iSixSigma

DMAIC Phase Time Spans

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General DMAIC Phase Time Spans

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #51491

    Aquinas
    Member

    Does anyone have any information on the average amount of time that each phase of the DMAIC process should take?  We are trying to create a standard time or goal for each phase but don’t really have any data to go off of. 
    Any help would be greatly appreciated.
    thanks,
    Thomas  

    0
    #178532

    Langsee
    Participant

    Thomas, It depends on how big is your problem? From my experience, it takes from 20 hours for smaller issues or 80 hours for bigger issues.  I would suggest that whatever the standard hours you come up with would work for where you work.
    Langsee

    0
    #178533

    Ron
    Member

    Thomas,
    Rule of thumb we scope GB projects to be completed in 90 days this does not include the monitoring portion which is based on the effective cycling time of the process. That being said you should be completed through the Define phase in a week, Measure 3-4 weeks, Analyze 2-3 weeks, Improve, 2-3 weeks, control one week plus monitoring time previously discussed.
    For BB projects focus 120 days to 180 days depending on the complexity of the project (expectations are much larger for BB projects)

    0
    #178585

    Joseph Provino
    Participant

    Hi
    I would suggest not to exceed 4 to 6 months for any six sigma project: excluding the monitoring stages which are on-going with a frequency depending on the nature of your project.
    a quick define stage of 2 weeks and delivery on third week to stake holders and sponsors.
    then Measure and Analyse phase are importants to complete the project properly: hence I am spending 2 third of expected project time on these steps..
    the other steps should  be flowing from the previous ones.. and take less tiem

    0
    #178588

    Velasquez
    Participant

    Hi Joseph,
    What amount of team time would you expect to utilise to complete the stages in the timeframes that you have quoted? or is there a typical team contact time that you would require to ensure successful completion?
    the reason I am asking is that I have ben given very limited accesss to a manufacturing team to resolve some issues and see this asa limitation in project completion.
    Thanks,
    Martin.

    0
    #178590

    mcleod
    Member

    Joseph,
    I am on my 15th Black Belt project and have mentored at least 25 Green Belts.  Each project has varied in its scope and complexity so I think it is a losing battle to try and establish a criteria for the length of a DMAIC phase.  You should obviously have a project plan but until you get into the details of the project, setting arbitrary time limits may set your teams up for failure.
    Scott 

    0
    #178607

    Joseph Provino
    Participant

     
    Replying to Martin,In general I would try to get at least one member for each stakeholder teams to act as Greenbelt or at minimum act in quality of single point of contact. This person will generally be knowledgeable in the particular area of expertise of the team and if possible be statistically savy.On the otherhand, I have business Analyst (green belt, aspiring on becoming black belt) and project managers in my team to link DMAIC end to end.In all case scenario we are conducting a fair share of the analysis in house.
    Replying to Scott, I agree with the fact that each projects are different, which mean that they can vary in length.But from experience (not 15 projects, yet again great results) the phases of my project are still remaining of same proportions, it is may be a personal choice but so far has work well for me: the define stage need to be short and sweet, defined my project and get an idea for the output after the project, we use it as an opportunity to get my project signed of sometime: or as little proof of concept (but it can depends from executive signing of the project). The most of the work is done in phase 2 and 3 : Measure and Analysis: these phases on the top of there usual role are playing a key role in preparing for the implementation and control phase, the more time spend on these phase 2 and 3, the faster the other phases will be, since we will have all the tools already lay-out. This doesn’t mean that we don’t face any challenges but simply that it make life much more easier.
    Joe

    0
    #178618

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Thomas,
    We went through this question within the last 2 weeks so you might want to do a search for that string.
    Having the same question brings up a couple questions.
    First question is that part of the training in the Six Sigma methodology should include the futility of trying to run on averages. You need to understand the distribution as well as central tendancies. Why do we seem to miss that concept when we put together metrics to manage a Six Sigma program?
    Second. What data do you have that allows you to combine all projects as if they were homogeneous? Not all projects are the same so what data do you have that allows you to combine them?
    What you are trying to do should not be treated any differently than you would treat the data at the beginning of a SS project. You don’t need information. You are supposed to have a skill set. Use it.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #178644

    Mares
    Participant

    Agree with the above comments that it really is dependant on the project – However – I’ve been around many improvement projects that fail to move from the Define and Measure phase quickly enough – getting the scope of the issue nailed early on is really important and one that personally I push for – I think for many implementing the actual improvement can be quite daunting and there can be a reluctance to move into this phase – so a project plan (for sizeable projects) with phase gate reviews certainly does no harm.

    0
    #178731

    TJC
    Member

    Thomas,
    Mike Carnell makes some valid points, however, in many metrics we do end up working with averages and are quite right to do so. 
    Some time ago, I had to generate a Dynamic indicator of how well existing DMAIC projects were going based on how long we actually expected them to take.  We had over a hundred GBs (and were training many more) across over 10 sites in different countries.  EVERYONE had a good reason of why their particular project was different and was taking however long it was taking… Because of a lack of any standard or average, the monitoring & escalation of issues became difficult for all the site-based BB coaches & key managers.  So, as an MBB/deployment champion, I analysed nearly 100 GB projects (in different sized manufacturing factories) and for each phase got a distribution.
    Although projects varied in length, the amount of time for each phase (as a %) showed far less variation.  I even rounded the average %’s times and got,  D (5%), M (15%), A (20%), I (30%) & C (30%).  Since most projects were taking 75 to 150 days, we set a challenging expectation that most projects would be completed in 100 days.  So, this meant D (5 days), M (15 days)  etc…
    Monitoring the projects then became easier in that projects which were “going rogue” (e.g. after 40 days still in M phase) meant that we could focus on those and provide relevant support / push.  Sometimes, the projects were justifiably taking longer and this monitor wrongly high-lighted them; but that is okay (Type I/II error problem…)
    Anyway, it was a simple easily understood metric by key stakeholders and worked. 
    If I was do this exercise again, I would use the variation data too e.g. use the Monte Carlo simulation method (using historic and current DMAIC days-per-phase) to help determine Project length.
    Hope the above helps
    TJC

    0
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)

The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.