Download - Lean Six Sigma Project (ePEB Process)

DEFI

NELean Six Sigma

Reduce the process lead time for the Army’s ePEB process

LD22009MDEP(S): FAPM

Dr. Robert Vaul, MBBMs. Cheryl Moman, Project Mentor

SFC Christopher Brown, BBCOL Carl Johnson, PSMr. Walt Wood, RM

Project Initiation Date: 25 Sep 12Define Tollgate Date: 4 Oct 12

DefineAgenda

Problem statement/goal statement Project scope Business impact Project summary Duplication review & replication/collaboration considerations SIPOC map Process maps Value stream map Voice of the customer and voice of the process Communication plan Operational definitions Quick win candidates Next Steps Storyboard Define tollgate checklist Tollgate attestation statements DMAIC methodology— Define

2

Define

3

Problem statement/goal statement Problem statement

The Director, US Army Physical Disability Agency, expects the process lead time (PLT) for the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB) process to take ≤ 84 calendar days and the current process is operating at 95 calendar days. This speed deficiency has existed since before 2007 across all three PEBs.

This speed deficiency slows disability assessments and expedited delivery of benefits to Soldiers.

Goal statement Reduce the PLT by ≥ 12%, from 95 calendar days to ≤ 84

calendar days, NLT 31 Dec 12.

DefineProject scope • Scope-in

• The first step of the process is receipt of the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) findings referral for a fitness determination to the informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) by an HR Analyst using the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB) Incoming Worklist and the last step of the process is transfer of the completed case to HQ PDA using the ePEB To PDA Worklist.

• The following are included: Active Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard Soldiers.

• Scope-out• The following are excluded: cases introduced before IDES

replaced the Army’s existing — or “legacy”— disability evaluation system, 26 Mar 12; ABCMR, NDR, PDCAPS, TDRL cases.

4

DefineBusiness impact

5

Cost savings Working estimate financial benefit worksheet initiated/posted in PS documents

Assumptions No controlling assumptions identified

Operational benefits Reduce PLT by ≥ 12%

Required data elements – Power Steering MDEP: FAPM PEG: MM APE: 433709 APN: MPA, OMA ROC: 224

Working Estimate Financial Benefits ($K)FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 Total

Net cost avoidance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Net cost savings 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Sum of all financial benefits

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Define

6

Project summary

Problem: The Commander, US Army Physical Disability Agency, expects the process lead time (PLT) for the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB) process to take ≤ 84 calendar days and the current process is operating at 95 calendar days. Scope: The first step of the process is receipt of the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) findings referral for a fitness determination to the informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) by an HR Analyst using the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB) Incoming Worklist and the last step of the process is transfer of the completed case to HQ PDA using the ePEB To PDA Worklist.Goal: Reduce the PLT by ≥ 12%, from 95 calendar days to ≤ 84 calendar days.

Problem/Goal Statement

Tollgate Review Schedule

Business Impact

Core Team

Financial benefit type 2 (cost savings) (FY13-20): $TBDK Financial benefit type 3 (cost avoidance) (FY13-20): $TBDK Financial benefit type 4 (operational): ≥ 12% decrease in PLT

PS Col Carl Johnson Project Mentor Ms. Cheryl Moman MBB Dr. Robert Vaul Core Team Role % Contrib. LSS

Training COL Betty Yarbrough TM 10% BBc LTC Deb Cisney TM 10% BBc CPT Rocquel Galvan TM 20% BBcExtended Team Dr. Alan Janusziewicz SME 05 Not Trained Mr. Walt Wood RM 05% Not Trained Mr. Fred Schumacher IT XX BB

Tollgate Scheduled Revised CompleteDefine: 4 Oct 12 4 Oct 12Measure: 25 Oct 12Analyze: 8 Nov 12Improve: 29 Nov 12Control: 13 Dev 12

DefineDuplication review I confirm that:1. The Army’s LSS/CPI Database – PowerSteering has been searched before launching the project team to avoid duplicative

Army-level projects and to leverage similar project ideas/tools/methods for replication opportunities within my own project— a search for the keyword PEB yielded 45 projects; none of which, duplicate this project (Dr. Vaul, 17 Sep 12). Projects of interest include: NG0749, LD003241, and LD00338.

2. DoD’s LSS/CPI Database – DEPMS (DoD Enterprise Performance Management System) has been searched before launching the project team to avoid duplicative projects and to leverage similar project ideas/tools/methods for replication opportunities within my own project— a search for the keyword PEB yielded two projects; none of which, duplicate this project (Dr. Vaul, 17 Sep 12).

3. This is not an Army joint-level collaboration project.

7

DefineSIPOC map (1 of 2)Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers

• Case routed to sequential ePEB Worklist• Case voted• DA form 199/199-1• DA form 5892• DVA condition rating• DVA preliminary rating memo• Email (DA form 199)• IPEB determination• IPEB rating• Memo signed• Rating reconsideration findings• Request for disability rating• Request for proposed rating from DRAS• VA ratings packet• VTA data posted

• 10 USC 61• Administrative and personnel documents• Adobe Acrobat• AR 40-3• AR 40-501• AR 40-3• AR 40-400• AR 600-8-4• AR 600-60• AR 635-40• Army Directive 2012-18• Awards• Case appears in ePEB Worklist• Case file• Cheat sheet• COAD/COAR• DA form 199/199-1• DA form 3349• DA form 3947• DA form 5889• DA form 5892• DA form 5893• Developmental counseling• Disability rating• DODD 1332.18• DODI 1332.28• DODI 1332.38• DODI 1332.39 • DVA preliminary rating memo• ePEB• ePEB adjudication screen• ePEB prompts• ePEB worklist• IDES bookmarking requirements• IPR/IMR• MEB documentation• Medical evidence• Medical profile• Medical record• Memo template• Microsoft Excel• PEB documentation• Performance evidence• RADS• Rating memo• Rationale checklist• ROM• RPAM• RPAS• Rationale checklist• UCMJ actions• VA ratings packet• VASRD

• DVA• ePEB• ePEB adjudication screen• ePEB Worklist owners• HR Analyst• MEP• NARSUM• PEB• PEBLO• SAFE• Soldier• VTA

• Adjudicator• DVA• ePEB Worklist owner• PEB• PEBLO• Physician• Presiding Officer• Soldier

PEB intakes case

PEBadjudicates

case

PEBtransfers

case

8

Define

9

SIPOC map (2 of 2)VOC/VOP Input

metricsProcess metrics

Output metrics Category

VOC/VOPVOP • Staffing

level

• PLT Speed

VOCVOCVOC/VOPVOPVOPVOP

• Accessibility• Openness• Poor/slow

comms• Review

variation• SQL

• % cases meeting timeliness goals

Quality

VOPVOP

• Process cost• Net savings

Cost

DefineFlow chart (1 of 5)Incoming Worklist

Vote 1 Worklist

Vote 2 Worklist

Vote 3 Worklist

Typing Worklist

Signature Worklist

Distribution Worklist

Green (CVA); Amber (NVA-R); Red (NVA)10

1. PEB Analystreviewcase

2. PEB Supervisorreviewcase

3. PEB Physicianadjudicate

case

4. PEB PMOadjudicate

case

5. PEB POadjudicate

case

6. Unfit/Fit

7. PEB Analystgenerate

prelim memo

Unfit

Fit

9. PEB POsign

prelim memo

10. PEB Analystdistribute

memo

Disperse to PEBLO, Soldier and DRAS (VA)

41. PEB Analystgenerate DAF 199

42. PEB POsign

DAF 199

43. PEB Analystdistribute DAF 199

Disperse to PEBLO and Soldier

8. PEB Supervisorreview

prelim memo

DefineFlow chart (2 of 5)VA Worklist

Vote 1 Worklist

Vote 2 Worklist

Vote 3 Worklist

Typing Worklist

Signature Worklist



11. DVAprovide

disability rating

12. PEB Physicianadjudicate

case

13. PEB PMOadjudicate

case

14. PEB POadjudicate

case

15. PEB Analystgenerate DAF 199

17. PEB POsign

DAF 199

18. PEB Analystdistribute DAF 199

Disperse to PEBLO and Soldier


prelim memo

DefineFlow chart (3 of 5)PEBLO

Soldier

Election Worklist

To PDA Worklist

Typing Worklist

Signature Worklist



19a. PEBLO review

DAF 199

21. PEB Analystreview

DAF199 election

22. PEB Analystforward

case

19b. Election20. Soldier

concur with findings

20. Soldier concur with PEB/

request VA reconsideration

20. Soldier nonconcur

w/PEB

20. Soldier nonconur

with PEB and VAOr Or Or


memo

25. PEB POsign

DAF 199

26. PEB Analystdistribute

memo

Disperse to DVA

See28. Formal board

24. PEB Supervisorreviewmemo

DefineFlow chart (4 of 5)VA Worklist

Formal Board

Typing Worklist

Signature Worklist


Legal Counsel

Soldier


27. DVAprovide

VA finding


DAF199-1

36. PEB POsign

DAF 199-1

37. PEB Analystdistribute DAF 199-1

Disperse to Legal Counsel, Soldier, and PEBLO

29. Formal Boardfit to unfit

determination28. Finding

38a. Legal Counselreview

DAF 199-1

38b. Soldiersign

DAF 199-1

35. PEB Supervisorreviewmemo

29. Formal Board concur with PEB/

request VA reconsiderationOr


memo

32. PEB POsign

memo

Disperse to DRAS (VA)


prelim memo

33. PEB Analystdistribute DAF 199 11

19a1

DefineFlow chart (5 of 5)Distribution Worklist

To PDA Worklist


39a. PDA Analystawait

Soldier signature

Or

40. Termination

DefineIDES solution description document

15

DefineIDES PEB phase

16

DefineTop level flow map

Case sent to EPEB

In process and review

Send to Vote 1

Send to Vote 2

Send to Typing for review and create prelim

memo

Send to Vote 3 & Signature

Send to PEB

Review Election

Soldier makes

election

Send to Distro

Admin Dr/PMO Dr/PMO AdminAdmin

MTF

MTF

PO

Admin

Soldier appeals

Send to VA Hold

Pull case from Soldier search when ratings are received from DRAS

Admin Admin

Apply VA Ratings in VA

work list

PMO

Send for Election

Admin

Soldier agrees

Send to

PDA

Generate DA 199

Admin

Send to Signature

PO

17

DefineValue stream map

18

Value stream map cards are available at LD22009-D VSM

Define

1919

VOC/VOPVOC Key Customer Issue(s) CCR

What does the customer want from us? We need to identify the issue(s) that prevent us from satisfying our customers.

We should summarize key issues and translate them into specific and measurable requirements

List of all steps in sequence Lack of transparency Openness, accessibility

Explanation of what happens at each step

Lack of transparency Openness, accessibility

Time range for each step Lack of transparency Openness, accessibility

Ability to obtain current day status of case

Lack of transparency Openness, accessibility

PEBLO unable to answer questions PEBLO training deficiencies Scope-out

PEBLO unable to keep me informed PEBLO workloads Scope-out

PEB process takes too long Staffing level, caseload, step requirements PLT

VOP Key Process Issue(s) CPRWhat does the process want from us? We need to identify the issue(s) that prevent us

from meeting strategic goals/missions.We should summarize key issues and translate them into specific

and measurable requirements

PEBs are understaffed Staffing level, TDA, hiring authority PLT, Takt time/rate

ePEB process is too slow Staffing level, caseload, step requirements PLT

Varying application of review standards Staff training, performance pressure SQL

PEB takes too long to provide DA forms 199

Staffing level, caseload PLT

Slow/poor communication from PEB to PEBLO

Training, performance pressure, policy SQL

Define

20

Communication planAudience Media Purpose Message Owner Frequency Notes

COL Johnson FTF Inform Project status Dr. Vaul Bi-weekly

Ms. Moman FTF Coach/mentor Overall project Dr. Vaul As needed

COL YarbroughLTC Cisney

FTF Data collectionData analysis

Overall project Dr. Vaul As needed

Mr. Wood FTF Financial benefits

Financial data entry

LTC Cisney As needed

Mr. Schumacher FTF Coordination IT implications COL Yarbrough As needed

Define

21

Operational definitions (1 of 3)Department of Veterans Affairs Book C— Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD)Disabilities determined to be physically unfitting and compensable under DODI 1332.38 shall be assigned a percentage rating. The Department of Veterans Affairs’ (DVA) Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) is the standard for assigning percentage ratings.

Continuation on Active Duty (COAD)/Continuation on Active Reserve (COAR)Soldiers who have been determined unfit by the PDES may be COAD or in active reserve status (COAR) as an exception to policy UP AR 635-40.

Disability Rating Activity Site (DRAS) Location owned by the VA that performs the rating of conditions of Soldiers found unfit by the PEB. Upon completion, these ratings are returned to the PEB .

Expedited Disability Evaluation System (EDES)process designed to expedite a service member seriously injured in combat from military to veteran status, by waiving the standard Disability Evaluation System (DES), resulting in receipt of benefits in three to four months, compared to a recovery and standard DES process that would normally take much longer.

Electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB)Electronic application residing on the Enterprise Content Management System (ECMS) that meshes with the electronic Medical Evaluation Board (eMEB) that moves all documents through the process digitally. All transactions are stored and retained in an electronic environment.

Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB)A Soldier is entitled to a formal hearing if requested after informal consideration by a PEB. The Soldier may waive this right by concurring in the findings and recommendations of the informal board. If the Soldier is incompetent, the right to waive a formal hearing may be exercised by next-of-kin or legal counsel. After demanding a formal hearing, a Soldier may later withdraw the demand and accept the informal board’s decision, in which case, the counsel will inform the PEB. The case will be forwarded to USAPDA. The Soldier must be counseled on the right todemand a formal board. If the Soldier demands a formal hearing, he or she is entitled to counsel as provided in paragraph 3–10d and h, AR 635-40.

Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB)Each case is first considered by an informal PEB. Informal procedures reduce the overall time required to process a case through the disability evaluation system. An informal board must ensure that each case considered is complete and correct. The rapid processing intended by the use of informal boards must not override the fundamental requirement for detailed and uniform evaluation of each case. All evidence in the case file must be closely examined and additional evidence obtained if required. The PEB will consider each case using the policies of chapter 3and the criteria provided in paragraph 4–19, AR 635-40.

Define

22

Operational definitions (2 of 3)Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES)The system eliminates the duplicative and often confusing elements of the separate disability processes previously operated by VA and the military. It employs a model that features a streamlined exam process using VA protocols and a single disability rating issued by the VA.

Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS)The iPERMS is the Army's authorized personnel records repository for the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR).

Line of Duty (LD)Line of duty determinations are essential for protecting the interest of both the individual concerned and the U.S. Government where service is interrupted by injury, disease, or death.

Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)The MEB are convened to document a Soldier’s medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier’s status. A decision is made as to the Soldier’s medical qualification for retention based on the criteria in AR 40–501, chapter 3. If the MEB determines the Soldier does not meet retention standards, the board will recommend referral of the Soldier to a PEB. For MEB’s rules for documentation, recommendations, and disposition of the evaluated Soldier, see AR 40–400, chapter 7.

Military Occupational Specialty Administrative Retention Review (MAR2))MAR2 is an administrative process for Soldiers who meet medical retention standards, but who nonetheless may not be able to satisfactorily perform the duties their PMOS requires. The MAR2 process will be used to determine whether a Soldier will be retained in his/her PMOS or reclassified into another PMOS. Soldiers who do not meet PMOS standards and who do not qualify for reclassification will be referred to the disability evaluation system (DES). (Superseded MOS/Medical Retention Board (MMRB).)

Narrative Summary (NARSUM)Details all of the Soldier’s current medical conditions and also designates whether each condition listed meets Army retentions standards.

Personnel Management Officer (PMO)AKA adjudicator not the physician

Define

23

Operational definitions (3 of 3) Physical Evaluation Board (PEB)The PEBs are established to evaluate all cases of physical disability equitably for the Soldier and the Army. The PEB is not a statutory board. Its findings and recommendations may be revised. It is a fact-finding board for the following:(1) Investigating the nature, cause, degree of severity, and probable permanency of the disability of Soldiers whose cases are referred to the board.(2) Evaluating the physical condition of the Soldier against the physical requirements of the Soldier’s particular office, grade, rank, or rating.(3) Providing a full and fair hearing for the Soldier as required by under Title 10, United States, Section 1214, (10 USC 1214).(4) Making findings and recommendations required by law to establish the eligibility of a Soldier to be separated or retired because of physical disability (10 USC 61).

Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer (PEBLO)An experienced, mature officer, NCO, or civilian employee designated by the MTF commander to perform the primary duties of counseling Soldiers who are undergoing physical disability evaluation. The PEBLO provides Soldiers with authoritative and timely answers to their questions about the physical disability system and aids them in understanding their rights and entitlements. The PEBLO is not, and need not be, an attorney.

Presiding Officer (PO) The adjudicator at the PEB who is authorized to sign for the PEB President, thus completing a case.

Primary Medical Officer (PMOAKA adjudicator

Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE)Alternative file sharing method to email and FTP, enabling organizations to securely exchange large files.

US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA)The mission of the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency is to determine a Soldier’s fitness for continued military service.

Veterans Tracking Application (VTA)VA computer system that is used to track, among other things, the dates at which Soldiers complete the different stages of IDES.

WorklistA worklist is a place where work is grouped for attention by different PEB roles within the ePEB application.

Define

24

Quick win candidates

Candidate OPR Accepted

Rejected

Deferred/Notes

MEDCOM direct PEBLOs to adhere to IDES bookmarking requirements

PDA X PDA transmitted direction on 4 Oct 12

Give HR Analysts access to IPERMS PEBs X Implementation at discretion of respective PEBs

Implement LL program ICW APF for PEBs

PDA Deferred

Give physicians access to electronic health records via AHLTA

PDA X Previously considered and rejected; left to discretion of respective PEBs; ECFT will replace SAFE beginning Jan 13, making AHLTA access OBE

Combine VSM steps 14 (ePEB Case Manager review election) and 15 (ePEB Case Manager verify election)

IT Awaiting cost-benefit as a candidate change request before requesting funding

Advertise/disseminate availability of myMEB

MEDCOM

Implementation to be forwarded by PDA

Enforce appeal periods (repeat) PDA X No appeal after Secretarial decision date

DefineNext steps

25

Measure Phase We will know how to measure the problem We will know when and from where the data comes

from We will know if the data represent what we think it

does We will know how the process currently behaves We will know the current performance of the process

with respect to the customer

Define

MEASURE ANALYZE

IMPROVE CONTROL

26

• PLT data calculated using VTA data• VOC extracted from commercial forum, VOP from

online survey• Multiple quick wins identified for USAPDA

consideration

DEFINE

Storyboard

Define

27

Define tollgate checklist Has the project been chosen because it is in alignment with Army goals and the

strategic direction of the ‘process’? Have other similar projects been completed in Power Steering? Are we duplicating projects that have already been completed?

What is the problem statement – detailing (what) is the problem, (when) was the problem first seen, (where) was is it seen, and what is the (magnitude or extent) of the problem. Is the problem measured in terms of Quality, Cycle Time or Cost Efficiency? Ensure there is no mention or assumptions about causes and solutions – if you already know the solution (e.g. development of a database, it’s not a candidate for a LSS project/certification).

Does a goal statement exist that defines the results expected to be achieved by the process, with reasonable and measurable targets? Is the goal developed around each problem in the problem statement? Does it address: Quality, Cycle Time or Cost Efficiency?

Does a financial business case exist, explaining the potential impact (i.e. measured in dollars) of the project on the Army, Major Commands, Subordinate Commands, Budgets, Net Operating Results, etc.?

Is the project scope reasonable? Have constraints and key assumptions been identified? Have IT implications been addressed and coordinated with IT managers?

Who is on the team? Are they the right resources and has their required time commitment to the project been confirmed by your local Command and Team?

What is the high level work plan? What are the key milestones (i.e. dates of tollgate reviews for DMAIC projects)?

Who are the customers for this process? What are their requirements? Are they measurable? How were the requirements determined?

Who are the key stakeholders? How will they be involved in the project? How will progress be communicated to them? Do they agree to the project?

What kinds of barriers/obstacles will need assistance to be removed? Has the development of a risk mitigation plan to deal with the identified risks been developed?

Required Deliverables: Project Charter (including

Initial Work Plan/Milestones)

Duplication Review & Replication/Collaboration Considerations

SIPOC VOC/VOP Communication Plan Sign Off

Required Actions: FIRST: Review

PowerSteering for similar projects

SECOND: Contact Resource Manager and get initial Financial Benefits estimate. Also get with MBB and develop Operational Benefits estimate.

Load Benefits estimates and Deliverables into PowerSteering.

Define

28

Tollgate attestation statements• A review of PowerSteering for similar projects has been completed prior to the start of this

project to determine what, if any, lessons can be drawn from previous work.• A Resource Manager (RM) and certified MBB/BB Coach have been assigned to this project

team.• The RM and MBB/BB Coach have provided a feasibility assessment and their

recommendations as to whether the project is likely to produce financial and/or operational benefits that warrant the commitment of resources to at least move to the Measure phase of the project.

• The Define Phase Tollgate Review was successfully completed on 4 Oct 12.• I concur that this project is ready to move onto the next Tollgate.• I have electronically approved this tollgate in PowerSteering.

COL Carl JohnsonSponsor / Process Owner

Ms. Cheryl MomanMBB

Define

DC/ProjectSponsor/

LeadershipChoose Project &Assign Black Belt

DC/PS/LeadershipConduct ProjectIdentification &

Selection Process

DMAIC Methodology - Define

Review ProjectCharter, ValidateHigh-Level Value

Stream Map &Scope

Validate Voice ofthe Customer

(VOC) and Voiceof the Business

(VOB)

IdentifyStakeholders &

CompleteStakeholder

Analysis

Validate ProblemStatement and

Goals

Evaluate ProjectRisk & Create

RiskManagement

Plan

InitialWorkplan

Communication Plan

Value StreamMap(s)

(High Level)

Risk Mitigation Plan

Select andLaunch Team,

Develop ProjectSchedule

Critical Customer& Business

Requirements(CCR’s & CBR’s)

Conduct 'Define'Tollgate Review

Project Entered/Updated In Project

Tracking System (PTS)

UpdatedCharterin PTS

Benefit Type (1,2,3) Benefit Category

(Revenue Increase,Cost Reduction,Asset Reduction)

Economic ProfitCalculation

SIPOC Map Customer Surveys,

Interviews, FocusGroups

Listening Posts Existing Customer

Data KANO Analysis QFD Operational Metrics

(Quality, Speed, Cost)

Risk MitigationSpreadsheet

Corporate Goals &Objectives

Gap Analysis Pareto Analysis Top-Down Project

Identification Bottoms-up Project

Identification Project Selection Matrix Project Charter Value Stream Mapping Financial Analysis Tools Multi-Generational

Project Planning (MGPP)

StakeholderAnalysis Template

Project Charter SIPOC Map Process Mapping Swim Lane Map Value Stream Map Non Value-Added

Analysis Multi-Generational

Project Planning(MGPP)

Project SelectionGrid

Analytical HierarchyProcess (AHP)

Black BeltAssignment Matrix

Team Ground Rules& Guidelines

Project Plan/GanttChart

RACI & Quad Charts Effective Meeting

and Facilitation Skills

Storyboard Project

Presentation Project Tracking

System (PTS)

StakeholderAnalysis

SIPOC

CreateCommunication

Plan

CommunicationPlan Matrix

Validate FinancialBenefits

ValidatedProjectCharter

Deployment Champion, ProjectSponsor, Leadership Team

Activities

Initial Project Charter

29

Define

30

ePEB worklists (Vaul)

CompletedDistributionElectionFormalIncomingPEBLOSignatureTo PDATypingVAVote 1Vote 2Vote 3

Define

31

PEB and RMC regional MEDCOM alignments (Vaul)

PEB RMC

NCR EuropeanNorthern

JBLM PacificWestern

JBSA Southern

Download - Lean Six Sigma Project (ePEB Process)

Top Related