Eliana Lowry // Wes Martin

Project Interim Report: Perfecto Video

Introduction

The organization selected for this improvement project is the video-recording operations

section of the University of Houston Athletic Department. The University Houston Athletics

Video Department films games and edits content for coaches, events, social media, and produces

live game streaming content for the Internet. The recording operations team consists of the video

operations director, four full-time video production coordinators, and fifteen to twenty interns.

The service goals of this department include maintaining high-entertainment value while keeping

commitment to sports and customer service. Due to high expectations, it is imperative that the

video department films and releases high quality content.

Throughout the past years, the department interns have captured useless recordings. The

cause may occur because the interns do not know proper techniques of filming, editing, or how

to properly use equipment. This waste has created an issue for the video department at the

University of Houston, like not having enough usable content for creating high-quality videos for

either social media, coach/team use, or entertainment purpose. Given the footage recorded for

game-day events display the hard work of the University of Houston Athletics Department

teams, reducing the wasted content would provide the coaches, athletes, students, and the

Houston community higher-quality recordings for analytical or entertainment purposes.

Methodology and Results

Improvement Cycle #1: Understanding Your Process

The tools used were chosen to determine the focus of the improvement project, how

it can be improved, and who benefits from these improvements. The SIPOC diagram

(Appendix A) labels the key inputs, outputs, and processes. The diagram provides

information about the different elements which contribute to the overall process. The
 Eliana Lowry // Wes Martin

flowchart (Appendix B) details a map of the current processpinpointing where and what

needs to be added, removed, or modified so that the improvement project can succeed by

reducing video footage waste.

The data for the project was collected using two methods. The first method was

observation. As an intern, Eliana understands the process and has first-hand experience

with the department. Now as a production assistant, she is witnessing the new interns

repeating the same processes and resulting in useless video. The second method for the

data collected was document review. Through viewing and editing the actual video footage,

some of the video quality could be vastly improved, whereas other captured footage had to

be discarded entirely.

After using the SIPOC and flowchart tools, it was discovered that there are a large

number of inputs that heavily impact steps in the workflow if they are taken out or not

used correctly. For example, if inputs such as cameras, tripods, computers, or memory

cards create any problems, the process will be affected negatively, which will then in turn

affect the outputs. If the cycle was repeated again, adding more steps in our flowchart,

specifically the filming and film editing portions may allow easier pinpointing of which

stage the workflow process contains the most risk of producing footage waste.

Improvement Cycle #2: Measuring Current Process Performance

A run-chart was selected to measure the current process; the tool provides a better

understanding of the variation of the footage quality. Given sporting events have a fixed

time-length, measuring this process is respective to performances over time. Therefore, the

run-chart is a user-friendly tool to analyze the trends in graphical form. The chart patterns

are also augmented with descriptive statistics and provide more insight of the data

collected.
 Eliana Lowry // Wes Martin

The data was compiled through document review of the video record archives. Each

sport has a schedule dictating when the events are to be recorded. Comparing the footage

retained, versus the actual footage recorded, provided the data. For simplicity, the amount

of time displayed on the run-chart was rounded to the nearest minute.

Variation of the captured video was known prior to conducting the baseline

measurements. However, the diversification of the type of sporting event, the length of the

actual sport, and the schedule appear to be a contributing factor of footage, quality, and

usability. For instance, the schedule of certain sporting events overlap within a given

semester, such as the Men and Women Basketball teams which play during the Fall and

Spring semesters of each academic year. Therefore, measuring each sport only against itself

within two-consecutive academic years may have provided a better overall picture and

subsequently more information of the process.

Improvement Cycle #3: Identifying the Cause of the Problem

For the third improvement cycle, a Fishbone diagram and Pareto chart were the

tools used to identify the leading causes of the problem. The fishbone diagram was selected

because the 5-why analysis revealed that there were many contributing reasons for the

problem occurring. The Fishbone diagram helped identify the causes and sub-causes of the

problem and aided with organizing the categories to identify the possible root cause.

Afterward, to be able to determine the root cause from the Fishbone diagram, a Pareto

chart was constructed and detailed which cause to address first.

The data for the diagram was collected through brainstorming the possible reasons

of the poor footage. Identifying the major contributors and their surrounding causes were

the focuses of the brainstorming session. To develop the Pareto chart, an informal survey

was constructed to ask the interns about their experiences while working with the video
 Eliana Lowry // Wes Martin

department. Because the number of active interns is less than 30, they were asked to

provide their top-two reasons of a list of five. The feedback of those responses was used to

compile the statistics to build the chart.

After performing improvement cycle three, it was evident that most causes and sub-

causes were in the employees category of our fishbone, including the number one cause of

the wasted footage video, minimal knowledge of recording. An interesting aspect

discovered which was unexpected prior to completing this cycle, was of the top-five causes

in the fishbone diagram. The number 2 cause, minimal knowledge within the experience

category, and number 3, no training for employees in the management category, tied into

the suspected number one cause. However, the Pareto chart details that minimal

knowledge is leading cause. It appears the Fishbone diagram was close, but does not reflect

the best approach for reducing waste. While no training; is a large problem, delivering

general knowledge about the recording seems to be a better approach.

If repeating the cycle again, gaining more data by constructing a lengthy survey and

obtaining more respondents would likely have impacted the outcome of the results.

Likewise, increasing the number of interviews to include management or even previous

employees would have given more data and possibly discovered possible unknown causes.

Improvement Cycle #4: Determining Recommended Solution(s)

The nominal group technique (NGT) was used to narrow down a list of possible

solutions aimed towards reducing the wasted footage problem and providing the top

ranked ideas. The outcome shows the most important solutions that would address the

problem. To ensure that NGT outcome made the most sense and because only two people

were involved in the voting process, the results are supplemented with a PICK chart
 Eliana Lowry // Wes Martin

providing more in depth analysis of the ideas. When combining both charts, the most

feasible solution could easily be identified.

The data was collected through brainstorming possible solutions based off the

problems expressed in various interviews and observations done in previous cycles.

Through cycle four, it was learned that the highest solution choices all involved

some form of training for employees whether that be through testing their knowledge,

meetings every week, or training sessions prior to each semesters. These solutions seem

like very valid options due to the previous cycles showing that some of the largest issues at

hand were lack of knowledge.

If the improvement cycle was repeated, including feedback from top management or

video editors may have generated more ideas and provided a larger list of possible

solutions. Likewise, the extra input may have changed the outcome by giving the voters

more options.

 Eliana Lowry // Wes Martin

Appendix A SIPOC Diagram

Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers

Video Director Video 1. Job assignment Raw footage Sports Teams
Video Coordinator 2. Get recording Highlights University of
Department Cameras/headph equipment Coach video Houston
University of ones 3. Event arrival Web streaming Surrounding
Houston Tripod 4. Overview of Houston area
Social media
Memory Cards responsibilities
Promotional
Computers 5. Live shoot

6. Dump Video

7. Return recording
equipment

 Eliana Lowry // Wes Martin

Appendix B Flowchart
Receive job
assignment

Get recorder and

headset

Tripod Yes
required? Get tripod

No

Format video card(s)

Check battery life

Is battery No Get charged

Recharge old battery
charged? battery

Yes

Attend event

Has
recording No Import video for
Record event problem? Return equipment
review

Yes Is content Yes Archive

usable? video
Report malfunction

No

Return Discard
equipment footage
 Eliana Lowry // Wes Martin

Appendix C Run chart

Descriptive Stats
Maximum 31 Minimum 13 Average 23 Sigma 8

Descriptive Stats

Maximum 35 Minimum 13 Average 21 Sigma 7

Descriptive Stats

Maximum 35 Minimum 23 Average 28 Sigma 3

Descriptive Stats

Maximum 35 Minimum 23 Average 28 Sigma 3

 Eliana Lowry // Wes Martin

Appendix D- Fishbone Diagram

 Eliana Lowry // Wes Martin

Appendix E- Pareto Chart

 Eliana Lowry // Wes Martin

Appendix F- Nominal Group Technique

NGT: How to Increase Knowledge of Interns

IDEA GROUP MEMBERS TOTAL VALUE OF RATINGS
ELIANA WES

A 6 5 11

B 4 6 10

C 5 3 8

D 3 4 7

E 2 1 3

F 1 2 3

A. Knowledge test required for equipment use

B. Half-hour weekly training meetings

C. Mandatory training sessions prior to semester
D. Develop mandatory training videos
E. Facility tours of filming and recording practices
F. Include a 'Tips' card in each camera bag

 Eliana Lowry // Wes Martin

Appendix G- PICK Chart

6
1. Knowledge test required for equipment use
2. Half-hour weekly training meetings 1
3. Mandatory training sessions prior to semester
Possible 3 Implement
4. Develop mandatory training videos
5. Facility tours of filming and recording practices
6. Include a 'Tips' card in each camera bag 2
4
5
Kill Challenge