Curve
Conduct survey sampling ~30 pack
associates for each learning curve level to
determine their perceived
comfort/familiarity with process steps
Perform 15-minute survey during
multiple shifts during standby meeting;
operations manager and PAs will
assist with administering the survey

MSA Results
Key Take Away: Using the Gage R&R Average & range method, conducted 5 trials between 2
operators on 30 parts/processes, %R&R=9.2%<10% so Gage System tested within acceptable
parameters

Baseline – Temp Associate UPH Performance
Key Take Away: Only 32% of temp associates hitting target of 79.7 Average UPH by the end of third
week in role. There is significant variation with standard deviation of 21.98 UPH.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Frequency(#ofassociates)
AVG UPH
Actual
Expected
# of Associates Trained
from 30-JUN-17 to 29-
JUN-18
331
AVG UPH 70.34
Standard deviation of
UPH
21.98
Coefficient of variation 0.313
Chi-Square Goodness-of-
Fit Test (p-value)
0.921
Mean: 70.34 Target: >79.7

Baseline – Temp Associate UPH Performance
Key Take Away: Run chart shows that the mean UPH for LC1 associates is ~70 with significant
variation.
10
30
50
70
90
110
130
1
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
81
91
101
111
121
131
141
151
161
171
181
191
201
211
221
231
241
251
261
271
281
291
301
311
321
331
LC1UPHaftertraining
Observations
LC1 Performance after Completion of Training
# of Associates Trained
from 30-JUN-17 to 29-
JUN-18
331
AVG UPH 70.34
Standard deviation of
UPH
21.98
Chi-Square Goodness-
of-Fit Test (p-value)
0.921
+2 stdev
+1 stdev
Mean
-2 stdev
-1 stdev

Fishbone Diagram / 5 Whys
Key Take Away: The biggest areas to analyze further were related to training factors since that was the focus of
the scope for the project. These areas do not require changes to safety or HR selection processes. 5 Whys
revealed that training process did not align with desired effect for training since training ambassadors were
incentivized to strictly adhere to training only quality and discouraged from training others how to pack quickly.
Why 1 Why 2 Why 3 Why 4 Why 5
Why? Because Why? Because Why? Because Why? Because Why? Because
Why are training
ambassadors having
different impact on
trainee’s UPH
performance
Because they are not
sharing their best
practices on how to
pack quickly
Why are they not
sharing their best
practices on how to
pack quickly
Because they
are strictly
adhering to the
TWI training
checklist
Why are they
strictly adhering to
the TWI training
checklist
Because Quality
Assurance performs
training audits on how
well ambassadors
adhere to the checklist
determining their
performance rating
Why does Quality
Assurance perform
training audits on how
well the ambassadors
adhere to the checklist
The training checklist
was designed based
on the stow process
training checklist
emphasizing quality
and not speed
Why was the
training
designed based
on stow's
training
checklist
It is easier to compare
metrics between process
steps and ambassador
performance rating if they
compare similar metrics

Root Cause Hypothesis Tests
Key Take Away: hypothesis testing revealed station design and placement did significantly impact pack
associate performance (statistically insignificant at 5% level); however, associates performance varied based
on training received and identified training improvement opportunities (statistically significant at 5% level)
Root Cause Hypothesis Tests
Please include all referenced test results in Project Storyboard or Appendix
Possible X
(1 or 2 words)
Null Hypothesis
Alternative Hypothesis
(Your theory)
Hypothesis Test
(See Hypothesis Tree on
Next Tab)
P-Value or R-
Squared
Results
(Accept or
Reject Null)
Station handedness
There is no difference between the average pack
rates based on handedness and packstation
Average pack rates are different based on pack
associate handedness and which side of the
conveyor they are packing
Two-sample paired T-test P-value: 0.0720 Accept Null
Cherry-picking
There is no difference between the average pack
rates and packstation position on the conveyor
Average pack rates are different based packstation
position on the conveyor
One way ANOVA
P-value: 0.3021
R-Squared:
0.0065
Accept Null
Trainer Effectiveness
There is no difference in training ambassador
performance (trainee’s average pack rates)
Average pack rates of trainees are dependent on
the training ambassador effectiveness
Chi-Square
P-value:
1.0418E-20
Reject Null
Corrections Knowledge
There is no difference in pack associate familiarity for
resolving corrective action issues by learning curve
level
Familiarity for resolving corrective action issues is
different for learning curve level associates (greater
for higher learning curve)
Regression
P-value: 0.0054
Re-square: 0.8125
Reject Null
Making Box
making box process step by learning curve level
Familiarity for the making box process step is
Regression
P-value: 0.2290
Re-square: 0.8125
Accept Null
Finding Box
finding box process step by learning curve level
Familiarity for the finding box process step is
Regression
P-value: 0.0438
Re-square: 0.8125
Reject Null
Packing Dunnage
finding box process step by learning curve level
Familiarity for the packing dunnage process step is
Regression
P-value: 0.0414
Re-square: 0.8125
Reject Null
Reliance Others
There is no difference in pack associate perceived
reliance on Pas/water-spiders to resolve issues by
learning curve level
Self-expressed reliance on others to resolve issues
is different for learning curve level associates (less
One way ANOVA
P-value: 0.0018
Re-square: 0.8125
Reject Null

Dominant Hand by Work Station
on Performance Rates Hypothesis Rejected
Key Take Away: This hypothesis on hand dominance being a factor influencing performance
was found to be statistically insignificant at 5% level. Based on the P-value there is no
difference between hand dominance (left or right) and pack cycle time.

LC1 Trainee Performance Dependent on Training
Ambassador Assigned
Key Take Away: LC1 trainee performance is influenced by training ambassador. Not all training ambassadors
yield same performance in productivity. Some training ambassadors violate the TWI checklist to share best
practices on packing quickly. The null hypothesis that all ambassador trainees perform equally well can be
rejected at the 1% significance level
Leader Shift Overall
Oldest
Class Date
Associates
Trained
Classes Productivity
observed -
Total
Productivity
Score
expected -
Total
Productivi
ty Score
Quality Safety
Individual
Quality
Errors
Terminated
frantzk DA5- 117.6 11/17/2017 1 1 144 144 100 100 N/A 0 0
aedelste DN2- 112.8 11/24/2017 1 1 132 132 100 100 N/A 0 1
mickin DF6- 110.4 11/26/2017 1 1 126 126 100 100 N/A 0 0
camrieb DF6- 106.4 11/17/2017 3 1 116 348 300 100 N/A 0 3
michwahl DK7- 105.2 11/11/2017 6 2 113 678 600 100 N/A 0 4
taitanoa DB3- 103.2 11/4/2017 24 9 108 2592 2400 100 N/A 0 16
brdlynd DA0- 101.6 11/11/2017 19 4 104 1976 1900 100 N/A 7 9
rpphilpo DF6- 99.6 11/10/2017 1 1 99 99 100 100 N/A 0 1
jaymorri DK7- 97.6 11/14/2017 2 2 94 188 200 100 N/A 0 2
nichollc DB3- 97.6 11/13/2017 4 3 94 376 400 100 N/A 0 4
staglian DA7- 84.6 10/22/2017 11 3 94 1034 1100 100 35 0 10
batracey DA5- 95.6 11/11/2017 6 2 89 534 600 100 N/A 0 4
joelschm AAAA 95.2 11/14/2017 5 1 88 440 500 100 N/A 0 3
benjstew DB3- 94.4 11/8/2017 4 1 86 344 400 100 N/A 0 2
trotrina DA7- 93.2 11/22/2017 7 2 83 581 700 100 N/A 0 2
rphilpot DL6- 92 11/13/2017 1 1 80 80 100 100 N/A 0 0
roblamar DK7- 91.6 11/12/2017 2 2 79 158 200 100 N/A 0 2
Total 98 37 100 100
chi-stat 19.36
10.24
6.76
7.68
10.14
15.36
3.04
0.01
0.72
1.44
3.96
7.26
7.2
7.84
20.23
4
8.82
chi-stat 134.06
DOF 16
p-value 1.0418E-20

Pack Station Position on the Conveyor Line Does
Not Determine Pack Performance Rates
Key Take Away: Pack employee theory that pack stations towards the front of the conveyor
have improved performance due to ‘cherry-picking’ is rejected. The null hypothesis that all
stations did not influence pack associate performance (were equal) cannot be rejected. Based
on the P-value, there is no relation between pack station and performance.
Multiple Regression for UPH Multiple
R
R-Square
Adjusted
R-square
Std. Err. of
Estimate
Rows
Ignored
Outliers
Summary
0.2015 0.0406 0.0065 19.05438147 0 0
Degrees of
Freedom
Sum of
Squares
Mean of
Squares
F p-Value
ANOVA Table
Explained 9 3886.259785 431.8066428 1.189322426 0.3021
Unexplained 253 91856.57165 363.0694532
Coefficient Standard Error t-Value p-Value
Confidence Interval 95%
Regression Table Lower Upper
Constant 101.1163636 5.745112177 17.60041589 < 0.0001 89.80202702 112.4307003
Station Unit Number (01) -6.620738636 7.463119639 -0.887127496 0.3759 -21.31849305 8.077015773
Station Unit Number (05) 1.098373206 6.523861833 0.168362426 0.8664 -11.74962115 13.94636756

Higher Learning Curve Levels Spend Less Time
Waiting for Issues to Get Fixed
Key Take Away: The table shows labor utilization rates for associates at different learning curve
levels actively working. Performing a one-way ANOVA test, we can conclude that there is a
difference between learning curve levels and how much time they wait when corrective actions are
required.
Analysis:One-Way ANOVA
Performed By:sean
ANOVA Summary
Total Sample Size 15
Grand Mean 0.890947
Pooled Std Dev 0.022433
Pooled Variance 0.000503
Number of Samples 5
Confidence Level 95.00%
LC1 LC2 LC3 LC4 LC5
ANOVA Sample Stats Data Set #3 Data Set #3 Data Set #3 Data Set #3 Data Set #3
Sample Size 3 3 3 3 3
Sample Mean 0.834183 0.86313 0.91294 0.918333 0.92615
Sample Std Dev 0.006061 0.01013 0.03312 0.005508 0.03535
Sample Variance 0.000037 0.00010 0.00110 0.000030 0.00125
Pooling Weight 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000
Sum of Degrees of Mean
F-Ratio p-Value
OneWay ANOVA Table Squares Freedom Squares
Between Variation 0.019407 4 0.004852 9.641136 0.0018
Within Variation 0.005032 10 0.000503
Total Variation 0.024439 14

Survey of 159 Pack Associates on Their Familiarity
With the Pack Process
Key Take Away: Pack Associate Survey shows unfamiliarity with fixing issues, finding box, packing dunnage
and relying on PA for help is correlated with pack associate performance. While this does not prove a causal
relationship, with the time trial data on LC process times, changing the training plan is worth exploring.
StatTools Report
Analysis:Regression
Performed By:seanr
Date:Friday, August 24, 2018
Updating:Static
Variable:UPH
Multiple Regression for UPH Multiple
R
R-Square
Adjusted
R-square
Std. Err. of
Estimate
Rows
Ignored
Outliers
Summary
0.9053 0.8196 0.8125 6.796922446 0 0
Degrees of
Freedom
Sum of
Squares
Mean of
Squares
F p-Value
ANOVA Table
Explained 6 31910.79872 5318.466453 115.1229196 < 0.0001
Unexplained 152 7022.11952 46.19815474
Coefficient
Standard
Error
t-Value p-Value
Confidence Interval 95%
Regression Table Lower Upper
Constant 41.96773855 1.558595516 26.92663883 < 0.0001 38.88843085 45.04704625
LC # 1.546474908 0.526669869 2.936326908 0.0038 0.505936446 2.58701337
know how to fix issues 2.805121266 0.993412781 2.82372174 0.0054 0.842441667 4.767800864
know how to make a box 1.193610005 0.988160938 1.207910533 0.2290 -0.75869356 3.145913571
know how to find a box 2.090809066 1.028268093 2.033330686 0.0438 0.05926604 4.122352093
know how to pack dunnage 1.784094627 0.980229276 1.820078905 0.0414 -0.152538401 3.720727655
rely on PA or waterspider to help 2.97338937 0.988306391 3.008570418 0.0031 1.020798436 4.925980305
P-value>0.05
Null hypothesis
cannot be rejected
LC1: 32
LC2: 29
LC3: 30
LC4: 34
LC5: 34
Total 159

Time Motion Study
4.54 3.72 4.37 5.05 3.29
4.80 4.47 2.40 2.24
2.91
11.81
7.32 9.53 8.27
7.18
17.78
12.24
14.15 17.34
11.76
5.56
5.08
3.77
4.43
3.61
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 2 3 4 5
Scan SPOO
and on
conveyor
Pack Dunnage
and seal
Make Box
Grab Box
Grab andScan
Top Box
(Usage:34.39%)
Bottom Box
(Usage:17.11%)
Behind Box
(Usage:6.30%)
Jiffy
(Usage:29.58%)
V3/V4
(Usage:12.01%)
Make
Box
Pack
Dunnage
Total
AVG
Process
Time
Make
Box
Pack
Dunnag
e
Total
AVG
Proces
s Time
Make
Box
Pack
Dunnag
e
Total
AVG
Process
Time
Pack
Jiffy
Total
AVG
Process
Time
Pack
V3/V4
Total
AVG
Process
Time
Learning
Curve
1 9.0 12.8 36.2 17.1 26.8 60.9 14.1 20.9 55.9 8.7 16.8 10.6 20.2
5 6.5 10.2 25.0 7.4 14.9 32.9 10.3 16.4 40.5 4.7 10.2 6.4 13.2
Δ LC5 & LC1 5.1 11.2 21.6 28.0 8.3 15.4 4.0 6.6 4.2 7.0
* Time units are all in seconds
Average UPH for all Box Types by LC level
Weighted average score based on Fulfillment Center Box Usage Rates for 2017-2018
Key Take Away: The detailed process step time-motion study showed the biggest opportunities for
improvement for LC1 associates to reach potential of LC5 pack performance rates is making box and
packing dunnage. A training plan addressing deficiencies with these process steps will help increase LC1
pack performance

Selected Solutions
Key Take Away: The team decided to implement all the proposed solutions except adding a dunnage rack slider since
it presented some safety concerns and did not address the problem statement with lowering the learning curve ramp
as well as pre-making boxes and pre-SPOO’ing boxes since it creates WIP or work-in-progress (added waste for
inventory waiting to be processed).
Project Goal
Please rank each solution for each criteria
by using the 1-5 Scale as indicated belowEnter Goal Statement below:
(As stated on Project Charter)
Decrease the learning curve ramp (progression from LC1 to LC5)
lead time from 5 weeks to 2 weeks by 10/12/2018
Very Low
(less good)
Moderate
Very High
(best)
1 2 3 4 5
Potential Solution
(Provide Brief Description)
Potential to
Meet Goal
Positive
Customer
Impact
Cost to
Implement
(1 = $$$
& 5 = $)
Stakeholder
Buy-in
Time to
Implement
(1 = Long
5 = Quick)
Total Score
Implement?
Yes/No
Weighted Criteria 10 9 8 7 5
Add Pack-Singles Dunnage Training Station 5 4 2 4 2 140 Yes
Add Virtual Instructional Training Videos to Pack Console 4 4 3 3 3 136 Yes
Add Virtual Cycle Diagnostic Tool for Training Ambassadors 4 3 3 5 4 146 Yes
Add Universal Pack App User Interface Console for showing where
Box is at Station during Pack Process
5 5 3 3 3 155 Yes
Add Pack Quality School to training process for
reducing/eliminating rework
3 4 4 4 5 151 Yes
Add Dunnage Rack on slider so can be configured by pack associate
to accommodate left-hand/right-hand users
2 1 3 2 2 77 No
Add 5S templates and standard work diagrams at work station to
assist pack associates on maintaining standards and following
process
3 5 5 4 5 168 Yes
Pre-make boxes (add SPOO labels to boxes and complete first step
to building the box)
3 3 2 2 4 107 No

Implementation Plan
Key Take Away: This Implementation Plan provided insights on coordination required with other
departments/teams and provided a detailed roll-out for who was responsible for each task
New Pack-Singles Training Improvement Program - Implementation Plan
Action Item
(List steps required to implement solutions)
Responsible
(List person(s) responsible for
action steps)
Due Date
(Indicate when action items must
be completed)
Reconfigure design layout of select pack-singles station for dunnage training stations Art September 4
Prepare all training content and record Training Videos Thomas September 4
Add Virtual Training features to Pack Console David September 5
Add Virtual Cycle Diagnostic Tool and checklist webforms to Ambassador Training App David September 5
Add Pack Station box layout map to University Pack App User Interface Console David September 5
Prepare all training content for Pack Quality School Denise September 4
Add 5S templates and standard work diagrams at work stations Tracey September 3
Provide new TWI Ambassador Training Program instructions Denise September 4
Prepare Standup Meeting Kick-out activity for program launch announcement Tracey September 5
Coordinate with Quality Assurance, Safety and other teams on report updates
Sean September 7

Risk Management
Key Take Away: FMEA revealed that more touch-points needed following training to ensure that
trainees were comfortable in process and understand expectations of the role.
FMEA Form
Process/Product Name:
Pack Associate Trainees (LC1s) Packing
Orders Prepared By:Team
Responsible:Sean FMEA Date (Orig.): 1-Sep (Rev.):
Process
Step/Input
Potential
Failure Mode
Potential Failure
Effects
SEVERITY(1-10)
Potential Causes
OCCURRENCE(1-10)
Current
Controls
DETECTION(1-10)
RPN
Action
Recommended
Resp. Actions Taken
SEVERITY(1-10)
OCCURRENCE(1-10)
DETECTION(1-10)
RPN
What is the
process
step, change
or feature
under
investigatio
n?
In what ways
could the step,
change or
feature go
wrong?
What is the impact
on the customer if
this failure is not
prevented or
corrected?
What causes the
step, change or
feature to go
wrong? (how
could it occur?)
What controls
exist that
either prevent
or detect the
failure?
What are the
recommended
actions for reducing
the occurrence of
the cause or
improving
detection?
Who is
responsible?
What actions were
completed (and when) with
respect to the RPN?
Training
ambassador
s perform
follow-up to
check/coach
trainees
Training
ambassador
unavailable
(different shift,
on leave, too
busy)
Packages are late
since trainee
deficiencies persist
6
Replacement
ambassador
unfamiliar with
trainee progress
and what they
need to work on
7
Routine
quality
inspections
and FC Console
UPH reports
5 210
Maintain records
(notes/comments)
from training
ambassadors on
each training
session for each
trainee
Process
Assist (PA)
(i.e. Eric
Lippold)
Ambassador Training Kindle
App integrates manual web
form fields for ambassadors
to use cycle time tool to
record trainee performance
for each process step and
notes (9/5)
6 3 3 54
Pack
Associate
Trainees
packing
Employees quit
or do not show
up on time for
their shift
Packages are late
since insufficient
available
employees to
fulfill orders on-
time
9
Training program
and expectations
too intense for
new employees
5
HR surveys;
standup
accountability
meeting
4 180
Cross train
permanent
employees on pack-
process
Operations
Manager -
Aaron
Taylor
Develop schedule for cross-
training other employees in
pack process ahead of peak
season (9/5)
9 2 4 72
Pack
Associate
Trainees
packing
Increased
mistakes
(packing wrong
item, putting
on wrong
SPOO,
overpacking)
Customer's item
does not make the
description
(undamaged,
correct order, etc)
8
Training program
emphasis on
packing quickly
rather than
building quality
into pack process
3
Kick-outs
process with
automated
package check
4 96
Add Quality
Assurance
audits/inspections
to pack trainees
during first two
weeks in role
Quality
Assurance
Manager -
Rocky Carter
Develop schedule/roster for
inspectors to audit trainee
performance (9/5)
8 2 2 32
Pack
Associate
Trainees
packing
Increased
reported
injuries (safety
cases)
packages are late
since injured
employee unable
to work and
increases costs to
the company
7
Too much stress
on new
employees
causing them to
violate safety
protocols
4
Periodic safety
inspections
6 168
Implement buddy
system (assign
experienced
associate to new
associate during
each shift)
Safety
Manager -
Neema
Verma
Develop program, brief
managers during synch,
implement during standup
(9/5)
7 3 2 42

To Be Map Segment
Key Take Away: Improved training process and pack-training station design shows the number of
required pack-singles employees drops from 23 to 20. At $23/hour, avoidable cost-savings for a
month is ~$20.7K, exceeding the original estimate of $13,500 in the business case. Success!

Proof of Improvement
Key Take Away: In the current state (prior state to improvements), it took five weeks for associates to reach 95.5
UPH, while the improved learning curve ramp, incorporating improved pack training design and training program,
associates are able to exceed this target in week 3, by packing 96.3 UPH. We successfully reduced the learning
curve ramp by 2 weeks by introducing the improvements in this project – success!
62.78
73.81
79.66
84.90
95.48
78.45
87.91
96.26
98.1
99.1
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5
Current State Learn Curve Ramp
Improved Learning Curve Ramp
Time (weeks)
Units per Hour
(UPH)
Current State vs Improved Learning Curve Ramp –
UPH pack performance progression over 5 weeks in role

Monitoring Plan Response Plan
Name of the
Measure
Input,
Process or
Output?
What is the
Target?
Method of Data
Capture
Checking
Frequency
Person
Responsib
le
Upper/Lower
Trigger Point
Who Will
Respond?
Reaction Plan
Top Box -
Average Cycle
Time
Process 31 seconds
Pack Console
Capture, PPR
Roll-up in FC
Console
Quarterly (every
2.5 hours) before
break
PA Above 34 seconds Area Manager
Observe the process to see why it's taking longer. Diagnose
deficiency of trainee and schedule jumpstart remedial
training as required. Monitor Training Ambassador
performance and make corrections.
Bottom Box -
Average Cycle
Time
Process 40 seconds
Pack Console
Capture, PPR
Roll-up in FC
Console
Quarterly (every
2.5 hours) before
break
Behind Box -
Average Cycle
Time
Process 45 seconds
Pack Console
Capture, PPR
Roll-up in FC
Console
Quarterly (every
2.5 hours) before
break
Jiffies - Average
Cycle Time
Process 12 seconds
Pack Console
Capture, PPR
Roll-up in FC
Console
Quarterly (every
2.5 hours) before
break
V3/V4 - Average
Cycle Time
Process 14 seconds
Pack Console
Capture, PPR
Roll-up in FC
Console
Quarterly (every
2.5 hours) before
break
Package Defects Output
100%
accuracy
Audit Center
Package Failure
Report from
Kick-out station
Daily PA
More than 3
occurrences in a
day
Area Manager
Investigate defects to determine the root cause and make
corrections where ever appropriate. Is it due to a process
issue, a training issue, human operator error? Can we take
steps to mistake-proof the error?
Number of
customer order
arrivals
Input
takt time 2.4
seconds
(15000 pack-
single orders
in 10 hours)
Record incoming
customer orders
on FC Console
Workable Units
Log
Daily, every 15
minutes during
peak hours
Area
Manager
takt time is below
2.0 seconds
(exceeds 18000
pack-single orders
in 10 hours)
Operations
Manager
Communicate with staff, especially Process Assistants and
Process Guides, that large demand orders are pending
processing – Add cross-trained employees on the schedule
& activate mandatory overtime as needed
Labor Utilization
Rate
Process
Utilization
rate is 90%
Pack Console
Capture, PPR
Roll-up in FC
Console
Quarterly (every
2.5 hours) before
break
PA
Utilization Rate is
below 87%
Area Manager
Investigate low labor utilization to determine the root cause
and make corrections where ever appropriate. Is it due to a
process issue, a training issue, human operator error? Are
workers not motivated to resolve issues? Can we take steps
to mistake-proof the error?
Monitoring & Response Plan
Key Take Away: The Monitoring Plan factors in both the leading indicators of packaging time and customer order
arrival rate along with defect rate and labor utilization rates. The Monitoring Plan is primarily focused on process
centric tasks to track associate performance and determine if additional resources or training is required.

Control Chart for Improved Training Process
Key Take Away: Observing trainee performance at completion of training program, the team is continuing
to monitor special causes of variation. The lower control limit of – and the Upper Control Limit of 74.68
UPH is the Response Plan trigger for investigating root cause and providing remedial training.
CL 5.08
UCL 9.22
LCL 0.94
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Stdev
Subgroup
LC1 UPH Performance (n=8) - S Chart
CL 80.27
UCL 85.85
LCL 74.68
72.8
74.8
76.8
78.8
80.8
82.8
84.8
86.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Average
Subgroup
LC1 UPH Performance (n=8) - X Chart

Project Closure
Lessons Learned Customer Impact
Do's and Don'ts for Future Efforts Positive Impacts on External Customer
Coordinate with ISS (contract agency) and HR on scheduling temp employees
start dates based on training ambassador availability
Increased capacity to fulfill more orders for customers
Including other department teams in process walk and brainstorming sessions
illuminated more opportunities for improvement and gained more support
demonstrated that quality of packaging will not suffer due to increase in
packing associates’ packing performance rates (it actually decreases number
of reworks required and defects in packing process)
Submit labor contract request several weeks in advance and coordinate with
ISS on hiring timeline à unable to complete design of experiments because
there were too few temp employees hired during the
measurement/improvement phases of the project
Training more ambassadors in new pack training process could have relieved
some strain on scheduling training for different shifts throughout the week
Final Calculations of Savings or Gains
Hard Savings/Profit Increase Soft Savings - Cost or Time
Estimated $9.4MM cost-savings potential throughout fulfillment network if we
are unable to replicate the new training program and results in other pack-
singles processes throughout fulfillment network
Decreased number of cancelled orders or diverting orders to other fulfillment
centers means that customers will not become dissatisfied and therefore
remain as loyal customers
Improved training program demonstrated for our fulfillment center that there
will be an annual savings of ~$103.5K from cost avoidances and having
increased accuracy in S&OP forecasts for labor demand
Process Owner Hand-off Sign-off From Project Sponsor
Has been informed of process changes: Yes / No Observed new training program and performance results with noticeable
increase in associate onboarding in pack-singles process. Associates enjoy the
new training program and feel good about their progress. Training
Ambassadors feel like they are really making a difference by transferring their
tribal knowledge. This is a win for the team and looking for opportunities to
introduce this to other process paths such as picking and stowing.
-Aaron Taylor (Operations Manager)
Agrees to continued monitoring of new process: Yes / No
Has received new process documentation:
Yes / No
Project Closure
Key Take Away: The Process Owner (Aaron) is excited to keep continue applying these changes
for ensuring a shorter learning curve ramp in pack singles process path. The cost-savings
exceeded the original target stated in the business case. This was a success!

Key Words (Specific to Your Industry)
• Area Manager (AM)- owns his/her process. In doing so, they’re solely responsible for its success or failure and must plan, coordinate, and execute
the operation efficiently and effectively. In addition to the operation, they are responsible for the Associates that fall within it. By balancing the
strategic goals with the wellbeing of the Associate, the AM aims to optimize the process while removing barriers to the operation.
• Associate – hourly employee responsible for order fulfillment
• ADAPT - (Associate Development and Performance Tracking) software to measure the quality and quantity of the Associates’ work.
• Cherry-picking – perceived practice of associates at the front of the conveyors being able to select which totes to pack based on the number of
small items in the tote, thereby having an advantage to increase their UPH performance metric
• Dunnage – bubble wrap for padding the inner walls of the box to prevent the item order from being damaged in transit
• FC Console – operations network enterprise database integrated with other fulfillment centers, allows managers a top level view of all process
performance and provides refined, real-time data on process path performance and process roll-ups for real-time execution
• Grab Box – process step from the moment the associate has scanned an item from the tote to the moment that the associate locates and grabs the
correct box as designated on the pack console screen
• Grab and Scan item – process step from the moment the associate picks an item from the tote to the moment that the associate scans the item and
it registers on the pack console screen
• Grab and Scan Tote – process step from the moment the associate has cleared/initiated/reset the pack console screen to the moment that the
associate grabs a totes from the conveyor and scans the tote barcode, registering the tote on the pack console screen
• Integrity Staffing Solutions (ISS) – contract agency responsible for most of seasonal/temp employee hires for peak season labor required
• Jiffies – padded envelopes, intended for small, non-bulky item orders that do not require extra care packaging in a box with dunnage
• LC – Learning Curve, designates the amount of time that an associate has been in a particular process path, each LC level is increments of 40
recorded hours in a process role
• LC1 – associate who is in week 1 of role, completed traditional training program, has less than 40 aggregate recorded hours in role
• LC1X – associate who completed improved training during week 1 in role, has less than 40 aggregate recorded hours in role
• LC2 – associate who is in week 2 of role, has more than 40 hours and less than 80 hours recorded hours in role
• LC5 – associate who is in week 5 of role, has more than 160 hours recorded hours in role
• Learning curve ramp – a week by week productivity performance plan for onboarding new associates in different fulfillment process roles, for the
pack process, it is a 5 week ramp up from packing 62 packages per hour to 96 packages in the first week to 96 packages per hour in week 5
• Make Box – process step from the time that the associate has grabbed the box to the moment that the associate has opened the box, placed tape
across the base of the box and placed the item in the box
• Operational Team Leader (OTL)- The Team Leader is a new position created to bridge the role of the AM and the PA. By developing a role that is
more oriented toward the associate, the TL must focus on engaging associates while balancing the need for operational and strategic foresight.
5.2 Schedule Layout

Key Words (Specific to Your Industry)
• Operations Manager (OM)- the mentor and coach of the direct management team. In doing so, the OM’s focus is to enhance the efficiency of the team and
ensure they meet their strategic goals. The OM’s scope is broad and goals, more expansive. Thus the OM must communicate and understand the Senior
Management/Stakeholders’ priorities and rely on his/her experience to meet them.
• Process Assistant (PA) - manages the day to day operations of the process in which they are assigned. Being the subject matter expert of the process, their
experience is vital to the optimization of the plan set forth by the team leader and area manager.
• Process Guide (PG)- Assist the Process Assistant (PA) in supporting the Associate. By quickly responding to andons, interacting with associates, and assisting in
support functions, the PG is essential to the optimization of their process.
• Pack Console – digital record and instructions for orders placed, automatically tracks orders in progress, provides status updates and instructs associates and
managers what pending processes are required for orders and by what time
• Pack Dunnage – process step from the time that the associate has made the box and placed the item in the box to the time that the associate seals the top of the
box with dunnage (bubble wrap) in the box
• Pack Singles – as opposed to multi-pack orders, pack singles is the process for single purchase order fulfillment, one item in one package delivered to a customer.
• Peak Season – seasonal peaks in customer demand driven by buying seasons, increasing demand volume and requiring temporary increase in labor capacity,
hiring seasonal help
• Pick Process – process from the order download to the moment that an associate picks the order from an inventory pod, scans the item and places in tote on the
conveyor
• Process Path Rollup (PPR) - updates every hour and is used to assess the current operation’s status. This gives the large scope of the operation by detailing the
Actual vs Planned data in terms of Units, Vol, Hrs, and Rate.
• Process Path Aggregate (PPA) - more in-depth and updates more frequently than PPR. Managers use this tool when they would like to deep dive into a process or
gain updated information between PPR updates.
• Scan SPOO & place order package on conveyor – process step from when the top of package is sealed to the moment that a SPOO label is scanned, placed on
package and the package is placed on the conveyor
• SPOO - barcodes used to track a packed object or objects. Once items are packaged, cannot easily tell what the object actually is (since you the item is packaged).
The shipping label for the object is usually created after the item is boxed, but before the item is shipped so a SPOO is used to track the box between that time.
• Service Level agreement (SLA) – designated agreements with distributors and vendors in fulfillment process, critical pull-times specify when orders must be
completed in order to ensure on-time delivery from distributors
• Temp employee – seasonal hired help from Integrity Staffing Solutions (ISS) and other contracting agencies to fulfill labor required, usually for only 8-12 weeks
• Training Ambassador – selected by team leader, area manager or process assistant as high-performing in a process step, completed the required 40 hour training
program and not someone with deficiencies in performance record (bottom 20% in role, late/poor evaluations, etc), responsible for training associates new to
process path roles during the first 40 hours they are in a role
• Training Within Industry (TWI) - training guidelines that leverage a practice developed during WWII on training multiple shifts of workers in a timely manner to
meet expectations
• Units Per Hour (UPH) – performance evaluation metric used to track associate performance in packing, picking, stowing and other process path roles
• Water-spider – designated employee during a shift that is responsible for replenishing boxes and packing supplies at stations as well as transporting emptied
totes from pack singles stations to pick stations so pick associates can use to deliver more orders

Key Take Away: Performing a two-sample t-test, the null hypothesis (previous LC1 associates who did not
receive the improved training and those who did would have equal UPH average performance) can be rejected at
the 5% significance level. The improved training pilot was a success!
# of Associates Trained from 30-JUN-17 to
29-JUN-18
(excluding LC1X test subjects)
331
AVG UPH 70.34
Standard deviation of UPH 21.98
Chi-Square Goodness-of-Fit Test (p-value) 0.921
Baseline LC1 Average UPH Improved LC1 Average UPH

Key Take Away: The LC1X average pack process time (cycle time + wait time) profile closely resembles the LC3
average pack process time profile. This finding from the improvement phase was replicated in the control phase
and demonstrates that the learning curve ramp was reduced by two weeks – success!
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
LC1 LC2 LC1X LC3 LC4 LC5 Learning curve level
Time
(seconds)
Average Pack Process Time by Learning Curve Level

Key Take Away: Performing a two-sample t-test for LC1X associates (received improved training)
and those who were trained under the ‘as is’ training also showed the null hypothesis could be
rejected at the 5% significance level. Also a two-sample t-test showed that the training
ambassador (AJ) was more effective with the new training program compared to those he
previously trained.

Pack-Singles Temporary Employees UPH by Learning Curve
LC
Key Take Away: Current weekly UPH performance expectations for onboarding temp employees in
pack-singles role is five week ramp-up from 62.8 UPH by the end of first week to 95.5 UPH by end
of fifth week.
Weekly Performance Levels for 124 Temp Employees during Peak 2018

LC1-LC5 vs. LC1X cycle times for packing boxes
Pack Box AVG Cycle Time (Seconds)
LC1 LC2 LC3 LC4 LC5 LC1X
Key Take Away: For Packing boxes, between LC1 and LC1X associates, there was a noticeable
improvement, for ‘grab box’, ‘make box’ and ‘pack dunnage’ process steps. LC1X AVG Cycle time is
35.42 seconds compared to 44.49 seconds for LC1s and 34.22 seconds compared to LC3s.

Time Trial Study – Average Cycle Times by Learning Curve
*all mean and standard deviation units are in seconds
The following is a summary of cycle times (seconds) for each participant in the time trial study
Packer 1 Packer 2 Packer 3 Packer 4 Packer 5 Packer 6 Packer 7 Packer 8 Packer 9 Packer 10
Packer
11
Packer
12
Packer
13
Packer
14
Packer
15
LC1 LC2 LC3 LC4 LC5
Jiffy Mean 19.7 18.9 14.2 16.8 17.3 12.1 15.1 14.5 12.8 12.4 12.5 12.2 11.6 9.5 12.1
st dev 5.3 5.1 2.5 2.4 2.5 3.5 4.5 4.3 5.5 4.1 4.1 4.0 2.6 1.7 3.3
V3/V4 Mean 27.2 26.1 16.2 21.2 21.9 13.3 19.3 18.6 11.9 17.5 17.7 17.2 15.0 10.4 15.7
st dev 5.4 5.1 3.0 4.2 4.3 4.8 3.4 3.2 1.2 3.5 3.5 3.4 4.5 0.8 2.7
top box Mean 46.9 45.0 25.4 31.3 32.2 25.6 32.3 31.0 31.3 33.8 34.1 33.1 24.4 25.7 24.8
st dev 9.8 9.4 8.6 4.0 4.1 4.3 5.0 4.8 6.8 10.7 10.8 10.5 2.9 4.6 2.8
bottom
box
Mean 69.2 66.4 40.1 53.9 55.5 29.2 39.8 38.2 38.6 45.0 45.4 44.1 32.1 33.0 29.7
st dev 24.0 23.0 12.6 11.5 11.8 3.2 5.2 5.0 15.8 7.4 7.4 7.2 5.1 3.3 2.3
behind
box
Mean 68.3 65.5 47.7 54.1 55.7 41.6 41.2 39.6 39.4 67.7 68.4 66.4 52.2 36.6 52.9
st dev 21.3 20.4 11.3 13.2 13.6 13.5 15.2 9.6 8.9 18.7 18.8 18.3 19.5 3.0 23.5
All boxes Mean 57.2 54.9 32.8 38.9 40.0 28.8 33.5 32.2 36.3 39.0 39.4 38.2 28.7 30.2 28.0
st dev 19.3 18.6 13.3 13.1 13.5 7.9 5.7 5.4 12.6 12.0 12.2 11.8 9.2 6.0 8.7
Total
Time
Labor
Utilization
Value-Add
(packing)
83.0% 79.6% 84.1% 86.5% 89.1% 85.2% 88.7% 85.2% 90.2% 94.2% 95.2% 92.4% 88.7% 95.6% 93.6%
Non-Value Add
(not packing)
17.0% 16.4% 15.9% 13.5% 13.9% 14.8% 11.3% 10.8% 9.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.6% 11.3% 4.4% 6.4%
Key Take Away: The Time motion study for different Learning Curve level associates showed that
lower learning curve level associates had less labor utilization, required longer times to pack
different box types and generally, had a higher standard deviation in processing time.

Top Boxes – Average Cycle Time
Top Boxes – Average Cycle Time (seconds)
Key Take Away: For Packing ‘Top boxes’, between LC1 and LC1X associates, there was a marginal
improvement for ‘make box’ and ‘pack dunnage’ process steps while a noticeable improvement in
‘grab box’ process step. LC1X AVG Cycle time is 31.10 seconds compared to 35.55 seconds for
LC1s and 30.72 seconds compared to LC3s.

Bottom Boxes – Average Cycle Time
Bottom Boxes – Average Cycle Time (seconds)
Key Take Away: For Packing ‘Bottom Boxes’, between LC1 and LC1X associates, there was a
noticeable improvement for ‘grab box’, ‘make box’ and ‘pack dunnage’ process steps. LC1X AVG
Cycle time is 41.31 seconds compared to 57.43 seconds for LC1s and 38.89 seconds compared to
LC3s.

Behind Boxes – Average Cycle Time
Behind Boxes – Average Cycle Time (seconds)
Key Take Away: For Packing ‘Behind Boxes’, between LC1 and LC1X associates, there was a
noticeable improvement for ‘grab box’, ‘make box’ and ‘pack dunnage’ process steps. LC1X AVG
Cycle time is 44.63 seconds compared to 55.92 seconds for LC1s and 39.38 seconds compared to
LC3s. LC4 performance was unusual with 66.41 seconds so decided to investigate this further for
behind boxes since processing times were less related to learning curve level. Discovered a fix was
needed for three stations’ dunnage machines and box racks for holding these boxes

Jiffies (Padded Envelope) – Average Cycle Time
LC1 LC2 LC3 LC4 LC5
Jiffies – Average Cycle Time (seconds)
LC1X
Key Take Away: For Packing ‘Jiffies’, between LC1 and LC1X associates, there was a noticeable
improvement for ‘pack jiffy’ and ‘scan SPOO and place on conveyor’ process steps while a marginal
improvement for ‘grab and scan item’ process step. LC1X AVG Cycle time is 12.11 seconds
compared to 16.47 seconds for LC1s and 13.51 seconds compared to LC3s.

V3/V4 Box Type –
Average Cycle Time
LC1 LC2 LC3 LC4 LC5
V3/V4 – Average Cycle Time (seconds)
LC1X
Key Take Away: For Packing ‘V3/V4’ (foldable boxes), between LC1 and LC1X associates, there
was a noticeable improvement for ‘grab and scanning item’, ‘pack V3/V4’ and ‘scan SPOO and
place on conveyor’ process steps. LC1X AVG Cycle time is 14.48 seconds compared to 19.94
seconds for LC1s and 13.87 seconds compared to LC3s.

Actual Box Usage Data for Optimizing Pack Training
Station Design Layout
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
B2A
A1
V3
A3
1AD
V4
1B2
BA8
1A5
1A7
N3
1AE
K3
1BF
1B9
1B4
1A9
1BA
1BB
S5
1BG
Actual (# of Boxes)
Rank Box Type
Box Code
Name
Dimensions
(inches)
Actual Recommended
Actual (# of
Boxes)
1 B2A B2A 10X7X2 23.58% 23.70%
398,312
86.3%
2 BY0/BH0 A1 10X7X3 14.56% 14.62%
245,947
3 BP0 V3 9.5X6.5X2 9.51% 9.56%
160,642
4 BH1 A3 10X7X5 8.24% 8.20%
139,190
5 BY8 1AD 13.5X9.5X3 6.76% 6.77%
114,190
6 BP1 V4 12X9X2 5.65% 5.57%
95,440
7 BFP 1B2 15.5X12.5X3 5.20% 5.23%
87,838
8 BA8 BA8 14X9X2 4.71% 4.66%
79,561
9 BF5 1A5
13.5X10.5X4.
5
4.22% 4.19%
71,284
10 BF7 1A7 14.5X8X7 3.89% 3.89%
65,710
11 BF1 N3 16X12X5 2.31% 2.32%
39,020
13.70%
12 BY9 1AE 13X10.5X8 2.27% 2.24%
38,345
13 BF2 K3 19X13X6 1.87% 1.86%
31,588
14 BFQ 1BF 19.5X14X3 1.76% 1.79%
29,730
15 BFE 1B9 18X9X8.5 1.20% 1.19%
20,270
16 BFD 1B4 17.5X14X8 1.16% 1.14%
19,595
17 BF8 1A9 14X12.5X9 1.04% 1.02%
17,568
17 BFF 1BA 19X12.5X11 1.04% 1.02%
17,568
19 BFG 1BB 19X14.5X12 0.57% 0.55%
9,628
20 B5M S5 22X18X12 0.30% 0.30%
5,068
21 B5L 1BG 22X18X5 0.18% 0.18%
3,041
Key Take Away: Used the box type utilization
rates Pareto analysis to optimize box layout at
pack singles stations and for training program.

Box Usage Data by LC1-LC5 Pack Performance Rates
LC1 LC1X
∆LC1 and
LC1X
LC2 LC3 LC4 LC5
Top Boxes
Usage Grab and Scan 3.7 4.55 0.85 3.46 3.6 5.77 3.26
34.39% Grab Box 4.09 1.92 -2.17 2.41 1.88 1.97 1.98
Make Box 8.97 8.21 -0.76 6.42 8.94 6.5 6.4
Pack Dunnage and seal 12.85 12.2 -0.65 10.69 12.4 13.18 10.07
Scan SPOO and on conveyor 5.94 4.22 -1.72 4.95 3.9 4.63 3.1
Total 35.55 31.1 -4.45 27.93 30.72 32.05 24.81
Weighted AVG 12.23 10.70 -1.53 9.61 10.56 11.02 8.53
Bottom Boxes
17.11% Grab and Scan 4.14 5.08 0.94 4.45 5.91 4.04 3.41
Grab Box 4.37 2.81 -1.56 4.28 3 2.57 2.8
Make Box 17.11 10.32 -6.79 8.22 9.81 10.41 7.62
Total 57.43 41.31 -16.12 36.08 38.89 43.31 31.34
Weighted AVG 9.83 7.07 -2.76 6.17 6.65 7.41 5.36
Behind Boxes
6.30% Grab and Scan 7.94 3.15 -4.79 3.93 3.15 3.14 3.14
Grab Box 7.83 3.52 -4.31 12.02 3.6 3.31 7.93
Make Box 14.08 13.74 -0.34 9.6 13.74 16.69 10.08
Scan SPOO and on conveyor 5.16 4.16 -1 6.27 4.16 3.75 5.07
Total 55.92 42.63 -13.29 47.24 42.71 66.41 42.35
Weighted AVG 3.52 2.69 -0.84 2.98 2.69 4.18 2.67
Jiffies
29.58% Grab and Scan 3.57 3.23 -0.34 3.68 3.5 4.39 2.85
Pack Jiffy 8.68 5.89 -2.79 6.62 6.5 5.18 5.17
Total 16.47 12.11 -4.36 13.39 13.45 12.01 10.61
Weighted AVG 4.87 3.58 -1.29 3.96 3.98 3.55 3.14
V3/V4
12.01% Grab and Scan 3.64 2.7 -0.94 2.6 2.79 2.43 3.25
Pack V3/V4 10.64 7.93 -2.71 4.1 7.02 10.68 6.55
Total 19.94 14.48 -5.46 9.99 13.87 16.33 13.32
Weighted AVG 2.39 1.74 -0.66 1.20 1.67 1.96 1.60
Units per hour @ 100% utilization 109.6 139.7 30.1 150.5 140.9 128.0 169.0
Utilization 83.53% 90.32% 6.79% 84.87% 95.35% 90.18% 94.57%
Units per hour @ LC utilization 91.6 126.2 34.6 127.8 134.3 115.4 159.8
Key Take Away: Analyzed the difference between LC1 and LC1X performance averages/standard
deviation by box type and process step to determine opportunities for further refining the training program.

PROJECT STORYBOARD: Reducing Learning Curve Ramp for Temp Employees by 2 Weeks

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to PROJECT STORYBOARD: Reducing Learning Curve Ramp for Temp Employees by 2 Weeks (20)

More from GoLeanSixSigma.com (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

PROJECT STORYBOARD: Reducing Learning Curve Ramp for Temp Employees by 2 Weeks