ABSTRACT
Deliverable I: The actual value of the key parameters related to the project improvement activities accompanied by a confidence level is developed and documented. (Example: For three different months, 10 lots each month were tracked through the process using production control data to measure cycle time. This is plotted in a histogram and the minimum and maximum values are based on the three sigma level of that database (minimum value = 8 days; maximum value = 27 days; average = 15 days).)
Deliverable II: The estimated degree of change for each of the parameters usually in a format of minimum, most probable, and maximum values is developed and documented. These values are accompanied by a description of what data was used to back up the estimates. If possible, a confidence level is also provided. (Example: A group of 12 engineers and/or managers that were familiar with the technology used conducted a detailed walk-through of the process. On the
second day, they met and agreed on a rough flowchart of the process, and the project proposal to improve the process was reviewed in detail with them. They were presented detailed data related to the current processing time and asked to estimate the impact they felt the proposed project would have on reducing processing time. They were required to provide their estimate in writing without discussing it with the rest of the group. After removing the highest and lowest estimate values there are 10 estimates left. We classified the lowest of these 10 estimates as the low and the highest of the 10 estimates as the high. The average is the most probable value.)
Deliverable III: A comparison of the most probable value and lowest value was compared to the value for the same parameter estimated by the individual or group that originated the project. The results of these comparisons were documented.
