TECH581 Fall 2013 Improve/Control Presentation

1. TECH581 Fall 2013 Improve/Control Presentation November 11, 2013 Alex Garcia

2. Project Charter

3. CTQ CTQ KPIVs Customer(s) KPOV(s) Pay Application Review Time Time between when pay application is submitted and a check Is cut Accounts Payable Number of Individuals who review app INTERNAL Pay Application Processing Time Requirement of electronic submissions Direct Deposit/ Electronic Submission Contractors/Architects EXTERNAL Training of staff

4. Data Collection Plan • Dig deeper into how many pay apps AP can handle • Are they understaffed? • Cost/Time of switching to direct deposit • Interview the Director of Special Projects and Campus Planner to determine why and what ways can be used to eliminate the unnecessary delays in approving pay apps

5. Data Collection Results • AP receives on avg 100 pay requests per day • 1 person can process 30 per day • 2 people currently in AP that handle the checks

6. Data Collection Results • Some projects are auxiliaries functions, so the pay request must go through them for approval as well, adding another step to the process • Switching to direct deposit would help but would be difficult to do due to various regulations.

7. Improve Phase –review from Analyze • Initially started with 4 KPIV and 2 KPOV in the CTQ tree • Further review determines that 2 KPIV and 1 KPOV can be eliminated • Remaining KPIV are directly proportional. The more people it takes to review a pay app, the longer time it takes for the check to get cut • The measurable item is the number of days taken to get the pay app approved

8. Solutions • Consolidate the number of people who look at and approve pay apps • Institute an electronic approval process • Create a culture change that limits the approval duration of pay applications to no more than 3 days on each individuals desk An impact/effort matrix was used to determine the best solution

9. Impact/Effort Matrix 5 High Create culture change to limit approval duration to 3 days Consolidate # of people looking at pay apps I M P A C T 3 1 Low Institute electronic approvals 1 Low 3 5 High Effort

10. Pay app sent to Pay app sent to AP receives pay Campus Special Projects app from Planning director contractor Pay app is returned to Pay app is Rejected contractor for reviewed corrections and and resbumit approved or rejected Approved Pay app sent to AP for processing Rejected Pay app is returned to Pay app is campus planning for reviewed by AP corrections and resbumit Approved Check is cut and mailed to contractor Current State Process Flow Map Pay app sent to Auxiliaries

11. Pay app sent directly to special projects director Pay app is Approved or rejected Rejected Approved Pay app is returned to contractor for corrections and Pay app sent to AP resubmit for processing Pay app is reviewed by AP Rejected Pay app is returned to Special projects director for corrections and resbumit Approved Check is cut and mailed to contractor Future State Process Map

12. Gap Analysis After a gap analysis was performed it was determined that 3 steps can be eliminated from the future process map. Those steps are: • Eliminate AP receiving pay app first then sending on for approvals. • Eliminate campus planner approval step • Eliminate auxiliaries approval step

13. Pilot Implementation Plan • Inform key stakeholders of the timing and schedule • Conduct training session • Set periodic meetings to review progress

14. Measure Success • After a period of time, 3 months for example, a final review meeting will occur • Success will be determined if the amount of days taken to process pay application is less than 30 days as before • Decision will then be made to implement plan full time

15. Conclusion • After the implementation plan, hope is that the time taken for pay apps to be processed is reduced • Future things to investigate if not, are Best Known Methods used by other universities