ON-THE-JOB TRAINING REPORTING HOW DID WE GET HERE? o The current On - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Green Belt Lean S ix S igma Proj ect Report Out Julianne Finnegan Ohio Rail Development Commission S eptember 27, 2018 ON-THE-JOB TRAINING REPORTING

HOW DID WE GET HERE? o The current “ On the Job Training” process is not accurately capturing the hours being worked by Apprentices when reported by Construction Companies to ODOT. The process is difficult and the current computer software, CRL, is not user friendly. 2 |

OJT KAIZEN EVENT, MAY 16, 2018

OJT TEAM Front Row: Lloyd MacAdam, ODOT; Lauren Purdy, ODOT; Robin Kaufman, Kokosing; Jackie Jacob, The Great Lakes Construction Co.; Laurie Leffler, FHWA; Gary Kramer, ODOT; S econd Row: Clint Bishop, ODOT; Isaac S need, OOD; David Walker, ODOT; Advait S upanekar, ODOT; Peter Jones, ODOT; Brad Jones, ODOT; Brian Hupp, ODOT; Gary Angles, ODOT; Deborah Green, ODOT; Jack Marchbanks, ODOT; S abrina Bell, ODOT; Chris Engles, OCA Rachyl S mith, FHWA; Not S hown: Eric Ross FHWA. 4 |

SCOPE OF THE EVENT Report to Federal Goal is S et Highway Administration 5 |

PROCESS IMPROVEMENT GOALS • • Foster Reach established • ODOT to become ODI/ Construction goal for OJT the leader/ create Partnership program the best practice • • for OJT process Accurate & Review current CRL Complete On the system Job Training 6 |

BAS ELINE DATA OJT – October, 2017 800000 656844.41 678902.41 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 22058.00 3.25% 0 OJT HOURS NON-OJT TOTAL % OF OJT HOURS HOURS HOURS OJT – October, 2017 (POTENTIAL) 800000 686631.41 656844.41 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 29787.00 4.34% 0 OJT HOURS NON-OJT TOTAL % OF OJT 7 | HOURS HOURS HOURS

SIPOC Identified S cope of Event, S uppliers, Inputs, Outputs and Customers 8 |

CURRENT STATE PROCESS MAP Team process mapped the current OJT process 9 |

LEAN TOOLS TIM U WOOD, S tandardization, Brainstorming (70+ ideas!), Challenges and Opportunities 10 |

FUTURE STATE Team reported out on Future S tate 11 |

PROJECT METRICS Measure Before After Difference Process S teps 26 37 11 Decisions 5 8 3 Handoffs 11 7 -4 Loop Backs 2 7 5 Waste Points 16 n/ a n/ a 12 |

PROJECT BENEFITS - INTANGIBLE  Identified what wasn’ t working  Created OJT Committee  Established a process that works  Created stakeholder network/ right team invested in process 13 |

IMPROVEMENT S UMMARY Current Key Issues How We Improved Inaccurate & incomplete Identified existing accurate reporting report Created Program Plan with Unclear program Committee oversight Identified areas to improve S oftware Issues software functionality 14 |

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN S ub-committees created to work on Data, Workforce, and Goals 15 |

AS A RES ULT  Program Plan submission early October  Defined Workforce  ODI/ Industry Communication  ODOT = Best Practices  Data S olution % OJT - S AMPLE 7.73% 7.09% 8.00% 5.83% 7.00% 5.61% 5.41% 6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% I29 CRL S P TOTAL REPORT S ELF-REPORT TO S TATE (9mo. (CRL+S P) assumpt ion) 16 |

S PECIAL THANKS TO… Senior Leadership:  Director Wray, Executive Director Dietrich Sponsors:  Jack Marchbanks, Lloyd MacAdam and Laurie Leffler, FHWA Team Leaders:  Lauren Purdy and Brad Jones Subject Matter Experts:  Mark Kelsey, City of Upper Arlington; Chris Engle, OCA Customers:  Kokosing, The Great Lakes Construction Co. 17 |

S PECIAL THANKS TO… MEGHAN ALTIER – Mentor, Co-Facilitator, Champion 18 |

QUES TIONS ? Last updated 9/26/2018 19 | Ti t l e or Event Name (go t o Inser t > Header s & Foot er s t o change)