GB560 Unit 2 Process Requirements Memo Example

Four Outputs the Returns Process Owes Its Receivers: A Unit 2 Process Requirements Memo

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

GB560: Designing, Improving, and Implementing Processes

Unit 2 Process Requirements Memo

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

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

To: Director of Operations

From: Process Improvement Analyst, Returns Center

Subject: Required outputs of the returns process

Purpose

Before the returns process is mapped or redesigned, we need agreement on what it must deliver. This memo states the four outputs the process owes its receivers, each with a measure and a tolerance precise enough that two people counting the same data would reach the same verdict. Rother and Shook (1999) recommend starting improvement work from what the customer of a process needs rather than from the current steps, and the receivers here include internal teams as well as shoppers. Womack and Jones (2003) define value as what the receiver would pay for, which is why each requirement is stated from the receiver's side rather than as a task.

Requirements Table

Each requirement gives the output, the receiver, the measure, the tolerance, the population and the source of the figure.

1. Refund posted. Receiver: the shopper. Measure: business days from dock scan to refund posted on the original payment method. Tolerance: within three business days for 95 percent of returns, and correct to the cent for 99.5 percent. Population: all returns with a valid authorization. Source: the return policy published on the website promises refunds "within three business days of receipt," and the accuracy figure reflects card network dispute thresholds.

2. Sellable units restocked. Receiver: the inventory planner. Measure: hours from dock scan to an A-grade unit available to sell. Tolerance: within 48 hours for 95 percent of A-grade units. Population: units graded A. Source: no document states this; it was reconstructed from the planner's replenishment cycle, which reorders twice a week and counts only units available at the time of each run.

3. Vendor claims assembled. Receiver: finance. Measure: days from grading a unit defective to a complete claim, with photographs and serial number, submitted to the vendor. Tolerance: within ten days for 95 percent of defects. Population: units graded defective under vendor warranty. Source: vendor agreements, most of which reject claims older than thirty days.

4. High-value units checked. Receiver: loss prevention. Measure: share of returns priced above $400 inspected by loss prevention before the refund posts. Tolerance: 100 percent. Population: returns with an original price above $400, about 4 percent of volume. Source: loss prevention policy after last year's swapped-part cases.

A requirement that cannot be counted cannot be met or missed, so every row names its measure, its threshold and the population it applies to.

Where the Requirements Conflict

Requirements one and four cannot both be met by one sequence. The current process grades every return before refunding, which allows the loss prevention check but delays every refund. A sequence that refunded at the dock scan would meet requirement one easily but would send money before anyone opened a $500 espresso machine box.

The choice has a cost either way. If high-value returns are refunded first, the company accepts the risk of swapped parts, which last year cost about $25,700 across 83 cases. If they are checked first, those returns, about 3,000 a year, wait roughly one more day for a refund, which our contact data suggest would produce about 1,100 extra "where is my refund" calls at $6.10 each, about $6,700 a year.

How Each Will Be Counted

All four measures can be counted from systems the center already runs. Dock scans and refund postings carry timestamps in the order system, so requirement one needs only a weekly report of the gap between them. Grading entries and stock availability sit in the warehouse system, which gives requirement two. Vendor claims are logged in finance's claims tracker with submission dates. Loss prevention checks are currently recorded on paper, so requirement four needs a simple scan field added at the inspection bench before it can be measured reliably. Each report will be run weekly, with the first four weeks used as the baseline for the current state analysis.

Requested Decision

Please rank requirements one and four for high-value returns by the end of next week, so the current state map in Unit 3 and the redesign that follows can be built on an agreed priority. My suggestion, for your consideration, is to rank the loss prevention check first for returns above $400 and the refund timing first for everything else, but the decision is yours.

What Follows

With the requirements agreed, the next step is to map how returns actually move today and measure how far the current process falls short of each tolerance. Frei (2006) notes that service processes often fail because they try to serve every customer the same way, and a ranked set of requirements is the first step toward serving different returns differently.

References

Frei, F. X. (2006). Breaking the trade-off between efficiency and service. Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 92-101.

Rother, M., & Shook, J. (1999). Learning to see: Value stream mapping to add value and eliminate muda. Lean Enterprise Institute.

Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (2003). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation (Rev. ed.). Free Press.