WCM610 Milestone 2 SNHU Ishikawa Diagram Follow the rubric to the latter. I have attached rubric for this assignment, a copy of the actual case study, a sa

WCM610 Milestone 2 SNHU Ishikawa Diagram Follow the rubric to the latter. I have attached rubric for this assignment, a copy of the actual case study, a sample fish bone diagram which will help complete your own fishbone diagram aka Ishikawa diagram and a copy of my SIPOC analysis diagram to use to answer the questions in the rubric. You can also google both types of diagrams for a better understanding of them. Upload a final copy of completed paper and a copy of completed fishbone diagram. WCM 610 Milestone Two Guidelines and Rubric
Overview: For this second milestone, due in Module Five, you will provide the Measure and Analyze phases of the DMAIC process and apply them to your
selected final project case study. You will first measure performance by creating a process to gather data on the current situation and then begin to create a
picture of what the future state will look like, focusing on the proposed solution.
Prompt: First, review your Milestone One submission wherein you summarized the desired resolution to the conflict in the case study based on your knowledge
of the organization’s business goals, customer needs, and the process that needs to improve. Next, refer to the table chart in the MEASURE Supplementary
Document as well as to your posts and response posts in the Module Three discussion and the Module Four small group discussion.
Address the following critical elements as they relate to your chosen case study:
II.
Measuring Performance: What process will you use to gather data on the current situation?
 How will you effectively collect data on the identified variables (from the SIPOC analysis) and how will you evaluate the data?
 Include a draft of an Ishikawa diagram (fishbone diagram) of the variables that contribute to the conflict by highlighting the critical variables that
require further analysis.
 What role will these critical variables play in developing corrective changes to address the conflict in the problem statement?
III.
Analysis: Focusing on the proposed solution, describe what the future state will look like.
 Based on the variables you identified and the information provided in the case study, what are the root causes of the conflict?
 If this were a live situation, what are some questions you would ask of the stakeholders (voice of customer) to pressure test your initial
assessment of the probable root causes?
 Using the “Five Whys” process, include some additional questions you anticipate needing to ask as stakeholders answer your initial question.
Instructor feedback on this milestone should be used to inform your final project submission, the executive summary presentation with speaker notes.
Guidelines for Submission: Milestone Two should be 2 to 3 pages in length (excluding title and reference pages) with double spacing, 12-point Times New
Roman font, one-inch margins, and citations in APA style. Cite your sources within the text of your paper and on the reference page.
Rubric
Note that the grading rubric for this milestone submission is not identical to that of the final project. The Final Project Rubric will include an additional
“Exemplary” category that provides guidance as to how you can go above and beyond “Proficient” in your final submission.
Critical Elements
Measuring Performance:
Identified Variables
Proficient (100%)
Proposes a process to effectively collect
data on the identified variables and
appropriately evaluate it
Measuring Performance:
Ishikawa Diagram
Constructs an Ishikawa (fishbone) diagram
of the variables that contribute to the
conflict, selecting critical variables that
require further analysis
Measuring Performance:
Critical Variables
Describes the role of critical variables in
developing corrective changes to address
the conflict in the problem statement
Analysis: Root Causes of
Conflict
Determines the root causes of the conflict
by assessing the variables identified and the
information provided in the case study
Analysis: Questions of
the Stakeholders
Constructs questions to ask the stakeholders
to pressure test the initial assessment of
probable root causes
Analysis: Additional
Questions
Articulation of Response
Uses the “Five Whys” process to construct
additional questions that may need to be
asked as stakeholders answer initial
questions
Submission has no major errors related to
citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or
organization
Needs Improvement (75%)
Proposes a process to collect and evaluate
data on identified variables but proposition
is cursory or illogical, collection method is
not effective, or evaluation process is not
appropriate
Constructs an Ishikawa (fishbone) diagram
of variables that contribute to the conflict,
selecting the variables that require further
analysis, but variables selected are not
logical or are not critical for further analysis
Describes the role of different variables in
developing corrective changes to address
the conflict in the problem statement but
description is cursory or contains
inaccuracies, or variables discussed are not
critical to resolving the conflict
Determines the root causes of the conflict
by assessing the variables identified and the
information provided in the case study but
determination is cursory or illogical
Constructs questions for stakeholders to
pressure test the initial assessment of
probable root causes but questions are
cursory or illogical
Constructs additional questions that may
need to be asked as stakeholders answer
initial questions but questions are illogical or
do not use the “Five Whys” process
Submission has major errors related to
citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or
organization that negatively impact
readability and articulation of main ideas
Not Evident (0%)
Does not propose a process to collect and
evaluate data on identified variables
Value
15
Does not construct an Ishikawa (fishbone)
diagram of the variables that contribute to
the conflict
15
Does not describe the role of different
variables in developing corrective changes
to address the conflict in the problem
statement
15
Does not determine the root causes of the
conflict by assessing the variables identified
and the information provided in the case
study
Does not construct questions for
stakeholders to pressure test the initial
assessment of probable root causes
15
Does not construct additional questions that
may need to be asked as stakeholders
answer initial questions
15
Submission has critical errors related to
citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or
organization that prevent understanding of
ideas
Total
10
15
100%
WCM 610 Final Project Case Study One
Phone Systems Inc., an international company that manufactures telephone accessories, has four locations in the United
States: Syracuse, New York; Minneapolis, Minnesota; San Antonio, Texas; and Tampa, Florida. It also has facilities in
Great Britain, Germany, and Mexico. Phone Systems Inc. values diversity in its workforce, innovation in its processes,
and profitability in its products. The president of the board has been overheard saying, “You can’t please all of the
people all of the time. Sometimes profits come before personnel.” Phone Systems Inc. is contemplating opening a new
facility in India and has initiated the formation of a virtual team to evaluate this decision. An outcome of this project, as
directed by the company’s board of directors, is one of the facilities in the United States would be closed to fund the
creation of the new facility in India.
Below is a summary of the four sites.
Location
Syracuse, NY
Minneapolis, MN
San Antonio, TX
Tampa, FL
Year Established
1955
1968
1995
2001
Number of Employees
450
250
650
500
Syracuse, NY: This site is also the company’s global headquarters—the site where the company started. It recently
celebrated 60 years of service in the United States, and received a presidential citation from President Obama for its
dedication to keeping jobs in the United States. This site has an average years of service of 25 years, and the average
employee age is 50.5 years old. While this site has the longest history and tradition, it also scores lowest in internal
employee satisfaction surveys.
Minneapolis, MN: This site has undergone three downsizings in the past decade, reducing from 775 employees in 2005
to 600 employees in 2008 and 500 employees in 2010. It most recently underwent a considerable restructuring in 2013
to its current head count of 250 employees. The jobs were transferred to the San Antonio, Texas, site and Tampa,
Florida, site due to lower labor costs and higher levels of efficiency at both of these sites. The site pursued a grant
through the State of Minnesota for skills retraining, and was awarded a state grant of $300,000 to fund retraining its
incumbent workforce from 2015 through 2020. The company would be required to repay the State if any employees
were laid off from this site prior to 2020.
San Antonio, TX: This site is the “cash cow” of the company, as it has the highest level of efficiency, is the company’s
lowest-cost facility, and has the best overall record of performance. Its cost of operations is the lowest of all sites in the
United States. However, the site is currently the target of a union-organizing drive by the Communication Workers of
America. Employees pushed for an increase in wages, which was denied by management as the result of an analysis of
wages in the area for employees in similar industries. This prompted some employees to pursue joining a union. Any
attempt to curtail operations at the site, such as a union-busting move by the company, could create a potential legal
challenge with the international union.
Tampa, FL: This is the company’s newest site, and is second to the San Antonio site in cost and efficiency. It has a very
low level of attrition, and has the highest scores in the employee satisfaction survey. The site has received awards for its
solid performance in minority hiring, and has also been positively recognized as a leader in the local area for its excellent
diversity hiring practices.
A cross-function team comprised of three senior managers—plant manager, plant controller, and plant human resources
manager—from each of the four sites in the United States has formed to develop the strategy for the creation of the
new facility in India. One outcome that is non-negotiable by the company’s board of directors is one of the four sites in
the United States would have to close to fund the asset-reconfiguration project.
The group has met twice but cannot reach consensus on their objective. However, they have discussed a shift in the
project objective, and requested that the board of directors instead close the facility in Mexico. The site leaders agree a
site needs to be closed, but all are adamant that their respective sites should not be closed due to economic, political,
technical, and loyalty issues. Conflict among the team members involves the following issues:



Representatives from the Syracuse, New York, site are adamant that the site cannot close, as it is the world
headquarters site and each member of the board of directors lives in the Syracuse area.
Several members of the committee appear to be ethnocentric, vocally disagreeing with the company’s decision
to open a site in India predicated on closing a site in the United States.
A fair degree of finger-pointing has occurred on the committee, with members focused on finding weaknesses at
each site other than their own, rather than focusing on the objectives the committee was challenged to resolve.
The facility in Mexico was established in 2008 and has a very low labor cost; its employees are very energetic and excited
to be part of Phone Systems Inc. Its leadership team is comprised of 90% Mexican nationals, and its plant manager
describes the environment at the site as “Change Disneyland.” Employees welcome change, and are highly passionate
about their company.
The board of directors was not pleased by the proposal from the project team to close the site in Mexico, and has
brought you in to take over leadership of the team. The board has requested you develop a strategy to bring this project
to a successful conclusion, with the following objectives:



Lead the team to the desired conclusion with the majority of the team reaching consensus on which of the four
existing sites in the United States would close.
Summarize the key challenges in moving forward with the recommendation.
Present the process by which you will lead the team to a successful outcome.
SIPOC Diagram —- Phone Systems, Inc.
•Project Team
•Board Members
Analyze and
ranking sites
based on
productivity
and revenue
•Sales
performance
and revenue of
each site
•Cost of
operation of
each site
•Number of
employees
Deciding to
close the
lowest
ranking site
to fund the
new site in
India.
•Opening of a
new site in India
•Global
expansion of the
company to the
East
•Unemployment
Develop a plan
to deal with the
unemployment
and relocation
of current
employees
upon closure
•Site employees
•Phone
accessory
consumers
Close the
chosen site
•N/A
Enact plans
to begin the
company’s
expansion in
India
Source: www.iSixSigma.com

Purchase answer to see full
attachment