Matt Greene Six Sigma Black Belt Project

Lean 6σ Project

FINAL REPORT

Matt Greene

The Restaurant

1

Phase 1: DEFINE

Background:

“Six Sigma is both a quality management philosophy and a methodology that focuses on reducing variation, measuring defects, and improving quality of products, processes and services.” Though it was initially developed with the intended application of manufacturing process optimization, the methodology and accompanying tools have been successfully implemented in a wide range of service industries.

Introduction:

The Restaurant, as it will be referred to herein, is an actual (non-fictitious) metro-Atlanta area casual-dining restaurant and bar. There are several processes occurring simultaneously throughout The Restaurant at any given time, from seating and ordering, to cooking and delivery, and finally payment. The Six Sigma methodology of Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control (DMAIC) will be implemented at The Restaurant to improve the processes the customer and stakeholders consider Critical-To-Quality (CTQ).

The first step in the improvement process is to objectively define the problem. Stakeholders agree that of the many processes mentioned, there is room for improvement in food service times.

Project Charter:

Project Name: The Restaurant Service Process Improvement Project.

Project Overview: This project is focused on monitoring, recording, and improving the length of time it takes customers to receive food orders.

Problem Statement: The Restaurant does not monitor food service times. This is a recordable metric which may provide perspective on customer satisfaction. Before exploring opportunities for improvement, internal food service times must be observed and continually monitored. This project aims to increase customer satisfaction with their dining experience by measuring and improving food service times.

Customer/Stakeholders: Owners, managers, employees, customers, suppliers, municipality, competitors.

What is important to these customers – CTS (Critical to Satisfaction): Customer satisfaction; Transitional ease; Timely food service.

2

Goal of the Project: To originate and employ a method through which to measure and improve food service times. There could be an improvement in dining experience due to the synergistic relationship between product, service, experience, and quality.

Scope Statement: The scope includes the internal processes for serving food, and possible modifications to both procedures, and to the Point of Sale (PoS) system. This project will include identifying the vital reason(s) for variation and failure, the root causes, and improvement recommendations.

Projected Financial Benefit(s): Improved revenue: increased volume due to increased customer satisfaction, efficiency increase due to reduction in food service times.

Potential Risks:

Potential Risks to a Successful Project

Probability of Risk (H/M/L)

Impact of Risk (H/M/L)

Risk Mitigation Strategy

Owner lack of participation

L H Incentivize, Motivate, Explain

Staff lack of participation

M H Incentivize, Punish

Owner lack of understanding

L M Coach, Teach, Update, Inform

Staff lack of understanding

M L Inform, Reinforce, Support

Scope change H L Remain focused, but flexible

Project Resources:

Project Leader: Matt Greene (Green Belt)

Process Owners: Owners A, B, and C

Project Champion: Owner A

Mentor: Dr. Sandra Furterer (Master Black Belt)

Finance: Internal

Team Members/Support Resources: All hosts/hostesses, servers, cooks, bartenders.

3

Project Timeline:

Phase Estimated finish date Activities Define

9/9/15

Define project charter and scope, stakeholders and initial CTQ, document value chain, identify constraint processes

Measure

10/7/15

Measure and document current As-Is processes, collect data on current

processes, identify specific constraints

Analyze

11/4/15

Analyze problems and their root causes, identify waste

and non-value-added activities

Improve

12/2/15

Identify improvement ideas, pilot improvements, assess

improvement in service times Control

12/31/15

Identify and implement control mechanisms, create procedures and training for

new improvements

Rules of Engagement:

• Be present and be committed at the meetings

• Look at issues, not people; do not be defensive

• Be open to new ideas

• Think outside of the box

• Help each other work together as a team

• Be respectful of people: allow them to finish their thoughts

• Focused structure: agendas, outcomes, parking lot issues

• Limit time; keep meetings to the time; finish meetings

• Fix the process; don’t try to place blame

4

Primary Stakeholder Analysis:

Stakeholders Who They Are Potential Impacts/Concerns Diners

Locals, visitors, regulars, food consumers, beverage

consumers

Quality of Product Quality of Service

Quality of Environment

Employees

College students, neighborhood residents

Enjoy time at work Feel supported Compensation

Owners

Professionals, coworkers, family

Adequate volume Provide Support

Set a positive tone Suppliers

Providers of technology, food, beverages, utensils,

cookware, plates, cups, services

Continual patronage Timely delivery

Accurate delivery

Secondary Stakeholder Analysis:

Stakeholders Who They Are Potential Impacts/Concerns Competitors

Local Restaurants, local bars, local fast food

Volume reductions Better product Better Service

Municipality County government, city government

Proper licensing General responsibility

5

Roles and Responsibilities

Role Responsibility Team Leader

Lead team, orchestrate activities, maintain team records, serve as communication link between Owners and Mentor

Owner A

Serve as COO (bar), serve as Subject Matter Expert (SME), serve as Executive Champion, provide access to data needed for project

Owner B Serve as President, allocate resources, remove impediments to project success

Owner C

Serve as Manager (kitchen), provide access to and act as SME for Point of Sale (PoS) system, facilitate project

Head Cook Serve as operational SME, assist in data collection, engage kitchen staff

Shift Supervisor/Manager Assist in and alleviate conflict-of-interest in data collection, engage serving staff

Mentor

Serve as Six Sigma Master Black Belt, mentor, coach, train, and guide project and participants on proper technique

Primary Stakeholder Commitment Scale:

Commitment Level

Diners Employees Owners Suppliers

Enthusiastic X Helpful X Hesitant X Indifferent X Uncooperative Opposed Hostile

6

Primary Stakeholder Communication Planning Worksheet:

Who receives the information?

What information do

they need to know?

How will they receive the

information?

When do they need to receive

the information?

How will you know if the

information they receive makes sense to them?

Customers

Continuous improvement is being employed

Face-to-face, via a waiter or a

waitress

At the servers convenience, if

at all

Verification by the waiter or

waitress Employees

Existence of an opportunity for

input and improvement

Face-to-face, via one of the

owners

ASAP, at the beginning of the Measure phase

Project Leader (me) coaching,

teaching, verifying

Owners

Status updates

Ways to improve

Telephone, email, and face-

to-face with Project Leader

(me)

Periodically, at pre-specified

phase intervals, continuously

Project Leader (me) coaching,

teaching, verifying

Suppliers

Project objective

Telephone, email, and face-

to-face with owners

Upon improvement

project commencement

Owners informing and

verifying

Critical to Satisfaction Summary:

• Customer Satisfaction • Transitional Ease • Timely Food Service

7

SIPOC (As-Is)

Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers

Input drink order into

PoS

Pour or create drink

Serve Drink

Input food order into

PoS

Diner

Drinker

Server

Bartender

Kitchen cooks

Drink order

Food order

Order ticket

Drink input time

Food input time

Beverage

Food

Guest count

Determination of capacity

Beverage

Meal

Ownership

Customer

Employees

Municipality

Cook or prepare

food

Serve Food

8

Project Plan:

Task # Task Name Duration Start Date End Date Predecessor Define Define Define Define Define Define 1

Develop Project Charter

22 days

8/19/15

9/9/15

N/A

2 Identify Stakeholders

22 days 8/19/15 9/9/15 1

3

Perform initial VoC

and identify CTS

22 days

8/19/15

9/9/15

2

4

Select team and launch the project

22 days

8/19/15

9/9/15

3

5 Create Project Plan

22 days 8/19/15 9/9/15 4

Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure Measure 6

Define the Current Process

28 days

9/10/15

10/7/15

Define

7 Define detailed VoC

28 days 9/10/15 10/7/15 6

8

Define the VoP and Current

Performance

28 days

9/10/15

10/7/15

7

9

Validate Measurement

System

28 days

9/10/15

10/7/15

8

10

Define CoPQ and

Cost/Benefit

28 days

9/10/15

10/7/15

9

Analyze Analyze Analyze Analyze Analyze Analyze 11

Develop Cause/Effect Relationships

28 days

10/8/15

11/4/15

Measure

12

Determine and validate root causes

28 days

10/8/15

11/4/15

11

13 Find Process Capability

28 days 10/8/15 11/4/15 12

9

Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve 14

Identify breakthrough

& select practical

approaches

28 days

11/5/15

12/2/15

Analyze

15

Perform Cost/Benefit

Analysis

28 days

11/5/15

12/2/15

14

16 Design Future State

28 days 11/5/15 12/2/15 15

17

Establish Performance

Targets, Project

Scorecard

28 days

11/5/15

12/2/15

16

18

Gain approval to

implement, then

implement

28 days

11/5/15

12/2/15

17

19 Train and Execute

28 days 11/5/15 12/2/15 18

Control Control Control Control Control Control 20

Measure results & Manage Change

29 days

12/3/15

12/31/15

Improve

21

Report Scorecard

Data & Create Process

Control Plan

29 days

12/3/15

12/31/15

20

22 Apply PDCA Process

29 days 12/3/15 12/31/15 21

23

Identify replication

opportunities

29 days

12/3/15

12/31/15

22

24 Develop Future Plans

29 days 12/3/15 12/31/15 23

10

The improvement project is expected to proceed as follows:

Define the problem to be addressed. Brainstorm a list of operational and process deficiencies as seen by the owners. Create an affinity diagram to group similar items. Measure the quantity of the selected problem through observation and investigation. Compile a sample of food service times to be reviewed and validated by the Project Leader. Analyze Voice of the Customer via survey and interview to determine opportunities for improvement in levels of customer satisfaction. Break down target process into its smallest elements to determine areas for variation reduction and waste mitigation. Improve easy and critical deficiencies through systematic improvement and statistical analysis. Control improvements by identifying a training plan and reducing resistance to change.

Activity Status Due Date Deliverable Resource Define the problem

Complete 9/9/15 Project Charter Owners

Define the scope Complete 9/9/15 Project Charter Project Leader Define potential benefits

Complete 9/9/15 Project Charter Project Leader

Prepare Project Charter

Complete 9/9/15 Project Charter Project Leader

Prepare process flow

Complete 9/9/15 SIPOC/Process flow chart

Owners/Project Leader

Stakeholder Analysis

Complete 9/9/15 Stakeholder Analysis Matrix


Determine next steps

Complete 9/9/15 Define Phase Report


Prepare Define Phase Report and Presentation

Complete

9/9/15

Define Phase Report

Project Leader

Next Steps:

Measure food service times.

Gain enthusiastic engagement from employees.

Maintain consistent contact with owners for information and support.

11

MEASURE PHASE

12

Phase 2: MEASURE

Background:

In the Six Sigma process, the Measure phase consists of 1) defining the current process, 2) defining the detailed voice of the customer (VoC), 3) defining the voice of the process (VoP) and current performance, 4) validating the measurement system, and 5) defining the cost of poor quality (CoPQ).

Questionnaires:

Ownership, management, and employees were all given two separate questionnaires. The first was designed to collect data regarding their perception of acceptable service process wait times, which were labeled queue 1 through queue 12, and included each discernable service process delay from time to be greeted upon arrival, to time to return change and receipt upon payment submission. The parameters of the seventh queue are from when the food is ordered to when the meal is completed by the kitchen. This queue corresponds to the CTS ‘Timely Food Service’.

The second was designed to collect data on the effectiveness and efficiency of the point of sale (PoS) system employed by The Restaurant through the eyes of both management and employees. The responses correspond to the CTS ‘Transitional Ease’. Data from both questionnaires were analyzed, and respondent results are presented in graphical form in subsequent pages.

Interviews:

Ownership, management, and employees were formally and informally interviewed regarding The Restaurant’s service processes to glean opportunities for clarification and service process improvements that the questionnaires may have missed. Soliciting cook time estimates by the three team member SME’s served several purposes: 1) to deduce the level of disparity between different positional perspectives on meal preparation times, and 2) to determine an actual cook time per item to be used in subsequent analysis, which in this case is the average of the three SME’s cook times for each item. Due to resource and time constraints, it is unreasonable to cook each menu item in series, time, and record them.

Observation:

Management and employees were observed during normal business hours to glean opportunities for service process improvements that the interviews may have missed.

13

Sampling:

Kitchen operations were monitored for several days, and kitchen ticket orders were timed from order-in to order-ready (not order-out), so as to capture the kitchen performance without the confounding of server timeliness. A total of 147 timed tickets were collected, validated, and analyzed in Minitab 17 software.

Food Services Value Chain:

14

Process Map (As-Is):

15

Operational Definition (1 of 4):

Defining the Measure: Customer Satisfaction

Purpose: To understand the Voice of the Customer in order to emulate positive experiences and remedy negative experiences to increase the volume and frequency of patronage, thereby delighting the organizational ownership.

Measure the Process: Tip counts and customer comment cards will be used to measure average tip amount, and address compliments and/or opportunities for improvement, respectively.


Defining the Measure: Transitional Ease

Purpose: To understand the type and amount of process and PoS waste, and compare them to the proposed future state to determine if improvement implementation has reduced waste and added value, thereby delighting the employees.

Measure the Process: Number of new value-added steps vs. number of new non-value-added steps, number of new steps vs. number of old steps, and new complexity vs. old complexity are three metrics that will be used to determine ease of improvement implementation.


Defining the Measure: Timely Food Service

Purpose: To understand those factors determining whether the customer receives quick, accurate food service, and replicate them, thereby delighting the diner.

Measure the Process: Length of time between ordering food and the food being ready can be measured in minutes and seconds and minimized where possible.


Defining the Measure: Queue 7 of 12, food order to food ready

Purpose: To understand the length of time it takes between a customer’s food order, and receiving that food.

Measure the Process: The length of time it takes for a customer to receive their food order can conceivably be tracked by marking the start time as ticket entry to the kitchen via the PoS system, and the end as the time the kitchen offers up the dish to the heated service window.

16

Data Collection Plan:

Critical to Satisfaction

(CTS)

Metric Data Collection

Mechanism

Analysis Mechanism

Sampling Plan Sampling Instructions

Customer Satisfaction

Tip counts, Customer comment cards

Analyze tip counts, suggestions, complaints, customer interviews

Basic Statistics, ANOVA

Ongoing

Proactively collect VoC via formal survey and/or informal interview

Transitional Ease

Number new value-added steps vs. number new non-value-added steps, Number new steps vs. Number old steps, New complexity vs. old complexity

Employee interview, Project Leader pre- and post-Improve Phase shadowing, During normal operations

Likert Scale assessment, Basic Statistics, Process modeling

Ongoing, Encompassing employee population

Sample will consist of bartenders and servers, Pre- and Post-Improve Phase data collection

Timely Food Service

Length of time of queue 7, food order time to food ready time

Kitchen monitoring, Customer interviews

Basic Statistics, ANOVA, Linear Regression, Comparisons, Capability

Collect a several day sample of food service times (n~100)

Utilize stopwatch to scribe meal ready times onto meal tickets for later analysis

The following three pages contain financial information for The Restaurant, ranging from 2010 through YTD 2015. Financial information is included for a multitude of reasons: 1) they were readily available, 2) they allow for trend analysis, 3) they allow for operational insight over time, 4) they show an organization’s success and maturation, and 5) they can be an indicator of process problems that other data may not show.

The Restaurant shows a steady increase in sales over the years, and fairly constant expenses. The upward trend in annual sales is an informal indicator of the CTS ‘Customer Satisfaction’.

17

Baseline Data (Financials):

18


19


20


Prior to collecting a sample of kitchen cook times, the Kitchen Manager, Chief of Operations, and Head Cook were interviewed and asked: “of the 50 items on the menu, how long does it take each, individually, to depart the kitchen once entered into the PoS system?” This serves two purposes: 1) The degree of disparity, if one exists, amongst team members between estimated menu item cook times and actual cook times can be addressed, such that the team members reach an operational consensus; and 2) Because it is unreasonable, under resource and time constraints, to have each item individually prepared and timed to determine preparation time for each item, the average of the team member estimates will serve as the actual item cook times for the purposes of analysis.

A Pareto chart mirroring each histogram is included within each of the following three pages in order to give the reader count and modal information on the responses. Having several graphical depictions allows for a more robust analysis of the data, yielding a better understanding of process abnormalities through outlier quantity and frequency analysis. The three team member respondents’ responses follow.

21

Pareto Charts/Histograms (Interview Results for Kitchen Manager):

Count 1 215 10 8 5 3 3 2 1Percent 2.0 4.030.0 20.0 16.0 10.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 2.0Cum % 96.0 100.030.0 50.0 66.0 76.0 82.0 88.0 92.0 94.0

Kitchen Mgr Time Other2.00.58.017.57.03.05.010.012.0

50

40

30

20

10

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Cou

nt

Perc

ent

Pareto Chart of Kitchen Mgr Time

1612840

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Mean 8.93StDev 4.192N 50

Kitchen Mgr Time

Freq

uenc

y

Histogram (with Normal Curve) of Kitchen Mgr Time

22

Pareto Charts/Histograms (Interview Results for Chief Operations Officer):

Count 2 1 1 218 7 6 4 3 2 2 2Percent 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.036.0 14.0 12.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Cum % 92.0 94.0 96.0 100.036.0 50.0 62.0 70.0 76.0 80.0 84.0 88.0

COO Time Other4.00.512.05.03.01.06.07.010.02.08.0

50

40

30

20

10

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Cou

nt

Perc

ent

Pareto Chart of COO Time

129630

25

20

15

10

5

0


COO Time

Freq

uenc

y

Histogram (with Normal Curve) of COO Time

23

Pareto Charts/Histograms (Interview Results for Head Cook):

Count 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 28 6 6 5 5 3 2 2Percent 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 416 12 12 10 10 6 4 4Cum % 78 82 86 88 90 92 94 96 10016 28 40 50 60 66 70 74

Head Cook Time

Other

11.0

07.

504.

001.

000.

759.

006.

002.

001.

750.

503.

005.

001.

508.

007.

0010

.00

50

40

30

20

10

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Cou

nt

Perc

ent

Pareto Chart of Head Cook Time

129630

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0


Head Cook Time

Freq

uenc

y

Histogram (with Normal Curve) of Head Cook Time

24

Confidence Interval on Means Difference (Kitchen Manager Difference is Significant):

Histogram (SME Time Estimates Averaged = Actual Cook Time Used for Future Analysis):

Kitchen Mgr - Head Cook Ti

Kitchen Mgr - COO Time

Head Cook Ti - COO Time

543210-1-2-3

If an interval does not contain zero, the corresponding means are significantly different.

Games-Howell Simultaneous 95% CIsDifference of Means for COO Time, Head Cook Ti, ...

129630

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Item average

Freq

uenc

y

Menu Item Average Cook TimeData=Average of Kitchen Mgr, COO, Head Cook Time Estimates

N=50

25

VoP Baseline Data/Results:

The following table is a sample of n=147 ticket times taken over a four-day period. All sample times are in minutes.

24 12 12 8 18 13 20 10 2 14 27 14 7 8 16 9 1 9 14 15 24 14 10 15 7 22 23 16 14 11 14 14 11 13 14 13 17 6 16 6 6 14 9 6 8 16 9 14 3 9 9 8 13 10 17 21 13 15 11 9 11 12 10 7 7 18 5 16 19 20 16 12 7 12 4 17 11 9 14 20 20 9 11 6 8 15 19 19 14 6 8 18 7 5 13 4 9 13 9 4 6 6 20 6 12 13 14 7 9 2 7 10 7 22 10 11 18 14 18 17 7 2 3 4 22 16 11 5 16 13 13 10 8 18 21 1 8 20 14 6 10 23 6 29 9 12 17

Pareto Chart of Sample Data (n=147, included for count, modal, & outlier analysis purposes):

Count 8 7 6 6 5 4 4 3 3 315 3 2 2 2 613 11 10 10 8 8 8Percent 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 210 2 1 1 1 49 7 7 7 5 5 5Cum % 62 67 71 75 78 81 84 86 88 9010 92 93 95 96 10019 27 33 40 46 51 56

Ticket Time

Other21312219521541720181216111081376914

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Cou

nt

Perc

ent

Pareto Chart of Ticket Time

26

Basic Statistics (Queue 7 average = 12.041 minutes):

Summary of Process Problems:

Process Step Problems Pre-Process (arrival to order)

No method of seating time monitoring Hostess possibly underutilized

In-Process (order to check request)

No method of meal delivery time monitoring Long/fluctuating meal delivery times

Post-Process (check request to departure) No method for determining table turnover rate

Point of Sale (PoS) system

Inaccurate Guest Counts Overabundance of non-value-added selections No button for certain menu items Analytics underutilized

Procedure Lack of accountability Lack of bulk prepping

1st Quartile 8.000Median 12.0003rd Quartile 16.000Maximum 29.000

11.121 12.961

10.000 13.000

5.064 6.374

A-Squared 0.77P-Value 0.045

Mean 12.041StDev 5.643Variance 31.848Skewness 0.398274Kurtosis -0.168434N 147

Minimum 1.000

Anderson-Darling Normality Test

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

95% Confidence Interval for Median

95% Confidence Interval for StDev

302418126

Median

Mean

13.012.512.011.511.010.510.0

95% Confidence Intervals

Summary Report for Ticket Time

27

VoP Matrix:

CTS Factors Operational Definition

Metric Target


Wait times, meal and drink quality, ambiance, facility cleanliness, how closely perceived quality approaches customer expectations

Understanding the VoC in order to emulate positive experiences and remedy negative experiences to increase volume and frequency of patronage

Tip counts and customer comment cards will be used to measure average tip amount, and address compliments or opportunities for improvement, respectively

90% of customers either return, or say they would return

Transitional Ease

Complexity and volume of change, evidence of task simplification or enhancement, not attempting to change the culture, stakeholder commitment

Understanding the type and amount of process and PoS waste, and comparing them to the proposed future state to determine if improvement implementation reduces waste and adds value

Number of new value-added steps vs. number of new non-value-added steps, number of new steps vs. number of old steps, and new complexity vs. old complexity are three metrics that will be used to determine if changes are well-received

100% stakeholder participation, validation, and adoption

Timely Food Service

Food availability, long wait times, peak-period patronage, bulk prepping, coworker conflicts, labor shortage

Understanding those factors determining whether the customer receives quick, accurate food service, and replicate them

Length of time between ordering food and the food being ready can be measured in minutes and seconds and minimized

95% of food orders delivered to the table in no more than 13.5 minutes

28

VoC Summary/Results:

-Tobin, E.R. & Huffman, L.M. (2006). Examining the Impact of Service Times on Overall Guest Satisfaction Perception in the Casual Dining Environment, 24(1), 42-48.

The preceding article examines acceptable service process wait times for several restaurants from the same casual-dining chain in a Southwestern metropolitan area. The sales of the referenced restaurant are roughly double the sales of The Restaurant. As such, The Restaurant shares the ambitious goal of a food service wait time of 12-15 minutes (target 13.5 minutes).

The food wait time questionnaire responses indicate that acceptable queue 7 food wait times include 15, 15, and 10 minutes. Wait time questionnaire response rate has been about 20% thus far, and a better understanding of acceptable customer food wait time can be deduced from those outstanding.

The Point-of-Sale (PoS) questionnaire indicates opportunities for improvement exist within the electronic system. Respondents mentioned that the system required significant manual scrolling, and there exists a demand for expedited access for servers and managers to certain screens. The PoS questionnaire response rate has been about 15% thus far, but roughly 33% of employees have been informally interviewed to glean information that the questionnaires might not capture. There has also been a demand for a specialized PoS screen for the kitchen, where there is currently not one.

Benchmarking:

The Restaurant has chosen to benchmark the popular casual dining restaurant Chili’s, a subsidiary brand owned and operated by Brinker International, a Fortune 500 company.

The Restaurant has benchmarked the organization written about in the following article:

-Tobin, E.R. & Huffman, L.M. (2006). Examining the Impact of Service Times on Overall Guest Satisfaction Perception in the Casual Dining Environment, 24(1), 42-48.

29

Process Capability:

Conclusions:

Reduce PPM > USL.

Process currently exceeds expected performance.

σ level ~ 2.5, about 40% of desired 6σ level.

Yield ~ 85%, with 7.5% below LSL (neutral), and 7.5% above USL (bad).

Cp = 20-5/6(5.449) = 0.46, since Cp<1.33, process is NOT statistically capable.

Cpk = min[20-12.041/3(5.449), 12.041-5/3(5.449)], = min(.49,.43), = 0.43, since Cpk<Cp, process is NOT statistically centered.

30

Process Capability Six Pack:

Subgroups 1 through 4 are a Sunday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, respectively.

Subgroup sizes are 19 tickets, 57 tickets, 21 tickets, and 50 tickets, respectively.

Next Steps:

Perform Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Hypothesis Tests, and other forms of statistical analysis on all applicable data collected.

Determine opportunities for and feasibility of improvements.

Gain access to PoS software for analysis.

4321

15.0

12.5

10.0Sam

ple

Mea

n

__X=12.041

UCL=14.364

LCL=9.717

4321

8

6

4Sam

ple

StD

ev

_S=5.449

UCL=7.104

LCL=3.793

4321

30

15

0

Sample

Valu

es

2824201612840

LSL 5USL 20

SpecificationsLSL USL

100101

Shape 2.257Scale 13.58Pp 0.49Ppk 0.43PPM 190547.08

Overall Overall

Specs

Process Capability Sixpack Report for Ticket TimeXbar Chart

S Chart

Last 4 Subgroups

Capability Histogram

Weibull Prob PlotAD: 0.383, P: > 0.250

Capability Plot

31

ANALYZE PHASE

32

Phase 3: ANALYZE

Current State:

The process currently exceeds its expected performance, but is not yet optimal.

σ level ~ 2.5, about 40% of desired 6σ level.

Yield ~ 85%, with 7.5% below LSL (neutral), and 7.5% above USL (bad).



Change Agents:

Selected process changes will be implemented with the help of all team members.

Selected PoS changes will be implemented with the help of the Kitchen Manager and the PoS system programmer.

Resources Needed:

Necessary resources include the authority of senior leadership, the participation of organizational employees, and the expertise of the PoS system programmer.

Obstacles/Failures:

Impediments to selected process changes are minimal because of the participative nature of all associated stakeholders up to and including this Phase of the project.

Impediments to selected PoS changes will be the technical limitations of the PoS system, and the volume and complexity of the selected changes.

33

Cause and Effect Analysis:

SatisfactionCustomer

Environment

Measurements

Methods

Material

Machines

Personnel

Compliments

Bill personalization

Squatting

Demeanor

Diction

Posture

Cookware

Silverware

Plateware

Drink quality

Meal quality

Departing

Servicing

Welcoming

Generous tipping

Return visits

Guest suggestions

Guest complaints

Guest compliments

Queue (wait) times

Restaurant cleanliness

Restroom cleanliness

Music

Organizational culture

Patron volume/capacity

CTS 1 of 3: Customer Satisfaction

EaseTransitional

Environment

Measurements

Methods

Material

Machines

Personnel

Employees

PoS programmer

PoS vendor

Head Cook

Kitchen Manager

COO

Incentives

Punishments

Minitab 17

PoS jumpdrive

Change resistance

VoC adherence

complexityOld vs. New

Value-added vs. NVA

Old vs. New value

Management tone

Employee enthusiasm

CTS 2 of 3: Transitional Ease

34

Possible Waste/Variation/Inefficiency Causes:

ServiceTimely Food

Environment

Measurements

Methods

Material

Machines

Personnel

Bartenders

Cooks

Servers

Writing utensil

Order pad

PoS system

Ingredients

Stoves

Ovens

Manners

Brisk walking

Kneeling

Compliments

Empathetic

Attentive

Customer perception

Length of queue 7

Food visual appeal

Server visual appeal

Information sharing

Sense of urgency

CTS 3 of 3: Timely Food Service

Causes

Environment

Measurements

Methods

Material

Machines

Personnel

Mgr closestAll SME estimates low, Kitchen

modificationsServers not relaying meal

downtimeHostess may have unused

kegsOnly COO observed changing

Servers act as runners

Guest count is often inaccurate

methodNo table turnover monitoring

methodNo meal delivery time monitoring

methodNo seating time monitoring

serversNo food ready notification for

performedMinimal/No bulk prepping

frequent outlier (>=20)Chicken wings most

occursReceipt personalization rarely

upon pick-upCooks don't call out orders

chicken8% total tix >= 20 AND

12% total tix >= 20 (USL)

40% total tix >= 14 (target)

No clock in entry

entryWiFi available, no sign in

areaBack door acting as storage

underutilizedPoS analytics possibly

wingsMonday night BOGO 10

standardsNo uniformity in service

Possible Causes

35

Cause and Effect Matrix:

Rating of Importance to Customer (right)

10 8 Total and % of Importance to Customer (below)

#

Key Process Input

Variable (KPIV)

Wait Time

Interim

Courteousness

Total

% Rank

1

Q1-Entrance to Hostess Greet

9

10

170

8%

2

Q2-Hostess Greet to Being Seated

9

8

154

7.3%

3

Q3-Being Seated to Server Greet

8

10

160

7.5%

4

Q4-Server Greet to Drink Order

9

10

170

8%

5

Q5-Drink Order to Drink Service

10

6

148

7%

6

Q6-Drink Service to Food Order

8

10

160

7.5%

7

Q7-Food Order to Food Service

10

8

164

7.7%

8

Q8-Food Service to First Server Check-Up

9

10

170

8%

9

Q9-First Server Check-Up to Request Bill

7

8

134

6.3%

10

Q10-Request Bill to Present Bill

9

10

170

8%

11

Q11-Present Bill to Accept Payment

9

6

138

6.5%

36

12

Q12-Accept Payment to Present Receipt

9

10

170

8%

13 Meal Quality 10 1 108 5.1% 14 Drink Quality 10 1 108 5.1%

Total 126 108 2124 100%

Xbar and S Chart:

Subgroup (Sunday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, respectively) means and σ within UCL/LCL.

Subgroup sizes are 19, 57, 21, and 50 tickets, respectively.

4321

15.0

12.5

10.0

Sample

Sam

ple

Mean

__X=12.041

UC L=14.364

LC L=9.717

4321

8

6

4

2

Sample

Sam

ple

StD

ev

_S=5.449

UC L=7.104

LC L=3.793

Xbar and S ChartN=147

Tests are performed with unequal sample sizes.

37

Why-Why Diagram CTS1, Customer Satisfaction:

38

Why-Why Diagram CTS2, Transitional Ease:

39

Why-Why Diagrams CTS3a, Timely Food Service:

40

Why-Why Diagrams CTS3b, Timely Food Service:

41

Process Observations:

58/147 = 40% of total tickets >= 14 minutes (target = 13.5 minutes, seconds not recorded)

Ranked occurrence frequency of items on tickets that fall above 14 minutes (target): 1) 10 Chicken Wings, 2) Fish & Chips, 3) Shepherd’s Pie, 4) Mac & Cheese and Sweet & Sour Chicken Tenders, 5) Chicken Strips

17/147 = 12% of total tickets >= 20 minutes (USL)

12/17 = 71% of above USL tickets contain chicken

12/17 = 71% of above USL tickets contain only 1 or 2 items

71% * 71% = 50% of above USL tickets contain chicken AND only 1 or 2 items

Longest averages ranked of 3 SME cook time estimates: 1) Irish Whiskey Steak = 14 minutes, 2) Walnut Encrusted Salmon = 13.2 minutes, 3) Chicken Wings = 12.8 minutes, 4) Irish Breakfast = 12.3 minutes, Tied-5) Horseshoe and Balsamic Chicken & Basil Panini

12/147 = 8% of tickets >= 20 minutes AND contain chicken

10 wings SME cook time estimates: COO = 10 minutes, Head Cook = 11 minutes, Kitchen Manager = 17.5 minutes; Average = 12.83 minutes

Subgroup 4 (Thursday) is only subgroup to meet 20 minutes (USL), but never exceed it

Fries took 22 minutes?

Pareto Principle (80/20 rule): Yield ~ 85%; 7.5% < 5 minutes (LSL) [neutral], 7.5% > 20 minutes (USL) [bad]

Cooks do not repeat orders to the server upon window pick-up to verify accuracy

No runner, therefore servers act as runners

No method for notifying server food is ready

Only Chief Operating Officer has been observed changing kegs

No uniformity of service behavior standards

No method of seating time monitoring

Hostess appears to have unused downtime

42

Process Observations (continued):

No method of meal delivery time monitoring

Chicken wings occur most frequently among ticket time outliers

Monday night is ‘BOGO 10 chicken wings’ night, which was not sampled

Guest counts often seem to be inaccurate

No method for determining table turnover

Minimal/No bulk-prepping is performed

Servers sometimes not relaying order mods into the PoS system or vocally to kitchen

PoS system analytics may be underutilized

Receipt personalization occurs rarely

Some items are out to table in less than 5 minutes (neutral)

Subject Matter Expert estimates were generally low; Kitchen Manager was the closest

Boxes and palates outside the back door and making their way inside

WiFi available, but no sign exists in entry

No clock in entry for customers to view while waiting

43

PoS Observations:

Some selections are unused

Food, Specials, Mods, Mods are selectable but not necessary to make meal

Some selections are absent

Focaccia bread button, Gravy button (with Mashed Potatoes)

Some items are on the menu but not in the PoS

Bangers & Mash

Excessive top menu bar scrolling

Of the 10 top row buttons, Quantity and Fire Order are lesser utilized

Only managers have a keyboard to input notes to kitchen in lieu of See-Servers tab

Fingerprint scanner sometimes faulty

Apps do not show first on kitchen tickets, then entrees, as would be helpful


Can add a customer to a table, but cannot remove a customer from a table (Directions, if so?)

No time-keeping functionality

Create a Dessert tab on second row buttons, currently going through Apps

Change one of the SweetWater 420 buttons a SweetWater IPA button in bartender screen

Add A La Carte extra mods ‘campus’

Parallel menu changes, Improvement and PoS changes should occur simultaneously

Weekend Brunch Pooches don’t come with sides, but sides are asked for

When transferring a table to another server, if tickets were split, it reconvenes into one ticket

Add a ‘+1’ seat button at top

Servers have a new seat button, bartenders do not

No Grill button on wings mods screen

44

PoS Screen (Server):

45

PoS Screen (Bartender):

46

Histogram/Graphical Analysis:

Chicken Wings are the most frequently occurring item that is above target (13.5 minutes)

House SaladChicken Bacon Ranch WrapWhiskey SteakSalmonBoxtyChicken Basil PaniniBuffalo StripsCranberry Walnut TurkeySoup/SaladPaddy Melt

10 wings

FriesCheese Tomato Bacon PaniniOther

Fish & ChipsShepherds PieMac & Sweet/Sour ChickenChicken StripsReubenPhilly CheesesteakHorseshoeHamburger

CategoryPie Chart of Menu Items

N=58 of 147 tickets above 14 minutes (target)Most frequent occurrence listed first, descending order

Outlier Occurences above Target 7 7 6 5 5 4 3 3 3 319 3 2 713 11 9 9 8 7 7Percent 5 5 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 213 2 1 59 8 6 6 6 5 5Cum % 64 69 73 77 80 83 85 87 89 9113 94 9510023 30 37 43 49 54 59

Menu Item

Other

Cheese

Tomato

Baco

n Pan ini

Soup/

Salad

Paddy M

elt

Cranb

erry

Waln

ut Tur

key

Chicke

n Bas

il Pan

ini

Buffa

lo Str

ip s

Boxty

Whis

key St

eak

Salm

on

Chicke

n Bac

on Ra

nch W

rap

Philly

Chee

seste

ak

House S

alad

Horses

hoe

Hambur

ger

Reub

en

Mac &

Sweet/S

our C

hicke

n

Chick en

Strip

s

Shep

herd

s Pie

Fish &

Ch ips

10 w

ings

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

100

80

60

40

20

0Out

lier

Occ

uren

ces

abov

e Ta

rget

Perc

ent

Pareto Chart of Menu Item

47

Average ticket time above target (13.5 minutes) is over 5 minutes (late items avg. 5 mins late)

1st Quartile 2.0000Median 4.50003rd Quartile 7.2500Maximum 19.0000

3.6749 7.1713

3.0000 7.0000

3.3945 5.9748

A-Squared 0.92P-Value 0.017

Mean 5.4231StDev 4.3283Variance 18.7338Skewness 1.41546Kurtosis 2.54645N 26

Minimum 1.0000

Anderson-Darling Normality Test

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

95% Confidence Interval for Median

95% Confidence Interval for StDev

161284

Median

Mean

76543

95% Confidence Intervals

Summary Report for Outlier Occurences above Target

WedSunFriThu

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

Day of Week

Tick

et T

ime

Interval Plot of Ticket Time vs Day of Week95% CI for the Mean

The pooled standard deviation is used to calculate the intervals.

48

Wednesday and Thursday sample dates are significantly different.

Excluded points: 2=27 minutes, 57=22 minutes, 90=29 minutes, 91=20 minutes, 92=1 minute

Wed - Sun

Wed - Fri

Sun - Fri

Wed - Thu

Sun - Thu

Fri - Thu

5.02.50.0-2.5-5.0-7.5

If an interval does not contain zero, the corresponding means are significantly different.

Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIsDifferences of Means for Ticket Time

141127113998571574329151

20

10

0

O bserv ation

Indi

vid

ual V

alue

_X=11.77

UC L=25.56

LC L=-2.02

141127113998571574329151

15

10

5

0

O bserv ation

Mov

ing

Ran

ge

__MR=5.18

UC L=16.94

LC L=0

Moving Range ChartData Points 2,57,90,91,92 excluded

Results exclude specified rows: 2, 57, 90:92

49

Process Analysis:

Chicken wings Queue 7 kitchen process, as per Head Cook:

Order of 10 wings is sent to the kitchen by a server via the PoS system. First, inspect the ticket to see what else is on it. If there are other items that take longer to cook, begin those first. If 10 wings will take the longest, begin them first. Currently, kitchen ticket presentation order is order of entry by the server, not the order in which the items will need to be cooked (Apps, Entrees, Desserts, in that order). Put on gloves. Load 10 wings into the fryer basket. Current wings cooking capacity = 2 chicken fryers * 2 baskets per fryer * 30 wings per basket = 120 wings. Drop the basket into the fryer at 350°F for roughly 7-10 minutes. 7 minutes = done, 10 minutes = crispy. Once wings are bubbling significantly less, they’re likely cooked. Pull out the fryer from the grease. Check the ticket for seasoning, flavoring, and sauce. Mix items with wings and toss in a bowl. Plate the wings with celery, carrots, and bleu cheese or ranch. Stab the ticket, indicating completion, and place the item in the heat window for pick-up by the server. The entire process is expected to take no longer than the target time of 13.5 minutes.

Labor Intensive: Why-Why Diagrams indicate that beverage complexity influences CTS 1, Customer Satisfaction, and meal complexity influences CTS 3, Timely Food Service.

Delays to be Minimized: A delay of near zero seconds is both reasonable and optimal for Queue 1 (entrance to hostess greet), Queue 2 (hostess greet to being seated), Queue 3 (being seated to server greet), Queue 4 (server greet to drink order), Queue 6 (drink service to food order), and Queue 11 (present bill to accept payment).

Review/Approval Cycles: Operationally, these decisions are made quickly by management.

Decisions: Tactical decision-making resides with the employees. Operational decision-making resides with the management. Strategic decision-making resides with the ownership. Daily decision-making is delineated by a manager and carried out by employees.

Rework: Items are reworked in two instances; if an employee makes an error in recording, preparing, or delivering the item, or if a customer is displeased with the item.

Paperwork/Documentation: Kitchen tickets and customer receipts are the paperwork generated by normal operations. All else is housed within the PoS system.

Duplicates: PoS duplicate (and irrelevant) selections will be evaluated and eliminated unless absolutely necessary.

Omissions: Process omissions are standards for service behavior and customer wait times. PoS omissions include selections that should be there that are not.

50

Travel: If and when the kitchen runs out of an item, there is a nearby grocer that acts as a stand-in supplier. Time spent retrieving items in this fashion constitute noteworthy travel time.

Storing/Retrieving Information: The PoS system houses all necessary information, and is the single point of service for stakeholders of all levels.

Inspections: Items are once inspected upon leaving the kitchen. There is a missed opportunity for a parallel inspection performed by the server upon item pick-up.

Logical Sequence: Process sequences are logical. PoS system sequencing is under review, and opportunities for improvement have been identified. Feasibility of these improvements will be determined by the PoS Programmer.

Standardized: PoS changes, by their nature, will be standardized for all stakeholders. Opportunities for mistake-proofing will be identified.

All Inputs/Outputs Necessary: Process step necessity will be evaluated both before and after process improvement implementation.

Combine Tasks: Opportunities to combine kitchen preparation tasks arose from sampling. Chicken, a popular item, will be evaluated for combining like tasks during bulk-prepping.

8 Wastes:

Types of Waste Description of Waste Transportation Utilizing secondary suppliers Overproduction Bulk-prepping overages Motion

Forgotten orders, Ingredients and tools spread too far apart, Cooks shuffling to see kitchen tickets

Defects

Wrong food, Wrong drink, Poor food, Poor drinks, Late food, Late drinks, Customer defection, Scrap, Reactivity

Delay

Seating, Greeting, Drink order taking, Food order taking, Payment, Unbalanced workload, Machine downtime, Approvals, Cleaning

Inventory Last In First Out (LIFO) backlog, Rework, Spoilage

Processing Extra copies, Unclear customer specifications, Inefficiency

People Skills

Turnover, Disengagement, Lack of empowerment, Lack of advancement, Lack of training

51

Cost of Poor Quality:

Cost of Poor Quality (CoPQ) = Cost of Attaining Quality + Cost of Lacking Quality

Cost of Attaining Quality (Conformance) = Prevention Cost + Appraisal Cost

Cost of Lacking Quality (Nonconformance) = Internal Failure Cost + External Failure Cost

Cost of Poor Quality (CoPQ) Description of Costs Prevention Training, Mistake-proofing Appraisal Audits, Testing, Inspection Internal Failure Scrap, Rework, Inefficiency External Failure Loss of brand value, Customer defections,

Negative word of mouth Failure Mode and Effect Analysis:

Process Step

Potential Failure Mode

Potential Effects of Failure

Severity

Potenti

al Causes

of Failure

Occurrence

Current

Process

Controls

Detection

RPN

Recomme

nded Action

Responsibili

ty and Completion

Date

Q1-

Entrance to

Hostess Greet

Greeting not Timely

Defection

7 Busy 3 Teamwork

4 84 Set Standards

TBA

Greeting not Courteous

Tip Reduction

3

Bad Mood

1

Training

9

27

Immediate Manager Intervention

TBA

Q2-Hostess Greet

to Being

Seated

No Tables Available

Defection

7 Busy 3 None 10 210 Ease Waiting Time

TBA

Guests Skipped

Loss of Customer

8 Overlooked

1 Diligence

5 40 Hostess Log

TBA

Q3-Being

Seated to

Server Greet

Greeting not Timely

Complaint

6 Busy 3 Teamwork

4 72 Set Standards

TBA

Greeting not Courteous

Tip Reduction

3

Bad Mood

1

Training

9

27

Immediate Manager Intervention

TBA

Q5-

Drink not Timely

Comp Drink

7 Busy 3 Diligence

5 105 Set Standards

TBA

52

Drink Order

to Drink

Service

Wrong Drink

Dissatisfied Customer

4

Error

2

PoS

1

8

Server Discretion

TBA

Bad Quality

Loss of Customer

8 Ingredients

1 Regulations

2 16 Manager Discretion

TBA

Q7-Food Order

to Food Service

Food not Timely

Comp Meal

8 Busy 3 Diligence

5 120 Set Standards

TBA

Wrong Food


4

Error

2

PoS

1

8

Server Discretion

TBA

Bad Quality

Loss of Customer

8 Ingredients

1 Regulations

2 16 Manager Discretion

TBA

Q8-Food

Service to 1st Server Check-

up

Check-up not Timely

Complaint

6 Busy 3 Diligence

5 90 Set Standards

TBA

No Check-up

Defection

7

Overlooked

3

None

10

210

Managem ent by Walking Around

TBA

Q10-

Request Bill to Present

Bill

Late Bill Presentation

Tip Reduction

3 Busy 3 Diligence

5 45 Set Standards

TBA

Incorrect Bill


4

Error

2

None

10

80

Apologize, Immediate Remedy

TBA

Q11-Present Bill to Accept Payme

nt

Late Payment Retrieval


4

Busy

3

Diligence

5

60

Set Standards

TBA

Q12-Accept Payment to

Present Receipt

Incorrect Change

Loss of $

8

Error

2

None

10

160

Apologize, Immediate Remedy

TBA

Unsigned Receipt

Loss of $

8 Overlooked

3 Diligence

5 120 Server Docked

TBA

Walkout Loss of $

8 Negligence

4 Diligence

5 160 Server Docked

TBA

53

VoP Matrix:

CTS Factors Operational Definition

Metric Target


Wait times, meal and drink quality, ambiance, facility cleanliness, how closely perceived quality approaches customer expectations

Understanding the VoC in order to emulate positive experiences and remedy negative experiences to increase volume and frequency of patronage

Tip counts and customer comment cards will be used to measure average tip amount, and address compliments or opportunities for improvement, respectively

90% of customers either return, or say they would return

Transitional Ease

Complexity and volume of change, evidence of task simplification or enhancement, not attempting to change the culture, stakeholder commitment

Understanding the type and amount of process and PoS waste, and comparing them to the proposed future state to determine if improvement implementation reduces waste and adds value

Number of new value-added steps vs. number of new non-value-added steps, number of new steps vs. number of old steps, and new complexity vs. old complexity are three metrics that will be used to determine if changes are well-received

100% stakeholder participation, validation, and adoption

Timely Food Service

Food availability, long wait times, peak-period patronage, bulk prepping, coworker conflicts, labor shortage

Understanding those factors determining whether the customer receives quick, accurate food service, and replicate them

Length of time between ordering food and the food being ready can be measured in minutes and seconds and minimized

95% of food orders delivered to the table in no more than 13.5 minutes

54

Challenges and Barriers:

Technical limitations disallow system-tracking of queue times

Compartmentalization: ‘The kitchen’s problems are the kitchen’s problems’, etc.

Every day, shift, order, and customer is different.

Self-defeating attitude: ‘We’ve tried this before, and it didn’t work then’.

Resource commitment: ‘We need more people, equipment, or money to make this work’.

Preconceived notions: ‘We already know what the problems are’.

Assigning blame instead of fixing problems

Self-imposed barriers

Jumping to conclusions without premeditation or supporting evidence

Next Steps:

Identify breakthroughs and select practical approaches

Perform cost/benefit analysis

Design future state

Establish performance targets and project scorecard

Gain approval to implement

Implement changes

Train and execute

55

IMPROVE PHASE

56

Phase 4: IMPROVE

Quality Function Deployment (QFD):

Relative weights/ratings were determined in alignment with FMEA and Cause & Effect Matrix.

Project Name:

Imp

ort

ance

Q1-

En

ter

to H

ost

ess

Gre

et

Q2-

Ho

stes

s G

reet

to

Sea

t

Q3-

Sea

t to

Ser

ver

Gre

et

Q5-

Dri

nk

Ord

er t

o D

rin

k S

erve

Q7-

Fo

od

Ord

er t

o F

oo

d S

erve

Q8-

Fo

od

Ser

ve t

o C

hec

k-U

p

Q10

-Bil

l A

sk t

o B

ill

Giv

e

Q12

-Pay

Acc

ept

to R

ecei

pt

Giv

Wait Time 10 5 5 1 9 9 5 5 5Interim Courteousness 8 9 5 9 1 5 9 9 9

Absolute weight 122 90 82 98 130 122 122 122Relative weight 3 5 2 6 7 4 1 8

Restaurant Service Time Improvement Project

57

Improvement/Action Plan:

Improvement Risk (1-5)

Importance (1-5)

Schedule Owner

PoS: Present PoS Observation List to Kitchen Manager, who acts as the resident PoS administrator. After reviewing the list for accuracy, validity, and feasibility, make all agreed upon changes that the Kitchen Manager’s knowledge allows. Subsequently present the remaining list of the agreed upon fixes that fall outside the Kitchen Manager’s knowledge to the PoS programmer, who will assist in implementation of the remainder of the improvements.

5

4

Done

Kitchen Manager & PoS Programmer

Servers: Provide training, set standards, and share best practices regarding their posture, diction, demeanor, squatting, complimenting, and bill personalization (all substantiated by referenced research). Set enforceable standards for Queue 1 through Queue 12 wait times. Reinforce vocalization of longer wait times to customers, acting as one’s own runner, host/hostess assistance, maintaining an accurate guest count, relaying order modifications to the kitchen, and assisting in maintaining a clean dining environment.

1

3

Done

COO, Managers

Kitchen: Invest in bulk-prepping and pre-portioning. Begin partially cooking chicken wings for 25 minutes versus 20 minutes, which will save about 2 minutes of fryer cook time. No longer place all partially cooked wings into a tub, together. Since wings are ordered in multiples of 10, begin portioning 10 wings into a bag once they’ve been partially cooked, which will save about 1 minute of preparation time. Once the PoS programmer improvements take effect, items will be printed in cooking order, saving significant time visually scanning tickets to determine cooking order. Provide training on ticket prioritization techniques.

3

5

Done

Kitchen Manager & Head Cook

58

PoS Observation Improvements:

Improvement # Problem Action Responsibility 1 Item is in the PoS but

not on the menu Delete unnecessary selections

Kitchen Manager

2 No selection for focaccia bread

Add focaccia bread selection

Kitchen Manager

3

No selection for gravy with mashed potatoes

Add gravy selection

Kitchen Manager

4

Bangers & mash on menu but not in PoS

No immediate action taken; item will be included in pending menu change

Kitchen Manager

5 Excessive top menu bar scrolling

Delete 2 rarely used top menu options

Kitchen Manager

6

Servers do not have a keyboard option

No immediate action taken; status quo is desired status

Kitchen Manager

7 Fingerprint scanner sometimes faulty

Clean and reset fingerprint scanners

Kitchen Manager

8


Training session provided on maintaining accuracy

Kitchen Manager

9

No wait queue time-keeping functionality

No immediate action taken; PoS system lacks time-tracking functionality

Kitchen Manager / PoS Programmer

10

No Dessert tab on second top menu scrolling bar

Add Dessert tab

Kitchen Manager

11

Add a SweetWater 420 selection to bartender screen

Add SweetWater 420 selection

Kitchen Manager

12 No A La Carte modifications canvas

Add A La Carte modifications canvas

Kitchen Manager

13

Weekend Brunch asks for sides, though the item does not come with sides

Delete side selections

Kitchen Manager

14

Servers have ‘+1 Seat’ button; bartenders do not

Add ‘+1 Seat’ to bartender screen

Kitchen Manager

59

15

No grill option on chicken wings modification screen

No immediate action taken; grill option not offered by Restaurant

Kitchen Manager

16

Kitchen tickets printed in entry order instead of cook order

Menu items assigned priority numbers within PoS, allowing them to print in cooking order

PoS Programmer

17 Cannot remove a customer from a table

Directions given on proper procedure

PoS Programmer

18

Fast Bar bartender login: ‘Open Table Transfer’ and ‘Add Existing Tab’ merges seats together when check is already split

Transfer function modified to allow maintenance of split checks upon transfer

PoS Programmer

Process Improvement Recommendations:

Begin bulk-prepping chicken wings. Head Cook experience dictates planning for triple volume on Mondays (BOGO 10 wings night). Look for opportunities to replicate bulk-prepping process with other high volume and/or time consuming items. Utilize PoS analytics for forecasting.

Set Standard - Data indicates a ticket time > 20 minutes is acceptable if, and only if, there are five to six or more entrees.

Set Standard – Manners, briskness, kneeling, compliments, receipt personalization.

Mimic success of Thursday, October 1st, where USL=20 minutes was never exceeded.

Utilize 5S (Sort, Straighten, Scrub, Standardize, and Sustain) to eliminate kitchen, office, and backdoor ‘stuff’ accumulation.

Consider a WiFi sign, as well as investing in bumping up the signal (based on referenced research articles).

Consider a clock in the entry (based on referenced research articles).

Replication opportunities abound.

60

Revised Process Map:

61

Procedures or Standard Work:

Cooks:

Chicken wings: Partially cook one case (40 lbs., approximately 200) of wings for 25 minutes (vs. 20 minutes) in the oven at 165° F. Allow wings to cool. Place 10 wings into a bag, and repeat until all wings are into bags. Once order comes in, put on gloves. Load pre-portioned bag of 10 wings (20, or 30, if ordered) into the fryer at 350° F for roughly 5-8 minutes (vs. 7-10 minutes). Season, flavor, sauce, and plate the wings according to standing procedure.

Servers:

Males should cross hands behind their back when tending to a table, unless their hands are needed for recording orders or delivering items. Females should cross their hands behind their back when tending to a table, if comfortable; otherwise, cross their hands in front of them, unless their hands are needed for recording orders or delivering items. Feel free to compliment customers on their drink and food selections, or regarding other subjects, provided the compliment is sincere. Personalize receipts at server discretion provided service was exceptional. If service was anything other than exceptional, receipt personalization is likely a detrimental addition in relation to service compensation (substantiated by referenced research).

Training Plan:

Training – Multitasking and ticket prioritization

Training – Cook should repeat order to server upon hot window pick-up

Training – See Server now = See Kitchen (i.e., be proactive)

Training – At least one other person needs to know how to change kegs

Training – Music: it matters; downtempo when older patrons, daytime, or when slow (substantiated by referenced research)

Training – Hostess should have waiting list management training

Training – Guest count is basis for executive decision making; it must be accurate

Training – Servers commit to relaying order modifications via ‘See Servers’ tab or vocally

Training – Servers vocalize longer wait times for any item or service to each customer

62

CONTROL PHASE

63

Phase 5: CONTROL

Hypothesis Tests:

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Pre-Improve, Post-Improve Two-sample T for Pre-Improve vs Post-Improve N Mean StDev SE Mean Pre-Improve 147 12.04 5.64 0.47 Post-Improve 115 11.87 4.88 0.45 Difference = μ (Pre-Improve) - μ (Post-Improve) Estimate for difference: 0.171 95% CI for difference: (-1.110, 1.453) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs ≠): T-Value = 0.26 P-Value = 0.793 DF = 257 Test and CI for Two Variances: Pre-Improve, Post-Improve Method Null hypothesis σ(Pre-Improve) / σ(Post-Improve) = 1 Alternative hypothesis σ(Pre-Improve) / σ(Post-Improve) > 1 Significance level α = 0.05 Statistics 95% Lower Bound for Variable N StDev Variance StDevs Pre-Improve 147 5.643 31.848 5.167 Post-Improve 115 4.877 23.781 4.441 Ratio of standard deviations = 1.157 Ratio of variances = 1.339 95% One-Sided Confidence Intervals Lower Bound Lower Bound for StDev for Variance Method Ratio Ratio Bonett 1.005 1.009 Levene 1.002 1.005 Tests Test Method DF1 DF2 Statistic P-Value Bonett — — — 0.045 Levene 1 260 2.81 0.047

*There is NOT a statistically significant difference in Pre- vs. Post-Improve means; however, there IS a statistically significant difference in Pre- vs. Post-Improve variance (Post = less variance = more consistent meal delivery times, which is desirable).

64

Control Plan:

The Control Plan includes periodic evaluations of the cooks by the Head Cook, of the Head Cook by the Kitchen Manager, of the bartenders by the COO, of the servers by the Managers, and of the Managers by the organizational leadership. Annual evaluations of employees should continue uninterrupted, but evaluation consideration should be given to the maintenance and implementation of process and PoS improvements, and higher marks should go to those employees who exhibit proactive participation in enhancing the customer’s dining experience.

Kitchen tickets should be sampled twice a year for a period of seven days each event. Suggested sampling times are in June and December.

Refer to ‘Metric Targets and Parameters’ for control mechanisms (observation/monitoring), metrics, criticality (refer to QFD), action to be taken (management intervention), and operational responsibility (management).

Dashboard/Scorecard:

A Dashboard is a visual indication of quantitative and qualitative measures that can be used to monitor an organization’s operational status. The Restaurant keeps adequate financial data; however, no metrics are maintained for any customer wait times. A suggested metric to collect and monitor, in addition to those already collected, is food service time (Queue 7). This metric should be sampled biannually to determine opportunities for impactful process adjustments.

Mistake-Proofing:

Mistake-proofing (poka-yoke) has occurred within the PoS system. Items that are no longer served were deleted from the system. Items that are new to the menu have been added to the system. Available selections that were unnecessary have been deleted from the system. Necessary selections that did not initially exist were added to the system. Modifications to items have been added in the same color-code as similar items are labeled. Integral selections have been added that, previously, could be only accessed through circumventing methods.

Kitchen tickets were initially printing items in the order in which they were entered, instead of the order in which they will need to be cooked. Printing order has been adjusted such that each menu item carries a priority number, and those numbers dictate the order in which the item will appear on the kitchen ticket. The probability of a cook overlooking an item that needs to be out before others is significantly less.

65

Metric Targets and Parameters:

Metric / Parameter Post-Improve Target Q1-Entrance to Hostess Greet Near 0 minutes

Q2-Hostess Greet to Being Seated Near 0 minutes Q3-Being Seated to Server Greet Near 0 minutes

Q4-Server Greet to Drink Order Near 0 minutes Q5-Drink Order to Drink Service 1-3 minutes Q6-Drink Service to Food Order Near 0 minutes Q7-Food Order to Food Service 12-15 (14) minutes

Q8-Food Service to 1st Server Check-up 3-5 minutes Q9-1st Server Check-up to Requesting Bill Not Applicable (Dining Time)

Q10-Requesting Bill to Presenting Bill 1-3 minutes Q11-Presenting Bill to Accepting Payment Near 0 minutes

Q12-Accepting Payment to Presenting Receipt 1-3 minutes Kitchen Ticket x-bar=average (Q7) 12-15 (Move from 12.041 to 14) minutes

Kitchen Ticket σ=standard deviation (Q7) 3-6 (Move from 5.643 to 3 minutes) minutes Lower Specification Limit (Q7) 5 minutes

Target Ticket Time (Q7) 12-15 (Move from 12.041 to 14) minutes Upper Specification Limit (Q7) 20-25 (Move from 20 to 23) minutes

Defects per Million Opportunities Near 0 (Move from 149,659 [2.5σ] to 3.4 [6σ]) Customer Satisfaction Near 100% (Move from 90% to 99%)

VoP Post-Improve Data/Results:

The following table is a sample of n=115 ticket times taken over a three-day period. All sample times are in minutes.

15 16 8 10 13 18 8 14 9 2 15 16 3 15 10 13 3 11 1 15 9 9 9 12 11 15 22 12 12 13 10 8 10 18 13 1 22 19 7 11 11 11 12 13 5 14 21 16 17 11 16 12 23 15 1 14 8 16 14 7 8 7 22 15 15 14 8 16 16 14 12 18 18 5 7 15 11 14 18 7 9 7 14 9 18 5 13 12 13 17 18 9 11 16 14 14 17 12 8 15 9 6 6 5 6 8 14 16 4 18 16 5 3 11 12

66

Process Capability (Pre-Improve):

Included from Measure Phase for reference/convenience.

2824201612840

LSL 5Target 13.5USL 20Sample Mean 12.0408Sample N 147Shape 2.25734Scale 13.5784

Process DataPp 0.49PPL 0.60PPU 0.43Ppk 0.43

Overall Capability

PPM < LSL 74829.93PPM > USL 74829.93PPM Total 149659.86

Observed Performance


Exp. Overall Performance

LSL Target USL

Process Capability Report for Ticket TimeCalculations Based on Weibull Distribution Model

67

Process Capability (Post-Improve)

Conclusions:

Reduced PPM > USL (from 74,829 to 0 [1 data point = 23]).

Process continues to exceed expected performance.

σ level ~ 3.0, about 50% of desired 6σ level (meets industry average).

Yield ~ 93%, with 7% below LSL (neutral), and 0% above USL (excellent).



24201612840

Pp 0.68PPL 0.62PPU 0.72Ppk 0.62

Overall Capability


Observed Performance


Exp. Overall Performance

LSL 5Target 14USL 23Sample Mean 11.8696Sample N 115Shape 2.60929Scale 13.2915

Process Data

LSL Target USL

Process Capability Report for Post-ImproveCalculations Based on Weibull Distribution Model

68

Financial Benefits:

Increased revenue and decreased expenses due to:

Reduction in scrap resulting from vocal repetition of order upon pick-up

Increased repeat patronage resulting from delighting customers through service

Increased new customers resulting from positive word-of-mouth

Increased efficiency resulting from employee training

Increased kitchen capacity resulting from time saved from ticket printing order improvements

Increased efficiency resulting from PoS selection improvements

Increased efficiency resulting from decreased need for inspection and auditing

Decreased customer defections resulting from timely services

Increased customer satisfaction resulting from increased employee teamwork

Decreased time spent on customer complaint resolution

Significant Lessons Learned:

First and certainly foremost, entertain no preconceived notions.

The data will uncover the areas on which to focus.

That which cannot be or is not being measured cannot be controlled or improved.

The entire DMAIC process is designed to be both customer- and data-driven.

Objectivity in analysis is paramount.

The skillful orchestration of human effort is a Project Manager’s greatest intangible asset.

Greeting and departing are as important to the service process as is timely food service.

69

References:

Choi, C. & Sheel, A. (2012). Assessing the Relationship Between Waiting Services and Customer Satisfaction in Family Restaurants. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 13, 24-36. Retrieved August 2015 from the EBSCO database.

Hwang, J. & Lambert, C. (2005). Customers’ Identification of Acceptable Waiting Times in a Multi-Stage Restaurant System. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 8(1),3-16. Retrieved August 2015 from the EBSCO database.

Kinard, B. & Kinard, J. (2013). The Effect of Receipt Personalization on Tipping Behavior. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 12, 280-284. Retrieved August 2015 from the EBSCO database.

Milliman, R. (1986). The Influence of Background Music on the Behavior of Restaurant Patrons. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 286-289. Retrieved August 2015 from the EBSCO database.

Tobin, E. & Huffman, L. (2006). Examining the Impact of Service Times on Overall Guest Satisfaction Perception in the Casual Dining Environment. Florida International University (FIU) Hospitality Review, 24(1), 42-48. Retrieved August 2015 from the EBSCO database.

Matt Greene Six Sigma Black Belt Project

Documents

Transcript of Matt Greene Six Sigma Black Belt Project