BrunerG - CIBMTR

QUICK CHANGE PROCESS
Overview
Data Management Conference
November 5, 2009
Presented By Gretchen Bruner – CIBMTR CRC
Expectations
¾ More efficiency
¾ Linear process at both campuses (MKE and MPS)
¾ Find an easier, less confusing way to do things
Specifications
¾ 30 Days to implement the changes
¾ Solutions could not cost any $$$ and could not
require the hiring/firing of any staff
OUTCOMES
¾ 3-6 Action Items to implement into our current
process
p
ocess of
o Data
ata Management
a age e t (within
( t
30 days)
¾ Define other possible Action Items that need
more refinement and time in order to implement
and let Management prioritize
PROCESS DEFINITION
¾ Name: Data
Management
¾ Start: When a form is
submitted ((on p
paper
p
or electronically) by a
center to MKE or MPS
CIBMTR
¾ End:
E d When
Wh
a form
f
is
i
entered into database
and data is presently
“ l
“clean”
” ((passes
CURRENT FormsNet
validation criteria)
Step 1: Determine the current
process
¾ Everyone contributed to organizing a current
step-by-step
step by step process
p ocess of
o the
t e flow
o of
o forms
o s from
o
receipt to entry and scanning of the documents.
Step 2: Determine “ZONES” for
Improvement
¾ Through discussion, we determined that there
were
e e 6 major
ajo “zones”
o es in our
ou data management
a age e t
processes that could be improved.
¾ Some zones represented major problems that
were out-of-scope.
Step 3: Analyze Zones for
Improvement
¾ The group determined what steps in each “zone”
could be improved/reworked to make for a
smoother process (within 30 days!).
¾ Each of these steps were analyzed using the
Prioritization Matrix to determine its feasibility.
Prioritization Matrix
¾Cost/Benefit:
H
¾Speed to Implement:
H
M
L
M
L
¾Probability of Quick Success:
H
M
L
Step 4: Determine Priority of Issues
¾ First, we individually assigned priority to the
problems
p
ob e s by placing
p ac g red
ed dots next
e t to tthe
e issues
ssues
that we felt deserved the most attention.
¾ Next, as a group we assigned specific priority to
each problem that had the most dots.
¾ Only the issues that were determined to be of
High Cost/Benefit, High Speed to Implement
(appropriate change can be implemented
quickly) and High Probability of Quick Success
were allowed to be taken on.
Step 5: Narrow the Scope and
Assign “Owners”
Owners
¾ Each “high
g p
priority”
y item that was determined as
feasible for this process was assigned an “Action
Item Owner.”
¾ The “owner” put a group together that consisted
of p
people
p from both campuses
p
that tackled the
issue and came up with a plan to help solve the
problems identified.
Step 6: Present Findings
¾ Approximately half way through the 30-day
period,
pe
od, all
a action
act o item
te owners
o e s met
et with
t
Management to present on their progress.
¾ Management offered suggestions to help the
groups meet their deadlines.
¾ Groups reconvened to continue working on
solutions.
Step 7: Final Presentation to
Leadership
¾ After the conclusion of the 30-day deadline,
action
act
o item
te owners
o e s and
a d Management
a age e t met
et once
o ce
again to discuss items and progress.
¾ Some items were completed and instituted into
the Data Management process.
¾ Some items were determined to be much larger
than expected, therefore required more time.
Did the Quick Change Process “work”?
¾ It was found to be very helpful in addressing
underlying issues that were causing delays.
¾ This process opened up opportunities to think
outside the box in order to formulate solutions.
solutions
¾ It also helped improve communication between
campuses.
¾ A definite improvement can be seen!
Q
Questions?
i
?