Instructions For this second milestone, you will provide the Measure and Analyze phases of the DMAIC process and apply them to your selected case study. You will first measure performance by creating

Instructions For this second milestone, you will provide the Measure and Analyze phases of the DMAIC process and apply them to your selected case study. You will first measure performance by creating
WCM 610 Milestone Two Guidelines and Rubric Overview: For this second milestone, due in Module Five , you will provide the Measure and Analyze phases of the DMAIC process and apply them to your selected final project case study. You will first measure performance by creating a process to gather data on the current sit uation and then begin to create a pic ture of what the future state will look like, focusing on the proposed solution. Prompt: First, review your Milestone One submission wherein you summarized the desired resolution to the conflict in the case study b ased on your knowledge of the organizati on’s business goals, customer needs, and the process that needs to improve . Next, refer to the table chart in the MEASURE Supplementary Document as well as to your posts and resp onse posts in the Module Three discussion and the Module Four small group d iscussion . Address the following critical elements as they relate to your chosen case study: II. Measuring Performance: What process will you use to gather data on the current situation?  How will you effectively collect data on the identified variables (fr om the SIPOC analysis) and how will you evaluate the data?  Include a draft of an Ishikaw a d iagram (fishbone diagram) of the variables that contribute to the conflict by highlighting the critical variables that require further analysis.  What role will thes e critical variables play in developing corrective changes to address the conflict in the problem statement? III. Analysis: Focusing on the proposed solution, describe what the future state will look like.  Based on the variables you identified and the information provided in the case study, what are the root causes of the conflict?  If this were a live situation, w hat are some questions you would ask of the stakeholders (voice of customer ) to pressure test y our initial assess ment of the probable root causes ?  Using the “Five Whys” process, i nclude some additional questions you anticipate needing to ask as stakeholders answer your initial question. Instructor feedback on this milestone should be used to inform your final project submission, the executive summary presentation with speaker notes . Guidelines for Submission: Milestone Two should be 2 to 3 pages in length (exclu ding title and reference p ages) with double spacing , 12 -point Times New Roman font, one -inch margins, and citations in APA style . Cite your sources within the text of your paper and on the reference page. Rubric Note that the grading rubric for this milestone submission is not identical to that of the final project. The Final Project Rubric will include an additional “Exemplary” category that provides guidance as to how you can go above and beyond “Proficient” in your final submission. Critical Elements Proficient (100% ) Needs Improvement (75 %) Not Evident (0% ) Value Measuring Performance: Identified Variables Proposes a process to effectively collect data on the identified variables and appropriately evaluate it Proposes a process to collect and evalua te data on identified variables but proposition is cursory or illogical, collection method is not effective, or evaluation process is not appropriate Does not propose a process to collect and evaluate data on identified variables 15 Measuring Performance: Ishikawa Diagram Constructs an Ishikawa (fishbone) diagram of the variables that contribute to the conflict, selecting critical variables that require further analysis Constructs an Ishikawa (fishbone) diagram of variables that contribute to the conflict, selecting the variables that require further analysis, but variables selected are not logical or are not critical for further analysis Does not construct an Ishikawa (fishbone) diagram of t he variables that contribute to the conflict 15 Measuring Performance: Critical Variables Describes the role of critical variables in developing corrective changes to address the conflict in the problem statement Describes the role of different variables in developing corrective changes to address the co nflict in the problem statement but description is cursory or contains inaccuracies, or variables discussed are not critical to resolving the conflict Does not describe the role of different variables in developing corrective changes to address the conflict in the problem statement 15 Analysis: Root Causes of Conflict Determines the root causes of the conflict by assessing the variables identified and the information provided in the case study Determines the root causes of the conflict by assessing the variables identified and the informa tion provided in the case study but determination is cursory or illogical Do es not determine the root causes of the conflict by assessing the variables identified and the information provided in the case study 15 Analysis: Questions of the Stakeholders Constructs questions to ask the stakeholders to pressure test the initial as sessment of probable root causes Constructs questions for stakeholders to pressure test the initial as sessment of probable root causes but questions are cursory or illogical Does not construct questions for stakeholders to pressure test the initial assessment of probable root cause s 15 Analysis: Additional Questions Uses the “Five Whys” process to construct additional questions that may need to be asked as stakeholders answer initial questions Constructs additional questions that may need to be asked as stakeholders answer initial que stions but questio ns are illogical or do not use th e “Five Whys” process Does not construct additional questions that may need to be asked as stakeholders answer initial questions 15 Articulation of Response Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that preven t understanding of ideas 10 Total 100%
Instructions For this second milestone, you will provide the Measure and Analyze phases of the DMAIC process and apply them to your selected case study. You will first measure performance by creating
WCM 610 Final Project Case Study One Phone Systems Inc., an international company that manufactures telephone accessories , has four l ocations in the United States: Syracuse, New York; Minneapolis, Minnesota; San Antonio, Texas; and Tampa, Florida. It also has facilities in Great Britain, Germany, and Mexico. Phone Systems Inc. valu es diversity in its workforce, i nnovation in its processes , and prof itability in its products. The p resident of the board has been overheard saying , “You can’t please all of the people all of the time. Sometimes profits come before personnel.” Phone Systems Inc. is contemplating opening a new facility in India and has initiated the formation of a virtual team to evaluate this decision. An outcome of thi s proj ect, as directed by the company’ s board of directors , is one of the facilities in the United States would be closed to fund the creation of the new facility in India. Below is a summary of the four sites. Location Year Established Number of Employ ees Syracuse, NY 1955 450 Minneapolis, MN 1968 250 San Antonio, TX 1995 650 Tampa, FL 2001 500 Syracuse, NY : This site is also the company’s global headquarters —the site where the company started. It recently celebrated 60 years of service in the United States, and received a p residential citation from President Obama for its dedication to keeping jobs in the United States . This site has an average years of service of 25 years, and the average employee age is 50.5 years old . While this site has th e longest history and tradition, it also scores lowest in internal employee satisfaction surveys. Minneapolis, MN : This site has undergone three downsizings in the past decade, reducing from 775 employees i n 2005 to 600 employees in 2008 and 500 employee s in 2010. It most recently underwent a considerable restructuring in 2013 to its current head count of 250 employees. The jobs were tr ansferred to the San Antonio, Texas, site and Tampa, Florida, site due to lower labor cost s and higher levels of efficien cy at both of these sites. The site pursued a grant through the State of Minnesota for skills retraining, and was awarded a state grant of $300,000 to fund retraining its incumbent workfor ce from 2015 through 2020. The c ompany would be required to repay th e State if any employees were laid off from this site prior to 2020. San Antonio, TX : This site is the “cash cow” of the company, as it has the highe st level of efficiency, is the company’s lowest -cost facility, and has the best overall record of performance. Its cost of operations is the lowest of all sites in the United States. However, the site is currently the target o f a union -organizing drive by the Communication Workers of America. Employees pushed for an increase in wages, which was denied by management as the result of an analysis of wages in the area for employees in similar industries. This prompted some emp loyees to pursue joining a u nion. Any attempt to curtail operations at the site , such as a union -busting move by the company, could c reat e a potential legal challenge with the international union . Tampa, FL : This is the company’s newest site, and is second to the San Antonio site in cost and efficiency. It has a very low level of attrition, and has the highest scores in the employee s atisfaction survey. The site has received awards for its solid performance in minority hiring, and has also been positively recognized as a leader in the local area for its excellent diversity hiring practices. A cross -function team comprised of three senior managers —plant manager, plant controller, and plant human resources manager —from each of the four sites in the United States has formed to develop the strategy for the creation of the new facility in India. One outcome that is non -negotiable by the co mpany’s board of directors is one of the four sites in the United States would have to close to fund the asset -reconfiguration project. The group has met twice but cannot reach consensus on their objective. However, they have discussed a shift in the project objective, and requested that the board of directors instead close the facility in Mexico. The site leaders agree a site needs to be closed, but all are adamant that their respective site s should not be closed due to economic, political, technical, and loyalty issues. Conflict among the team members involves the following issues:  Representatives from the Syracuse, New York, site are adamant that the site cannot close, as it is the world headquarters site and each member of the board of directors live s in the Syracuse area.  Several members of the committee appear to be ethnocentric , vocally disagreeing with the c ompany’s dec ision to open a site in India predicated on closing a site in the United States.  A fair degree of finger -pointing has occurred on the committee, with members focused on finding weaknesses at each site other than their own , rather than focusing on the obje ctives the committee was challenged to resolve. The facility in Mexico was established in 2008 and has a very low labor cost; its employees are very energetic and excited to be part of Phone Systems Inc. Its leadership team is comprised of 90% Mexican na tionals, and its plant manager describes the environment at the site as “Change Disneyland .” Employees welcome change, and are highly passionate about their company. The board of directors was not pleased by the proposal from the project team to close th e site in Mexico, and has brought you in to take ov er leadership of the team. The b oard has requested you develop a strategy to bring this project to a successful conclusion, with the following objectives:  Lead the team to the desired conclusion with the majority of the team reaching consensus on which of the four existing sit es in the United States would close .  Summarize the key challenges in moving forward with the recommendation.  Present the process by which you will lead the team to a successful outcome.