Black belt project jeff taylor 2015

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