Executive summary of Improving Summer Concerts in the Park Improve Phase

Executive summary of Improving Summer Concerts in the Park Project: Summer Concerts in the Park is a 5 month event (one weekday concert per month, May- September) of music, food, vendors of arts and crafts and recreation. Brief Synopsis of the Business Case: The Board of Commissioners of a medium-sized municipal park district in the Midwestern United States has charged this team with increasing participation (attendance) of local patrons and their subsequent use of Park District facilities while being fiscally responsible and providing the best experience for each attendee. The Board of Commissioners has indicated that they have a strong preference for music based recreational activities during summer evenings at our flagship location, a 180 acre open park property, situated in the center of a suburban area of approximately 35,000 residents. Past Summer Concert Series have made profits of $3,267 in 2022 and $10,419 in 2023. While sponsorship revenue was up in 2023, attendance per concert was down. This team is tasked with the following: 1) Increase attendance at each monthly concert. An average of 175.5 patrons attended each show in 2023. 2) Stay within budget. Sponsors provided $9,500 in 2023 and patrons donated a total of $2,919 at the door for a total of $12,419. 3) Use budgeted resources on creature comforts that provide bang for the buck. Food trucks, bounce houses, water slides, vendors of arts and crafts were employed in 2023. Summary Analysis of All Tools: Observed Data: 1) Analysis of data from 2022 and 2023: attendance, sponsorships, donations, vendor fees, expenses, high temperature, weather conditions, and day of the week were all entered into an Excel spread sheet. Pearson r correlations and Single Regression were run on the dependent variable of attendance as it relates to the independent variable of “weather”, “temperature”, and “day of the week”. The results reveled the following: a) Attendance and High Temperature : -0.15563 (as temps went up, attendance went down slightly) b) Attendance and Weather Conditions: -0.45616239 (as weather got worse, attendance went down moderately) c) Attendance and Day of the Week: -0.414010348 (attendance went down as we shifted from Tuesday to Thursdays, this was moderately correlated) R2 (r squared) value: based on this small sample size, 2% of attendance can be explained by temperature, 20.8% by weather conditions, and 17% by change in the day of the week. That means 60.2% of attendance can be attributed to be by other factors. A fishbone analysis will be conducted at the beginning of the Improvement Phase to try and identify the other 60.2% of factors affecting concert attendance.

One Way Anova and an 2 way ANOVA with replication were conducted. The results were non- significant. This supports the above conclusion that other factors are responsible for the 60.2% of the variance and thus need to be further investigated. Anova: Two-Factor Without Replication SUMMARY Count Sum Average Varianc e 659 4 311 77.75 11168.2 5 645 4 347 86.75 15026.2 5 532 4 328 82 12498.6 7 667 4 322 80.5 12801.6 7 418 4 272 68 7720 339 4 222 55.5 5109.66 7 601 4 326 81.5 13181.6 7 374 4 210 52.5 3628.33 3 604 4 309 77.25 11552.9 2 379 4 201 50.25 3058.25 724 4 421 105.25 25570.2 5 368 4 209 52.25 3334.25 328 4 195 48.75 3284.91 7 227 4 217 54.25 4436.25 Attendance 14 270 8 193.428 6 5057.80 2 temperature 14 113 8 81.2857 1 70.2197 8 weather 14 4 0.28571 4 0.21978 day of the week 14 40 2.85714 3 1.05494 5 ANOVA Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit

a) Patrons prefer concerts on Tuesdays: the mean response of a 5 point Likert scale was 4.1249. This is a strong response to this question. b) The average age of a concert goer was: 58.31 years with a median age of 66.06 years. This confirmed our hypothesis that older patrons prefer concerts in the park. c) Males and Females equally enjoyed the events with a mean satisfaction score among males to be 3.47 and 3.28 among females. d) Country and Classic Rock were preferred over pop, alternative, blues and jazz. 61.27% reported that they wanted to see rock or country acts. 25.03% had no opinion and seemed to be fans of live music. The remainder preferred pop, hip-hop or some other type of music. e) Weather affected decision to attend: 87.67% of respondents reported checking weather conditions and forecasts before coming to the event. An additional 54.38% indicated that they would not come to the concert if weather conditions were perceived to be unfavorable. f) Free Concerts vs. Donations : 57.93% reported that concerts should be free because “they pay taxes for this type of stuff” and “I never have cash on me anymore, I just swipe my card”. The remainder (42.07%) showed support for the Park District and indicated that they enjoyed making a donation because “inflation affects everybody” and “I know you guys don’t have a huge budget”. 112 (9.44%) of the survey respondents reported feeling guilt tripped into making a contribution for social desirability reasons. g) Creature Comforts : these do not seem to affect the patron’s decision to come to a concert. These results of ANOVA were not significant. P=1.75E-26, F=95.50633, sample size of 1276. Based on the mean of Likert scale responses. Bounce houses, vendors, crafts, water slides and other ancillary activities seemed to distract from the experience. Some respondents quipped: “I’m trying to watch the band and I’ve got all these kids running all over. I can’t relax.” “My mom wouldn’t let me run around like that! It’s annoying.” A financial review confirmed this that ancillary activities added cost but yielded a 39% drop in revenue. Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Donations 14 6865 490.357 1 25369.9 4 Attendance 14 2708 193.428 6 5057.80 2 temperature 14 1138 81.2857 1 70.2197 8 weather 14 4 0.28571 4 0.21978 day of the week 14 40 2.85714 3 1.05494 5 ANOVA Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit

Variation Between Groups 2330296 4 582574 95.5063 3 1.75E- 26 2.51304 Within Groups 396490. 1 65 6099.84 7 Total 2726786 69 A) Appropriate use of tools: These methods helped triangulate the data by verifying the observed data, quantifying the expenses and revenue, and yielding data that can analyze the trend of our experimentation. Each variable attendance, staying on budget, creature comforts, the relationship between other independent variables like weather and temperature, and bang for your buck was be graphed and studied. Data from 2022 and 2023 was analyzed and will inform decisions and planning for 2024. B) Ready to move to next phase? Yes, it is time to move forward with the planning of the improvements and their subsequent control and replication after implementation. We are following our DMAIC plan and now have insights on how to proceed. We have gained valuable insights that will guide planning. C) What is needed to move to next phase: planning for 2024 after a thorough review of this data and conclusions suggested. Fishbone analysis will continue to help us see the blind spots and lessons learned will be applied for future success. D) Does the charter, scope or problem need to be refined explain: we are in alignment with the charter and running smoothly.