GB560 Unit 10 Implementation Report Example

From 3.34 Days to 1.1: A Unit 10 Implementation Report and Handover for a Redesigned Returns Process

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

GB560: Designing, Improving, and Implementing Processes

Unit 10 Implementation Report

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The seller, its returns center and every result are composite and illustrative; the methods and sources cited are real.

Summary

The redesigned process, piloted on blenders and food processors in Unit 8, was rolled out to every product family over three weeks and has now run at full volume for eight weeks. Results against the Unit 2 requirements:

Refund timing. Median dock-to-refund time fell from 3.34 days to 1.1, and the 90th percentile from 7.05 days to 2.6. The share of refunds posted within three business days rose to 97 percent, meeting the 95 percent requirement.

Refund accuracy. 99.6 percent correct to the cent, against a 99.5 percent tolerance.

Sellable units restocked within 48 hours. 93 percent of A-grade units, short of the required 95 percent. The cause is the carton wait before unpacking, which the design reduced but did not remove; it is the first open problem below.

Fast-lane losses. 0.45 percent of fast-lane refunds, above the 0.35 percent estimate in Unit 7 but well under the 0.6 percent limit set in Unit 8. At that rate the added loss is about $17,100 a year, still far less than the avoided cost.

Refund-status contacts. Down 61 percent against the baseline, slightly below the 64 percent assumed in Unit 7.

Handling time. Down from 11.4 to 10.1 minutes per return, as the internal label and refund keying disappeared.

A missed requirement reported with its cause and an owner reads as management; the same figure rounded up would read as spin.

Rollout

The rollout ran in three waves, one a week, ordered by how closely each family resembled the pilot.

Wave 1: small kitchen appliances similar to blenders, such as toasters and kettles.

Wave 2: air fryers, slow cookers and multicookers.

Wave 3: espresso machines and other high-value items.

The reversal. Two days into wave three, espresso machines were switched back to the old path for four days. Many espresso returns fall above the $400 inspection threshold, and the inspection lane, staffed for about 4 percent of volume, received more than twice that once espresso machines joined it. Loss prevention fell a day behind. The rollback switch tested in Unit 8 returned the family to the old path within an hour. During the four days, a second loss prevention inspector was scheduled for the inspection lane on peak days, and espresso machines then rejoined the new process without further problems.

Kotter (1996) argues that change efforts often stall when early problems are hidden rather than addressed, and the reversal was reported to staff the day it happened, along with what would change before espresso machines returned.

Control Charts at Full Volume

After twenty working days at full volume, the control limits from Unit 9 were recalculated as planned. The daily median chart now centers at 26.4 hours, with limits of 19.0 and 33.8. The weekly refund correction chart centers at 0.40 percent. Exception-lane aging exceeded the ceiling of five items twice, both on Mondays after weekend volume.

What the Change Cost and Saved

Direct spending on the change was modest: systems work to connect grading to refunds and to match tracking numbers, about $38,000; training time for about 60 staff, about $9,000; and the second loss prevention inspector on peak days, about $21,000 a year. Against them, the Unit 5 failure costs have fallen. Refund-status contacts cost about $33,000 a year now against $84,631 before, chargebacks before refund have nearly disappeared, and returns without a usable authorization have fallen by about four-fifths since the tracking-number match replaced the barcode. Together those three changes save about $140,000 a year, and the shorter handling time, 1.3 minutes on each of about 75,400 returns at $48 an hour, frees about $78,000 of staff time. Allowing for the higher fast-lane loss and the added inspector, the net annual saving is roughly $180,000, and the one-time costs of about $47,000 were recovered within about three months. These figures are estimates from eight weeks of data and should be confirmed at the six-month review.

Open Problems

1. A-grade restocking at 93 percent. Owner: inventory control lead. Due: within six weeks. Cause: returns still wait in bulk cartons before unpacking because the dock and unpacking bench are separate crews. Planned response: a trial of unpacking at the dock for fast-lane returns during the day shift, measured against the 48-hour requirement.

2. Monday exception backlog. Owner: exception lead. Due: within four weeks. Cause: weekend returns arrive together on Monday, and incomplete bundles waiting for shopper replies pile up. Planned response: a second person assigned to the exception lane on Mondays, and an automated message to shoppers on the day an incomplete bundle is found.

What Changed for Staff

Dock staff now scan tracking numbers instead of authorization barcodes. Graders no longer hold finished grades for the 16:00 export. Customer service agents no longer key refunds each morning, and the time saved has gone to answering the remaining contacts faster. One named exception lead now owns the exception lane, a role that did not exist before. Training records for each change are in the handover appendix.

Handover

The handover is written for the returns center supervisor, who will run the process after the project team leaves, and is meant to let the supervisor operate, measure and correct it without calling anyone from the project.

Appendix A: the rewritten procedure, with the five lanes and the exception branches, replacing the nine-step document.

Appendix B: training records for dock, bench, grading, customer service and the exception lead.

Appendix C: control charts and instructions, including how to update the charts, the response table from Unit 9 and when to recalculate limits.

Appendix D: escalation contacts for systems, loss prevention and customer service.

Appendix E: the open problem log, with owners and dates.

Juran and Godfrey (1999) describe sustainment as the stage where improvement efforts most often fail, because the project team leaves before the people running the process can maintain the gains. The handover is designed against that risk: the supervisor holds the charts, the procedure and the open problems, and the monthly review with the operations director continues.

Lessons for the Next Redesign

Three lessons carry forward. Pilot the most unusual family, not only the most typical one, since the espresso reversal came from a volume pattern the pilot never saw. Measure staff time as well as elapsed time, since the exception count in Unit 6 changed the design more than any timing result. And name owners for open problems before the project ends, so nothing waits for a team that has disbanded. Wheeler and Chambers (1992) note that a process under control can still be improved, and the two open problems are where improvement continues.

References

Juran, J. M., & Godfrey, A. B. (Eds.). (1999). Juran's quality handbook (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press.

Wheeler, D. J., & Chambers, D. S. (1992). Understanding statistical process control (2nd ed.). SPC Press.