Project Charter

Title: HD2010 – Help Desk

Prepared by: BB Darby Johnston Champion: Pete Capelli VP, IT networking, Business Sponsor: Clay Bozard VP, IT Integration
Key Stakeholders: Help Desk and IT personnel, CHS Employees

Resolution takes to long
Hold times getting to the Help Desk is to long
When and where do problems occur? Daily (1st shift is the most)
Size and impact of problem. System wide, anyone who uses the IT
department technology
Would customers be happy if they know we are working on this? YES
To maintain and improve service quality through constantly monitoring,
reporting and improving the current levels of service
Reduce wait time when contacting the HD
Increase first call resolution to be above 45% currently at 9%
Control common problems and create preventive measures to reduce them
Why is project worth doing? Improve the first image of service provided
by the IT department
What process is being improved? First call resolutions and problem
response times
Why is it important to do now? Helpdesk has been broken and it is the
front line for the IT dept to resolve issues
What are the consequences of not doing? IT will continue to receive a
“Black eye” for it service response times. Many customers will circumvent
the Helpdesk which will skew needed metrics
How does this fit within the business or process priorities? Provides
advice and guidance to customers and rapid restoration of normal service
operations.

Discuss project milestones and dates, including reference to DMAIC Have you checked elsewhere?: currently under research.
phases. Discuss key dependencies and other matters that affect project
execution. What did you find?
Define – identify problem and receive approval Scope: What are the boundaries of the process? Problem resolution
Measure- gather remedy data and customer data only
Analyze- process steps in problem resolution and first call resolution What is out of bounds for the project? ISSR & SARFs
Team
Selected: Black Belt: Darby Johnston
Green Belt: Barb Balk
Nichelle Newman - Lead Help Desk Analyst
Carolyn Nerber – Training Specialist
David Russo – Mobil Customer Support Lead
Metrics: primary: remedy data of hold & resolution times Dennis O’Sullivan – IT Analyst (HD veteran)

secondary: customer satisfaction surveys. Aids: Data from the Remedy system

Barriers: Lack of resources, Lack of time, Support from IT team

members outside the project.
Center for Industrial Effectiveness • © University at Buffalo, All rights reserved. 1
Project Information

 Formed in 1998 under four religious sponsors, Catholic Health in Buffalo, NY

provides healthcare to Western New Yorkers across a network of 
 four hospital sites, 
 fourteen primary care centers, 
 six diagnostic and treatment centers,
 a freestanding surgery center, 
 six long-term care facilities,
 two adult homes,
 three home care agencies,
 and several other community ministries

 The Catholic Health Computing Environment is a complex, robust, expensive,

dynamic, and mission-critical instrument for all of Catholic Health Associates &
Physicians
 Over 11,000 users connected to over 170 different applications
 1500 Physicians and their office staff
 Students at various colleges
 Within IT there are 36 teams containing 136 people

 The entire Catholic Health System IT is supported by a central Help Desk.

 24hours a day, 365 day a year
 Instantaneous is the expectation

Center for Industrial Effectiveness • © University at Buffalo, All rights reserved. 2

Center for Industrial Effectiveness • © University at Buffalo, All rights reserved. 3
Define Phase
Problem Statement
 Resolution takes to long
 Hold times getting to the Help Desk is too
long
 When and where do problems occur?
Daily (1st shift is the most)
 Size and impact of problem. System
wide, anyone who uses the IT department
technology
 Would customers be happy if they
know we are working on this? YES
Center for Industrial Effectiveness • © University at Buffalo, All rights reserved. 4
Define Phase
Goal Statement
•To maintain and improve service quality through
constantly monitoring, reporting and improving the
current levels of service
•Reduce wait time when contacting the HD
•Increase first call resolution
•Control common problems and create preventive
measures to reduce them

Center for Industrial Effectiveness • © University at Buffalo, All rights reserved. 5

Define Phase
SIPOC SIPOC.igx

Supplier(s) Inputs/Req'ts Process Output(s)/Req'ts Customer(s)

Customer request
customer Problem ticket
service customer
Rework/Reassigned
ISSR
HD service IT department
SARF HD process request Tickets
and assigns ticket to
IT department needed group Vendor
Email
Calls
Payers
Vendor Voice mail
Proper staff in
Vendor calls
group
Telephone takes/assigned NYSDOH
Payers

Physicians

Regulators

Web

Center for Industrial Effectiveness • © University at Buffalo, All rights reserved. 6

Define Phase
Financial Analysis

1 year CPC Total Level % Goal for 45%    

Level 1 3682 $18.80 $69,222 15.76% 45.00% 10517 $197,720

Define Phase Level 2 15033 $36.33 $546,149 64.33% 40.00% 9348 $339,613

Goal Statement
Level 3 4514 $43.31 $195,501 19.32% 15.00% 3505 $151,802

20 min wait time(25% of the tickets) 5843 $9.50 $55,509      

    $866,380       $689,134

Level 1 is Helpdesk and MCS Savings $177,246

Level 2 is mostly Networking

Level 3 is Analyst support

Center for Industrial Effectiveness • © University at Buffalo, All rights reserved. 7

Measure Phase
Process Flow Diagram

Center for Industrial Effectiveness • © University at Buffalo, All rights reserved. 8

Measure Phase
Data Collection
 We will use our Incident reporting system
until the phone tracking system is installed
 This is a process measure taken at the
point when the HDA selects resolved in
the Remedy system.
 We will take a systematic count per week
and the data will be collected by Darby
Johnston SSBB

Center for Industrial Effectiveness • © University at Buffalo, All rights reserved. 9

Measure Phase
Graph/Plot Data

Incident volume by Day Incident volume by Hour hour

00:00
5000 Day 2500 2402
2311 01:00
4578 Sun 2279
4466 4396 02:00
Mon 2068 03:00
Tues 04:00
4000 3772 Wed
2000
05:00
3569 Thur 1698 1755 06:00
Fri 1537 07:00
1696
Sat 1500 1412 08:00
3000

Total
09:00
total

10:00
1070
11:00
1000 12:00
2000
13:00
677
616 610 14:00
602
1195 481 15:00
500 404 419
896 16:00
1000 225 17:00
154
71 87 78 99 121 18:00
0 19:00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20:00
0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0
Sun Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat 00 01 0 2 03 04 05 06 0 7 08 0 9 10 11 1 2 13 1 4 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 21:00
22:00
Day hour 23:00

Center for Industrial Effectiveness • © University at Buffalo, All rights reserved. 10

Measure Phase
Graph/Plot Data & Capability Study

Summary for Before FCR Process Capability of Before percent

A nderson-Darling N ormality Test
A -S quared 0.42 LSL
P -V alue 0.298 P rocess D ata Within
M ean 32.571 LS L 0.3 Ov erall
S tDev 6.994 Target *
V ariance 48.921 USL * P otential (Within) C apability
S kew ness -0.08015 S ample M ean 0.0878215 Z.Bench *
Kurtosis -1.00967 S ample N 28 Z.LS L -10.48
N 28 S tD ev (Within) 0.0202388 Z.U S L *
S tD ev (O v erall) 0.0238068 C pk -3.49
M inimum 21.000
1st Q uartile 26.500 O v erall C apability
M edian 31.500 Z.Bench *
3rd Q uartile 38.000 Z.LS L -8.91
20 24 28 32 36 40 44 M aximum 45.000 Z.U S L *
95% C onfidence Interv al for M ean P pk -2.97
C pm *
29.859 35.284
95% C onfidence Interv al for M edian
28.448 37.552
95% C onfidence Interv al for S tD ev
9 5 % C onfidence Inter vals 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.28
5.530 9.520
Mean
O bserv ed P erformance Exp. Within P erformance Exp. O v erall P erformance
% < LS L 100.00 % < LS L 100.00 % < LS L 100.00
Median
% > USL * % > USL * % > USL *
28 30 32 34 36 38
% Total 100.00 % Total 100.00 % Total 100.00

Center for Industrial Effectiveness • © University at Buffalo, All rights reserved. 11

Analyze Phase

Center for Industrial Effectiveness • © University at Buffalo, All rights reserved. 12

 Analyze Phase
Characteristic Selection Matrix
Results

100%

90%
Characteristic Importance (%)

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Remedy save

Staffing
user Edu

workstations use

knowledge
Downtimes

locations
time

Input Characteristic

Center for Industrial Effectiveness • © University at Buffalo, All rights reserved. 13

Analyze Phase
Design of Experiments
Main Effects Plot for Wait Times in [s] Interaction Plot for Wait Times in [s]
Data Means Data Means

Staff Knowledge Staff

1000
2
800 4
900

700 800

700
600

Mean
600
Mean

500 500

400
400
300

300 200

100
200 Yes No
2 4 Yes No Knowledge

Cube Plot (data means) for Wait Times in [s]

1004 616
No

Knowledge

284 136
Yes

2 4
Staff

Center for Industrial Effectiveness • © University at Buffalo, All rights reserved. 14

Improve Phase
What Solutions Were Selected?
 Staffing
 Building a Knowledgebase Web site
 Fix Remedy (RIP)

Center for Industrial Effectiveness • © University at Buffalo, All rights reserved. 15

Improve Phase
What were the results?
 Staffing improved the call wait time
 Knowledgebase web site is in progress
and is improving FCR
 Remedy fix saved 60+ seconds on each
call

Center for Industrial Effectiveness • © University at Buffalo, All rights reserved. 16

Improve Phase
What were the results?
Process Capability of After percent

LSL
P rocess D ata Within
LS L 0.3 Ov erall
Target *
USL * P otential (Within) C apability
S ample M ean 0.259799 Z.Bench -1.18
S ample N 28 Z.LS L -1.18
S tD ev (Within) 0.0340637 Z.U S L *
S tD ev (O v erall) 0.0406459 C pk -0.39
O v erall C apability
Z.Bench -0.99
Z.LS L -0.99
Z.U S L *
P pk -0.33
C pm *

0.20 0.24 0.28 0.32

O bserv ed P erformance E xp. Within P erformance E xp. O v erall P erformance
% < LS L 85.71 % < LS L 88.10 % < LS L 83.87
% > USL * % > USL * % > USL *
% Total 85.71 % Total 88.10 % Total 83.87

Center for Industrial Effectiveness • © University at Buffalo, All rights reserved. 17

 Improve Phase
Compare results to plan
Individual Value Plot of Before FCR, After FCR Boxplot of Before FCR, After FCR
180 180

160 160

140 140

120 120

100 100
Data

Data
80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
Before FCR After FCR Before FCR After FCR

Two-sample T for Before FCR vs After FCR

N Mean StDev SE Mean
Before FCR 28 32.57 6.99 1.3
After FCR 28 129.5 25.6 4.8

Difference = mu (Before FCR) - mu (After FCR)

Estimate for difference: -96.93
95% CI for difference: (-107.16, -86.70)
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -19.32 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 31

Center for Industrial Effectiveness • © University at Buffalo, All rights reserved. 18

Control Phase
Control Documentation
 HD surveys
 New phone system to measure call wait
times
 Remedy will measure FCR
 Service Guidelines sent to users

Center for Industrial Effectiveness • © University at Buffalo, All rights reserved. 19