I N T E R N AT I O N A L M A N A G E M E N T I N S T I T U T E , N E W D E L H I

E X E C U T I V E P O S T G R A D U AT E D I P L O M A I N
MANAGEMENT

APPLICATION OF 6-SIGMA FOR

SERVICE IMPROVEMENT-
AT
INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
INSTITUTE CANTEEN

SUBMITTED TO: Prof. RAJEEV BHATIA

SUBMITTED BY : GROUP-2
BHARAT SINGH CHAUHAN (08XPGDM-59)
MODAK PRIY (08XPGDM-31)
VINEET DIXIT (08XPGDM-59)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We hereby regard our sincere thanks to Prof. Rajeev Bhatia , IMI New Delhi under

whose guidance this project was undertaken.

We sincerely acknowledge the canteen staff, International Management Institute for their

valuable assistance throughout the production of this project.

We would like to thank our friends for their generous support and the respondents who

gave their valuable piece of time for participating in the survey to complete the study.

2
 Table of Content

Table of Content......................................................................................................................3
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................4
1 Overview: Project Selection.............................................................................................................5
1.1 Background Information.......................................................................................................5
1.2 Problems and its Symptoms..................................................................................................5
Define..................................................................................................................................................7
1.3 Goals and Expected Results..................................................................................................7
1.4 Framework.............................................................................................................................7
............................................................................................................................................................8
1.5 Assumptions........................................................................................................................10
1.6 Constraints...........................................................................................................................10
1.7 Variables..............................................................................................................................10
2 Measurement...................................................................................................................................11
2.1 Time-Motion Study..............................................................................................................11
2.2 Revised Process Diagram....................................................................................................11
2.3 Questionnaire.......................................................................................................................13
3 Analyze...........................................................................................................................................16
3.1 Cause and Effect..................................................................................................................16
3.2 Correlation & Pareto...........................................................................................................17
4 Improvement...................................................................................................................................19
4.1 Design of Experiment..........................................................................................................19
4.2 Simulation............................................................................................................................23
5 Conclusion & Outlook....................................................................................................................27
Appendix A: Questionnaire..............................................................................................................29
Appendix B: DOE results.................................................................................................................30

3
 Executive Summary

6-sigma is a powerful tool to detect errors within a process regardless

whether it is a manufacturing process or service process. We applied the 6-
sigma Methodology with its roadmap DMAIC (Define – Measure – Analyze –
Improve – Control) on the serving process of the IMI canteen in order to
reduce the service time per customer and therefore the waiting time.
During the define step we drew our project scope, specified our goal
concerning the improvements we want to make and made assumptions
concerning the process. A CTQ tree and a rough process diagram were drawn
to illustrate the process understanding. Constraints were set limit the range of
the task and Variables (decision and dependency) were defined to give
additional insight into the whole field of the project.
The measurement step contains a time-motion study of the service
process at the canteen and a revised and improved process diagram with
times measured for each single action. Furthermore a questionnaire was
designed in order to find out more about the average number of ingredients
ordered by students and their satisfaction with the present situation
concerning waiting time and serving time. In addition to that suggestions were
collected to find out the factors that need to be changed in order to achieve a
higher customer satisfaction.
The analyze step deals with a cause and effect diagram to find many
factors that might have an influence on the output – the long waiting time.
After a qualitative selection of the most important ones a correlation matrix
helped to find an order of the main factors and their importance.
In the Improvement stage a DOE was conducted to reveal the impact of
those factors which are considered as the most important in a process.
Simulation was done using data from the measurement phase provided
additional data for another DOE to test the other factors

4
1 Overview: Project Selection

1.1 Background Information

International Management Institute is one of the premier management

institutes situated in New Delhi. Apart from the state of the art facilities
available for students in areas of academics as well as round about
performance the Institute has a state of the art canteen facility located just at
the heart of the facility. Students round the globe are a part of this prestigious
organization. With over a thousand students including faculty and service staff
available at the campus premise round the clock, there is much space for
improvement for the service systems in our campus. In this research project,
DMAIC (Define – Measure – Analyze – Improve - Control), the implementation
steps for 6-sigma Projects are followed to analyze and improve the service
quality of the IMI Canteen.
Quality especially service quality is a crucial factor in the fast growing
modern India. 6-sigma is in the large bunch of the quality management
methods and it is very popular nowadays. 6-sigma can help to improve the
service process. The term 6-sigma is based on a statistical measure that
equals to 3.4 or fewer errors of defects per million opportunities. 6-sigma can
be described as a business improvement approach that seeks to find and
eliminate causes of defects and errors in manufacturing and services process
by focusing on outputs that are critical to customers.
6-sigma provides a blueprint for implementation of total quality system. Its
roadmap – DMAIC (Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control) means: Define
the problem of the process; Measure the performance of the process; Analyze
the cause if the process, Improve the process, reduce waste; Control the
process, eliminate the occurrence of the same problem.

1.2 Problems and its Symptoms

A significant phenomenon in our campus is the long queues in the

canteen during the rush hour (i.e. after-class hours). For example, the
average time for a student from joining a queue to getting the food in the IMI
canteen is about 10 minutes, while the minutes for enjoying this meal are just
15! Thus the waiting (or wasted) time takes 40% of the whole time of a student
in the canteen (Figure 1)

5
Uni t : minut e

10
Eat i ng
Wai t i ng
15

Figure 1-1: Composition of time spent in IMI canteen

6
 Define

1.3 Goals and Expected Results

The 6-sigma team aims at reduce the total waiting time to 7 minutes or
less and remain the same level of customer satisfaction. The critical-to-quality
(CTQ) tree is shown in figure 2. There are 3 CTQs: diversity, waiting time and
serving time. And the diversity is required to be high, while the others are
required to be low.

Figure 2-1: CTQ flow down for IMI service process

1.4 Framework

Figure 3 shows the SIPOC framework of our project and the scope of
improvements

7
 Figure 2-2: SIPOC framework
Our scope of work focuses on the IMI canteen serving process and the
related output. We do not consider the complete input and output of the
process. Within the scope is furthermore the staff of the canteen. A rough
process diagram (Figure 4) helps to illustrate the general idea of the serving
process at IMI canteen. As one can see the ‘Store’ does not lie within the red
line and is therefore not part of the project scope. We focus on the interaction
between ‘Students’ and ‘Staff’ which embodies the service process.

8
Figure 2-3: IMI Canteen serving process & the project scope

9
1.5 Assumptions

The queue of waiting for service is G/G/2, and the distribution of inter-
arrival and service time will be further studies and assigned in our simulation.
This is in accordance with the fact of the IMI canteen.
The patience of customers in the queue is unlimited and they will not
leave until they get the service. This is generally correct since the waiting
people rarely leave the queue before get the service at the IMI Canteen.
The queue follows First-Come-First-Serve (FCFS) criterion. It is true
since the IMI queue hardly has queue jumpers.
The amount of spice is infinite. It is almost true since the usage of spice is
little and it almost needs no replenishment during the process of service.

1.6 Constraints

There are some fixed parameters in the canteen which is difficult or

impossible for the 6-sigma team to change and is considered as constraints:
Total number of cook units is 6 in the IMI canteen.
Total number of front staffs is 2 in the IMI canteen.
Total room space of the IMI canteen is a constraint and cannot be
modified.
Although the proportion of ingredients (vegetables, meat, and rice etc)
can be changed, the amount remains constant due to the limited inventory
space.

1.7 Variables

The variables are divided into 2 categories: decision variables, which can
be decided by the 6-sigma team, and dependency variables, or outputs, which
are directly or indirectly determined by the decision variables

1.7.1 Decision Variables

The decision variables are: the process itself, proportion of ingredients

and the layout.

10
1.7.2 Dependency Variables

As mentioned before in section 1.3, the dependency variables for our

evaluation are: average / maximum waiting time, average / maximum queue
length, cost, and some subjective factors such as satisfaction of students

2 Measurement

2.1 Time-Motion Study

Given on the 1st version of the process diagram we did time motion study
of the serving process of the IMI canteen. We intended to determine the time
for the single actions the cooking operator needed from the beginning of
taking the order over the cooking process till the end of the process the
handing over of the finished dish.
We did time-motion study to provide an authentic working condition and
without manipulation concerning motivation or anything else which might have
affected the outcome

2.2 Revised Process Diagram

The analysis of the procedures shown in the time-motion study made us

redraw the process diagram. From the time-motion study we could determine
the times needed for each action step during the whole service process. Our
observations from the new process diagram with process times were:
This process contains a lot of branches and therefore is has a lack of
standardizations;
Much time is spent in the region between input two and output two of the
operation sub process;
"Replenish sub process" takes almost 1 minute. Proper configuration of
the ingredients in front to reduce the frequency of replenishment, the total
efficiency will improve a lot.

11
Figure 3-1: Process diagram version 2, 1/3

Figure 3-2: Process diagram version 2, 2/3

12
 Figure 3-3: Process diagram version 2, 3/3

2.3 Questionnaire

2.3.1 Questionnaire Design

We designed a survey distributed among random students who came to

the IMI Canteen on the Feb 11th 2009. Altogether we handed out 50 sheets of
questionnaires and among those 47 valid returned back to us.
The questionnaire contained the questions involving the frequency to
have meal & time taken, number of ingredient ordered, perception of queue
length, waiting time and satisfaction, etc. Concrete questions can be found in
(Appendix A). The aim of this survey was to detect the customers’ demand
towards possible service improvement in process and their satisfaction
regarding the waiting / queering time
The questionnaire contained the listed questions. The aim of this survey
was to detect the customers’ demand towards possible service improvement
in canteen process, parameters related to customers (for modeling) and their
satisfaction regarding the waiting / queering time.

2.3.2 Statistical Results

From the questionnaire there are some conclusions:

Most people (73%) will not give up queueing even if the queue is longer
than 2 windows, and 1/3 of the people will never give up (Figure 8). So in our

13
model, we added an assumption that servers are always busy.

Figure 3-4: Acceptable queue length

Another main findings from the statistical result of the survey is the fact
that in average the students are not satisfied (Figure 9) with service and
waiting time at the IMI canteen.

Figure 3-5: Dissatisfaction level

Note: If we give the “dissatisfaction” levels some weight:

14
 No 0
Little 1
Dissatisfied 3
Very Angry 9
Then we can get the average dissatisfaction level of 3.563

There are also some improvements regarding the serving time as

suggested by the customer themselves, Figure 10 gives number of the
suggestions by categories.

Figure 3-6: Customers' suggestions for further Improvements

15
3 Analyze

Now we know that customers want to be served faster. This will

automatically lead to higher satisfaction level among students and will reduce
the overall queuing time for everybody.
The next step will be to gather a high quantity of reasons which causes
that long waiting / serving time.

3.1 Cause and Effect

A fishbone chart, also called ‘Cause and Effect’ diagram, is helpful to

brain storming many reasons that can lead to an outcome and is the first step
to identify the key-reason and most crucial factors that have the highest
influence on the outcome.

Figure 4-1: Cause and Effect Diagram

Since it is a service process and not a manufacturing process the 5 P’s
are uses instead of the 5 M’s. The main outcome is ‘long waiting time’ which is
caused by 5 major symptoms and each has several reasons or causes itself.

16
3.2 Correlation & Pareto

After the Selection of the most crucial factors from the Cause and Effect
Diagram a correlation analysis of these main causes was mode. After serious
consideration, some factors were not taken into further consideration since it
is not possible or hardly possible to change the factors in order to achieve
improvements. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method is used to
determine the weight of those causes (Figure 12), excluding some reasons
that cannot be further improved.

Figure 4-2 AHP result of weight of causes

From the weight above a Pareto-chart is drawn to illustrate the crucial

factor to concentrate on during further project process.

17
 Pareto Chart for Causes
1.000
1 0.9007
0.8085
0.8 0.6836
Importance

0.6 0.5414

0.4 0.341

0.2004
0.2 0.1422 0.1249
0.0922
0.0587
0.0226 0.0176
0
No std. Layout Pos.of Many Prop.of Low Fatigue Mood
ingredient branches ingredient space

Causes

Figure 4-3 Pareto chart for causes

The accumulated weight of the main causes shows that a total of 5 main
causes contribute over 90% of the whole amount of causes. So the 5 critical
factors or reasons for a high waiting time at IMI Canteen are found now.
1. No standard
2. Process layout
3. Position of each single ingredient
4. Many branches in the actions and during process
5. Proportion of ingredients
The first and fourth points are more related to psychological issues and
can be further studied by design of experiments (DOE). Our efforts in
improving the process time will concentrate on these 2 main causes. The
other 3 are systematic factors and can be studied by modeling and simulation.

18
4 Improvement

4.1 Design of Experiment

4.1.1 Introduction

This DOE should find out about the influence of standardized patterns
and branches on the actual working or process time. The primary objective of
this design of experiment is to find the crucial factors that might change the
process time of a task.
DOE is known as a structured, organized method for determining the
relationship between factors that affect a process and the output of that
process. After the experiment we want to use the Response Surface
Methodology to find the optimum combination of factors that yields to a
minimum working time.
Our objective is to find out how much standardized actions and branches
contribute to the process time of a task (measured in seconds) and ultimately
find a fitted model to best predict the final working time

4.1.2 Methodology

Figure 5-1 DOE Scene Layout

Figure 16 shows a general overview of the scene layout on which we

conveyed our DOE.
There are 9 tasks carried out during the DOE:
1 Walk to one side of the source 　 　 　
2 Pick an item 　 　 　 　 　
3 Walk to center table 　 　 　 　
4 Put the item on the center table 　 　 　
5 Walk to the other side of the source　 　 　
6 Pick an item 　 　 　 　 　

19
 7 Walk to center table 　 　 　 　
8 Put the item on the center table 　 　 　
9 Next cycle, until all books is moved to center table 　 　
In order to investigate the influence of the factors we picked from the
Pareto-chart analysis on the outcome of the DOE. The output of the DOE is
the time needed to complete all the tasks under certain working conditions.
The Factors considered in the 23 experiment is as shown in Table 1
Table 5-1 Factors of DOE
Factors Level
- +
Branch A No branch Has branch

Sequence (Std.) B Fixed order Free Order

Unexpected tasks C No 3
(Std.)

Description of factor A
“-“: the person can use all books in source 1 and then use books in source 2.
“+”: the person should use one book from 1 and then in the next cycle the person
should use one book from 2, and then continue

Description of factor B
"-": the person should pick one book and then one piece of paper in a cycle
"+": the person may either pick a book or paper first in each cycle, decided by
random variable generator

Description of factor C
"-": no interruptions
"+": when finish a cycle, the person may be interrupted by other things. After which
cycle is decided by random variable generator. The total number of interruptions in one
repeat (16 cycles) is 3

4.1.3 Results

Table 5-2 Experiment results of DOE

Factors A + - + - + - + -
B + + - - + + - -
C + + + + - - - -
Result Mean 206.53 191.03 188.02 183.6 186.14 191.63 177.92 175.94

20
 time
Using data from Table 2, the analyzing of factorial design and factorial
plotting in MINITAB 15 are performed. Figure 5-2, 5-3 and 5-4 are the results

Figure 5-2 General analysis results from MINITAB

Figure 5-3 Main effects plot for process time

21
 Figure 5-4 Interaction Plot for Process Time
Figure 5-3 shows the main effects and indicates that the sequence order
and the appearances of unexpected tasks have the main influence on the final
process time. This confirms our findings from the Pareto-Chart where we
identified those as critical factors that have the highest contribution towards a
long process time and therefore leads to high waiting time in a service
process.
Figure 5-2 and figure 5-4 underlines the high importance on focusing on
the two factors ‘unexpected task’ and ‘sequence’ which both are requirements
that stand for a standard process diagram where each action happens
according to a given and predefined sequence.

22
4.2 Simulation

Figure 5-5: Simulation Screenshot

The simulation is based on the process diagram version 2 and the results
from the questionnaire. Some information like the number of ingredients is on
the basis of the statistical result of the questionnaire and is defined as a
random value within a certain range. Each type of ingredients has a
probability to be selected. This probability will called selection probability. The
simulation developed shows the complete process of the IMI canteen.

4.2.1 Time as Output

The simulation provided data for another DOE. We picked the values
which are randomized as new factors that influence the total serving time. The
factors are:
Factor A: Capacity of the basket
“-“: all is set to 30
“+”: ingredients with high demand are set to 40, the others are set to 20

23
 Factor B: Variance of Selection Probability
“-“: the variance of selecting different ingredients remains small
“+”: the variance of selecting different ingredients is high

Factor C: Ingredient Position

“-“: the probability of selecting ingredients which has a high or low distance to
each other is the same
“+”: the probability of selecting ingredients which are closer to each other is
higher
Using data from simulation the different random seed, we get different
replication for our 23 factorial design. Figure 5-6, 5-7 and 5-8 are the results

Figure 5-6 General analysis results for simulation

Figure 5-7 Main effects plot

24
 Figure 5-8: Interaction Plot

The plots show that the factor position has the highest contribution
towards the process time. The interaction and strong correlation of the factors
should be taken into account since synchronized their changes all result in a
higher process time.
However, p-value is too low, which implies that the unidentified block
factors affecting service time are too many. Hence we turned to another
indicator: number of finished orders.

4.2.2 Finished Orders as Output

Figure 5-9: Simulation DOE Results

25
 Figure 5-10: Main Effects Plot

Figure 5-11: Interaction Plot

We can see that all 3 factors have strong positive correlation with number
of finished orders.

26
5 Conclusion & Outlook

6-sigma was a useful method to identify the key factors of the service
process. It could have a great effect on improving the service time.
Using 6-sigma roadmap DMAIC, refectory in general can raise their
throughput and serve a higher number of customers than they do now which
means that they can greatly raise their effectiveness and efficiency.
The major conclusions we drew were:
1. Fewer branches in the process make lower service time
2. Standardization of the tasks, especially fixed task performing order
and fewer occurrences of unexpected tasks can give lower service time
3. The affection of position and proportion of ingredients is not significant
on average service time.
4. However, there is integrated optimization so that the total number of
finished orders in the given hours has a significant increase. In concrete, if
the most demand ingredients are put at front and give more resource like
capacity, total number of finished orders will increase. Moreover, the
increasing will become more significant as the demands for different
ingredients become more different.

It was not possible for us to match our defined goal. Though we think that
the reduction of time is possible, but we cannot predict the queue length and
therefore the waiting time since many factors are with the customer and the
variation is too high to promise a certain level of service speed.
Our report does not include a control stage. We thought that it is not
appropriate to use statistical control methods to see whether the service
process is working well or not. Since variation that comes from the customer
which has a great influence on the service time might lead to the conclusion
that the process time is too high, though all improvements were already
implemented.
Since the service quality is theoretically improved by 6-sigma more
customer requirements can be met, but not all. The service still has some
problems to deal with like the variety of customer group. The next step of
improvement would be to take the popular ingredients into account and make
re-arrangement of the ingredients according to their frequency of usage. By
this it is not guaranteed that every process will be accelerated but though the
average throughput-time will shortened and hence this will finally lead to a

27
smaller queuing time.
.

28
 Appendix A: Questionnaire

The following questionnaire relates to the delay in time spent in serving food at
International Management Institute canteen. Please fill in your responses to the below
mentioned questions in the best of your knowledge.

1. How much time do you generally take to eat your Lunch/Dinner.

________________
2. What time do you generally select to eat both at noon and at night? Mark your
responses.

Noon 11:00 - 11:30 Night 17:00 – 17:30

11:30 - 12:00 17:30 – 18:00
12:00 - 12:30 18:00 – 18:30
12:30 – 13:00 18:30 – 19:00

3. How many vegetables generally can you select to eat at one time?
________________

4. Say yes or no in the questions given below?

A I like to eat only hot meals……………………………….
B Waiting time in the canteen is too much and should be reduced……………
C During rush hours relevant arrangements should be made by the canteen
staff to cater students…………………………..
D. Canteen facilities in terms of layout should be changed……………………

5. What do you think is your waiting time while standing in a queue to take your
supper at IMI canteen? ________________

6 Mark your responses by ranking them in ascending order with 1-Strongly agree, 2-
Definitely agree 3- Agree 4- Partially agree 5-Disagree?
A. Waiting time in the canteen is due to the congested process layout of the
canteen.
B. Waiting time in the canteen is due to the position of ingredients kept on the
table.
C. Waiting time is due to the proportion of ingredients
D Waiting time in the canteen is due to the haphazard movement of people while
taking their meal.

29
 7. What do you think should be the standby period for taking a meal after placing an
order?
A. Any time is convenient for me.
B. Less than 20 minutes.
C Just as I place an order it should be ready.
8. How long of the queue will make you give up?
A Never give up.
B. Longer than 3 windows
C Longer than 2 window
D Longer than 1 window
E Very short

THANKYOU FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION

Appendix B: DOE results

Replication 1
Factors Result
A B C Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Mean time
Perf. Seq. Time / s Perf. Seq. Time / s Perf. Seq. Time / s
+ + + 8 219.4 12 215.8 17 209.8 206.50
- + + 6 194.5 13 172.5 24 184.3 183.50
+ - + 4 178.5 15 173.4 21 178.2 187.23
- - + 3 191.7 16 181.8 18 185.2 186.23
+ + - 5 189.8 9 176.6 20 187.4 184.60
- + - 1 195.7 14 191.8 23 203.6 197.03
+ - - 2 174.6 11 178.6 22 180.3 179.13
- - - 7 185.4 10 168.4 19 175.2 179.37

Replication 2
Factors Result
A B C Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Mean time
Perf. Seq. Time / s Perf. Seq. Time / s Perf. Seq. Time / s
+ + + 41 216.3 32 214.3 33 190.5 207.03
- + + 44 204.6 29 204.2 40 189.4 199.40
+ - + 48 191.3 30 186.2 36 194.4 190.63
- - + 46 193.3 27 186 35 177.5 185.60
+ + - 42 201.9 28 189.1 39 184.9 191.97
- + - 43 192.3 31 186.3 37 188.7 189.10
+ - - 47 186.4 25 181.2 38 179.6 182.40
- - - 45 184.6 26 171.9 34 163.8 173.43

30
Replication 3
Factors Result
A B C Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Mean time
Perf. Seq. Time / s Perf. Seq. Time / s Perf. Seq. Time / s
+ + + 59 209.5 65 211.5 53 197.2 206.07
- + + 62 199.2 67 187.2 55 184.2 190.20
+ - + 64 182.2 68 196.7 54 179.7 186.20
- - + 60 186.5 69 179.4 52 171 178.97
+ + - 58 188.1 70 174.5 50 183 181.87
- + - 57 186.8 66 185.7 51 193.8 188.77
+ - - 61 168.6 72 171.8 49 176.3 172.23
- - - 63 172.7 71 184.5 56 167.9 175.03

31