Lean Six Sigma

1. Lean Six Sigma Site Plan Routing Review Process Heather Presley, Department of Economic Development

2. Project Description Objective: Problem Statement: The process for routing projects for Improvement Location Permit/Certificate of Compliance approval is too long and complicated Approve 95% of all projects routed for ILP/C of C within 10-12 days.

3. Project Objective Goal: 95% of all projects routed for ILP/C of C are approved within 10-12 days Benefits: • Higher level of customer service • Increased interest in building and/or expanding in Fort Wayne • Fort Wayne’s ILP/C of C permit issuing process becomes competitive with other cities of its size in this area in terms of process predictability & turnaround time

4. Project Team Champion: Andy Downs Black Belt: Heather Presley Team Members: Elissa McGauley, DED Rick Kunkel, Planning Stacey Stumpf, PIO Michelle Kyrou, Development Services Jim Norris, Building Commissioner

5. Focus Group Members Internal: • City Planning • Stormwater Engineering • Traffic Engineering • Fire Department • Street Light Engineering • Right of Way External: • Building Contractors Association • Local Engineers Architects & Landscape Architects

6. The Site Plan Routing Review Process(Macro) Apply for ILP Assemble Site Packages Distribute Site Packages to Reviewing Departments Review Site Plans Write Comments Hold Routing Meeting Approve/Request More Information

7. What Does the Customer Want? What Does The Customer Want? • Approval of Improvement Location Permit & Certificate of Compliance • Timely Review • Objective Review • Accurate Review • Excellent Communication of Recommendations

8. What Process Step(s) Most Significantly Affect Whether Customers Get What They Want? 1. Site Package Review 2. Meeting Attendees (Customers) 3. Communication of Comments & Recommendations 4. Review Tools and Specifications

9. Proposed Site Plan Routing Review Process Apply for ILP Brief Individual Review of Site Plans Assemble Site Packages Pre-Meeting (Roving or Stationary) Distribute Site Packages to Reviewing Departments Reviewers Enter Comments InPermiTracker Review Site Plans Communicate Comments To Owner & Applicant Using PermiTracker Write Comments Hold Routing/Triage Meeting Hold Routing Meeting Approve/Request More Information Approve/Request More Information

10. Summary of Resultant Changes • Require complete submits using thePunch List • PermiTracker software program • Offer foundation-only permit • Identify “red flags” at new project meetings • Pre-meeting creates and internal TEAM of reviewers • Routing meeting offers a more discussion-like format • Unreleased Projects Report provides basis for discussion • during weekly pre-meeting

11. What’s Next What’s Next? • Follow Plan of Implementation. • PermiTracker • Advertise changes to process using the city’s web site, a local business publication and a forum hosted by the Building Contractor’s Association. • Begin measuring turnaround times & level of process stability using PermiTracker.

12. Resultant Changes Pat Fahey Planning Director

13. Recommendation/Implementation • Recommendation: Initiate internal staff review meeting to improve review staff communication and coordination; communicate review comments to the applicant prior to the routing meeting • Implementation Status: As of October 3rd, internal review meetings are being held every Wednesday at 2:00 p.m. in the 8th floor conference room; review issues are being communicated to the applicants via phone calls on Wednesday after the meeting, to allow the applicant to be aware of major issues, allows for a discussion of those issues if necessary, and give the applicant the opportunity to have someone at the meeting who can adequately address those issues.

14. Recommendation/Implementation • Recommendation: Initiate “secondary routing submission,” where certain projects would be formally resubmitted to the Planning Department after the initial routing review, and then re-routed and reviewed again based on the revised plans • Implementation Status: The secondary routing submission process has been initiated. The decision on whether to require a formal secondary review is made as part of the internal review meeting, based on the number of departments unable to approve the project and the reasons. The intent is that formal re-submissions will be the exception, not the rule.

15. Recommendation/Implementation • Recommendation: Track approval times for site plan routing projects, exclude time spent “waiting” for submission of revised plans from overall review time • Implementation Status: PermiTracker tracking system is currently in use

16. Recommendation/Implementation • Recommendation: Improve follow up with applicants and property owners on the results of the meetings; survey applicants and property owners on effectiveness of meetings and quality of project follow up • Implementation status: An initial survey has been completed and compiled; future surveys will also be conducted

17. Recommendation/Implementation • Recommendation: Develop a submission “punch list” to review projects at the time of submission; do not accept incomplete submissions for full routing review • Implementation Status: A formal submission punch list has been prepared and is being used; it will be revised as necessary based on future issues that may be identified

18. Recommendation/Implementation • Recommendation: Encourage increased usage of the “conceptual/preliminary” and “foundation only” routing review options; organize the checklist according to the “minimum standards” for each type of submission • Implementation Status: Staff is encouraging the use of both of these options, in phone discussions with applicants and at the time of submission. An issue that has been identified is that the individuals bringing the plans in are not empowered to make a decision as to whether to submit for foundation only review

19. Recommendation/Implementation • Recommendation: Contact all individuals listed on application to remind them of the meeting and determine who will be attending • Implementation Status: Currently being done by Pat Biancaniello of the Planning Staff

20. Recommendation/Implementation • Recommendation:Incorporate additional introductory comments to the meetings (meeting introduction, introduction of reviewers or other identification of reviewers, etc.) • Implementation Status: Additional introductory comments currently being made by Ben Roussel of the Planning staff; nametags have been made for all reviewers and are in use

21. Recommendation/Implementation • Recommendation: Evaluate via survey the desirability of the meeting location (Building Department Vs. City County Building) • Implementation Status: Based on the results of the first survey, the location of the routing meeting has been kept at the Building Department

22. Survey Results • Meeting Location: the Allen County Building Department was preferred 14% more than the City-County Building • Customer Satisfaction on Meeting Time: 86% • Customer Satisfaction on Date: 87% • Customer Satisfaction on Communication: 86% • Customer Satisfaction on Follow-up: 81.3%

23. What’s Next Continuous Improvement

24. Preliminary Results Have These Changes Made a Difference?

25. Process Capability Analysis Before Six Sigma After Six Sigma Average Number of Days 51 Average Number of Days 11

26. Process Stability Before Six Sigma After Six Sigma Implementation

27. Since October 2001 • 32 projects have been tracked by PermiTracker • 20 of which have been released

28. Preliminary Stats • Turnaround time reduced 300% • Average turnaround time is 8.7 days for released projects • Turnaround time is 13.5 without “waiting” time adjustment

29. Six Sigma Fair The City Takes The Next Step in Continuous Improvement

30. 2005-2007 Status Since 2005, The City of Fort Wayne Land Use Staff has Continued to Improve the Lean Six Sigma Results. Staff 2007 Pat Biancaniello David Wright Ben Roussel

31. 2005 Continued Improvement Land Use added a 2nd Site Plan Routing position to assist in processing improvements and project follow up Presented an outreach Routing meeting with the Building Contractors Association (BCA) sponsored in March with over 45 attendees From the survey’s Staff coordinated a beginner’s workshop in April of over 20 attendees Added a Project Status Sheet for customer to identify on one sheet the departments left for project approval

32. 2005 Wait Time Average turnaround time is 12.9 days for 95% of released 95 projects

33. 2006 Continued Improvements • Added Parks Departments as a regular reviewer for Right of Way street trees • Added Greenway as a regular reviewer to help coordinate the trail system • Emphasized e-mail as a primary means of communication. Included an electronic copy of the sign off sheet in order for department to release by e-mail • Create a Certificate of Compliance (C of C) database to proactively track projects • Met with BCA and discussed process, projects, and future

34. 2006 Wait Time Average turnaround time is 11.4 days for 95% of 120 released projects

35. 2007 and Beyond Continue to work to implement a new software package. It will be web based and allow for electronic tracking of project status. It will eventually allow for electronic filing Staff is scheduled to present our outreach Routing meeting sponsored by the Building Contractors Association at the annual Trade Show in March Create tools and improvements for C of C tracking and communication Keep the communication lines open for both internal and external customers. Provide the best customer service without sacrificing high City Standards