Christopher Sanderson and Melanie ... - University of Houston

Christopher Sanderson and Melanie Stefka

Project Report: Reducing Time Spent

Introduction

The 101st Airborne Division of the military is an elite modular specialized light infantry

division that carries out missions all around the world. It’s unique battlefield mobility and high

level of training have kept the 101st Airborne Division in the vanguard of America’s land

combat forces in recent conflicts. The members of this particular division deploy often, so every

moment spent with their friends and family is precious.

The military deployment process is a long and strenuous one. Amidst the hustle to return

home, we’ve found that many times an impeccable amount of time is often wasted during the

transitioning process to get soldiers on a plane and in transit towards their homes and families.

We will try to reduce the amount of time wasted in the deployment process to give soldiers more

time home with their family. The military will also benefit from a more expedient process

because it will allow troops to leave in a more timely fashion, therefore increase the availability

of assets overseas. This goal is something that is definitely sought after when it comes to the

military, considering how important time with family is to the soldiers. Less time wasted equals

more time at home and thus can also lead to happier and more mentally stable soldiers.

Methodology and Results

Improvement Cycle #1: Understanding Your Process

The tools we chose to use in this process were the flowchart and the SPIOC diagram. The

reason we decided to use the flowchart diagram was to see what the basic structure of the choices

that are being made are and the possible causes that could contribute to holding up the process of

1


deploying soldiers back to their homes and families. Our data was gathered for this cycle through

interviews with current personnel of the 101st Airborne Division in the military. Through

analyzing the flow chart and its weak points, we can begin to hone in on ways to to improve the

process and make it better to reach our goal of saving time.

We learned from this particular process is that there are multiple issues that can slow the

process considerably such as: replacements not understanding mission requirements, making

sure all the equipment is accounted for, the location and distance from an air strip, the soldier

having a large amount of carry on equipment, errors in paperwork and understanding the mission

directives. To account for all varying factors, extremely precise planning is required from a

group of highly trained officers who understand clearly what it takes for soldier deployment to be

successful while transitioning. The problem with gathering some of the data; we began to

jeopardize operational security for the military personnel currently in war zones around the

world.

The SPIOC diagram unveiled a little more about the different resources that are utilized

during the process of sending soldiers home. From examining these resources, we can determine

what specific steps of the process could be sped up or slowed down. From the processes we

examined a better understanding of the different factors was gained, which allows us to further

extrapolate on what can be done to mend the issues and streamline the process. If we were to

repeat this process, we would have liked to physically travelled to where the 101st Airborne

Division is deployed and actually witness the entire process from beginning to end in person

(and on location) and add it to our accounts from interviews of current personnel from the 101st

Airborne Division.

2


Improvement Cycle #2: Measuring Current Process Performance

The tool we used to measure the current process performance was a histogram. We

decided on using a histogram because it displays the frequency distribution of each data point.

Specifically, we are measuring time (in days) for how long it takes each deployed member of the

101st Airborne Division to make it on a plane heading towards home from the moment they are

notified of their dismissal. We received our data from fifteen interviews of different soldiers that

have been deployed before in this specific division, in separate bases, in order to get their

personal experiences and the most accurate information towards how much actual time is

squandered before the soldiers are in transit home. Through gathering the data and placing it in a

histogram, we discovered quite a bit of useful data. The most frequent number of days that

soldiers are forced to wait until they make it on a plane was 30, according to the mode gathered

from our descriptive statistics which is equal to our range, which was also 30 days. The problem

with it being 30 days it that the average amount of time it takes a person to get a flight is actually

24 days. We have figured out that some of the lower numbers of days are very frequent because

some of the data we gathered was from air force bases, which have priority over the other bases.

The standard deviation returned from our data is a shocking 9.29 days. Ideally, with standard

deviations, the closer to zero the better, simply because that means data rarely strays away from

the average of a process. The fact that our gathered data returned an integer so large for the

standard deviation denotes that our process can definitely be sped up to prevent this variation. If

we were to repeat this process, we would have liked to receive more input from more members

of the division that have been deployed home. If we had gathered more data from more

personnel, the frequencies could have been skewed a different way.

3


Improvement Cycle #3: Identifying the Cause of the Problem

To identify the cause of the problem, we chose to use three tools; brainstorming, affinity

diagram and multivoting. We chose brainstorming, because it fosters openminded thinking and

an environment that allows ideas to build off of each other. The affinity diagram is used to group

the ideas gathered from our unstructured brainstorming session into natural groups and

categories, as a way to further make sense of and organize all the information in a more sensible

and useful way. After analyzing the structure and contents of our affinity diagram, we were able

to construct our chart for the next step in identifying the ‘root cause’; multivoting. Multivoting

is a tool that we used to condense the list of possible causes that could contribute to the problem

of time delay. In multivoting, each person casts their vote for multiple items or ideas that they

believe is the most relevant towards the problem, so that the probable causes can be further

narrowed down by means of popular vote. We received our data from interviews of 15 different

soldiers that have been deployed before in this specific division in order to get the most accurate

and relevant information. Through brainstorming, we were able to come up with various ideas

that are probable problems to our process, such as; minimal mission orders, extreme weather,

aircraft malfunctions, a misunderstanding between the chain of command and the replacements,

as well as logistics issues (not enough shipping containers, lost equipment, untravelable roads,

location hindrances etc.). After our ideas were sorted and grouped into an affinity diagram, we

were able to use multivoting to further narrow down what the true ‘root causes’ of the slow

down within the deployment process through the opinions of those involved in the process. From

the results of our multivoting, the issue with the most votes was determined to be logistical

issues. If we were to repeat this process, it would have been ideal to have greater variation of

4


positions voting, such as individuals with a higher ranking in the division instead of only

soldiers. Those individuals could have provided some interesting input and the results may have

ended up differently.

Improvement Cycle #4: Determining Recommended Solutions

In cycle four, the final cycle, we used two tools to determine the recommended solutions

of the problems uncovered in our process; brainstorming and the nominal group technique

(NGT). Brainstorming, we used again because with our prior knowledge of the suggested

problems, we can begin fathoming feasible solutions. Nominal group technique narrows down

the list of possible solutions of the problem that are gathered from brainstorming. In the nominal

group technique, each individual rank orders all of the ideas or items, and the items with the

highest rankings are chosen for consideration to implement, unlike in multivoting where

individuals can vote for only ideas that they feel are relevant. Our information from this cycle

was obtained through interviews of the same six soldiers that we interviewed in the previous

cycle. While brainstorming, we considered the issues that we took into account during cycle

three, where we identified the possible problems. Knowing the problems allowed us to easily

deliberate on what can be done to fix those problems. The outcome of our brainstorming

consisted of the following solutions: adding a system of direct instructions for the replacements

to receive upon their arrival (to prevent issues with misunderstanding orders), expedited shipping

for equipment, specially dedicated flights for soldiers in locations that are not accessible by

typical means of transportation, implementing a radio frequency identification system (RFID) to

enable tracking of shipping containers, processing improvements such as filling out paperwork

and scanning all documents into human resources ahead of time, and lastly, adding practices of

5


early inspection to prevent lost or missing equipment as well as to prevent overpacking. Each of

these possible solutions offer a way to reduce wasted time in the deployment process due to

logistics issues. After outlining the possible solutions gathered from brainstorming, we opted to

find the best solution out of the bunch by using the nominal group technique. Upon reviewing

the results of the nominal group technique, we found it very interesting that half of those that

participated in our nominal group technique exercise voted to implement processing

improvements as the highest ranked idea. Second to that idea is the RFID tracking system for

shipping containers, which is an expensive option, but is better suited for a longterm solution.

Considering our results of the multivoting technique in cycle three, this solution coincides

perfectly with our findings. With this information, the 101st Airborne Division can dedicate this

new improved processing system to get soldiers home quicker and without delay. If we were to

repeat this process, it might be prudent to allow more individuals to participate in the nominal

group technique and, as stated in cycle three, allow for a greater variation in ranking level of the

individuals that are deployed to the 101st Airborne Division. More individuals means more

votes, which in turn means a more accurate representation of which solution would best work for

the division.

6


Appendix A – SIPOC Diagram

Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers

Divisions

Combat Teams

Battalions

Contract Companies

Military

Planes

Weigh Systems

Human Resources

Commanders

Computers

ID card machine

Documents

1. Get Noticed 2. Pack Equipment 3. Clean Weapons 4. Get to First

Formation 5. Load carryons

on bus 6. Weigh

Equipment 7. Process

Paperwork 8. Depart

Getting Home

Families

Friends

Allies

Outgoing Commanders

Soldiers

7


Appendix B – Flowchart

8


Appendix C – Histogram

9


Appendix D – MultiVoting

10


Appendix E – Affinity Diagram

11


Appendix G – Nominal Group Technique (NGT)

12

Christopher Sanderson and Melanie ... - University of Houston

Documents

Transcript of Christopher Sanderson and Melanie ... - University of Houston