Upload
jeff-taylor-27600
View
43
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Jeff Taylor
Six Sigma Online Black Belt Program
Lean Six Sigma Black Belt Project
Executive Summary
1
As a new hybrid start-up company, we are looking to combine digital media delivery, content
management, cloud hosting, user compatibility friendliness, and end-user products while operating
with-in given legal constraints of content market ownership. The goal is to create a delivery avenue for
digital media in order to eliminate past roadblocks that have created an unfriendly user environment. A
team of former engineers, IT professionals, and former Fortune 500 managers saw an opportunity to
develop a company that had the knowledge and capabilities to reinvent the digital media content wheel.
Using predicated knowledge of former content delivery information management systems, a new
blueprint was developed to eliminate red tape discrepancies that plagued an entire industry and various
stakeholders that invested expenditures in delivery content management processes involving various
systems and end-users. This situation is ideal for using Six Sigma methodologies to:
1. Measure multiple variables and new processes
2. Ensure that past system failures would be avoided
3. Test new delivery processes and content monitoring systems
4. Manage new process variation under legal framework constraints to ensure long-term profit probabilities.
The Problem
Using past research and delivery system failure examples, we found that digital media content
management delivery systems were plagued with red tape variables because of the absence of a set of
default industrial standards that were not available for end-user adoption and a legal system framework
that stunted new system advancement growth. After measuring and examining the process, there were
several reasons for delivery system and content management failures:
1. Network speed and software compatibility issues (Apple, Google, Linux etc.)
2. End-user equipment discrepancies
2
3. Content management legal fees and royalties
4. Content delivery methods
5. ISP hosting interests and guidelines
After discussing our concerns with industry experts, we concluded content delivery management system
processes were caused by snafus that could be easily identified and avoided in the near future. System
problems that existed, could be solved with six sigma methodologies to eliminate past, present, and
future roadblocks. The roadblock costs that plagued previous digital multimedia content delivery start-
up companies was 100,000 annually.
Process Evolution
By implementing and executing the Six Sigma process of Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control, we
put our main priorities on our content delivery management system and protocols. Next, we developed
a project to better understand our system implementation and how past failures could be negated or
avoided altogether. Through data gathering, data research, video conference calls, forum discussions,
system testing and various surveys that included end-user, ISP and legal, we mapped delivery content
management system methods for digital media distribution and cloud hosting from point A (delivery
content/hosting company) to point B (end-user). We designed a new system to correct past mistakes
and tools to properly handle and correct new error realities. In the measurement & analysis phases, we
discovered technical roadblocks grew as system complexities grew. These issues presented new
challenges that were unforeseen but were expected when new technological advances were developed
and tested for better end-user satisfaction. Luckily, we had a team of seasoned professionals that had
the knowledge and passion to develop/innovate existing systems and engineer new ones from scratch.
Findings
3
Our findings were enlightening to many industry experts because of past constraints that had been
ignored from previous implementation system failures that occurred with other start-up companies.
Thus, we wanted to integrate ISP (Internet service provider) compatibilities into new future system
developments. We concluded that ISP’s control delivery modules and certain network capacities which
are affected according to network delivery speeds and data content usage. The term “unlimited
internet” is very subjective because 95% of users aren’t hardcore abusers but the 5% that are make the
other 95% pay more in usage fees which is a cost constraint that must be taken into account to ensure
delivery content quality errors are eliminated and network congestion is properly monitored. These
realities affect content delivery, management, and hosting system capabilities that must be accounted
for to ensure new efficient operating standards. Therefore, by partnering with local, national, and
international ISPs, we were able to open lines of communication to address delivery system roadblocks
that ISPs put up in the past by designing a new system that encompasses a delivery partnership
consisting of front, middle and end delivery system points for content media and hosting processes.
With careful communication and planning, we were able to control unforeseen cost constraints that
could potentially hinder content delivery.
Conclusion
We had to update old system philosophies that failed multiple times in the past by tweaking several
processes that needed modification. The end result was 100,000 in annual savings by identifying
unforeseen delivery costs and improved end-user content deliveries. Based on our start-up founding
ideologies, our team of proactive managers, analysts, and innovators were able to develop a system that
is evolving to become the default end-user delivery system for various media content types and hosting
capacities. Our company is very humbled, because most start-ups fail within their first year of operation
4
and we owe our success to our company’s progression from four sigma to six sigma for process
improvement quality.
Define Phase (Project Capacity)
As a new hybrid start-up enterprise, many new exciting yet challenging opportunistic projects present
new learning opportunities for a team of visionaries. Incorporating new operations with subpar
industrial processes present new challenging tasks which will test our business core strategies. To
simplify the process, we will define our customer base as “new” and “old” for classification purposes.
New customers represent those individuals or groups we must win over with a newly defined delivery
system that will simplify the process of user acceptance. These individuals are not technologically savvy
and will need a process that doesn’t involve technological “know how” to get their media content
delivery services because said processes can be adopted by “casual” users. Old customers represent
those individuals that are old technological veterans of subpar outdated delivery service methods. These
individuals know what they want and are waiting for someone to develop a system that improves on
existing processes that will revolutionize concepts which have failed in the past. The overall process
strategy aims to make content delivery more affordable and eliminates technology roadblocks. Making
people feel less frustrated makes them more likely to choose new technological delivery options that
add convenience to the product or service being implemented. Different content delivery methods will
be available depending on what is being delivered and the requirements it takes to get the content from
point A to point B. To simplify our survey findings, we will focus on both types of customers which
represent new and old respectively to see what both types expect from our new start-up company. In
other words, what do people expect from our company and how important is it in our overall strategy.
From our survey in (table 1) below, potential projects are identified and weighted according to various
end-user opinions and expectations.
5
Content Delivery and Hosting Project Significance List (Table 1)
Weight Criteria and Weights6 10 9 4
Customer Satisfaction
Implementation Profits Support Total
Add speed and convenience to content delivery
and hosting options
4 10 6 1 112
Configure ISP delivery functions
and constraints
5 10 7 3 160
Add parent company
equipment for easy compatibility
6 8 5 2 89
3rd party app support
3 9 8 3 121
After discussions with our founding company innovators, “new” and “old’ customers, ISPs and third
party vendors, senior leadership weighted which project processes to focus on. Based on recent
research findings, implementation was weighted as a “value added” priority because implementation
focuses on content delivery improvement endeavors that are critical for the first year. End-user
adoption will be very important to our service/product offering basket and winning over customers will
be a top priority. By focusing on our findings from (table 1), senior management decided to investigate
the implementation process by focusing on speed and convenience concerning contact delivery and
hosting options. Implementation will also focus on configuring ISP delivery functions and constraints
since they represent end-user process schematics. Both issues represent core rollout implementation
business process strategies.
Customer Concerns
6
Given the fact that our company is a hybrid start-up, I concluded that research is very important for long
term market industrial growth longevity. In other words, focus on customer concerns and needs and
benchmark your process progress with feedback from old and new customers. So what does senior
management think about customer feedback? I have taken highlights from multiple management
sources based on feedback surveys and interviews.
ISP Implementation Manager
“We have always had relationships with digital content delivery companies, but none have ever asked
about our immediate concerns until problems presented themselves. I was flabbergasted when a new
start-up actually requested that we be a part of their implementation process. Being able to work out
problems before they occur increases operational efficiency. Our philosophies are considered to be a
nuisance by a lot of content delivery companies, but it’s nice to be a part of a partnership instead. I hope
this ideology catches on in the future.”
IT Delivery Manager
The implementation process is very difficult in many respects, by focusing on speed and convenience,
we will be able to increase volume distribution by 25% in the first quarter. By keeping our ISP partners in
the loop, roadblocks will be eliminated and end-user adoption rates will have a greater rate of success.
Our cloud hosting capabilities will also be a step above our competitors.”
Senior Six Sigma Delivery Champion
“First impressions are everything because you only have one chance to make a good one. If we brag
about being lead innovators and fail to deliver, then our reputation will take a huge hit in the
marketplace. We will just be another company that has failed to be a process innovator in an industry
that demands it. Expectations are high, and I hope we don’t disappoint.”
7
The comments expressed range from optimistic to extreme in the examples above. The last comment
held the most weight with senior management. They took note of our interview with our project Six
Sigma Delivery Champion because he has been a part of other high priority successful projects in the
past. He has experienced what happens to new companies if they fail to deliver on contract
implementation delivery promises. As a result, senior management has made “implementation” our
primary project concern because it can make or break a new start-up company in an already competitive
industry. Our offerings will be embraced or disregarded on the implementation stage and perception
will become our process standard reality of “success or failure”.
Project Charter (Table 2)
(Project Information)
Project Name: Content Delivery System Implementation
Sponsoring Organization: Hybrid Start-Up Company
Chartered Date: 1/1/2015
Project Start Date: 1/2/2015
Target Completion Date: 2/09/2015
(Team Members)
1. Project Sponsor: Tim-Senior Six Sigma Delivery Champion (999-999-9999)
2. Project Black Belt: Jeff (888-888-8888)
3. Project Green Belt: Greg (777-777-7777)
8
(Additional Team Members)
1. ISP Implementation Manager: Jason (555-555-5555)
2. IT Delivery Manager: Kim (444-444-4444)
3. Delivery Process Analyst: Michael (333-333-3333)
4. Delivery Technician: Tiffany (111-111-1111)
(Principal Stakeholders)
1. VP of Implementation: Kurt (111-111-1111)
2. Director of System Implementation Delivery: James (988-888-8888)
3. Content Category Cloud Manager: Kate (924-222-3333)
4. Senior Leadership Team: Senior Leadership Team
(Project Goals)
Eliminate any implementation process delivery deficiency. Identify a deficiency, correlate appropriate
response resolve procedures and bring operating standards up to successful implementation operating
levels of delivery performance. Document successful process with expected performance process goals
and relay progress statistical measurements to delivery implementation leaders. Update: The following
was added by our ISP partners to the project. Network product upgrade speeds will be offered because
of scheduled routine process maintenance. Incorporate new process speed rates into implementation
standards and relay and developments to your assigned ISP Implementation Manager.
9
(Process Problem)
After several high level meetings with our IPS companies, other items were added to the project charter
before going forward with our plans. Under ideal conditions, more speed means faster content delivery
options. However, server upgrades will be a reality for these conditions to function properly. These
recommendations are above functional operating conditions and delivery implementation could be
affected. Lag time, audio video sync, server performance, hosting storage, and streaming will be affected
until our network servers are upgraded. Downtime was a project barrier that was unforeseen.
(Scope of Project)
The following developments have been identified as high value added project scope requirements:
1. Develop new implementation forums, surveys, and discussions to identify new content delivery implementation roadblocks.
2. Identify and improve performance standards and customer expectations of new delivery service offerings.
3. Benchmark network delivery capabilities against default industry standards.
4. If performance is sub-standard, work with network technicians to iron out the kinks and glitches that create network problems.
5. Implement ideal operating delivery capabilities or “just in time” content delivery process capabilities.
(Process Importance)
Digital content delivery hick-ups create more service calls for our IT support department. Eliminating lag
time, sync problems, and bad streaming content allows more people to have confidence in our network
capabilities which means less time spent on fixing reoccurring problems. Industry data suggests savings
of $300-500$ dollars per customer. Fixing re-occurring problems many times has been a big problem
that has plagued many content delivery companies and is one of the reasons the industry needs more
leadership innovators to set acceptable operating standards of performance. Each call takes multiple
reps to solve delivery hiccups and additional network service technicians must be hired to fix network
10
problems. This costs $3,000 a day to bring in 20 additional service technicians. Acceptable standards
would cut network inefficiency by 50% and allow more digital content to be delivered over our network
at one time. Additional findings confirmed that new customers are less likely to adopt a new company’s
service/product offering if it fails to deliver on delivery promises. Network congestion will increase
because content is stalled and new customers will get frustrated because of long wait times on hold to
fix network customer concerns. Network downtime to fix multiple issues is an outside threat that could
impair network capabilities. As a result, more networking capital will need to be acquired to bring
network operating performance to acceptable levels. This reality will need to be monitored because it
can create unexpected problems in the future. It could cost the company $200,000 dollars if the threat is
ignored altogether. We must learn from other’s mistakes if we want to be industry innovators.
(Authorized Resources)
Project Sponsors-Tim, Senior Six Sigma Delivery Champion-As Project sponsor, Tim is responsible for the
following:
1. Making sure the entire implementation process is carried out according to the wishes of senior
leadership.
2. Coordinating implementation activities between Master Black Belts, Black Belts, Green Belts, and
other personnel within budget constraints.
3. Acting as our implementation representative who reports to Kurt (VP of Implementation) concerning
implementation process progress.
Key Stakeholders-Kurt (VP of Implementation)-Kurt’s job is to report implementation progress and
expected quarterly progress to senior leadership within a specified timeframe. He approves Tim’s
11
budget for the project and ensures proper implementation levels are achieved. He is the main
stakeholder that ensures quality measures are executed according to the project charter. He works
closely with Tim to ensure proper project funding which increases project success variables. He
addresses issues made by senior leadership regarding
1. Project progress
2. Expectation results
3. Meeting deadlines within time constraints
James-(Director of Implementation System) and Kate-(Content Category Cloud Manager)-Both
individuals work closely with Jason (ISP Delivery Manager) who handles the end-delivery side (ISP
companies) in order to address their concerns about process delivery roadblocks. James ensures content
is delivered in a timely manner and that convenience is included in service offerings. He eliminates
network congestion issues while working with Jason to address ideal operating environment protocols.
Kate is responsible for the hosting side of content delivery. This involves the cloud and maintaining
adequate resources concerning storage, uploading, downloading, and support issues for optimal hosting
products/services. She works closely with Jason regarding cloud delivery issues and acts as a “cloud
expert.” She provides cross functional content expertise when cloud functions are integrated into the
functional aspects of the delivery implementation process.
Senior Leadership Team-(4 people)-This team represents the board of directors, internal and external
stakeholders as well as outside influences like government regulatory agencies and law firms who
represent the rights of digital content holders. Their goal is to receive an optional ROI for investment
expenditures and cost of capital. Dividends and stock options are available for distribution if the
implementation process is successful. Laws must be followed and royalties must be paid for distribution
rights before profits can be calculated. Content must be available for distribution and delivery
12
implementation which will increase profits for content owners and our company because we work
closely together. If we can’t provide proper returns, then cash flows will cease and delivery content
services will be null and void.
Team Members
1. Jason-ISP Implementation Manager
2. Kim-IT Delivery Manager
3. Michael-Delivery Process Specialist
4. Tiffany-Delivery Technician
5. Consultant A&B-hired because of additional expertise needed based on project process needs
Outside Needs
Some moderate travel will be necessary to law firms, ISP companies, and content owners to maintain
legal and proper understanding of royalty fees, ISP delivery concerns, and process capabilities. James
and Kim have considerable knowledge working with both groups to ensure optimal process strategies.
This will cut down on potential lawsuits from outside organizations like the RIAA, MPAA, etc. Technical
delivery expertise will be assigned to Michael and Tiffany who will fix any network hiccups that arise as
changes and upgrades are implemented. Michael will have clearance to access company and customer
personal data to ensure network security and performance. He will run network system tests frequently
to ensure content is delivered in a timely manner. Tiffany will implement network upgrades as delivery
traffic increases and will provide support for testing initiatives to identify other delivery problems
relating to content. She will be proactive in her efforts to catch problems before they occur and not as
they occur. Training needs are well known at this time because of past experiences and individual
expertise needed to maintain optimal network functionality and efficiency. There will be unknown
13
problems because we are delivery content implementation innovators and will address unforeseen
problems in the future by having consultants A&B on stand-by for such hiccups.
(Sponsor Approval): Kurt (Date): 2/09/2015
Project Schedule (Figure 1)
The project schedule can be edited as new resources, inputs, and time constraints present themselves.
We believe the days allocated to each task will give the project flexibility and can be adjusted. Note: The
following figures are early estimates and extra time/days will be added when we get into project.
14
15
Duration
DEFINE 25 days
Execute process survey 6 days
Gather results 2 days
Discuss findings with Senior Leadership 0.5 days
Investigate implementation issues with delivery team 4 days
Inform Senior Leadership about implementation process findings 0.45 days
Identify important process players: (Customers, ISP companies, Content owners, Sponsors and Process stakeholders
0.63 days
Confirm resource necessities 0.35 days
Project group selection 0.54 days
Draft project schedule 3 days
Draft project budget 2 days
Go over relevant details with project sponsors 0.42 days
Approve project charter goals 0.56 days
Compose detailed project plan process 4 days
Map out Implementation Process 1 day
Detailed mapping strategies 1 day
Eliminate strategy roadblocks 2 days
Develop implementation project success metrics (CTQs) 0.75 days
Summarize existing data requirements 2 days
Final review by relevant sponsors 2 days
MEASURE 6 days
Validate (CTQs) 4 days
Analyze existing implementation data 2 days
Implement relevant measurements & sample sizes 3 days
Base analysis charts review 3 days
Re-formulate data samples and sources 1 day
ANALYZE 4.53 days
Chart overview analysis 0.45 days
Benchmark implementation standards 0.45 days
Outcome comparison for delivery implementation sources 1 day
Meet with delivery and service vendors 0.67 days
Review findings with Senior Leadership 0.32 days
IMPROVE 5.85 days
Project Team improvement meeting 0.36 days
Define improvement options 0.36 days
Summarize improvement options with Senior Management 1 day
Capital Budget approval 1 day
Begin implementation process execution 7 days
Begin implementation process with ISPs 7 days
CONTROL 3 days
Evaluate implementation process control variables 2 days
Track control process variables 3 days
Review data for learning curve development 3 days
Implementation project process completion status update 10 days
Download and Streaming Content Delivery Process (Figure 2) see Visio file for reference
16
Our technical and online support staff documented many calls that involved one or more variables
involving the delivery of unsuccessful media to our customers. Each call had specific criteria that was
documented and criteria patterns were established from online and phone support tickets. It was
discovered that certain criteria overlapped with various content media types. Another surprising find
was the impact of mobile vs. non-mobile delivery which will be discussed in the measure-analyze phase.
We also discussed and analyzed unsuccessful customer delivery implementation costs listed below.
1. Direct cost per unsuccessful delivery
2. Indirect cost per unsuccessful delivery
3. Cost of content delivery redistribution
a. number of times
b. lost revenue
c. poor delivery service image remarketing plans
Key Measures of Success
As we made our process flowchart for downloads and content delivery streaming processes, we noticed
several issues with unsuccessful delivery implementation variables. The old perception was anyone
could download and stream content at any time or anyway regardless of content type and quality. From
this information, we investigated media types and transfer bitrates (kbps) involving implementation
delivery schematics. We decided to take our research even further by examining the end-user side of
the implementation process which was never considered as an implementation variable at the
beginning of the project. Our findings surprised everyone on the team because end-user equipment had
a direct impact on ISP implementation procedures and delivery variables. We found a link between
various content variables listed below:
17
Video Variables
a. 480P SD
b. 720P HD
c. 1080P HD
d. 2d
e. 3d image (side by side) (over under)
f. Video encoding bitrate
g. File type
h. Video compression
i. Video length
j. Video copyright protection
k. Frame width
l. Frame height
m. Renting vs. buying
Audio Variables
a. Audio bitrate encoding
b. Volume
c. File Size
d. File Type
18
e. Copyright restrictions
f. Singing vs. talking
g. Audio channels
h. Surround sound types
i. Sample rate (KHZ)
j. Streaming vs. buying
k. Payment methods
Document Variables
a. Book vs. magazine
b. Number of words
c. Number of paragraphs
d. File Type
e. File Size
f. Reader Type
g. Copyright restrictions
h. File quality
i. Number of images or pictures per page
j. Payment method
Game Variables
19
a. Type
b. Online vs. offline
c. Number of players
d. Size
e. Rating
f. Copyright restrictions
g. Payment Method
App Variables
a. Type
b. Copyright restrictions
c. Size
d. Online vs. Offline
e. Personal vs. Business
f. Day vs. Nighttime
20
Content Hosting Flowchart (Figure 3) see Visio file for reference
21
Process Summary Notes:
When we were mapping out the cloud hosting content implementation delivery process, we discovered
several significant points. The first point we learned was cloud setup storage had a direct impact on
pricing points and potential profits that can be made. This was a major factor in determining service plan
length for each cloud that was created for each customer. Content legality control was another factor
that had to be implemented to eliminate potential lawsuits that could be filed if content owners are not
compensated accordingly. Finally, payment method was another factor covering “one time” vs.
“reoccurring payments” for cloud services. Late payments will be an issue because it causes unsuccessful
delivery content implementation processes to be a reality for customers who do not pay on time. This
variable must also be implemented if payments become late on a regular basis.
Measure and Analyze Phases
Using key measures of evolution from above, we concluded that critical delivery implementation
variables had a direct relationship with the content we were delivering. To simplify our measurement
process schematics, we chose a few key variables to analyze in order to improve our delivery
implementation process. Our choices do not impact the importance of one variable vs. another and does
not mean that one variable is favored over another. We decided to start with the actual delivery speed
measured in (KBPS) which represents the transfer rate the content information is delivered. We
examined this variable across all five media content types. Speed is an important factor in the delivery
process because it creates time constraints for delivery satisfaction which creates quality service
standards. We could have looked at server infrastructure, but this would make things too technical for
project members. Thus, content delivery level was researched thoroughly, and divided into many other
variables that we will examine alongside speed transfer rates. Appendix A shows speed cost variables
22
and network infrastructure cost variables. Before we examine speed variables in-depth, here are some
interesting points we discovered that all content variables have in general.
1. Content file types vary and represent a dependent encoding variable so examining file types
independently offers no value added content.
2. Content delivery is also affected by the end-user system it is being delivered to. User system variables
represent: internet speed, modem type, router type, wired vs. wireless internet, internet hotspots etc.
These variables can increase or decrease content speed when media is being delivered to the end-user
from our servers. It is assumed there will be sampling error when examining speed variables in depth.
3. Hard dollars have a direct correlation with content type because of preference and popularity. If a
movie video is popular, we will get more requests for delivery and our network traffic will reflect this
situation.
4. Soft dollars have a direct correlation with end-user satisfaction and delivery acceptance. If we deliver
content in a timely manner, customers will recommend us to his or her friends which will increase
marketing soft dollars. We realize that if we have an unsuccessful delivery, then the opposite can
happen and it will increase marketing hard dollars spent on advertising as a result of bad publicity vs. the
latter.
Some of the other key variables for proper implementation of delivery content include the following:
1. Transfer speed rate (KBPS)
2. File size to be delivered
3. File quality
4. Media type delivery failures
23
5. ISP constraints
Content delivery failure means the media did not reach the final end-user because of network
implementation roadblocks. Appendix A involves raw data that we used to form our conclusion results
which helped us create our Pareto chart shown in (figures 4 and 5). We discovered a correlation
between speed content delivery time and technical support needed to fix content delivery
implementation problems.
VideoAudio
Document (
E-Book,
E-Magazin
e)Game
Application (A
pp)0
100200300400500600
100200
500
300400
Total Speed Delivery Transfer Rate by Content Type
Total
Content Type
Spee
d De
liver
y Tr
ansf
er R
ate
(Kbp
s)
Figure 4: (Total Speed Delivery Transfer Rate by Content Type)
In figure 4, we see that video and audio require the slowest transfer rates among the five content
media types. This is not surprising given that both have many more sub-variables that can limit or slow
down the transfer speed rate vs. the other three media types. Audio and video content usually
commands a higher hard dollar cost than the other three types combined. It is also assumed that digital
file sharing is not included in our process analysis because this is an illegal act which represents non-
payment of royalties to content owners. Documents, games, and apps are much smaller in file size and
24
can be transferred at a higher speed rate because of lower speed delivery variable roadblocks. We also
have to mention a variable that can’t be measured but it must be mentioned because it is relevant. The
variable that we decided to mention involves third party personal delivery devices and systems. Some of
these variables were mentioned earlier which include: modems, routers, WIFI vs. direct internet, tablets,
PC’s, Apple Macs, cell phones, gaming systems, portable gaming systems, home media players, laptops,
netbooks, and smart TV’s. The next question we wanted to research included the number of technical
support hours that our technicians needed to properly address customer complaints. Our support
technicians answer calls online and by phone. Paying attention to certain types of support offers little
value because we auto-create a generic technical support ticket for each support claim that comes inn.
A sample form can be found in Appendix B.
VideoAudio
Document (
E-book, E-M
agazine)
Game
Application (A
pp)0
50100150200250300350
300
100
20
7550
Total Technical Support Hours by Content Type
Total
Content Hours
Tech
nica
l Sup
port
Hou
rs
Figure 5: (Total Technical Support Hours by Content Type)
In figure 5 we analyzed technical support hours by content type and found that audio/video required
the most technical support hours to resolve complaints. Our support technicians found out that both
25
represented 73% of support claims that were made by our customers. Our agents claimed they were
harder to deliver and created a higher risk of implementation delivery rate failures given content types,
popularity, and unforeseen network speed congestion. We decided to expand on figure 5 and look at
the number of failures in a 24 hour/6 month interval. We calculated average delivery failures at 4.84 and
put it up against an upper control limit because you cannot have negative failures in a week because
these would represent successes. We found that most media content deliveries are “controlled”
meaning customers expect their content to be delivered unless a major network shutdown occurs
because of a hacking attack, scheduled network maintenance, personal identity theft, etc. However, we
discovered these attacks are becoming more prevalent and we need better delivery implementation to
keep the network status quo going without any hiccups. Next, we calculated several process figures that
created business impact. The average assignment costs per hour was 31.25, the average monthly
business assignment cost was 1,500, and the average cost per file is 2.875 (these figures were derived
from tables in Appendix A).
26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 240
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Number of Failures by Week and Content Type
Video Audio Document (E-book, E-Magazine)Game Application (App) AverageUpper Control Limit
Axis Title
Num
ber o
f Fai
lure
s
Figure 6 (Number of Failures by week and Content Type)
In figure 6 we see the distribution of delivery failures for a 6 month period and audio/video produce
more failures per week than the average failure rate of 4.84. This data is an extension of figures 4 and 5
since audio/video have more complexity sub-variables than the other three media types combined. This
does not take into account the soft dollar costs created by our ISP partnerships. We realize that ISP
companies have unexpected costs that are passed along to delivery content companies by making end-
user delivery changes to their network customer usage agreements. Although we do not see these costs,
they affect our customer delivery acceptance capabilities because they represent direct costs for our
customers and indirect costs for our company. Thus, we decided that we needed individual ISP
partnership audits to discuss direct and indirect process cost variables. We decided to step into the
27
shoes of our ISP company partners and agreed that we wanted to cut network content delivery failures
from 5 (4.84 rounded) per week to 4 per month and then 2 per month. This process improvement would
cut audio/video delivery failures by 50% and equate to savings of $15 per hour in technical support costs
and $55,000 in annual hard dollar savings for both sides of the delivery implementation process. We
discovered this process is easier in theory but harder to execute. We needed a few questions answered
about delivery impact failure on both network sides.
1. Will delivery failures on the ISP delivery side increase internet fees charged to our customers to
receive our media content?
2. Will ISP companies “throttle” or slow down delivery content if it creates more network congestion for
their networks?
3. Will ISP companies charge more per file delivery to our company to bridge the gap for rising operating
costs for delivery?
4. Will ISP companies have higher unforeseen opportunity costs as technology advances and more
upgrade choices become a reality?
All of these questions were not easily answered. As a result, we decided to go back to our original data
and had to make certain assumptions.
1. ISPs would not implement any unforeseen costs without our knowledge.
2. ISPs would not “throttle” our content delivery methods.
3. Our customers had equipment that could properly receive our content deliveries.
4. Unforeseen network congestion would be controlled by both companies in the delivery
implementation control process.
28
Under these assumptions, we made correlation comparisons between network delivery failures and
network delivery implementation capabilities on both sides of the content delivery process. Our findings
can be expressed in many ways, but we used the following research information to express our findings.
We assumed a redelivery period of 90 days based on customer, legal, and product content expectations
as a whole.
Number of Failures 35
Total Population 650
Average time until a failure occurs 23.50 days
Failure redelivery period 90 days
Network downtime and delivery transfers was sampled for a 24 week period. (Manufacturer
maintenance infrastructure maintained every 60 days).
To better understand delivery implementation failure, we decided to examine network transfer points
between company networks.
Column1 Column2 Column3Location Transfer Point Total
Network A Delivery Line Front 10Network A Delivery Line Middle 8Network A Delivery Line Back 7
Network A Total Failures Whole Delivery Line A 25
Network B Delivery Line Front 4Network B Delivery Line Middle 3Network B Delivery Line Back 3
29
Network B Total Failures Whole Delivery Line B 10
Network A&B Content Interception Point Intersection A&B 5
Total Network Failures 40
Not documented User Hardware 35
Summary Total 75
Table 3 (Number of Network Delivery Failure Locations and Transfer Points)
We will refer to our company network as “A”, an ISP company as network “B” and various points of
transfer within the network. We wanted to figure out where the problems were coming from and the
causes associated with failure. Hard dollars would impact both sides if we could not identify failure
implementation process variables. Table 3 shows that most content delivery failures started on our
network (Network A) and most of the failure attempts occurred in the middle of our network
infrastructure.
Column1 Column2 Column3Total Network Traffic Delivery Attempts by Network
Location Total % of Total
Network A 390 60Network B 195 30Network Interception Point 65 10Total Delivery Attempts 650 100
Table 4: (Total Network Traffic Delivery Attempts by Network)
Table 4 also indicates this trend because most of the delivery attempts start on our network before
reaching an ISP network (Network B). We also assumed average network manufacturer maintenance
occurs every 60 days. As a result, we assumed new ratio variations and calculated the average time until
30
a delivery failure occurs. With these assumptions, we recalculated the average time until a delivery
failure occurs from 23.50 days to 62.30 days with a standard deviation of 4.89 days. Our sample mean is
60 days given our network maintenance schedule period. We have asked our ISP partners to send their
technicians to work with the manufacturer maintenance technicians and our own network technicians
to assist in delivery implementation process improvements in the latter stages of the project.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 7000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Content Delivery Production
Failures UCL Average Time Until Delivery FailureMainteance Network Infrastructure LCL
Content Delivery Production
Cont
ent D
eliv
ery
Prod
uctio
n Da
ys
Figure 7: (Content Delivery Production Days)
31
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 7000
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Content Delivery Production Days Against Industrial Production Standards
Series2 Failures UCLAverage Time Until Delivery Failure LCL
Content Delivery Production
Cont
ent D
eliv
ery
Prod
uctio
n Da
ys
Figure 8: Content Delivery Production Days Against Industrial Production Standards)
Based on our adjusted implementation process analysis, we concluded our network infrastructure is
failing our content delivery implementation process improvement efforts. Our implementation project
cannot offer statistical gains without the “bread and butter” that drives the entire delivery process. We
concluded that our (Network A) is experiencing the most failure attempts because most of the delivery
content never makes it to the network intersection of point (A&B), or through to (Network B). Since
most of the failure rates occur in the middle of network (A), we started at this network infrastructure
32
point to access network failure realities. The team decided we needed a fishbone or cause and effect
diagram to tackle our network failure delivery implementation process. Some of our information came
from our technician support tickets where valuable delivery content service failure data was given as
feedback by our customers in (Appendix B) and some came from our service technicians.
Figure 9: (Network Failure Cause & Effect)
We decided to work with our manufacturing maintenance network company to resolve our problems
rather than play the “blame game”. However, we did inform them of our concerns and intentions to
look at other options if our network problems continued. Using the Fishbone Diagram information in
Figure 9, we discovered the following information
33
Research and Development
Cheap Fiber-Optic Raw Materials
Testing
Software Bugs
ISP Network Misconfiguration
Power Surges and No-Hacking Protection
Network Failure
Configuration and Installation
Improper and Flawed Wiring
Maintenance
Server Malfunction
Untrained Technicians
Improvement Phase
Using the information we collected from our support tickets and service technicians, we analyzed
delivery content network implementation roadblocks.
1. Cheap Fiber-Optic Raw Materials-This could be a major issue because it can impede content delivery
from all network points. Bad cable wires contribute to a lot of network downtime because of network
poor infrastructure cable failure rates during peak transfer times.
2. Improper and Flawed Wiring-This could be another major network issue because fiber-optic cables
that are lose cause slow transfer speed rates from network transfer delivery points. This could explain
higher delivery failure rates in the middle of our network.
3. Server Malfunction-This could be a problem but we must test each server separately. One server
could be easily repaired which could eliminate this problem. We will load different content types to
determine failure content load time rates.
4. Software Bugs-This problem has our highest priority because it serves as the foundation for our
delivery content implementation process improvement procedures. This could affect streaming, hosting,
and downloading/uploading protocols which could lead to higher failure rates than previously
researched. We will begin looking at this problem with our manufacturer maintenance company right
away.
5. ISP Network Misconfiguration-This problem is a dependent variable because our data failures will
come from our ISP partners (Network B data). Our data collection efforts to determine probability faults
will depend on real time data collected from ISP companies. There may be a variance information gap
between company data collection methods and other population samples. Other company ISP partners
may perform better than other ISP companies that we work with.
34
6. Power Surges and No Anti-Hacking Protection-Frequent power surges could be a major issue for
content delivery implementation because delivery transfers could be interrupted. Therefore, delivery
consistency variances could be affected because of network downtimes. Network hacking attacks could
also cause network congestion which could impede delivery times. Process implementation plans could
also be delayed because of personal data theft. We will have to update our network anti-hacking
software solutions.
7. Untrained Techniques-This problem would seem obvious, but we must research human error
variances in order to identify network failures. One person could be inexperienced which could provide
skewed data for the rest of the data sets. This could be easily corrected by updating training standards
and by supervision mentoring. However, if left alone, more network delivery failures could become a
harsh reality that affects network maintenance confidence for upkeep of both networks.
Our network service workers were surprised by our current manufacturing maintenance company’s
service technicians training and skillsets.
One of our service technicians: “I think we could service our network better given the number of
failures we have suffered.”
Our of our network technicians: “My job is impeded when I have to worry about other external network
problems
One of their maintenance service technicians: “We are sorry for the delay and we have assembled a
new team to come fix your current network problems.”
Based on our findings, software bugs is one of the main causes of our network content delivery
implementation process failures. It was obvious that our software should have never been installed until
error elimination testing could be executed properly. We believe that our manufacturing maintenance
35
company got too complacent and overestimated the reliability of their own software. We believe that
updates were properly done to our network but failed because of underlying software problems. We
asked our maintenance company to uninstall all software on our networks until all of the bugs are
worked out. Our maintenance company paid for the installation of 3rd party industrial software that we
use until further notice. The software is an open source program so our technicians can configure the
software to our network delivery constraints. We have also assembled cross functional meetings with
our ISPs and Manufacturing maintenance Company to help fix software bugs since it affects multiple
companies. We came up with the following action plan to streamline successful delivery content
implementation procedures.
1. All service technicians from all 3 companies will work on one team to help fix software bugs.
2. Regular interval efficiency software testing will be done every 7 days until software functionality error
variances are dropped to six sigma quality levels.
3. Routine maintenance will be provided by all companies until content delivery failure rates are
reduced to acceptable control plan process levels.
Currently, we have adopted the philosophy of checking, rechecking, and checking software bug solutions
again in order to restore higher software process confidence intervals for retesting efforts. Our early
pilot program implementation process has shown significant improvements for our new content
delivery implementation procedures. Technician errors have decreased because of new software checks.
Technician process knowledge has increased exponentially because everyone has been working
together and had a stake in the implementation outcome. Future software problems were caught
before they impacted future implementation efforts for the entire network. After our first 7 days of
software bug fix implementation efforts, we noticed a 20% process improvement concerning software
36
error corrections for the entire network which increased content delivery successes by 15% across the
entire network combined for all companies involved.
Control Phase
As we progressed through our implantation process project, we have researched and discussed various
content process delivery deviations from efficient process controls. We have taken the following steps
to ensure increased network testing protocol successes and to decrease delivery implementation
network failure rates.
1. We will develop future standard testing protocols for all companies involved.
2. All technicians will be required to get recertified every year to meet quality process standards.
3. Different technicians will be rotated to work on different network maintenance sections to decrease
implementation network errors.
4. Service technicians will be rotated to work on different network maintenance sections to decrease
implementation network errors.
5. IT will have representatives on future maintenance in consultant roles to increase knowledge
offerings.
6. Control charts will be redone every 7 days to monitor delivery failure elimination protocols. Two
supervisors will sign off to continue implementation process proceedings for the following week after
control chart evaluations have been done for the previous week.
7. Weekly ticket support summaries will be examined every 7 days to research new failure situations
that have occurred or new problem solutions that have been developed for existing delivery content
failures.
37
We know that we are in in the early stages of this control process and we cannot make any definite
process implementation statements at the moment. Results need to be measured and continued for all
parties involved. However, early signs point to improved delivery content implementation successes as a
result of continued network improvements.
Conclusion
Our project successfully netted significant hard dollar savings for our company which increased our
implementation process success rates significantly. We know our process needs to be retested for
improvement gains, and we are off to a great start to decrease the number of delivery content failures.
We have included our manufacturing maintenance company and other participating ISP partner
companies in our project process implementation efforts which reduced the learning curve for all parties
involve. However, we realize that we have much to learn to reach six sigma levels of efficiency for the
future. We had to change our way of thinking because our process implementation knowledge has
evolved significantly from our research findings. We are constantly researching new process add-on
procedures so we can constantly improve our operations. At the moment, we have saved $100,000+
hard dollars according to early process implementation data that we have collected. Soft dollars have
also grown due to the cooperation of 3rd party vendors and companies that have a stake in our
improvement process gains. As we implement new procedural standards, we have learned the following
lessons:
1. Software bugs drove significant process delivery failures.
2. Network delivery maintenance and upkeep is a job for every party involved.
3. Sub-variables can have significant impact on important implementation variables.
38
4. Making equality assumptions will hamper future improvement content delivery process
implementation efforts.
Our systematic approach of process analysis has improved our content delivery success rate which has
impacted the bottom line for all companies involved. Project goals have been a success and we will
continue to refine the process for greater efficiency standards of operation.
Appendix A
The following represent cost infrastructure elements used for estimating speed capabilities.
Assignment Cost Cost
Fiber-optic network installation $50/Hr.
Optional parent company product equipment used for content service delivery
$40 each way
Online Customer Support $15/Hr.
Phone Customer Support $20/Hr.
Network Maintenance Upkeep $2000/month
Backup Power System $1000/month
Technician Network Analysts $40/Hr.
Below are the delivery royalties that must be paid to entities representing content owners like the RIAA, MPAA, Law Firms, and government agencies.
Royalty Regulating Body Cost Per Content
Streaming Content MPAA, RIAA/Law Firms $5 per stream
39
Downloading/Uploading Content
MPAA, RIAA/Law Firms $6 per file
Hosting Content MPAA, RIAA/Law Firms $4 per file
ISP Network Transfer Fee ISP Companies $1 per file
Taxes Government Agencies .50 per file
40
Technical Support Help Ticket (Appendix B)
Online or Phone Support: ___________ Technician Name:_____________________
Content Media Ordered:______________ Mobile or Non-mobile-Delivery:_________
Time of Inquiry:___________________ Service Time:________________________
Customer First Name:______________ Customer Last Name:_________________
Address:_________________________ City:__________ State:_____________
Zip Code:_________________________ Phone:_________ E-mail:____________
Ticket Support Complaint :
Technician Notes:
Issue Resolved:_________________ Support Ticket Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Follow-Up:_____________________ Ticket Support Number:___________________
Refund Requested:______________ Supervisor Comments:
Refund Given:__________________
Date:_________________________
41
Appendix C Data Summaries
Column1 Column3Undeliverable Network Downtime (Hours) by week
Weeks Total1 2452 1453 1364 1455 2006 3207 2218 1639 22010 19311 36412 30013 23614 12515 23916 24617 35618 23619 21920 16321 18922 26323 36324 213
Undeliverable Network Downtime (Hours) 5500
42
Column1 Column3Undeliverable Network Downtime (Hours) by Content Type
Content Type Total
Column1 Column3Undeliverable Network Downtime (Hours) by Content Type
Content Type TotalVideo 2000Audio 1300Document (E-Book, E-Magazine) 500Game 1000Application (Apps) 700
Total Network Downtime (Hours) 5500
Column1 Column2Technical Support Hours by Content Type
Content Type Total
Video 300Audio 100Document (E-book, E-Magazine) 20Game 75Application (App) 50
Total Technical Support Hours 545
Column1 Column2Average Speed Delivery Transfer Rate by Content Type (Kbps)
Content Type Total
Video 100Audio 200Document (E-Book, E-Magazine) 500Game 300Application (App) 400
Total average 1500
Column1 Column2 Column3 Column4 Column5 Column6
43
Delivery Failure Week Content Type
Video Audio Document (E-book, E-Magazine) Game1 10 8 3 42 9 7 5 53 9 8 4 64 8 7 1 45 9 6 2 76 7 7 4 57 6 4 0 68 9 8 3 49 5 5 4 6
10 8 6 5 511 9 4 2 512 10 7 1 413 7 6 3 514 7 4 2 415 9 7 1 616 9 5 1 417 8 7 4 518 9 6 2 419 7 4 2 720 8 3 3 321 9 4 2 522 10 5 2 623 9 6 1 424 9 5 1 6
(Continued on Next Page)
44
Column7 Column8 Column9
Application (App) Average Upper Control Limit
3 4.84 122 4.84 124 4.84 124 4.84 126 4.84 122 4.84 124 4.84 121 4.84 123 4.84 122 4.84 125 4.84 123 4.84 122 4.84 121 4.84 123 4.84 122 4.84 121 4.84 122 4.84 123 4.84 122 4.84 122 4.84 123 4.84 121 4.84 123 4.84 12
45