| Course | OPS 385 Lean Six Sigma and Process Management (OPS/385) |
|---|---|
| Week | 2 |
| Paper type | DMAIC define phase charter |
| Length | about 1,050 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | BS in Business |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for OPS 385 Week 2
Seven in a Hundred Fail the Bench: Defining a Six Sigma Project to Cut Alternator Test Failures
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
OPS/385: Lean Six Sigma and Process Management
Week 2 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Delta Rebuild Industries, its data, team and figures are composites written for a model paper.
The Week 1 value stream map of Delta Rebuild Industries, an invented remanufacturer of heavy-truck starters and alternators in Memphis, Tennessee, showed that rebuilt alternators spend eleven days in a process with 46 minutes of work. It also showed that 7 percent of units fail the final bench test and go back to rebuild, adding a day or more each time. Lean changes will address the waiting. Test failures, a problem of variation and defects, call for a Six Sigma approach. This paper carries out the define phase of a DMAIC project.
Why DMAIC
DMAIC, define, measure, analyze, improve and control, is the structured problem-solving method at the center of Six Sigma. De Mast and Lokkerbol (2012) analyzed DMAIC as a problem-solving method and concluded that it is well suited to problems that are empirical and quantifiable with an unknown cause, while less suited to problems whose solution is already known or that require design from scratch. Delta's test failures fit: the problem is measurable, its causes are not yet clear and the process already exists.
Choosing the Project
Three candidate projects came from the value stream analysis: core sorting delays, the double measurement of shafts and alternator test failures. The team compared them on customer impact, cost, data availability and fit with DMAIC. Core sorting is a flow problem better solved with lean methods. Double measurement is a quick fix with no unknown cause. Test failures affect lead time, rework cost and, through units that pass test but fail early in the field, warranty claims. They were chosen.
Voice of the Customer
The team interviewed the freight carrier's maintenance manager, a bus fleet's shop supervisor and a parts distributor's purchasing lead and reviewed 14 months of warranty claims. Customers said: the alternator has to charge at idle, because trucks idle a lot at docks; it cannot overcharge and boil batteries; it has to last at least as long as a new one in the first year; and it should not whine. These statements were translated into critical-to-quality characteristics:
Output current at idle: at least 70 percent of rated output at 1,500 alternator revolutions per minute.
Voltage regulation: output held between 13.8 and 14.6 volts across the load range on the test bench.
Early life reliability: first-year warranty return rate below 2 percent.
Noise: bearing and diode noise below a set level on the bench microphone.
SIPOC
Suppliers: core suppliers (customers and core brokers), bearing and regulator suppliers, the in-house machine shop. Inputs: cores, new bearings, brushes, regulators, rectifiers, test specifications. Process: teardown, cleaning, inspection, machining, rebuild, test. Outputs: tested alternators, test records, units returned for rework. Customers: fleets, distributors and Delta's own warranty department.
A problem statement that names a cause has already skipped the analyze phase.
The Charter
Problem statement: Over the last six months, 7.1 percent of rebuilt heavy-duty alternators failed the final bench test, about 15 units a week, adding rework time at rebuild and test and extending lead times for fleet customers; first-year warranty returns for alternators ran at 3.4 percent.
Goal: reduce first-pass bench test failures to 2 percent or less and first-year warranty returns to below 2 percent within four months of project start, sustained for three months.
Scope: heavy-duty alternators from teardown through final test. Out of scope: starters, core sorting and painting, and supplier selection, unless the analysis points there.
Team: a black belt from the operations office as project lead; the rebuild supervisor; a test technician; a quality engineer; and a purchasing buyer for parts quality. Sponsor: the plant manager. Process owner: the rebuild supervisor.
Timeline: define, two weeks; measure, three weeks; analyze, four weeks; improve, five weeks; control, two weeks and three months of monitoring.
Business Case
Each failed unit costs about 50 minutes of rework labor and parts averaging $38, about $72 a unit in all. At about 15 failures a week over 50 weeks, rework costs about $54,000 a year. First-year warranty claims on alternators cost about $96,000 a year; reducing the return rate from 3.4 to below 2 percent would save about $40,000. Reducing failures from 7.1 to 2 percent would save about $39,000 in rework. Together with fewer days in process for fleet customers, the expected benefit is about $79,000 a year in direct savings, plus customer retention value that the sponsor estimates at another $50,000 or more.
Kwak and Anbari (2006) reviewed the benefits and obstacles of Six Sigma and noted that projects deliver most when they are tied to measurable business results and supported by top management, and that obstacles include poor project selection and insufficient training. The charter's business case and the plant manager's sponsorship respond to both points.
Risks to the Project
The charter also names risks. The test bench itself may be part of the problem: if its readings drift, some units fail or pass wrongly, which the measure phase must check before blaming the rebuild process. Rebuilders may worry that failure data will be used against them, so the sponsor will state that data are for fixing the process, not for discipline. And the parts buyer may resist a finding that a cheaper regulator supplier is the cause; including her on the team from the start is meant to make any such finding shared rather than imposed.
Setting the Goal
Linderman et al. (2003) argued, using goal theory, that the specific and challenging goals in Six Sigma projects help explain their results when combined with a structured method. The 2 percent goal is specific and demanding, about a 70 percent cut, but the team judged it achievable because the best week in the last six months already ran at 2.4 percent.
Next Steps
The measure phase will validate the test bench's measurement system, collect failure data by failure mode, shift, rebuilder and parts lot and establish a reliable baseline.
Conclusion
The define phase turned a customer complaint and a test failure rate into a bounded, measurable project. Customers' words became critical-to-quality characteristics, a SIPOC fixed the boundaries and the charter set a problem, goal, scope, team and timeline backed by a business case of about $79,000 a year in direct savings and more in retained customers. The project is ready to measure.
References
de Mast, J., & Lokkerbol, J. (2012). An analysis of the Six Sigma DMAIC method from the perspective of problem solving. International Journal of Production Economics, 139(2), 604-614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.05.035
Kwak, Y. H., & Anbari, F. T. (2006). Benefits, obstacles, and future of six sigma approach. Technovation, 26(5-6), 708-715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.10.003
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R. G., Zaheer, S., & Choo, A. S. (2003). Six Sigma: A goal-theoretic perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 21(2), 193-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00087-6
What the OPS 385 Week 2 instructions ask
The second OPS 385 assignment usually asks students to begin a Lean Six Sigma project with the define phase. Typical requirements include selecting a problem, gathering the voice of the customer and translating it into critical-to-quality characteristics, a SIPOC diagram, a project charter with problem statement, goal, scope, team roles, timeline and expected benefits and a brief explanation of the DMAIC method. Some prompts ask students to justify the project choice against alternatives. Use a real or realistic process, write the problem and goal in measurable terms and support the approach with quality management and Six Sigma research cited in APA.
How this OPS 385 Week 2 example is built
The sample paper starts from the value stream map, which showed 7 percent of rebuilt alternators failing the final bench test and returning to rebuild. It compares three candidate projects and picks test failures for their effect on lead time, cost and warranty claims. Interviews with two fleet customers and a distributor produce the voice of the customer, translated into measurable requirements such as minimum output current at a given speed and voltage regulation within a set range. A SIPOC map shows suppliers, inputs, process steps, outputs and customers. The charter states the problem, a goal of 2 percent failures within four months, scope boundaries, a five-person team with a sponsor and a benefit estimate of about $79,000 a year in direct savings plus customer retention.
OPS 385 Week 2 grading rubric: where the points go
Strong define-phase papers make the project concrete and bounded. Instructors credit a problem chosen for its business impact, the voice of the customer gathered from real sources and translated into measurable critical-to-quality characteristics, a SIPOC that clarifies the process boundary and a charter whose problem statement describes a gap without assuming a cause. The goal should be specific and time-bound, the scope explicit about what is excluded and the benefit estimate grounded in data. Explaining how DMAIC will proceed and supporting the approach with research earn further credit. A tidy charter layout, logical flow and accurate APA sources complete the paper.
OPS 385 Week 2 help: mistakes to avoid
The most frequent define-phase error is a problem statement that contains its own solution, such as test failures are caused by bad regulators. State the gap and its effect; causes come in the analyze phase. Another common gap is skipping the voice of the customer or leaving it vague. Turn what customers say into measurable characteristics. Students also write goals without baselines or dates; give both. Scope often goes unstated, which lets projects grow until they stall. Name what is out. Finally, estimate benefits from real figures such as rework hours and warranty costs. If your charter feels too broad, a tutor can help you narrow it to one measurable problem with a single owner.
Related OPS 385 sample papers
Other OPS 385 week samples
- OPS 385 Week 1: Value, Waste and Lean Thinking
- OPS 385 Week 3: Measuring and Analyzing Data
- OPS 385 Week 4: Capability and Control Charts
- OPS 385 Week 5: Improving and Sustaining the Process
More BS in Business sample papers
- MKT 498 Week 2: Advertising Message Strategy
- OPS 330 Week 2: ERP and Process Integration
- PM 300 Week 2: Applying the Principles
- PM 310 Week 2: Building and Leading the Team
OPS 385 Week 2 questions, answered
What does OPS 385 Week 2 usually cover?
It usually covers the define phase of DMAIC: choosing a problem, gathering the voice of the customer, identifying critical-to-quality characteristics, drawing a SIPOC and writing a project charter.
Where can I find a free OPS 385 Week 2 sample paper?
The Week 2 paper above writes the define-phase charter for a project to cut alternator test failures at a remanufacturer, free to read.
What is a SIPOC diagram?
A high-level map listing suppliers, inputs, process steps, outputs and customers, used to agree on a process's boundaries before detailed analysis.
What is a critical-to-quality characteristic?
A measurable product or service feature that customers care about, with a target and limits, derived from the voice of the customer.
What should a Six Sigma problem statement include?
What the problem is, where and when it occurs, how large it is in measurable terms and its effect on customers or the business, without naming a cause.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All OPS 385 week samples · All courses