The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-4166.htm
IJLSS
10,4
928
Received 25 April 2018
Revised 15 January 2019
Accepted 17 January 2019
International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma
Vol. 10 No. 4, 2019
pp. 928-947
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-4166
DOI 10.1108/IJLSS-04-2018-0042
A lean six sigma approach for
improving university campus
office moves
Jennifer Wheeler-Webb
Air Force Audit Agency, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, USA, and
Sandra L. Furterer
Department of Engineering Management, Systems and Technology,
University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study was to improve the quoting, scheduling, invoicing and paying for
campus office moves at a university. The Lean Six Sigma project goal was to improve the campus office move
process by making it less complicated, free-up program managers’ time and pay the vendor on time.
Design/methodology/approach – The team used the Lean Six Sigma Define-Measure-Analyze-
Improve-Control methodology to improve the process.
Findings – The average time from the campus move to when the invoice was paid improved by 27%, with
an improved median of 16%. The standard deviation was greatly reduced by 51%. The average invoiced date
to paid date remained statistically the same, and the median increased from 20 to 30 days, due to a policy
change to move the target from 20 to 30 days. The standard deviation of the invoice to paid date was greatly
reduced by 38%. This was a successful project because the sponsors were on-board from the beginning and
included the process owners in the improvement effort.
Originality/value – Other higher education institutions or other industry areas with a similar process can
implement this methodology and processes outlined in this case study to improve efficiency and cost
effectiveness and as a guide for improving other processes within institutions.
Keywords DMAIC, Lean six sigma, Campus office moves, Continuous process improvement,
Higher education, Quality
Paper type Case study
Introduction
Institutions of higher education are applying Lean Six Sigma (LSS) more frequently. Adina-
Petruta and Roxana (2014) combined the principles of Six Sigma and quality management.
Bandyopadhyay (2014) improved online education. Al Kuwaiti and Subbarayalu (2015)
assessed student surveys, whereas Tetteh (2015) applied LSS to pedagogy and professional
development. Additionally, a special journal issue on LSS in higher education was published
(Antony, 2015). This special journal issue included papers discussing the specific issues
faced by higher education institutions (HEIs) when implementing LSS (Balzer et al., 2015;
Waterbury, 2015), implementation of LSS in King Abdullah University of Science and
Technology (Svensson et al., 2015), as well as the differences in implementing LSS in further
educational institutions compared to HEIs (Thomas et al., 2015). The journal also discussed
applying Lean wastes to HEIs as well as sort, straighten, shine, standardize, sustain, point-
of-use storage, process mapping, value-stream mapping, and level scheduling (Douglas
et al., 2015).
 Furterer and Crumpton-Young (2005) incorporated LSS experiential learning Improving
opportunities into a graduate industrial engineering and management systems course at the university
University of Central Florida. The students performed real-world LSS projects to improve
the university’s processes. Several of the projects focused on improving teaching and
campus office
learning. A LSS project improved the course website development and design process moves
(Sharawi et al., 2007). Asset management processes were improved by another team
(Martinez et al., 2006). A process management model was developed to help achieve
operational excellence (Rodrigues et al., 2006). A LSS project helped to improve the faculty
929
accreditation process (Furterer et al., 2006a). A LSS team applied a balanced scorecard to
improve processes (Akinrefon et al., 2005). LSS was applied to improve the graduate student
management program (Nahmens et al., 2005). The education delivery system processes were
improved in another LSS project (Sharma et al., 2005). Other student projects focused on
administrative higher educational processes. One project improved web development and
design processes (Furterer et al., 2006b). National Panhellenic Conference recruitment
processes were improved by Jenness et al. (2006). A framework was developed to incorporate
Six Sigma problem solving to achieve operational excellence in the university (Furterer et al.,
2005). University student recruitment processes were improved through application of LSS
tools and methods (Furterer et al., 2007). LSS was applied as an improvement tool in other
academic processes (Coowar and Furterer, 2006). This vast body of research exemplifies
how LSS was applied in higher education across a wide variety of processes.
With the need to be more frugal, universities are turning to process improvement
methodologies such as LSS and quality-based tools to reduce the cost of administrative
activities, as well as teaching and learning processes. Many HEIs utilize different methods to
move campus office furniture and other supplies. Some of the methods used include
employing student workers, in-house facilities management or contracting moving vendors.
The method the university currently uses is contracting moving vendors to complete office
campus moves. Management determined during the summer there was an issue with the
current process. The opportunity presented itself to complete the LSS method when the US
Air Force Education with Industry program Fellow came onboard in September.

Methodology
The key foundation for a successful LSS project is upper management support.
Management showed this by stipulating the project take place as a rapid 2-day Kaizen
approach through Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control (DMAIC). This included much
preparatory work by the project manager, Master Black Belt, and subgroups of the team
prior to the event during the define and measure phases. The team completed the rest of the
work during the 2-day event and a couple months after. In this case, improvement
implementation dates were 2 weeks and 1 month after the event, and team members were
not working full-time on the project.
Similar to previous case studies completed by Furterer, this LSS case study used the
DMAIC methodology to improve campus office moves at the university. To further describe
DMAIC:
In the define phase, the team developed the problem statement to gain an understanding of the
gaps in the process, created the project charter to reach agreement on the project goals, and
performed a stakeholder analysis to identify stakeholders impacted by the process and the
project. The team used a Suppliers-Inputs, Process, Outputs, Customers (SIPOC) tool to
understand the five to seven high-level activities to be improved. Finally, in the define phase, the
project manager developed a project plan, which guided the successful completion of the project.
IJLSS The Measure phase relied on subject-matter experts to observe operational processes and create
process maps. The team developed a data-collection plan to identify the metrics and data
10,4 necessary to understand the current processes. Understanding customer needs related to each
process was essential in identifying the Critical-to-Satisfaction (CTS) characteristics. The research
team used descriptive, graphical, and inferential statistics to understand the processes and factors
that significantly affect the tutoring process.

930 The Analyze phase identified factors and root causes contributing to problems in the process by
using a why-why analysis. The research team generated recommendations in the Improve phase
to adapt processes, based on implementing and measuring them, to assess the improvement to
each process. Finally, in the Control phase, control plans were developed and implemented to
maintain process improvements. (Furterer et al., 2017)
The next sections describe the applied LSS DMAIC methodology to the higher-education
campus office moves.

Define phase
The project started with the project charter. Management, the project sponsor and champion
held a meeting with the selected project management to initiate the project, identify team
members, set dates for a two-day Kaizen event, and started to develop the problem
statement. The project manager searched for and held discussions with two Master Black
Belts to identify a Master Black Belt mentor for the project. In this particular case, the
Master Black Belt mentor is necessary for the project manager to obtain a Green Belt
certification. The manager then initiated weekly mentoring meetings with the Master Black
Belt. The project manager also reached out to three other industries to benchmark
improvement ideas. In addition to the Master Black Belt and the project manager, the LSS
team included one process owner/sponsor from Procurement and Payables, one process
owner/sponsor from Facilities Management, two Procurement representatives, one Facilities
Management program management representative, one Facilities Management Residential
Properties representative, two moving vendor representatives, and two Air Force
Continuous Process Improvement representatives. The project charter was established.

Overview
Moving vendors complete campus office moves for the university, and the process needs to
be improved. The university received numerous faculty complaints in regard to the time and
the dollar amount it takes to complete a campus office move.

Problem statement
The university’s strategic partnership is with the priority moving company, but the vendor
does not have sufficient capability to meet all of the university’s campus move needs. As a
result, the university identified another vendor as a backup vendor for campus moves. The
current process leaves too much ambiguity for the program managers to guess what the
vendor can and cannot cover in the moves, creating monetary losses in the move process.
Dealing with a large volume of small moves, and how quoting, scheduling, invoicing and
paying is inefficient, causes issues and losses. The processes are more complicated than they
need to be, costing too much time for program managers and sometimes causing late
payments.
Goals Improving
The goal is to improve the campus office move process by making it less complicated, free- university
up program managers’ time and pay the vendor on time.
campus office
Scope
moves
The process includes campus moves, projects, non-projects, facilities and constructions
moves. The process excludes relocation moves, the music and arena department moves. The 931
project manager collected baseline metrics from the e-procurement systems between the
dates of April 1 through October 11, 2017.
The critical to satisfaction (CTS)/critical to quality (CTQ) tree helps to understand the
voice of the customers’ needs and translate them to the CTS or CTQ characteristics. We
developed a CTS/CTQ tree, as shown in Figure 1.
The CTS criteria and how to measure each were identified for the campus move process:
 Meeting job’s budget with no surprises: use a central fund and blanket purchase
order to track move dollars monthly with no surprises over $250.
 Invoices processed on time: payment date minus the invoice date and zero moves
without a purchase order; payment date minus move (delivery) date.
 Invoice quality: invoice line items determined without extra research.
 Adherence to scheduling lead time: spreadsheet created to track moves.
 Customer satisfaction: customer surveys to determine the voice of the customers in
regards to vendor comparison, quality and performance.

The stakeholder analysis identified the project stakeholders, their role in the project, their
potential impacts and concerns, and their initial and future receptivity to the project. This
analysis is an important tool for identifying and engaging the appropriate stakeholder groups and
ensuring their support by the end of the project. (Furterer et al., 2017)
The team identified four primary stakeholder groups: facilities – supports departments
requiring campus office moves; moving vendors – performs campus office moves;
departments – interfaces with moving vendor and the primary customer; procurement –
supports application administrators and relocation coordinator.
Facilities spent a lot of time communicating with the customer on scheduling, prices, and
other move details, figuring out the Runway purchasing and invoicing system, deciphering
invoices, and therefore were overwhelmed with keeping up. This made them moderately
against additional work on a LSS event. The moving vendor was moderately supportive of
the project. This was due to the vendor having many outstanding invoices with the
customer, and much time needed to be spent by the vendor defending the charges on the
invoices. The vendor agreed that a central coordinator for moves could potentially simplify
the process. Departments gave moderate support due to the vendor not always available
when ready to move, and the moves seemed overpriced. Procurement was a moderate
supporter due to concerns that quotes always seemed to match invoices, and quotes and
invoices did not list itemized descriptions, possibly paying for additional trucks and men
when one truck and two men should suffice, e-procurement system not utilized to the fullest
extent, and concerns with LSS events being too time consuming.
The SIPOC diagram lays out a simplified diagram of the process, as shown in Figure 2.
This depicts the major activities, the suppliers’ inputs to the activities, the outputs of the
process activities and the customers of the inputs. This allows for a check and balance to the
IJLSS Need Drivers: Factors CTS or CTQ Metrics
10,4 Poor design or
use of Runway
purchasing
system

Poor design of
accounts and
funds Time from
Need for move date to
vendors to invoice paid
932 be paid on
me
Workflow not
setup correctly,
with manual
Invoices
processed on
date

process adapted me

to system
Time to pay
No standard invoice
quong
process

No standard Number
process, Quality of invoice errors
lacking training invoice per invoice
and resources.

Invoice
quality

Jobs are
different

Limited
resources Adherence to
scheduling Adherence to
Ability to expected lead
schedule lead me of me
jobs in moving jobs
advance 80% of jobs
done in
summer

Want to give
best customer
service, not
reducing
complexity

Unexpected
occurrences

Poorly defined
scope of job
Customer Customer
Customer sasfacon sasfacon
complaints with office survey results
Lack of moves
planning

Not defining
expectaons

Poorly defined
scope of job

Control Materials Meeng job’s Actual

changes on changes budget with compared to
job no surprises budget cost

Figure 1.
Expectaons
CTS/CTQ tree not set
 Suppliers
Inputs
Process
Outputs
Customers Improving
(X) (Y)
Telephone/Email/Work Define
university
Departments Decision on work Facilities
Request Requirements campus office
Vendor
Surveyed requirement
Provided quote
Develop Quote Reviewed quote
Departments
Facilities
moves
Complete
Departments Paperwork Departments
Quoted Paperwork
Facilities (purchase Facilities 933
order)
Reviewed schedule
Vendor and Vendor
Facilities Schedule Move and agreed to move
Department contacted Departments
date
Departments
Vendor Move service provided Perform Move Reviewed service
Facilities
Departments
Vendor Request for invoice Create Invoice Sent invoice
Facilities
Confirmed work
Departments complete Approve Approved invoice Figure 2.
Accounts Payable
Facilities Accepted dollar Invoice in Runway SIPOC diagram
amount

stakeholder analysis to identify all appropriate stakeholders and validation that the process
scope is correct. (Furterer et al., 2017)

Measure phase
To save time, the project manager developed an “As-Is” process map to layout the current
process prior to the event. During the event, the team made edits adding additional steps,
as shown in Figure 3. Furterer and Green created this unique Visio process-architecture
map tool template that combines the process flow of the activities with the role that
performs each activity, documents and information systems used within each activity,
and additional knowledge that is important to capture to help perform the process
accurately and consistently (Furterer, 2017).
Due to the time allotted for the Kaizen event, the project manager applied the risk
assessment after one-on-one discussions with the stakeholders. The manager identified that
the discussions during the event would make each stakeholder more receptive to the
planned process change. Getting key stakeholders in a room all together at one time helps
each stakeholder better understand the issues at key points in the process, as long as they
are willing to listen.
The manager presented the milestones for the event in an agenda emailed to the team one
day prior to the event, as shown in Table I.
The project manager developed a data collection plan, shown in Figure 4, prior to the
event and reviewed data slides with the team during the event. This allowed the project
manager and Master Black Belt to share data with management and give them a better
understanding of the voice of the process. Figures 5 and 6 are examples of the Minitab
charts created and shared with management. Management could see the invoice date to
paid date median was 20 days and the (*) items are the outliers of late payments. The
average paid date is 24.17 days, with a standard deviation of 15.471 days, although the
distribution is not normal. The manager used the e-Procurement Runway system to
gather data from 173 invoices including 293 line items and analyzed the data with Excel
and Minitab. The time from the date of the move to the invoice paid date was collected,
which showed a median of 41.5 days (Figure 6). We then also developed the process
problems:
IJLSS
10,4

934

Figure 3.
Process map

 quotes not reflective of invoice costs: price of quote to price of invoice;

 invoices processed late: payment date minus the invoice date;
 pricing not competitive: a couple examples of quotes compared to other vendor
quotes;
 not utilizing Runway: number of purchase orders started in Runway by facilities or
vendor;
 time spent determining pricing accuracy: number of errors invoices/issues with
determining itemized breakout;
 availability/scheduling/too many small moves: time and labor to schedule;
 timeliness: number of hours each move takes; and
 resources: number of men/trucks each move takes.
TIME PURPOSE
Improving
university
Tuesday, 14 November 2017 campus office
8:15-8:30 AM Arrival and Gather Participants (Coffee/Hot Tea/Water)
8:30-8:45 AM Leadership Kick-Off moves
8:45-9:00 AM Introductions (Ice breaker)
9:00-9:15 AM Rules of Engagement (Discuss lean tools)
9:15-10:00 AM Define: Clarify and Validate the Problem – Review Charter 935
10:00-10:30 AM Critical to Satisfaction, Stakeholder Analysis, and SIPOC
10:30-11:00 AM Process “As-Is” Map
11:00-11:50 AM Measure: Data Collection Plan
12:00-1:00 PM Lunch (box lunches provided by Dining Services)
1:00-1:30 PM Measure Data
1:30-2:00 PM Measurement System - Errors in Data
2:30-3:30 PM Analyze: Brainstorm Challenges and Process Problems (Affinity)
3:30-4:30 PM Lean Analysis - Value and Waste
Wednesday, 15 November 2017
8:15-8:30 AM Arrival and Gather Participants (Coffee/Hot Tea/Water)
8:30-8:45 AM Recap
8:45-9:45 AM Why Why Diagrams
9:45-10:15 AM Improve: Improvement Ideas (Affinity)
10:15-10:45 AM Improvement Ideas - Prioritize
10:45-11:50 AM Improvement Ideas - Assign Owners
12:00-1:00 PM Lunch (box lunches provided by Dining Services)
1:00-2:00 PM Set Improvement Target(s)
2:00-3:00 PM Control: Discuss process control plans and standard operating procedures
3:00-4:00 PM Open for schedule slide Table I.
4:00-4:30 PM Vector/Tollgate Check All 5 Phases Kaizen event agenda

Identify metrics to measure and assess improvement that relate to the CTS's from the Define Phase.
Data Sampling Process to
Critical to Satisfaction Metric (short Operational Definition (metric Analysis
Collection Plan (size, Collect and Baseline
(CTS) title) description) Mechanism
Source frequency) Report
Within
Meeting job's budget, No Surprises Excel
>$250 Facilities (FUTURE) (FUTURE) Not available
with no surprises (FUTURE) function
(manual)

Time to pay invoice:

- Time to pay invoice: Wait time for
Invoice date Verify and Median = 20 days; mean =
payment - Date of invoice to the date of
April validate data 24.17; stdeve = 15.47
payment. Runway Excel
Invoices processed late Late Pay through 11 with team and Move date to invoice paid =
- Move (delivery) date to invoice paid System function
October subject matter Median = 41.5 days, mean =
date.
2017 experts 47.07 days, stdev = 26.58
days

Did we adhere to the expected lead

Invoice date Verify and
time. This can differ by busy season
Within April validate data
(summer) or non-busy season. Pareto
Invoice quality Invoice Qualiy Facilities through 11 with team and Not available
Includes availability of resources and Chart
(manual) October subject matter
scheduling of moves. Time/Labor to
2017 experts
schedule

Did we adhere to the expected lead

time. This can differ by busy season
Within
Adherence to scheduling Competition (summer) or non-busy season.
Facilities (FUTURE) (FUTURE) (FUTURE) Not available
lead time of moving jobs (FUTURE) Includes availability of resources and
(manual)
scheduling of moves. Time/Labor to
schedule

Program
The voice of the customers inregards to Managers
From
Customer vendor comparison, quality, and Google and others
Customer Satisfaction
Satisfaction performance. (PREWORK: Customer
customer
Forms picked by
(FUTURE) Not available Figure 4.
survey
survey) David
Schmidt
Data collection plan
IJLSS Histogram of Invoice Date to Paid Date: April 1 to Oct. 11, 2017
10,4 Anderson-Darling Normality Test
A-Squared 15.17
P-Value <0.005
Mean 24.173
StDev 15.471
Variance 239.365
Skewness 2.16192

936 Kurtosis
N
5.62717
173
Minimum 2.000
1st Quartile 19.000
Median 20.000
3rd Quartile 25.000
Maximum 92.000
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 21.852 26.495
95% Confidence Interval for Median
20.000 21.000
95% Confidence Interval for StDev
13.995 17.299

95% Confidence Intervals

Mean
Figure 5.
Invoice received date Median

to paid date 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Histogram of Baseline Moved to Paid Date

Anderson-Darling Normality Test
A-Squared 3.97
P-Value <0.005
Mean 47.070
StDev 26.580
Variance 706.491
Skewness 1.02019
Kurtosis 0.87848
N 207
Minimum 5.000
1st Quartile 27.000
Median 41.500
3rd Quartile 62.000
Maximum 127.000
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
20 40 60 80 100 120 43.428 50.713
95% Confidence Interval for Median
36.913 47.000
95% Confidence Interval for StDev
24.242 29.420

95% Confidence Intervals

Mean
Figure 6.
Delivery date of move Median

to paid date 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0

We also measured the time from when the vendor provided the move service (delivery date) Improving
to when they were paid. This shows the lag of approximately 20 days in the vendor sending university
their invoice after the move is complete, shown in Figure 4. campus office
Lastly, the manager created a customer survey in Google Forms to rate the
quality of service of the current moving vendors who perform the office moves. We moves
then moved on to analyze the data collected from the Measure phase in the Analyze
phase. 937
Analyze phase
The survey data was analyzed to identify the perceived level of quality of service of the
moving vendors by the customers (faculty and staff). The analyzed responses are shown in
Figure 7. Most of the respondents rated the current vendor as mediocre for overall quality of
service, which had five responses of neutral and four each as excellent and good (p value of
0.063 for a chi-square goodness-of-fit test), as shown in Figure 7. The ease of conducting
business with the current vendor received a neutral rating with seven neutral responses, and
three each for excellent and good (p value of 0.012 for a chi-square goodness–of-fit test). The
on-time and value for price questions received higher excellent and good responses (p value
of 0.063, and 0.279, respectively, for the chi-square goodness-of-fit test). The responders
identified that nearly 31 per cent of the time, they did not receive a quote from the vendor.
When they did receive a quote, they stated that 80 per cent of the time they received a quote
via email, and 20 per cent of the time the quote delivery method varied. The survey
responders also identified the most critical to satisfaction characteristics as: on-time delivery
performance and meeting customer satisfaction (both 10 very important of 13 responses),
and value for price and customer service (both nine very important of 13 responses), shown
in Figure 8.
Next, the team brainstormed challenges and process problems by taking approximately
10 min to silently write down challenges on post-it notes. Then, each team member shared
their ideas and posted the challenges on the wall into categories creating an Affinity chart.
This method allowed everyone to think on their own and possibly anyone that was not
comfortable speaking up early in the meeting could write the ideas down first. In addition,

How would you rate the supplier's quality of

service?

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
On-me Value for price Ease of Overall quality of
Figure 7.
conducng service
Customer survey
business
results - supplier’s
Excellent 4 Neutral 2 Poor quality of service
IJLSS
10,4 Please indicate the importance of the supplier's
characteriscs
10

938 8
6
4
2
0
Figure 8. On-me Value for Meeng Customer Service
Customer survey delivery price customer service quality
results – importance performance expecons
of the supplier’s
characteristics Excellent 4 Neutral 2 Poor

the group shared ideas in round-robin fashion. Additional ideas were added as they were
thought of during the brainstorming session.
Second, the team completed a lean analysis in Visio by listing all process map activities
in rows and Lean Wastes in the columns to include: transportation, overproduction, motion,
defects, delay, inventory, processing and people. If the team did not identify a Waste for an
activity, then the value analysis was value-add. If the team identified one or more Wastes for
an activity the team decided whether the value analysis was limited value or non-value add.
The lean analysis identified 81 per cent of the activities as limited or non-value add. An
example of the Lean analysis is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9.
Lean analysis
Third, the team then investigated the root cause of each CTS with Why-Why diagrams by Improving
asking “Why” five times or more. A Why-Why diagram example is in the following text, as university
shown in Figure 10. The question asked was as follows: why are invoices not paid quickly?
Too many steps in the payment process. Why are there too many steps in the payment
campus office
process? Requires approvals by person owning the fund, requires approvals over certain moves
dollar amount, invoice does not go to the person approving the fund, could put in the wrong
account number, have option in Runway that leads to defects, facilities has to assign to
funds, Runway approvals are not complete, and too many facility approvals. Other Why- 939
Why diagram questions included: Why are there customer complaints? Why do we have
surprises in invoice amounts? Why is invoice quality not at a high level? The Master Black
Belt efficiently captured the Why-Why’s on Visio as the team discussed them.
A summary of the root causes follows:
 poor design or use of the runway system;
 poor design of accounts and funds;
 workflow not setup correctly;
 manual process adapted to the system;

Figure 10.
Why-Why diagram
for “Why are invoices
not paid quickly?”
IJLSS  lack of time and resources;
10,4  no process for defining move requirements;
 no or poor training on process and system;
 always done it that way;
 difficult to change;
940  no time to write a purchase order; and
 no standard quoting process.

Improve phase
The team took approximately 15 min to prioritize improvement ideas silently. Using the
same brainstorming method, the team used the brainstorming/Affinity chart and Why-Why
root causes to write down what they thought the improvement ideas should be. Then, the
team shared the improvement ideas and posted the ideas into an Affinity chart. The team
identified over 20 improvement ideas using this method. The team was able to combine a
few ideas to have 18 improvements to vote on. The team streamlined the ideas by writing
only the titles on one sheet, and then the team members were given six red dots to assign
their votes to prioritize the improvement ideas. Once the voting was complete, the Master
Black Belt transferred the improvement ideas and summaries to an Excel spreadsheet while
each team member more thoroughly explained each idea to the team. In the Excel
spreadsheet, the team sorted and ranked the improvements with the highest vote amounts
listed as high impact improvements. The impact categories were high, medium, low, and the
improvements with zero votes did not receive an impact ranking. The team’s goal was to
definitely complete the high ranking improvements and then work through the other
improvements as time allowed. Then, the team assigned an owner and a follow-up date to
each improvement idea.
In the weeks following the event, the project manager sent out individual emails to
remind each improvement owner of their estimated completion date, determined the piloted
improvements’ status, and provided an email summarizing the event and aligning the
critical leadership decisions for the Finance and Administrative Services Vice President and
Assistant Vice Presidents.
During the improvement piloting, issues arose with work order requests not thoroughly
being completed by departments and facilities not reviewing data prior to sending to the
vendor, the amount of workload the new manual spreadsheet was causing, and late
payments. The project manager scheduled a 90-min team meeting to discuss the issues, the
status of all other improvements and to draft a control plan. The three potential
improvements received new follow-up dates within the next 4 weeks.
Prior to the meeting, facility team members identified future potential improvements
with the TeamDynamix system that may automatically create a spreadsheet instead of
manually creating a spreadsheet. Facilities is currently piloting TeamDynamix for tracking
capital improvement projects and will eventually test for small campus office moves.
The improvement ideas are shown in Table III.

Control phase
The control phase is the last phase in DMAIC, and the control plan is what the team will use
to measure if the process stays improved after the manager completes the project, and the
team no longer has a project manager to follow-up on items.
The control plan is a detailed assessment guide for maintaining all of the positive changes Improving
implemented during the project. The team drafted a control plan during the 90-min university
improvement pilot status meeting. Basically, the control plan is the CTS items with an
owner identified, who will take action if problems occur during different process steps, as
campus office
shown in Figure 11. moves

Results 941
The following hypotheses were tested in the Control phase, as shown in Table II.
The team implemented improvements in November and December 2017. The project
manager ran a Runway system report to assess whether the invoices were paid more timely
January through April 13, 2018. For the t tests performed, a statistical significance level of 90
per cent confidence, with an alpha of 0.10, was used to assess statistical significance for the
process improvement metrics. The more relaxed level of 90 per cent was used because this is
not a high-risk process. If the p value was below the alpha of 0.10, then the null hypothesis
was rejected, and a change in the process was concluded. The average time from the move to
when the invoice was paid improved by 27 per cent from 47.07 to 34.5 days (t test p value of
0.000). The median improved as well by 16 per cent, from 41.5 to 35 days (Mann–Whitney
test p value of 0.005). The standard deviation however was greatly reduced by 51 per cent
from 26.58 to 13.15 days (two-variance test, p value = 0.000).
The average invoiced date to paid date remained statistically the same, with a baseline of
24.2 days to 26.24 days (t test, p value = 0.240). The median increased from 20 to 30 days
(Mann–Whitney p value of 0.002). The reason for this was that the purchasing manager
changed the system auto pay timeframe target from 20 to 30 days. They are planning to
negotiate a 2/10 net 30 term with the vendor. However, the standard deviation was greatly
reduced by 38 per cent (15.47 to 9.53 days (two-variance test, p value = 0.044) as shown in
Figure 12.
The mean, median and standard deviations improved greatly for the moved date to the
invoice paid date, from 16 per cent for the median to a high of 51 per cent for the standard
deviation. This showed that the process consistency and central tendency improved

Null hypothesis = Ho Alternative hypothesis = Ha

Baseline average time from invoiced date to paid
date = Improved average time from invoiced date to
paid date
Baseline median time from invoiced date to paid
date = Improved median time from invoiced date to
paid date
Baseline variance of time from invoiced date to paid
date = Improved median time from invoiced date to
paid date
Baseline average time from moved date to invoice
paid date = Improved average time from moved date
to invoice paid date
Baseline median time from moved date to invoice
paid date = Improved median time from moved date
to invoice paid date
Baseline variance of time from moved date to invoice
paid date = Improved variance of time from moved
date to invoice paid date
Baseline average time from invoiced date to paid
date = Improved average time from invoiced date
to paid date
Baseline average time from invoiced date to paid
date = Improved median time from invoiced date
to paid date
Baseline variance of time from invoiced date to
paid date = Improved median time from invoiced
date to paid date
Baseline average time from moved date to invoice
paid date = Improved average time from moved
date to paid date
Baseline average time from moved date to invoice
paid date = Improved median time from moved
date to paid date
Baseline variance of time from moved date to Table II.
invoice paid date = Improved variance of time Hypotheses tested in
from moved date to paid date control phase
IJLSS
Improvement idea # Votes
10,4
Central fund, budget approved: Facilities management controlled fund under Facilities admin.
Create an account number for moving expense. Central fund moves for <$500. Doesn’t include
project, residential, employee, music, arena or athletics. Probably will work with a blanket PO on
yearly or monthly basis, with between $40K to $50K budgeted for the fiscal year. Supervisor as
Level 1 approver. Usually not >$10K. All facilities mgt. and project managers would be
942 requesters, to initiate spending on the fund. Central fund would like a move day, but doesn’t have
to be a move day move to use the fund. Moves requested through the work order in Maximo.
Central fund used for tasks, not project 9
Designated moving day for moving work orders: Propose Friday as “move day”. Vendor’s set
crew of two men and a truck. Create a “move list” (contact person, location, description, fund,
account) to combine small jobs and consolidate. Departments would enter work orders into
Maximo. Facilities would pull moving work orders. Define the requirements and priority for each
work order. Create a list in order of priority and send to Vendor’s by Wednesday close of
business. Number of men is contingent on workload 7
Manage customer expectations and education: Once a request for a move is received, an auto
email is generated which explains potential costs, or “what to expect”. Get an idea of expected
data and requirements (checklist or historical data). Once all information regarding move is
obtained, communicate with the department. Use a commercial process checklist, to make sure all
of the required information is obtained 7
Blanket purchase orders (POs): Create a blanket Purchase Order (PO) for construction design
project only. Project managers will take care of creation of blanket PO. Procurement sourcing
manager will educate project managers when it makes sense to use. Need Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP). Start with obvious areas to create a blanket PO, pilot them, and then add in
others as appropriate. Invoice goes into supplier portal or emailed to accounts payable or
Facilities Management. Forwarded to Accounts Payable. Accounts Payable puts into system,
goes into a workflow for approval, and vendor is paid 7
Maximo and work order: Drive all non-project requests to Maximo, the project management
system. Add some fields to capture data that is important to Vendor’s work order request. Get
routed to Facilities project manager. Assign or request fund number from user. If project, work
request closed and converted to a project. Scheduled on next available moving day. Customized
fields: get subject matter expert to identify fields. Could add a separate tab with new form or
additional information. May add work order request categories. Provide requirements that meet
the need for vendor’s Work Order sheet 6
Moving coordinator/meeting: Person that all requests would get funneled to. They would
correspond with moving company, prioritize, and work with departments for flexibility. Get
inventory of plastic bins, moving supplies. Person would be a project manager, treating it like a
project for seasonal needs. Would alternate the work as a project. Have a scheduling meeting 5
Training:
Runway training. Anyone can request
Create training for Finance and Administrative Services on how to interact with internal
customers
Establish frequently asked questions 2
Standard Operating Procedures: Develop for each process – Requirement definition, POs
invoicing, approvals, moving day scheduling 1
Invoices: Standard invoice numbers, vendor change invoice numbers, attach a moving signature
sheet to every invoice sheet 0
Approvals: Reduce internal Facilities Management approvals and routing. Eliminate multiple
Table III. approvals on invoice for payment 0
Improvement ideas (continued)
 Improving
Improvement idea # Votes university
campus office
Runway process and technology: Get all 6 project managers as requesters on all school funds (15).
For other funds, assign to procurement, and they push it through 0 moves
Accounts Payable standard process, invoice checking: Accounts payable standard process must be
reinforced that all invoices must be checked to verify scanned invoice date equals Runway
invoice date 0 943
Change supplier profile: Change supplier profile, email POs to mover vs. fax. Email to single
admin email as provided by vendor 0
Turn-off catalog: in Runway and add link to Maximo 0 Table III.

Process Control Measure/ Criticality Action Taken if

Owner
Steps Mechanism Metric (H M L) Problems Occur
No surprise with
customer, central
Central fund/ Meeting job's
No surprises budget, track $/move,
purchase budget, with H Facilities
>$250 with the central fund,
order no surprises
and blanket purchase
order

Invoices Invoice date to Pull monthly report from Procure-

Invoice H
processed late payment date Runway ment

Invoice Invoice Accounts

Approve H Review invoices
quality itemized Payable

Did we adhere
to the expected
Adherence to
lead time? This
scheduling Utilize manual
Schedule can differ by H Facilities
lead time of spreadsheet
busy season
moving jobs
(summer) or
non-busy
season.
VOC in regards
to vendor
Customer Customer
comparison, H Surveys Facilities Figure 11.
Satisfaction Satisfaction
quality, and
performance. Control plan

Invoiced Date to Invoice Paid Date Moved Date to Invoice Paid Date
Mean Median Standard Mean Median Standard
Deviation Deviation
Baseline 24.2 20 days 15.47 days 47.07 days 41.5 days 26.58 days
days
Improved 26.24 30 days 9.53 days 34.50 days 35 days 13.15 days
days
% change Same -50% 38% 27% 16% 51%
P-value .240 .002 .044 .000 .005 .000 Figure 12.
Significant No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Improvement metrics
at .10?

significantly for this metric. However, the mean of the invoice date to paid date remained the
same, so far, and the median purposely increased due to a policy change. Subsequently,
we do not anticipate an improvement in the average because it is already achieving an
average target of less than 30 days. The improvements implemented have helped to
IJLSS standardize the process and reduce the variance. The changes also helped to get the
10,4 purchase orders and invoices in the system more quickly by using a blanket purchase order,
and a general account, which is a positive improvement.
An additional improvement was the average cost of a campus move was reduced from
$150 to $88, a 41.3 per cent improvement, after the improvements were implemented.

944 Conclusions
This was a successful project because the sponsors were on-board from the beginning. The
sponsors talked to team members from the start, which made the onboarding for the team
members much easier. All team members agree the process is better than it was prior to the
LSS event. The large volume of small moves is easier to handle, scheduling, invoicing and
paying is more streamlined with tracking numbers on work requests, a shared spreadsheet
for scheduling, use of the e-procurement system, and the number of late payments dropped
drastically. Further improvements can be generated and implemented to show improvement
in paying the invoices by the target date.
There were multiple reasons that this project was successful. The project showed
significant improvement in the process, as demonstrated by a reduction in the time from
when the invoice was received from the vendor to when the invoice was paid. This showed a
significant reduction of 38 per cent in the standard deviation of this time. The mean
remained roughly the same, and the median increased by 50 per cent due to a managerial
policy change to not pay invoices so early, with a payment target of 30 days, instead of
20 days. This helped improve cash flow within the finance department. The mean, median
and standard deviation of the time from the move date to when the invoice was paid
improved by 27 per cent, 16 per cent, and 51 per cent, respectively.
The project was also successful because the project was well-accepted by the multiple
stakeholder groups, including purchasing, facilities and the vendors. The stakeholders were
highly engaged and participated in the improvement meetings. They also quickly
implemented the improvement ideas. The culture of purchasing and facilities has also been
positively impacted by becoming more receptive to change of the processes, and to using
data and measurement to improve the processes. Additionally, Facilities has worked with
the Master Black Belt on an additional process improvement project to improve the capital
project closeout process. This process was highly non-standardized across the project
managers and contractors, and the Director of Facilities reached out to the Master Black Belt
to help them improve this process. Although there is no formal LSS program at the
university, this grass roots effort is having a positive impact on select processes. The Master
Black Belt teaches an undergraduate and a graduate LSS course and has helped to mentor
eight additional improvement projects within the university. Three of the projects are within
the Learning and Teaching Center, two within the School of Engineering’s Co-op office, and
three within the Department of Engineering Management, Systems and Technology. As
more university administrators get exposed to the tools and methods of process
improvement, the culture will begin to embrace more standardized processes, and metrics
and measurement to identify and improve processes. Although LSS has traditionally been
successfully applied to manufacturing environments, this project demonstrated the value of
applying LSS in higher education.
This case study was important to demonstrate how Lean and Six Sigma tools and
methods can be applied to university processes, and showed the value to reducing costs, and
improving quality and productivity in financial and administrative processes within the
university. Other universities can use this case study as a guide to gaining buy-in at their
university to apply similar methods to their processes to realize similar gains and
improvement. As tuition at universities continue to increase due in part to increased costs of Improving
providing services, it will become critical to embrace methods that can reduce costs, while university
improving customer service, productivity and quality of processes.
The Air Force Education with Industry Program Overview
campus office
The Education with Industry program is a highly selective, competitive non-degree moves
educational assignment within an industry related to the student’s career field. The program
uses a hands-on educational experience to provide students with management skills and
technical expertise as they study best practices with leaders of industry. For civilian
945
students, the assignments take place in the local area where the student currently works.
The program follows an academic year calendar, which begins in late August or early
September and ends in late June. Both defense- and non-defense focused companies host
students. Academic Year 2017/2018 marks the fourth year the University of Dayton has
hosted at least one education with industry Fellow.

References
Adina-Petruta, P. and Roxana, S. (2014), “Integrating six sigma with quality management systems for
the development and continuous improvement of higher education institutions”, Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 143, pp. 643-648, (accessed 14 August 2014).
Akinrefon, T., Furterer, S., Battikhi, A., Coowar, R., Ferreras, A., Gibson, K., Lakkoju, R. and Meza, K.
(2005), “The use of a balanced scorecard in a Six-Sigma academia improvement project”,
Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Industry, Engineering and
Management Systems, Cocoa Beach FL.
Al Kuwaiti, A. and Subbarayalu, A. (2015), “Appraisal of students experience survey (SES) as a
measure to manage the quality of higher education in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia: an
institutional study using six sigma model”, Educational Studies, Vol. 41 No. 4,
pp. 430-443.
Antony, J. (2015), “Editorial note for the special issue on lean six sigma for higher education”, Vol. 32
No. 9, pp. 924 International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management.
Balzer, W., Brodke, M. and Kizhakethalackal, E.T. (2015), “Lean higher education: successes,
challenges, and realizing potential”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,
Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 924-933.
Bandyopadhyay, J. (2014), “A framework for design, development, and delivery of high quality on-line
higher education program in the U.S using six sigma approach”, Journal of Business and
Behavior Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 43.
Coowar, R. and Furterer, S. (2006), “Lean six sigma as an improvement tool in academia”, Proceedings
for American Society for Engineering Education Conference, USA.
Douglas, J., Antony, J. and Douglas, A. (2015), “Waste identification and elimination in HEIs: the role of
lean thinking”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 32 No. 9,
pp. 970-981.
Furterer, S.L. and Crumpton-Young, L. (2005), “Application of six sigma service experiential learning
opportunities within engineering education”, Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference, USA.
Furterer, S.L., Djaho, A., Hartley, J., Kaufmann, J., Millan, A., Ollikainen, K. and Uskert, A. (2006a), “Six
sigma approach to improve the faculty accreditation process at the university of Central FL”,
Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Industry, Engineering and
Management Systems, Cocoa Beach, FL.
Furterer, S., Hussian, B., McMurray, S., Rowe, P. and Smith, M. (2007), “Improving the recruiting of
university students through application of six sigma DMAIC methodology and tools”,
IJLSS Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Industry, Engineering, and Management
Systems, Cocoa Beach, FL.
10,4
Furterer, S., Schneider, K., Michael, B. and Zhang, Y. (2017), “A lean six sigma approach for improving
utilization of Walk-In tutors”, Quality Approaches in Education, Vol. 8 No. 2, p. 10.
Furterer, S.L., Coowar, R., Akinrefon, T., Banjan, P., Battikhi, A., Champney, R. and Cholvanich, T.
(2005), “Framework development using six sigma and quality tools to achieve operational
946 excellence in higher education”, Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering
Management National Conference, USA.
Furterer, S.L., Sharawi, A., Casanas, C., Londe, G., Linde, L. and Ahram, T. (2006b), “Six sigma
project – improving web development and design processes”, Presentation at the 12th
Annual International Conference on Industry, Engineering and Management Systems,
Cocoa Beach, FL.
Furterer, S. (2017), “Using a process map to create a process architecture”, Presented at World
Conference on Quality and Improvement (WCQI), Charlotte, NC.
Jenness, J., Ederer, N., Ferris, J., Vialet, J., Vicens, M., Gaumier, A. and Furterer, S.L. (2006), “Six sigma
approach to improve national panhellenic conference recruitment at the university of Central
FL”, Presentation at the International Conference on Industry, Engineering and Management
Systems, Cocoa Beach, FL.
Martinez, F., Beaver, R., Goapal, V., D’Angelo, R., Torrejon, M., Shah, A. and Furterer, S.L. (2006), “Six
sigma methods for the improvement of an asset management process at the university of Central
FL”, Presentation at the International Conference on Industry, Engineering and Management
Systems, Cocoa Beach, FL.
Nahmens, I., Furterer, S., Bernardinez, M., Buradha, K., Cochie, K., Saenz, J. and Unlu, K. (2005),
“Integrated six sigma and lean approach to improve graduate student management
program in industrial engineering advanced academics”, Proceedings of the 11th Annual
International Conference of Industry, Engineering, and Management Systems, Cocoa
Beach, FL.
Rodrigues, F., Schoen, H., Mehta, A., Schwartz, E., Lloyd, T., Tu, Y. and Furterer, S.L. (2006),
“Designing a Six-Sigma-based process management model to achieve operational excellence at
the university of Central FL”, Presentation at the International Conference on Industry,
Engineering and Management Systems Conference, Cocoa Beach, FL.
Sharawi, A., Shah, A., Rajendran, M. and Furterer, S. (2007), “Applying six sigma tools to improve
WebCT course development and design processes”, Proceedings of the 2007 International
Conference of Industry, Engineering and Management Systems, Cocoa Beach, FL.
Sharma, R., Furterer, S., Blanc, J.P., Chovanich, T., Hatcher, H., Kittirattanapaiboon, Morton, S. and
Nagarajan, R. (2005), “FL engineering education delivery system opportunity for improvement
phase II”, Presentation at the International Conference of Industry, Engineering and
Management Systems, Cocoa Beach, FL.
Svensson, C., Antony, J., Ba-Essa, M., Bakhsh, M. and Albliwi, S. (2015), “A lean six sigma program in
higher education”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 32 No. 9,
pp. 951-969.
Tetteh, G. (2015), “Improving learning outcome using six sigma methodology”, Journal of International
Education in Business, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 18-36.
Thomas, A., Antony, J., Francis, M. and Fisher, R. (2015), “A comparative study of lean implementation
in higher and further education institutions in the UK”, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 982-996.
Waterbury, T. (2015), “Learning from the pioneers: a multiple-case analysis of implementing lean in
higher education”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 32 No. 9,
pp. 934-950.
About the authors Improving
Jennifer Wheeler-Webb, MBA, CDFM-A, is an Air Force Education with Industry Program Fellow university
with the University of Dayton for ten months. Prior to her selection into the Program, she was a
Team Chief for the Air Force Audit Agency Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. She was campus office
responsible for the development of five auditors, oversaw planning, executing, and reporting of moves
installation-level audits covering four Major Commands. She has more than 12 years of experience as
an internal auditor and is Lean Six Sigma Green Belt trained. Contact her at jennifer.webb.5@us.af.
mil. 947
Sandra Furterer, PhD, is an associate professor at the University of Dayton in the Department
of Engineering Management, Systems and Technology. She recently returned to academia from
industry as a vice president of process transformation for Park National Bank in Columbus, OH.
Furterer has more than 25 years of experience in business process and quality improvement. An
ASQ Fellow, she is also an ASQ-certified Six Sigma Black Belt, ASQ Certified Quality Engineer,
and a Harrington Institute Six Sigma Master Black Belt. Furterer is the author or co-author of
four reference textbooks on Lean Six Sigma, Design for Six Sigma and Lean Systems. For more
information, send an email to her at sfurterer1@udayton.edu. Sandra Furterer is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: sfurterer1@udayton.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com