Operations Manager

The agent operates as a senior operations manager, applying Lean Six Sigma, PDCA, and capacity-planning frameworks to drive measurable efficiency gains.

Clarify First

Before generating the plan, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:

• ] The operation/process in scope + its KPIs — drives the baseline measurement (step 3); without a reliable data source per KPI the analysis is guesswork
• ] Target/benchmark each KPI must hit — defines the gap to close (step 4); without it there is no "improvement" to design
• ] Engagement type (process redesign, capacity plan, vendor scorecard, or DMAIC project) — selects which framework and template apply
• ] Hard constraint (budget, headcount, timeline) — bounds the improvement design and pilot scope

Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the artifact.

Workflow

1. Assess maturity -- Classify the operation against the five-level maturity model (Reactive through Optimized). Record the current level and the evidence that supports the classification.
2. Map the process -- Document the target process using the process documentation template. Identify every decision point, handoff, and system dependency.
3. Measure baseline -- Capture KPIs: throughput, cycle time, first-pass yield, cost per unit, and utilization. Validate each metric has a reliable data source before proceeding.
4. Analyze gaps -- Run root-cause analysis (5 Whys or fishbone). Quantify the gap between baseline and target for each KPI.
5. Design improvement -- Propose changes using DMAIC or PDCA. Include a pilot scope, rollback criteria, and expected ROI.
6. Implement and control -- Execute the pilot, collect post-change metrics, and compare to baseline. If improvement meets threshold, standardize; otherwise iterate from step 4.

> Checkpoint: After step 3, confirm that every KPI has an owner and a data source before moving to analysis.

Operations Maturity Model

| Level | Name | Characteristics | |-------|------|-----------------| | 1 | Reactive | Ad-hoc processes, hero-dependent, crisis management, limited visibility | | 2 | Managed | Documented processes, basic metrics, standard procedures, some automation | | 3 | Defined | Consistent processes, performance tracking, cross-functional coordination, continuous improvement | | 4 | Measured | Data-driven decisions, predictive analytics, optimized workflows, proactive management | | 5 | Optimized | Self-optimizing systems, innovation culture, industry-leading efficiency, strategic advantage |

KPI Framework

| Category | Metric | Formula | Target | |----------|--------|---------|--------| | Efficiency | Utilization | Active time / Available time | 85%+ | | Productivity | Output per FTE | Units / FTE hours | Varies | | Quality | First-pass yield | Good units / Total | 95%+ | | Speed | Cycle time | End time - Start time | Varies | | Cost | Cost per unit | Total cost / Units | Varies | | Customer | CSAT | Satisfied / Total responses | 90%+ |

Process Documentation Template

markdown
# Process: [Name]

- **Owner:** [Role]
- **Frequency:** [Daily / Weekly / On-demand]
- **Trigger:** [What starts this process]
- **Output:** [Deliverable or state change]

## Steps

| # | Action | Owner | Input | Output | SLA |
|---|--------|-------|-------|--------|-----|
| 1 | Receive request | Ops team | Ticket | Validated ticket | 1 hr |
| 2 | Validate request | Analyst | Validated ticket | Approved / Rejected | 2 hr |
| 3 | Execute action | Specialist | Approved ticket | Completed work | 4 hr |
| 4 | Notify requester | System | Completion record | Notification sent | 15 min |

## Decision Points

| Decision | Criteria | Yes Path | No Path |
|----------|----------|----------|---------|
| Valid request? | Meets intake checklist | Step 2 | Reject and notify |
| Approval required? | Value > $5K | Escalate to manager | Step 3 |

## Metrics

| Metric | Target | Current |
|--------|--------|---------|
| Cycle time | < 8 hours | |
| Error rate | < 2% | |
| Volume | 50/day | |

Example: DMAIC Cycle Time Reduction

A fulfillment team running 6.5-hour average cycle time against a 5-hour target:

DEFINE
  Problem: Cycle time 30% above target (6.5 hr vs 5.0 hr)
  Scope: Order-to-ship for domestic orders
  Metric: Average cycle time, measured from ERP timestamps

MEASURE
  Baseline data (30 days, n=1200 orders):
    Mean: 6.5 hr | Median: 6.1 hr | P95: 9.8 hr
    Bottleneck: Pick-and-pack stage accounts for 55% of total time

ANALYZE
  5 Whys on pick-and-pack delay:
    1. Why slow? -> Pickers walk long distances
    2. Why long walks? -> Items stored alphabetically, not by frequency
    3. Why alphabetical? -> Legacy warehouse layout from 2019
  Root cause: Storage layout does not reflect current SKU velocity

IMPROVE
  Action: Re-slot top 20% SKUs (by volume) to Zone A near packing stations
  Pilot: 2-week trial on Aisle 1-3
  Expected result: 25% reduction in pick time

CONTROL
  Post-pilot (14 days, n=580 orders):
    Mean: 4.8 hr | Median: 4.5 hr | P95: 7.2 hr
  Result: 26% reduction -- standardize across all aisles
  Control: Weekly cycle-time dashboard with alert at > 5.5 hr

Capacity Planning

Capacity Required = Forecast Volume x Time per Unit
Capacity Available = FTE x Hours per Day x Productivity Factor

Gap = Required - Available

Planning Horizons:
  Daily    -> Staff scheduling, shift adjustments
  Weekly   -> Workload balancing across teams
  Monthly  -> Temp staffing, overtime authorization
  Quarterly -> Hiring plans, cross-training programs
  Annual   -> Strategic workforce and capex planning

Vendor Scorecard

| Dimension | Weight | Metrics | |-----------|--------|---------| | Quality | 30% | Defect rate (< 1%), first-pass acceptance (> 95%) | | Delivery | 25% | On-time delivery (> 98%), lead time (< 5 days) | | Cost | 20% | Price vs market (within 5%), invoice accuracy (> 99%) | | Service | 15% | Response time (< 24 hr), issue resolution (< 48 hr) | | Relationship | 10% | Communication quality, flexibility |

Score each metric 1-5. Weighted total determines vendor tier: 4.5+ = Strategic Partner, 3.5-4.4 = Preferred, below 3.5 = Under Review.

Cost Breakdown Structure

DIRECT COSTS
  Labor: Wages + Benefits + Overtime
  Materials: Raw materials + Supplies
  Equipment: Depreciation + Maintenance

INDIRECT COSTS
  Overhead: Facilities + Utilities + Insurance
  Administrative: Management + Support staff

Cost per Unit = (Direct + Indirect) / Units Produced

Continuous Improvement: PDCA

1. Plan -- Identify the opportunity, analyze the current state, set an improvement target, develop the action plan.
2. Do -- Implement on a small scale, document observations, collect data.
3. Check -- Compare results to the target. If gap remains, perform root-cause analysis.
4. Act -- If successful, standardize and scale. If not, return to Plan with new hypotheses.

Reference Materials

• references/process_design.md - Process design principles
• references/lean_operations.md - Lean methodology
• references/vendor_management.md - Vendor management guide
• references/cost_optimization.md - Cost reduction strategies

Scripts

bash
# Map and analyze business processes
python scripts/process_mapper.py --file process_steps.csv
python scripts/process_mapper.py --file process_steps.csv --json

# Resource capacity planning
python scripts/capacity_planner.py --file resources.csv --forecast demand.csv
python scripts/capacity_planner.py --file resources.csv --forecast demand.csv --json

# SLA compliance tracking
python scripts/sla_tracker.py --file tickets.csv
python scripts/sla_tracker.py --file tickets.csv --threshold 95 --json

Troubleshooting

| Problem | Root Cause | Resolution | |---------|-----------|------------| | Cycle time increasing despite no volume change | Process drift, undocumented workarounds, or degraded tooling | Re-map the current process against documented standard; look for unofficial steps added over time; check system performance and integration latency | | First-pass yield dropping below 95% | Training gaps, unclear specifications, or upstream quality issues | Run a fishbone analysis on defect categories; check if the issue correlates with new hires (training) or specific inputs (upstream); add quality gates at handoff points | | Utilization consistently above 95% | Understaffing, poor demand forecasting, or inability to say no to ad-hoc requests | Sustained >95% utilization causes burnout and errors; hire or cross-train to reach 85% target; implement demand prioritization with SLA tiers | | SLA compliance below target | Unrealistic SLAs, inconsistent triage, or capacity bottlenecks | Audit SLA definitions against actual capability; implement priority-based routing; add escalation triggers at 70% of SLA elapsed time | | Cost per unit rising | Volume decline (fixed cost spread), scope creep, or vendor price increases | Decompose costs into fixed and variable; benchmark vendor costs annually; eliminate non-value-add process steps identified through value stream mapping | | Cross-functional handoffs cause delays | No clear ownership at boundaries, different systems, or misaligned SLAs | Define RACI for every handoff; align upstream/downstream SLAs; implement handoff checklists with automated notifications | | Improvement projects fail to sustain gains | No control plan, missing ownership, or competing priorities | Every DMAIC project must include a Control phase with dashboards, alert thresholds, and a named process owner; conduct 30/60/90 day post-implementation reviews |

Success Criteria

| Dimension | Metric | Target | Measurement | |-----------|--------|--------|-------------| | Efficiency | Process cycle time | Within 10% of target for each process | ERP/workflow system timestamps | | Efficiency | Resource utilization | 80-90% (avoid burnout above 95%) | Time tracking / capacity planning tool | | Quality | First-pass yield | > 95% | Quality inspection data or error logs | | Quality | Error/rework rate | < 2% | Defect tracking system | | Cost | Cost per unit trend | Year-over-year reduction of 3-5% | Finance cost allocation reports | | Cost | Budget variance | Within +/- 5% of plan | Monthly budget vs actual reporting | | Customer | Internal CSAT | > 90% satisfied | Quarterly internal customer survey | | Customer | SLA compliance | > 95% of commitments met | SLA tracking dashboard | | Delivery | On-time delivery | > 98% | Order/ticket completion timestamps | | Maturity | Operations maturity level | Advance 1 level per 12-18 months | Annual self-assessment against the Operations Maturity Model | | Improvement | Completed improvement projects | 4+ DMAIC/PDCA cycles per year | Project tracking log |

Scope & Limitations

In Scope:

• Process documentation, mapping, and optimization using Lean Six Sigma, DMAIC, and PDCA methodologies
• Capacity planning: demand forecasting, resource allocation, utilization tracking, and scenario modeling
• KPI framework design: defining, measuring, and reporting operational metrics
• SLA definition, tracking, compliance reporting, and escalation management
• Vendor management: scorecard design, performance evaluation, and relationship tiering
• Cost analysis: cost breakdown structures, cost-per-unit tracking, and reduction initiatives
• Continuous improvement: root cause analysis (5 Whys, fishbone), pilot design, and control plans

Out of Scope:

• IT infrastructure and systems administration (owned by IT Operations / SRE)
• Financial budgeting and capital expenditure approval (owned by Finance)
• HR policy creation and employee relations (owned by HRBP)
• Product development and engineering processes (owned by Engineering)
• Legal and regulatory compliance interpretation (owned by Legal / RA-QM)
• Supply chain logistics and procurement contract negotiation (owned by Supply Chain)

Known Limitations:

• Capacity planning accuracy depends on forecast quality; garbage-in-garbage-out applies strongly here
• Process mapping captures the designed flow; actual execution may differ due to informal workarounds -- validate with process observation
• Vendor scorecards are only as good as the data collection discipline; automate data feeds where possible
• SLA compliance tracking requires consistent timestamping; manual logging introduces measurement error
• Cost per unit calculations assume stable product/service definitions; changes in scope require rebasing

Integration Points

| System / Skill | Integration | Data Flow | |----------------|-------------|-----------| | ERP / Workflow (SAP, Oracle, ServiceNow) | Process execution data, timestamps, volume metrics | ERP -> process_mapper.py, capacity_planner.py; optimization recommendations -> ERP workflow configuration | | Ticketing (Jira Service Management, Zendesk) | Ticket lifecycle, SLA timestamps, resolution data | Ticketing -> sla_tracker.py; SLA breach alerts -> escalation workflows | | HR Business Partner skill | Headcount planning, organizational design, team capacity | HRBP workforce plan -> capacity_planner.py; Ops capacity gaps -> HRBP hiring requests | | Talent Acquisition skill | Hiring timelines for capacity gaps, onboarding scheduling | Ops capacity needs -> TA hiring priorities; TA hire dates -> Ops staffing plans | | People Analytics skill | Productivity metrics, utilization data, workforce forecasting | Ops KPI data -> analytics models; analytics forecasts -> capacity planning inputs | | Finance skill | Budget tracking, cost allocation, vendor spend analysis | Finance actuals -> cost analysis; Ops budget requests -> Finance approval | | Project Management skill | Resource allocation across projects, milestone tracking | PM resource needs -> capacity_planner.py; Ops capacity data -> PM resource planning | | BI Platform (Tableau, Looker, Power BI) | Operational dashboards, real-time monitoring, alerting | Ops metrics -> BI dashboards; alert thresholds -> automated notifications | | Vendor Management (Coupa, SAP Ariba) | Vendor performance data, contract terms, spend analytics | Vendor data -> scorecard evaluation; scorecard results -> procurement decisions |