lean six sigma project (epeb process)
TRANSCRIPT
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
Distribution Worklist
Green (CVA); Amber (NVA-R); Red (NVA)11
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
16. PEB Supervisorreview
prelim memo
DefineFlow chart (3 of 5)PEBLO
Soldier
Election Worklist
To PDA Worklist
Typing Worklist
Signature Worklist
Distribution Worklist
Green (CVA); Amber (NVA-R); Red (NVA)12
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
23. PEB Analystgenerate
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
Distribution Worklist
Legal Counsel
Soldier
Green (CVA); Amber (NVA-R); Red (NVA)13
27. DVAprovide
VA finding
34. PEB Analystgenerate
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
30. PEB Analystgenerate
memo
32. PEB POsign
memo
Disperse to DRAS (VA)
31. PEB Supervisorreview
prelim memo
33. PEB Analystdistribute DAF 199 11
19a1
DefineFlow chart (5 of 5)Distribution Worklist
To PDA Worklist
Green (CVA); Amber (NVA-R); Red (NVA)14
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