introductory overview - the lab consulting...provides representative examples of non-technology...

Introductory OverviewNon-Technology Business Improvement:A Self-Funding Approach

© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.1509281

Table of Contents

Opportunity: Non-Technology Improvement® . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Describes The Lab’s unconventional approach for delivering valuable, overlooked Non-Technology Improvement opportunities

Methodology: Self-Funding Business Improvement® . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Outlines The Lab’s practical, two-phased Self-Funding Business Improvement

workplan for reducing Virtuous Waste®

Analysis (I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Suggests how to develop the sponsorship and project design needed for a successful Phase I analysis

Implementation (II) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Explains how The Lab’s implementation methods rapidly deliver meaningful, measurable — and sustainable — benefits

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Provides representative examples of Non-Technology Improvements, related analysis, insights and improvement barriers

Describes The Lab’s unconventional approach for delivering valuable, overlooked Non-Technology Improvement opportunities

Opportunity


The Lab’s Unconventional Approach

Popular Improvement Methods

The most effective improvement methodologies require no technology:

• Six Sigma

• Lean Improvement

• Lean Six Sigma

• Kaizen Methods

• Total Quality Management

• Quality Function Deployment

• Voice of the Customer

• and others

The Lab’s approach incorporates the most valuable aspects of these methods.

The Lab’s Term Non-Technology Improvement

Virtuous Waste Overlooked waste disguised as good, honest work effort (More on page 10).

Three FundamentalDifferences

Focus exclusively on Non-Technology

Improvement

Use the world’s largest database of

improvement templates

Offer self-funding,money-back guarantees

Three UnderlyingReasons

Even the most efficient businesseshave major, similar opportunities

to reduce Virtuous Waste

The Lab’s Non-Technology Improvement templates

take advantage of similarities:

• Find more improvements

• Achieve more benefits

• Accelerate results

Roughly 75% of business operations improvements:

• Require no new technology

• Hide as Virtuous Waste

• Are highly similar


Class I Improvement

The Lab’s term for non-technology reduction of widespread root causes that erode value in multiple categories:

• Rework

• Sales downtime

• Service issues

– Over-service

– Under-service

– Mis-service

• Intervention

• Cycle time

• Errors

• Misperception

Class I Improvements Outnumber Class II by a 3-to-1 Margin

The Lab’s Terminology: ‘Class I ’ Means Non-Technology®

Class I Means No Technological, Strategic or Regulatory Change

Technology

No

Yes

Class I

Class II

Product/Service

No

Yes

Business/

Distribution Strategy

No

Yes

Physical

Infrastructure

No

Yes

Regulatory

No

Yes

Class I ImprovementsTechnology neutral

Class II ImprovementsTechnology dependent

75%

25%

®


Similar Work + ‘Unique’ Interpretation = Valuable Opportunity

Knowledge Work Offers the Most Valuable Class I Improvements ‘Similarly Unique:’ The Skyline Analogy• Every city’s skyline is unique

• But the office towers are comparable

• And many components are identical:

– Doors

– Fixtures

– Flooring

– and more

Improvement Similarity• Businesses are

‘similarly unique’

• Business processes are similarly ‘comparable’

• Work activities are similarly ‘identical’

• Improvements have similar:

– Root causes

– Remedies

– Benefits

Every business is unique

But the business processes are comparable

And many work activities are identical

It’s the interpretations that are unique

Knowledge Workers as a Percentage of Total Employees(Total: 26.7 Million Fortune 500 employees)

Knowledge Workers

9.1M

All other

workers17.6M

34%

66%

“ Knowledge workers are valued for their ability to interpret information within a specific subject area.”

– Wikipedia

“Our business is unique; it’s impossible to compare us.”

“I can’t tell you what I do; it’s so different every day.”

– Knowledge Workers


The Lab’s Database of Improvement Templates

Improvement Templates

Organization-based:

Broadly applicable to many companies and industries.

Industry-specific:

Unique to particular business segments and industries.

The Lab Maintains Templates in Two Major Groups

– Finance Close/Reporting

– Accounts Payable

– Treasury Operations

– Cost Allocation

– Budgeting

– Payroll

– Fixed Assets

– Tax Accounting

• Finance

• Human Resources

• Marketing

• Information Technology

• Legal

• Compliance

• Internal Improvement

• Risk

• Training

• Field Sales & Support

• Customer Service

• Contact Centers

Supply Chain Operations

• Product Development

• Order Management

• Procurement

• Materials Management

• Production

• Distribution

• Quality Management

Support Groups General Line Groups

Organization-Based Templates Industry-Specific Templates

• Financial Services

• Telecommunications

• Business & Consumer Services

• Utilities

• Health Care

• Leisure & Hospitality

• Media Services

• Oil & Gas, Energy

• Technology & Communications

• Retail Sales

• Health Sciences

• Automotive & Transportation

• Chemical & Natural Resources

• Consumer Packaged Goods

• Industrial Products & Appliances

• Food Production & Processing

• Print & Mail

• Paper & Packaging

Services Supply Chain

– Insurance

– Banking

– Broker/Dealer

– Investment Management

– Mortgage Banking

– Consumer Finance

¡ Retail Branches

¡ Business Lines

¡ Back Office


Template Descriptions

Broadly Defined

The Lab defines ‘templates’ broadly, from business process maps through implementation work plans.

The Lab’s Six Categories of Improvement Templates

Business Process Map Templates

The Lab maintains activity-level business process maps for thousands of organization-based and industry-specific processes.

Benchmarking Metrics/ Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

The Lab has more than 5,000 quantitative measures (metrics) covering processes, operations and organizations.

Improvement Opportunities

The Lab documents and catalogs thousands of commonly recurring, activity-level operating improvements.

Capacity Models (Activity Level)

Quantitatively link work activities to volumes, input and output to track productivity and forecast resource needs.

Best Practices, or ‘Leading Practices’

Use The Lab’s Leading Practices to evaluate your operational capabilities. Go ‘out-of-industry’ for valuable practices.

Implementation Work Plans

Standard ‘modules’ define implementation tasks, time frames and milestones. Plans are configured for each client’s needs.

CAPACITY

M O D E L


The Lab’s Tactics Identify Virtuous Waste Opportunities

Conventional Tactics Overlook Class I, Virtuous Waste

Virtuous Waste Creates Rework Heroes

Conventional improvement tactics reduce tangible waste:

• Scrap

• Returned goods

• Idle time

Tangible waste remediation activity is widely viewed as ‘low value .’

However, The Lab targets intangible waste:

• Incorrect orders

• Customer over-service

• Sales downtime

Intangible waste remediation activity is often viewed as ‘value added’:

• Saving revenue

• Serving customers

• Helping sales staff

The Lab’s tactics analyze work:

Organization-based scope

• Select group(s)

– Business

– Organization

• Broadly analyze groups

– Business processes (end to end)

– Organization capacity (80%)

Single-focus teams (Class I only)

Dedicated teams pursue only non-technology improvements

Micro-targeted

• Hundreds of small improvements

• Non-technology (all)

• Near term (<6 months)

Issue-based scope

• Select improvement issue(s)

– Generate improvement ‘long list’

– Focus on a few — most valuable

• Deeply analyze selected issues

– Root causes

– Implications

Multi-focus teams (Both Class I and II)

Teams pursue all improvements: technology, strategic, non-technology

Macro-targeted

• A few major improvements

• Technology-driven (90%)

• Long term (>12 months)

Conventional tactics analyze issues:

Wall-to-Wall Process Mapping

Brainstorming & Flip Charts


Templates Enable Massive Activity-Level Improvement

Learning Curve Power

The Lab’s ‘template-based’ approach makes large-scale, activity-level improvement feasible by capitalizing on similar, recurring opportunities.

Templates harness the power of the learning curve for operations improvement .

Activity ImprovementsAffect Each Job Position

Organizational CapacityCumulative Impact

Recoup and RedeployCapacity Model Needed

40%

The Challenge

Virtuous Waste activities are pervasive, but improvement seems impractical.

• Full scope is ‘invisible’

• Root causes: ‘unavoidable’

• Remediation is ‘heroic’

The Reward

Virtuous Waste activity collectively consumes 25-40% of organizational capacity.

• Operational rework

• Sales ‘downtime’

• Customer ‘over-service’

The Solution

The Lab’s capacity models recoup 50-75% of wasted capacity in 6 months.

• Full positions

• No ‘fingers and toes’

• Clients redeploy employees


Objective: Increase Value by Reducing Virtuous Waste

The Lab’s Non-Technology Initiatives: Major Benefits within MonthsHigh-Value Projects Only

The Lab’s initiatives target non-technology, near-term improvements in work activity — delivering only high payback, self-funding business cases.

10-25% or more (year one)

Major gains: 20-50%

Six-month break-even (typical)

Payback: 2-4x (year one)

The Lab’s Typical Engagement

Results

10-30% gains

Labor Savings

Revenue Productivity

Service Improvement

Self-Funding Point

Significant ROI


‘Hard-Dollar’ Savings Fulfill The Lab’s Self-Funding Guarantees

Indi

rect

Mea

sure

men

t

Benefits

Dire

ct

Financial Operational

Improvement Benefits: Three Categories

Improvement Benefits: Prioritized Segmentation

Clients’ Multiple Goals

The Lab’s initiatives deliver improvement benefits in all three categories. Clients set their own priorities and quantify their goals for each.

Category I, ‘hard-dollar’ savings pay the cost of the project and satisfy the self-funding guarantees.

II. Performance III. StrategyI. Savings

Sales Performance

• More producer uptime

• Conversion rates up

• Churn rates down

‘Strategic Gains’

• Customer experience

• Competitive ranking

• Growth/penetration

‘Hard-Dollar’ Savings

• Reduced spending

• Unit productivity gains

• Redeployed positions

Service Performance

• Less over-service

• Shorter cycle times

• Reduced errors


Frequently Asked Questions: Internal Teams

An Unusual Fact

Roughly two-thirds of The Lab’s new client relationships originate with internal improvement teams.

Conventional consultants compete with, or displace, internal teams.

The Lab teaches internal teams how to use its standard templates.

The Lab’s improvement templates incorporate proven methodologies: Lean Six Sigma, Voice of the Customer, Benchmarking, Leading Practices, Business Process Mapping and others.

What methodologies does The Lab use?

Any and all that work.A

Q

A

Q Doesn’t The Lab find the same improvements?

No.

The Lab’s improvement templates identify 3-5x more Non-Technology Improvements than even the best internal teams.

Internal teams today face unprecedented demand for rapid results and increasingly valuable business benefits. The Lab helps internal teams achieve these capabilities.

Why would an internal team involve The Lab?

More improvements, benefits and speed.A

Q

A

Q Does The Lab replace internal teams?

Never.

Internal teams provide roughly two-thirds of our new client introductions. The Lab can transfer templates to internal teams to increase effectiveness.


Early-Stage Checkpoints Reduce ‘Launch Risk’

Self-Funding Guarantees Reduce ‘Performance Risk’

Fixed-Price Proposals

The Lab’s proposals are based on our labor costs and include all document production expense. The scope is collaboratively and frugally designed.

Compatibility Checkpoint

During the first two weeks, clients may cancel the Phase I engagement for any reason and receive a full refund (less travel cost incurred).

Opportunity Validation Point

If The Lab discovers that a self-funding improvement opportunity is unavailable, we will provide a full refund by week number two.

Phase I: Analysis & DesignThe Lab will deliver a set of ‘quick hit’ Class I Improvements with financial benefits that exceed the Phase I fees and expenses. These can be implemented by client staff without The Lab.

Phase II: ImplementationIf an improvement program we implement fails to deliver savings at least equal to our fees in the first year, The Lab will continue working without charge until it does or refund the difference.

The Lab’s Philosophy: Eliminate Risk for Clients

Low Risk by Design

The Lab’s fixed-price proposals, checkpoints and self-funding, money-back guarantees create project designs that reduce risk for client organizations and project sponsors.


Root Causes of Virtuous Waste

Typical Sources of Class I Improvement

Benefits Concentration

Inefficient business processes and customer over-service typically represent three-quarters of the Class I opportunity and benefit.

Inefficient Business Processes

• Typically 25–40% of business process work steps represent Virtuous Waste.

– Rework

– Over-service

• 75% of these tasks can be eliminated

– In six months

– Without technology

Under-Managed Capacity

• Failure to document, quantify and manage work tasks and organizational capacity.

– Inaccurate forecasts

– Staffed for peaks

Measurement Imbalance

• Over-emphasized metrics:

– Volume

– Revenue

• Under-emphasized metrics:

– Productivity

– Quality

– Unit Cost

– Customers

Over-Served, Mis-served Customers, Markets

• Organizations squander costly efforts on the wrong priorities:

– High priorities are under-served

– Low priorities are over-served

• Markets are similarly mis-served

55%

15%

10%

20%

MethodologyOutlines The Lab’s practical, two-phased

Self-Funding Business Improvement

workplan for reducing Virtuous Waste


Two-Phased Self-Funding Approach and Guarantees

Accelerated Results

The Lab’s, two-phased approach completes self-funding improvement within five to eight months — start to finish.

Indicates self-funding performance guarantee (Phase I and Phase II).

Indicates client decision point for optional Phase II Implementation Launch.

LEGEND

Analyze operations, identify improvement and develop a self-funding implementation work plan

Duration: 6 to 8 Weeks

Develop an improvement business case

• Ledger-line-item financial detail

• Work-group-level operating detail

Draft an implementation work plan

• Self-funding, non-technology

• Client-prioritized, multi-objective

• Immediate launch

Deliver supporting documentation

• Process maps, ‘Current-State’

• Benchmarks, leading practices

• Detailed improvement opportunities

Implement improvements, achieve payback and document ongoing performance

Duration: 4 to 6 Months

Launch Immediate Action improvements

• Simple operations changes

• Lead time: 6-8 weeks

Install Pilot Stage improvements

• Complex process change

• Lead time: 3-6 months

• Capacity model development

Optimize Future State processes

• Job position/skills realignment

• Management Operating Reports (MORs)

• Desk-level standards (Placemats)

Phase I: Analysis & Design Objectives Phase II: Implementation Objectives


Self-Funding Improvement: From ‘Start to Finish’…

Analysis & Design, Phase I

This phase is the business equivalent of a wall-to-wall X-Ray or CT scan of operations.

It rapidly documents end-to-end business processes at an activity level of detail, creating an unprecedented, consensus-driven, fact-based view of improvement opportunities.

Combined with the ledger-line detail of the business case, the Phase I findings and documentation create an almost irresistible, organizational groundswell for action toward change.

Installation delivers 50% of improvement benefits

Jointly Design Improvement Plan

• Activity-level improvements

• Organizational validation

• Key Opportunity Summaries

• Sponsor-led prioritization

Create Process Improvement Records

• Operational ‘change orders’

• Implementation work steps

• Improvement targets

• ‘Hard-dollar’ benefits

Senior Executive Sponsor Role

PIR

Finalize Outputs, Prep for Launch

• Business Case (ledger-line)

• Implementation Plan

– Non-technology

– Self-funding

Analyze Operations, Processes

• Standard analysis plan

• 6 analytical tools

• Collaborative review

• Weekly updates

Phase I: Analysis and Design (6 to 8 weeks)

• Announce the project • Prevent ‘false precision’ • Review findings • Favor action and results

Process Improvement Records

Self-Funding Business Case

Weekly Findings Updates

August 20xx

Improving Financial Services Operations:The North American Improvement (NAI) Initiative

Process Improvement

Records

Approved by:

Data Tracked by:

Time frame:

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

TBD Date Originated TBD

Date Assigned TBD

Planned Completion TBD

Actual Completion TBD

X Week One

Week Two

Week Three

X Week Four

X Week Five

Week Six

Week Seven

Date:

IMPROVEMENT PLAN RECORD

Workstream - #20 CART Inbound Data Quality

Location/ Process CART Inbound Data QualityClientCo

Opportunities Key Improvement Opportunity

Impact Benefit per Year

Areas Addressed Work Plan Actions

Policy

Training

Accuracy/Quality

Service/Timeliness

Customer

Other

Cost/Productivity Financial Benefits Operational Benefits

System

Process Change

Other

Location/Area Impacted Solution

Area 2

Area 3

Area 4

Area 5

Key Dates

Area 1

Call Center

PCM

CMB

Branches

CART

Data Tracking OutputDepartment Impacted

Solutions Decision Log Controls

Solution #:

0026, 0116, 0186, 0197, 0227, 0249, 0297, 0422, 0446, 0461, 0543, 0548

1. Increased clarity on policies and guidelines. 2. Elimination of redundancies in processes. 3. Increased customer satisfaction. 4. Fewer touch points between CART and front office.

1. Impacted teams include CART, Branches, Contact Center and PIB 2. Benefits will be realized through reduced rework, decreased cycle time and more accounts being opened. 3. Targeted Benefit: $280K-$360k

All accounts opened online go to the CART team without any pre-review. These accounts are opened automatically, but about 30% are not qualified and must be closed following CART review, wasting time and generating customer complaints. CART requires that prior to manually faxing the application packet to CART, all ID information must be handwritten on the photocopy even if the ID is perfectly legible, which is redundant work that adds no value. When faxing 50+ page packages to CART for review, one incorrect page can cause CART to require the entire package to be resent. It can take 5-15 minutes per package depending on the speed of the fax machine, time that might be needlessly doubled. Online account opening questions do not currently address all KYC questions; therefore, 100% of accounts require follow-up with the customer. This causes unnecessary follow-up and delays in the account opening process.

1.  Observe and analyze end to end account opening process in CART.

2.  Analyze incoming volumes of account openings tasks.

3.  Validate amount of times that the front line incorrectly enters information into the account application

4.  Validate online channel has a rejection rate of 30%.

5.  Validate whether online channel has all of the required KYC information that is needed for CART team.

6.  Partner with PIB team to work on understanding reasoning for online channel not having all of the requirements and how to institute a preliminary risk check online.

7.  Identify CART and front line employees that make recurring errors.

8.  Collect cycle time information of reaching back out to the customer every time an internal error occurs.

9.  Identify "nice to haves" vs. "need to haves" through partnership with CART SME and front line SME

10. Observe the churn and handoffs involved in account onboarding to validate time impact of errors.

11.  Input error log for each CART member and front office team members..

12. Create a list of most common inbound and outbound data errors

13. Educate individual CART employees and front line employees with the highest errors and the new established best practices.

14. Monitor inbound data quality change after best practices are in place.

15. Keep inbound data quality tool in place to monitor improvement on inbound data.

1.  Implement inbound data quality tracker for a series of weeks to establish primary sources of errors. Uncover CART employees and front line employees that provide the most error prone data. Implement best practices to curtail and limit the data errors that create the most rework.

2.  Data Requirement

•  Incoming volume of applications..

•  Amount of time spent reviewing an application

•  Workforce delegated to account openings

•  Amount of applications that are sent back to the customer for more information

•  CART employees with the most errors sent to front line/customers

•  Front line analysts with the most recurring errors sent back to CART team.

•  Cycle time of the account opening process.

Map Contributors

Vina TrieuElaine DuongAngela WillamsNancy RamirezJohn B.WalterMacaria MartinezJoe Turda

LEGEND

Activity Description

Decision Box

Excel/AccessCalculation

Low-Value Added Activity

Quoted Class I Opportunity

#

Quoted Class II Opportunity

#

Industry Best Practice#

Best Practice In Use#

Key Performance Indicator

Comment, Additional Information

List

Important ProcessDetail

System Cycle-Time / Time

Live Photos & Scans

Process Split

ClientCo Branches

New Account Review Team

Branches generate a signature card in

System G and gather necessary

documentation from the customer

All documentation,signature card, andsignature specimen

card are placed in to a bag

All bags are placed in to a large bag at the end of the day and sent to Mail

Services

Mail Services separates all bags received from

the branches each morning and distributes them to New Account

Review

New Account Review divides the bags in

amongst the processors

Processors are responsible for an average of 50 branches per FTE

Processors open their bags and remove the signature specimen

cards to be hand delivered to Account

Services

11 FTE

New Accounts Review receives an average of 1500 new account reviews per day

Each FTE works an average of 140 new account reviews per day

80% of account reviews are personal accounts while 20% are business accounts

Processor removes the Transmittal letter in

each bag that lists the account documentation

within the bag

80% of a processor’s time is spent on business account reviews which represent 20% of total accounts reviewed

The Processor checks the hard copy

documents received in the bag against the

account information in System A

Does the information

match?

The processor pulls up first account for review

in System A

Does System A indicate that the account needs to

be reviewed?

If the account is a new personal account with no added nuances and the signature card has been uploaded by the branch in to System F, then the account does not need to be reviewed.

Processor moves on to next account review

NO

YES

40% of all accounts do not require a review

Record all account review information in

System E

YES

Separate and batch account documentation at the end of the day to be picked up by System

F imaging

Record all account review information and

errors in System ENO Follow-up with branches

on all outstanding errors

Processors follow-up with all outstanding errors that are approaching the account closing deadline

Processor manually picks up batched

account hard copy documentation from the previous day’s workload

6 FTE

Processor scans hard copies in to System F

Assign index number to each scanned image

Check index number and images to the hard copy documentation for

accuracy and completion

Do they match?

Processor moves on to check next account in

System FYES

Processor corrects the error and then moves on to check the next account in System F

NO1 FTE performs all follow up on outstanding errors

Client Operations

Function Group

Customer Service

Operations

The branch requests a ‘line of credit’ for a

customer

The request is placed into the OCF pending ‘line of credit requests’ folder (automatically)

80% of ‘Open Line of Credit’ requests are automatically sent to the Pending queue folder

Email box receives ‘the line of credit’ request

Anything that is left in the email box that did not get auto moved is

moved manually to pending ‘line of credit

requests’ folder

20% of requests are manually moved to pending line of credit folder - 1 FTE spends a little time doing this

Check the pending folder and process the

‘line of credit’ (CashReserve) request

Is this a previously

closedaccount?

E-mail branch request and 8 screen shots of

System A account information to Credit

Center

‘Open’ System G cash reserve manually

Based on inquiry record,FICA score, Credit line approval, Branchemployee making inquiry,referral (not critical, can be blank)

Enter maintenance tab on System G and

manually change date based on approval date

of cash reserve

Is line of credit approved from

System H Inquiry

Record?

Reject the request

YES

System G System G

80% of inquiries will need the date changed in System G. All requests that are approved with a previous

date will be changed.

Send Email to the bank branch of the Cash

Reserve approval, andconfirmation of cash

reserve

Input all information from System H in to

System G

System G

A customer reports a lost checkbook, lost

debit card resulting incash reserve transfer from ‘old checking’ to new checking account

Email box checkbook request from Branch to

pending folder

Access the ‘Cash Reserve Transfer’ email template and copy and

paste original email

Is the request for transfer filled out

properly ?

Check account title information on the old

and new checking account

YES

Branch supplies the missing information for

the transfer

NO

On emailAccount title has to be the same, copy and paste original email (credit center wants an explanation on why transferring),

Attach 11 screen shots for the old and new

account from System C and System A

Attach branch explanation of why the cash reserve transfer is

required

Email the Request for approval to the ClientCo

Credit Center

The cash reserve transfer email is

received from the OCF Group

Review the customers account on the email

Was Cash Reserveclosed by

credit center previously?

Decline the request and communicate decision to

OCF Group

The Credit center could have previously closed the account due to a customer bad credit rating/ score and closed in quarterly process

YES

Approve the request and communicate

decision to OCF GroupNO

Notify the customer with the decision and include

contact information in case of questions

NO

YES

NO

Retail Request Review and Processing Commercial Request Review and Processing

System FSystem E

System ASystem A

System E System F

System F

System F

Select the update button to open the cash

account

Is the cash account

request from a previous day?

No further action is required

NO

YES

Other OCF Work StreamsChange of AddressesRedeem Savings BondsCheck OrdersFee ReversalsIncentivesWelcome BonusesException CodesStatement MaintenanceFee WaiversACH BlockStop Payment ReleasesAccount ReactivationVOD“0” Balance ReportInterest ReportingWiresBank by MailReturn MailOffice of the President Requests

Check Inquiry record System J for credit

report, and credit line approval amount

Credit Center reviews request

Does the credit center approve the request?

YES

System J

Reject the request

5-6 Cash Account requests come in daily

5-6 transfer requests come in daily

Processor monitors e-mail box for deposit or withdrawal requests

from Non-BankFinancial Institutions.

Processor takes the information provided in the e-mail request and creates a fund transfer

request

Does the tax ID# in the e-

mail match the ID# in System

A?

Complete the transfer template on the shared

drive and send the template to the Wire

Transfer Department to process

NO

Electronically transfer the deposit or

withdrawal on System AYES

Enter all transfer information in to the

PromontorySpreadsheet

Check to make sure that the information entered

in to the Promontory Spreadsheet balances against the Total Bank Solutions Spreadsheet

Do the spreadsheets

balance?

The balance can not be more than 1 cent off.

Enter in to the FI site that requested the transfer and submit ClientCo’s balance

YES

Investigate and attempt to locate the source of

the errorNO

Can the error be fixed by the

processor?

YES

Processor fixes the error and checks to

make sure everything balances


Processor sends an e-mail or calls the

relationship manager informing them of the

imbalance

NO

The relationship manager contacts the client to get the error

resolved

System A

Receives an average of 5-6 requests per day

The transfer will be rejected if the FI transfer requests has more than 6 transactions outside of money market accounts.

Front Office Analyst enters client request

information in to System B

System B assigns a case number and sends

it to its appropriate queue

Examples of Requests

ü Adjustmentsü Collectionsü Missing Itemü Encoding Errorü Domestic and

Foreign Collection

ü Stop Payment

Special Handling clients skip the Front Office and send e-mail requests directly to the Research Team

Cases prioritized based off of client priority ranking and urgency of request

Processor performs research on the request

Request research can take any where from 1 day to 6 months based on the complexity of the request

Is a resolution found?

The request escalates to the Case Team to research and review

NO

The Processor logs on to System B and inputs

the resolution information in to the

existing case

YES

The Processor takes the necessary steps to

complete the transaction

Transactions may fall under 17different work flows in order for the process to be completed

Processor sends follow up communication on all

cases that have been outstanding for more

than 2 weeks

Research average 10-30 new requests per day.

7-10 cases are completed on a daily basis

25% of all cases require communication with entities outside of ClientCo

System C

System B

System C System A

System A

System D

Requests from the CSD Front Office come in to the customer service queue in System B

Request Types

ü Cashier Checkü Advancesü OLA Transfersü Foreign Draft

Issuanceü Foreign/Canadian

Deposits

The queue is prioritized by clients with priority

status and urgent requests

Processor actions the first request in the

queue and looks for accuracy and authenticity

Does anything look

suspicious?

Processor completes the request and logs all

information in the production log

NO

Processor investigates anything that looks

suspicious and attempts to validate the

information provided in the request

YESCan the

information be validated?

The processor may request that the FO associate place an outbound call to the client to validate the information provided

NO

YES



Does the client validate the information?

YES

The request is rejected and the FO notifies the

clientNO

System B

The physical check from the client is received by

Customer Services

The Processor calls Foreign Exchange for

the correct foreign exchange rate

Is there a special rate involved?

Processor checks for special deal rate on

System I

YES

Processor fills out the jacket and deposit slip

utilizing the correct foreign exchange rate

NO

The check, jacket, anddeposit slip are sent to Proof to be processed at the end of the day

5-10 checks are received each day

SampleCustomer

Service Request

System I

Processor opens first request in the New

Account queue

Prints off all attached worksheets

Processor enters all account information

provided in the case in to System G

Processor checks System A to see if the

client is an existing customer

Is the client an existing

customer?YES

Processor calls Check Systems to see if the client has any records

NO

Does the client have any records?

NO

Return the case to the FO and log the reason

for rejection and all other notes in System B

YES

System G generates an account number and the

processor e-mails the account number to the relationship manager initiating the request

Processor logs all notes in System B

Prints the clarified case and files the printed worksheet and case

Normally about 5 pages to be filed per new account request

Quality Control picks up the filed cases the

following morning for review

An average of 30-50 cases are received each day

System B

System A System BSystem G System G

Courier goes to the State Department and picks up all warrants and delivers them to

Vendor A

Vendor A scans all warrants and send the images and a customer

log to BOS

Item Processing sends an e-mail each morning providing all other state warrant and WIC check

images

Processors hand write GL tickets for each item

coming in from Item Processing

Processor fills out a deposit slip for each

warrant

The State Department sends notifications of any adjustments that

need to be made to the warrants

The processor types debit notification for the

funding of state warrants and WIC

checks

Are there any adjustment to

be made?YES

The processor hand writes GL tickets for

each of the adjustments

NO

All deposit slips and other GL tickets get sent

to Proof

The GL tickets are then sent to the GL

Adjustment Team for processing

An average of 30-75 warrants are received each day.

Typewriters are used to type all debit notifications.

New Account Review - Retail

Client Operations Function – Cash Reserves Process

Research

System F Imaging Team

Credit Center

Lost Card, Lost Checkbook, Transfer Cash Reserve from Earlier Checking Account to New Checking Account

Composing the email with the ‘copy and paste’ of the original email, the 11

screen shots of old and new account information, and the reason for transfer takes 12 minutes and occurs 5 times a

day.

New Accounts - Commercial

Canadian Deposits

Government

Non – Bank Financial InstitutionsCustomer Service Queue

No volume or productivity reporting exists for Government and Non-Bank Financial Institution deposit and withdrawal requests.

1

The entire Promontory spreadsheet is password protected. If cells need to be altered or fixed, only IT can fix it, sometimes up to a day later, delaying the customer request processing.

2

The Research team spends 10-15 minutes a day manually sorting through open case files in System B in order to perform their bi-weekly follow-up communication. This manual process diverts the Research teams attention away from primary task of processing requests.3

Front Office analysts assign the wrong case type to 5-10% of all requests coming from commercial customers. CSO Analysts take 2-3 minutes per error to return the case and explain the source of the error4

Front Office Analysts will sometimes group multiple cases from one client under one case number. When those errors happen, accuracy in volume tracking is hindered.

5

60% of the time the additional information tab in the System B case file for Cashier Check Requests are not filled out by the Front Office Analyst. BOS analysts spend an additional 1 minute fixing these incomplete case files.6

An average of 10 BOS analysts spend 30-60 minutes a day utilizing a typewriter to manually create debit and credit ticket receipts in order to send archaic carbon copies off to clients.

7

BOS receives Bank by Mail checks and must spend time reviewing them for accuracy before sending them to Proof a wasted effort as Bank by Mail checks do not require review.

8

Supervisors and Work Directors in BOS are spending 25% of their time on lower level front line tasks due to inadequate staffing and task alignment.

9

BOS supervisors are spending an average of 1 hour per day inputting and following up on employee time cards. This is a low value-add task diverting supervisors from team development and management.10

5% of all signature cards are not scanned in to System F by the branches. The System F Imaging Team spends an additional 4-6 hours per day scanning in the missed signature cards.11

10% of Shared Services KQI weekly reports sent to the branches have errors. The New Accounts Review teams spends an average of 3-5 hours in branch resolution communication for each erroneous report. 12

Some branches miss or come close to missing deadlines to correct new account errors flagged on the high priority exception report. One Processor on the New Accounts Team spends 30 minutes daily following-up with these branches.13

Each account package sent in to the New Account Team for review has duplicate confirmation pages. Each processor takes 5 sec per file to remove and shred these duplicate pages. 14

Branch and New Account Review supervisors perform duplicate Enhanced Due Diligence Process reviews. These redundant reviews take just the New Account supervisors 3-5 hours per day.15

Lack of communication for process changes lead to extended process implementation times.

16

There is no standard update/review process for the Standard Operations Manual. Reported errors may not be corrected for up to 6-12 months. Each New Account Review FTE spends an average of 30 minutes a week communicating with branches on errors derived from issues with the Standard Operations Manual. 17

20% of all cash account requests sent from branches to OCF are incorrect or incomplete. OCF processors spend an additional 2-3 minutes on each issue on "error e-mails" back to branch to correct the errors.18

80% of all welcome bonus requests coming in to OCF are due to erroneous codes being entered by the branches. OCF processors spend 2-3 minutes per welcome bonus request fixing these code errors. 19

1 FTE on the Commercial New Accounts Team spends 4-6 hours per day correcting field relationship managers' interest rate errors on new accounts.

20

The BOS Customer Service Team spends 1-2 hours per day hand writing deposit slips to send to Proof for processing. This manual, low value added process is being completed by 5 skilled processors.

21

Construct a daily plan versus actual approach and utilize management reports to control the work routine. 1

LP

Work from one new account file (preferably electronic) and seek to limit the manual copying of specific new account documents and adding to the hard copy file.

2LP

Create weekly activity report to track volumes and plan work3

LP

Create an integrated data warehousing repository which allows the easy transfer and sharing of data between department functions and systems.

4LP

Definitive service level agreements (SLAs) should be agreed upon and continuously monitored5

LPDevelop easily measurable, short-term production and quality metrics, such as documents scanned per hour, percentage of documents with errors, etc.

6LP

Ensure that image exchange systems include robust indexing and audit trail features, since there is no paper trail.7

LP

Ensure that there are adequate security controls to protect the imaging system and confidential customer information.

8LP

Ensure that newly-entered information is automatically updated in all related systems to eliminate redundant data entry and reduce the potential for errors.

9LP

Devise a checklist/procedure that mandates the way inbound documents have to be handled and includes the provision of signatures between staff in charge of different parts of the document control process.

10LP

Develop standards for classifying and routing incoming documents [e.g., complete/incomplete, simple/complex, internal/external, high/low priority, etc.].

11LP

Develop a role and responsibility chart that documents all tasks, responsibilities, and timeliness expectations for all steps of a process.

12LP

Achieve straight through processing for new business by replacing spreadsheets and manual processes for quoting, approval and new account setup using smart forms, automated workflow and integrated to back-end systems.

13LP

Converting legacy data to a newer system allows reporting to be more accurate and easy to reconcile, greatly reducing costs.

14LP

Meet to review the success of internal service level agreements in operation with upstream and downstream transitioning partners.

15LP

Post key service and productivity indicators for operations and update weekly with attainment percentages. Develop competitions between teams to achieve and exceed service and productivity targets consistently.

16LP

Ensure processes are documented and training is in place to maintain compliance and consistency17

LPRecognize individuals and teams in non-monetary ways, such as celebrating with department luncheons, team building events, contests and games, or community service projects as a team.

18LP

Reduce the time required to process transactions and address client inquiries by having all necessary information readily available with automated processes and systems.

19LP

All file material must be in chronological order. Discard all duplicate file material. Multiple volume files should be numbered.

20LP

Calculate unit costs daily for work items based on labor costs so all levels of managers have an immediate, bottom-line understanding of the impact of productivity swings.

21LP

Use materiality limits to reduce entry and account detail and manage time spent on small items. Correction of errors and adjustments, if immaterial, are done in the following month's reconciliation.

22LP

Develop standard capacity modeling and forecasting systems across all departments to increase accountability, determine proper staffing levels and improve resource sharing.

23LP

Document all processing and servicing routines across the organization for training purposes and operational consistency.

24LP

Emphasize employees' role in the business process with an understanding of upstream and downstream impacts instead of being task-oriented.

25LP

Ensure standardization of all inbound forms, documents, and data elements to allow for smooth work flow and to reduce the potential for error.

26LP

Excessive data checking and rechecking removes accountability from users and creates an atmosphere of "someone else will catch it." Assign clear quality standards and accountability for errors and follow up when errors occur.

27LP

Involve agents in continuous process improvement in a structured and results oriented fashion, such as focus groups.28

LP Perform random audits of documents/application packages as they come into a processing area to identify and quantify opportunities for data improvement.

31LP

Tier staffing levels to accommodate peak hours, days or weeks. Utilize seasonal, part-time and contract workers to avoid staffing to peak demand levels or overstaffing during lower demand times.

32LP

On almost all of the 3 to 4 daily new daily accounts, branches send the wrong code for opening the $50 account bonus. This creates 4 to 5 minutes rework for BOS once and the Branch twice.22

300 branches are unfamiliar with System G for the Cash Reserve Overdraft protection. About 5 times a day they unsuccessfully try e-forms to change the account, leading to 4 to 5 minutes rework each time.23

An ineffective project requirement documentation process without proper front-end accountability for senior management or analysts results in compressed back-end project cycle timelines.24

Resource constraints and poor technology testing environments slow the new product-to-market offerings. The perception is that senior management and retail do not appreciate these hurdles.25

There are analysts all over this company. Their true value-add and potential redundancies need to be assessed, hopefully eliminating silos and perceived "turf protection."

26

Without proper, consistent front-end projects requirements documentation, appropriate input and stakeholders only enter later in projects. This delays and extends project timelines.

27

There is poor documentation of processes and best practices as well as prior projects and enhancement. The lack of historical reference enables lost knowledge and repeated future errors.28

Defect management on major initiatives is disconnected as System Integration Testing (SIT) tests specific pieces instead of end to end processes, failing to find errors. A majority of end-to-end testing falls upon the small group at Defect Management who struggle to meet enterprise-wide workload demands.

29

The testing environment at ClientCo is not truly representative of the production environment, leaving less than optimal testing.

30

As UAT occurs across several teams at ClientCo, there is redundant testing occurring.

31

The Workbench QC tool has not been fully developed and implemented bank wide. Fragmented implementation results in a lack of continuity and contributes to the ongoing siloed environment of ClientCo.32

ClientCo uses a ghost system for pre-audits right now on the legacy applications that increases handle times and creates lengthy workarounds.

33

Up-front project business requirement documentation is often populated with "nice-to-have"s versus core requirements for base-level implementation. This increases the odds of ineffective execution, wasted effort and frustration.34

The UAT process remains very manual intensive, a costly and slower methodology.

35

August 20xx


Existing Data Assessment

23 © Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc.

Account Executives with Lower Net Sales Make Fewer Calls

Net Sales vs. Total Calls by Account Executives(August 2013 - March 2014)

0

500K

1000K

1500K

2000K

2500K

3000K

3500K

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Account Executives

Tota

l Net

Sal

es

Total Calls

Net Sales Total Calls


Key Opportunity Summaries

August 20xx

4 of XMonth Day, Year | Deliverable.Area.ClientCo.Initiative | © Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc.

Opportunity

Key Opportunity #1Process Improvement

1. Collect documentation, review and identify:

– Processes that could be improved, streamlined

– Low value add activities within processes

– Opportunities to improve processes/service based on interviews and observations

2. Perform gap analyses to determine:

– Any low value add activities/inefficiencies that cannot be changed [e.g., regulatory/risk related]

– Actions required to redesign processes

3. Form a cross-functional team charged with revising processes so that they are:

– Streamlined with minimized handoffs and no duplication of activities

– High value-added

– Cost effective

4. Rationalize and standardize processes through application of industry leading practices.

5. Identify and eliminate manual processes where automated tools are available. Prioritize others for future automation.

6. Test new processes [automated and manual aspects]:

– Measure and document efficiency and effectiveness of new processes

– Revise as necessary

7. Create and maintain documentation and “FAQ” tools, preferably on the intranet.

8. Designate a team or individuals to document and maintain revised process documentation and procedures.

• Expeditedissueresolution

• Additionalresourcesfreeduptoaddressissues

• Consistenthandlingof,andresponseto,processingneedsandbarriers

• Process,cycletimes

• Productivity-individualandarea

• Errortrackingbyareaandprocess

• Processingcosts

• Increasedproductivityandorganizationalcapacity

• Clearlydefinedoutcomesandoutputs

• Removalofhighlymanualandpaper-heavyprocesses

• Betteroverallunderstandingofcomplianceandregulationsaswellaschanges and updates

• Redesignandexecuteimprovementopportunitiesthathelpfixprocesses

• Initiatestepsandtoolstocorrectoperatingdisciplineinadequacies

• Eliminateworkaroundsand“creative”adaptationstoprocesseslacking straight through workflows

• Updateandutilizetheprocessmanualtohelpguidestaffunfamiliarwith the current and new processes

• Useandconstantlyupdatetheprocessmanualthathasbeenestablished in the organization. Review the manual after every major procedure change so that proper standards and processes are maintained

• Eliminatemanualentriestominimizereworkanderrorsduetohavingmultiple systems and inputs for the same information.

• Identifyandstandardizetheseworkaroundsacrossareastoleverageleading practices and align with long-term technology improvements and current employee skill set

Implementation Approach Target Benefits

1.017 1.041 1.050 1.051 1.075 1.085 1.089 1.109 1.156 1.162 1.163 2.012 2.021 2.022 2.028 2.029 2.030 2.031 2.045 2.046 2.054 2.066 2.071 2.076 2.093 2.094 2.095 2.101 2.102 2.136 2.137

Objective

Individual Improvements

Key Metrics

Customer Impact


…An Unconventional ‘Engineering/Construction’ Approach

Implementation, Phase II

Phase II resembles a construction project more than a conventional management consulting engagement.

Operational ‘change orders’ (PIRs) rapidly align hundreds of activities with customers’ top priorities and the most valuable sources of revenue. Lower-value tasks are eliminated or reduced.

Just like a construction project, progress is tangible and measurable daily.

Self-Funding Guarantee

The Lab guarantees that the financial benefits realized during the first full calendar year following the completion of the Implementation Phase will, at minimum, equal the ClientCo investment in related professional fees and expenses

If not, The Lab will continue working without charge until it does, or refund the difference.

Phase II: Implementation (Typically 6 months)

Establish a cycle: ‘Lather, rinse, repeat’

Optimization delivers remaining 50% of improvement benefit

‘Lock up’ gains; measure and continuously improve

Create, Refine Capacity Models

• Standard activities

• Unit productivity

• Workload forecasting

• Backlog management

Install Desk-Level Standards: ‘Placemats’

• Standardize desk-level tasks (Placemats)

• Tune up/add new metrics, e.g.,

– Ease of business

– Value (customer view)

– Revenue lift

Redesign Jobs, Organizations

• Job redesign:

– Job tasks, skills

– Performance goals

• Organization options:

– Resize

– Redeploy

Establish PIR Installation Cycle

• Implement change

• Limited ‘pilot’ scale

• Monitor; optimize

• Implement full scale

PLACEMAT1

23

Change Installation CycleJob Position and

Organization ChangeOperating Routines

and Reports

1Implement

‘Pilot Stage’ Process Change

3Refine End-to-End

‘Future State’ Processes; Scale up

2Optimize

Change with Capacity Model


Organizational Map

Month, Day, Year


Placemat

Month, Day, Year

September 24, 2013 | po.sgo.13.75.01.OrgChart.Poster | © Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. 1 of 3

Organizational Map

John DoeVice President

340 FTEs

Employee 1Director,

Business Leadership

Employee 6Manager

Employee 4Manager

Employee 10

Manager

Employee 11

Manager

Employee 12

Manager

Employee 13

Manager

Employee 14

Manager

Employee 15

Manager

Employee 16

Manager

Employee 17

Manager

Employee 7Manager

Employee 5Manager

Employee 18

Manager

Employee 19

Manager

Employee 20

Manager

Employee 21

Manager

Employee 8Manager

Employee 9Manager

Employee 3Director, Associated

Communications

Employee 2Director,

Shared Solutions

6 of 6Spring 20XX | po.E2E.ImpApproach.FSO1.Insurance | © Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc.

3. Work Products and Business Metrics

Work Products

• LifeApplications

• DisabilityProducts

• AnnuityProducts

• Broker/DealerInvestments

Business Metric Target

Volume (Agent productivity)

• 2.5to4.0Lifepoliciesissuedpermonth

Quality - % In Good Order:

• AgencyBaseline:20%withtargetat80%

• UWBaseline:73%withtargetat90%

Daily Staffing

Analyst Productivity

• 7-8applicationsperFTEperday

Unit Cost

• 35%reductionbasedonNOGOreductiontarget

Service - Cycle Time

• Reduce4-5daysofcycletimeforNOGOapplications

1. Overview: New Business Processing Key Activities by Participant

7. New Lean Visual Management Tools

Agents/Assistants

• Prospect• Contact• SelectProduct

– FactFind– Illustration– Quote(UWorXRAE)

• Selectcorrectform(s)• Complete/submitform• Follow-up

– AttendingPhysicianStatement(APS)and/orparamed

– NOGOs– Other(Payment,etc.)

New Business Analyst (NBA)

• Reviewsandscrubsapps– Quickfix– Agent-clientcontact

• Enterstrackinginto“mill”• Dataentersorscans/sends

apptooffshoredataentry• Postentryscrub• Sendstomgt.forreview• Trackmilldatatoclosecase

– Requirements(APS,etc.)– Bottlenecks(NOGO,etc.)– Notifications(Issued,etc.)

Agency Management

• Performssuitabilityreview– Clientneeds– Package– Accuracy

• Setsservicestandards• ProvidesreportstoAgents

– Issued-Not-Paid– Pending– NOGOs– Cycletime

• Trainsacrossgroupsonprocess

Underwriting/Shared Service

• ReviewforIGOanduploadsapplication

• Performlevel2analysisanddetailede-review

• Sendpersonalhistoryresults• RequestAPSifrequired• Follow-uponfinancial,

interview,examresults• NotifyNBAonNOGOs• Decide(ifdeclined,review

re-insuranceoption)• Issueordeclineandnotify

2. Average Agency Organization

New Business Support Agency staff Sales

Ops Manager

(1)

NewBusinessManager

(1)

NewBusiness Analyst

(5-7)

Agent Managers

(8)

Agents/ Producers

(120)

Personal Assistants

(60)

4. New Application Processing

Ag

en

cy

Pa

ram

ed

ica

l V

en

do

r

Off

sho

re

Gro

up

(I

nd

ia)

Un

de

rwri

tin

gS

ha

red

S

erv

ice

s

Agent Agency NBA

• Receiveapplications• PerformLifeapplicationScrubbing/processing

• IsApplicationNOGO?

Offshore Group (India)

• DataCollection• Review/ErrorReporting;IsitNOGO?

Underwriting

• ApplicationReview• IssueorDeclinePolicy• OrderandReviewAPS(ifnecessary)

Shared Services

• DistributionofPolicy to Agent

• Addresspayment• Reviewfor1035

Agency NBA

• Askedtocheckparamed?

Paramedical Vendor

• VendorSetsAppointment

• ParamedicalProcessing

Agency NBA

• ReviewSuitabilityandcheckifsuitable

Agency NBA

• Scandocuments• SubmitscantoOffshoreGroup

Agency NBA

• Check“Mill”for- Outstandingrequirements

- Decisionrequired- Issued-NotPaid

• Sendnotifications

Agency NBA (ACP)/Agent

• Collectadditionalpost-IssuerequirementsfromAgent/Client

No

Yes

YesYes

No No No Yes

Yes

Yes

No

5. Case Management Leading Practice Installation

Application Processing• Trainagentsandassts.oneFormsand

SmartOfficepre-population• RequireXRAEtoautomaterisk

assessment• Educateagentsandstaffonleading

practice illustration tools• SupportAPSresolutiontoissuecase

quickly• Expediteparamedschedulingandfollow-

up• UseNOGOpreventioninstructionplacemat• Remove“false”NOGOsthatcreaterework

The“Mill”TrackerandReportingTools• Rolloutstandardmillwithrequiredand

optionalfields• Createmillusageroutinestoreduce

NOGOsandcasecycletimes• CreateanddistributestandardIssued-Not-

PaidandPendingreports

Work Level Management and Performance Improvement Tools• Alignagentstoacross-trainedanalyst,with

aback-up• Consolidateactivitiestoonepositionto

reducerework• Segmentagentsbyperformancefor

targetedsupportlevel• IntroduceCapacityModel-work

forecastingtool• LinkMilltodailyhuddletohelpevenout

theworkamongstaff• Implementquarterlysurveytomeasure

satisfactionlevels

Agency-UnderwriterNotificationRoutines• NBAfollowupwithUWtoissue,whenno

outstandingrequirements• NBAfollowupwithagentonobtainingbank

draftdata,postissue• NBAfollowupwithagentonUWdecline

Capacity

Model

6. Standardized Agent Feedback - MOR Routine

NBAforwardsIssued-Not-PaidandPendingReportsfromUnderwritingtoSalesManagerwhomeetswithSalesAgent

NBAcompletesNOGOandcycletimeintracker.NBA/OperationsmanagersforwardreportstoSalesManager,whoreviewswithAgent

NBA, Sales Manager

NBA, NBA Manager, Sales Manager

Weekly

Monthly to Quarterly

Activty Accountable Frequency

Standard “Mill” Tracker

Case Manager Case Status Agent Name 1 GDC Split 1[Dollars]

Customer Name[Last Name, First Name]

Underwriter Name[Last Name, First Name] Case # Policy Origination Application Received

with Funds

Face Amount[Input Check or Transfer

for Annuity]Annual Premium

Line of Business[List "Other" in General

Comments]

Policy Type[List "Other" in General

Comments]

Policy Duration [Years - primarily for Term]

Date of Client Signature

Date Received in Agency

Date Released to Underwriting Date Case Issued IGO / NOGO General Comments

[Free Form Text]

Eileen Figueroa Agency Pending Simon, Daniel 557.00$ Soulouque, Pierre Smith 214026133 MetLife Initial Draft 100,000$ 893$ Annuity Term 15 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Courrejolles, Ivan 3,711.00$ Lopez, Lilian Smith 214025343 MetLife Check 500,000$ 3,286$ Annuity Whole 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGO add'l GLT20Jackie Litchmore Agency Pending Higgins, Glenrick 252.00$ Lawrence, Roan Smith 214026209 MetLife Initial Draft 500,000$ 442$ Annuity Term 20 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Higgins, Glenrick 165.00$ Lawrence, Jamar Smith 214026213 MetLife Initial Draft 25,000$ 282$ Life Whole 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGODaniela Rivera Agency Pending Share Brennan, Amy 184.00$ Lorenzo, Alberto Smith 214026241 MetLife None 500,000$ 204$ Life Term 10 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Cabrera, Ariel 1,625.00$ ZAMPIERI, ALDO Smith 214026250 MetLife Check 500,000$ 1,273$ Life Term 15 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGODaniela Rivera Agency Pending Palmer, Ted 1,985.00$ Perez, Phil Smith 214026514 MetLife None 1,000,000$ 3,009$ Broker Dealer Term 20 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOEileen Figueroa Agency Pending Price, Christopher 33,106.00$ Gomez, Ricardo Smith 214026776 MetLife None 5,004,000$ 32,370$ Broker Dealer MFFS 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGO add'l GLT20Ismaetha Emile Agency Pending Zhang, Janet Lu 1,443.00$ Sooknanan, Chris Smith 214026793 MetLife Initial Draft 1,000,000$ 1,443$ Broker Dealer Term 30 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGOEileen Figueroa Agency Pending Simon, Daniel 557.00$ Soulouque, Pierre Smith 214026133 MetLife Initial Draft 100,000$ 893$ Annuity Term 15 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Courrejolles, Ivan 3,711.00$ Lopez, Lilian Smith 214025343 MetLife Check 500,000$ 3,286$ Annuity Whole 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGO add'l GLT20Jackie Litchmore Agency Pending Higgins, Glenrick 252.00$ Lawrence, Roan Smith 214026209 MetLife Initial Draft 500,000$ 442$ Annuity Term 20 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Higgins, Glenrick 165.00$ Lawrence, Jamar Smith 214026213 MetLife Initial Draft 25,000$ 282$ Life Whole 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGODaniela Rivera Agency Pending Share Brennan, Amy 184.00$ Lorenzo, Alberto Smith 214026241 MetLife None 500,000$ 204$ Life Term 10 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Cabrera, Ariel 1,625.00$ ZAMPIERI, ALDO Smith 214026250 MetLife Check 500,000$ 1,273$ Life Term 15 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGODaniela Rivera Agency Pending Palmer, Ted 1,985.00$ Perez, Phil Smith 214026514 MetLife None 1,000,000$ 3,009$ Broker Dealer Term 20 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOEileen Figueroa Agency Pending Price, Christopher 33,106.00$ Gomez, Ricardo Smith 214026776 MetLife None 5,004,000$ 32,370$ Broker Dealer MFFS 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGO add'l GLT20Ismaetha Emile Agency Pending Zhang, Janet Lu 1,443.00$ Sooknanan, Chris Smith 214026793 MetLife Initial Draft 1,000,000$ 1,443$ Broker Dealer Term 30 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGOEileen Figueroa Agency Pending Simon, Daniel 557.00$ Soulouque, Pierre Smith 214026133 MetLife Initial Draft 100,000$ 893$ Annuity Term 15 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Courrejolles, Ivan 3,711.00$ Lopez, Lilian Smith 214025343 MetLife Check 500,000$ 3,286$ Annuity Whole 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGO add'l GLT20Jackie Litchmore Agency Pending Higgins, Glenrick 252.00$ Lawrence, Roan Smith 214026209 MetLife Initial Draft 500,000$ 442$ Annuity Term 20 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Higgins, Glenrick 165.00$ Lawrence, Jamar Smith 214026213 MetLife Initial Draft 25,000$ 282$ Life Whole 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGODaniela Rivera Agency Pending Share Brennan, Amy 184.00$ Lorenzo, Alberto Smith 214026241 MetLife None 500,000$ 204$ Life Term 10 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Cabrera, Ariel 1,625.00$ ZAMPIERI, ALDO Smith 214026250 MetLife Check 500,000$ 1,273$ Life Term 15 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGODaniela Rivera Agency Pending Palmer, Ted 1,985.00$ Perez, Phil Smith 214026514 MetLife None 1,000,000$ 3,009$ Broker Dealer Term 20 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOEileen Figueroa Agency Pending Price, Christopher 33,106.00$ Gomez, Ricardo Smith 214026776 MetLife None 5,004,000$ 32,370$ Broker Dealer MFFS 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGO add'l GLT20Ismaetha Emile Agency Pending Zhang, Janet Lu 1,443.00$ Sooknanan, Chris Smith 214026793 MetLife Initial Draft 1,000,000$ 1,443$ Broker Dealer Term 30 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGO

• ExpeditesCasetoIssue

NOGO and Cycle Time MOR

• Providesfeedbackonerroranddelayrootcauses

Service Level Surveys

• AssessesservicelevelattainmentusingQualtrax

• ReviewNOGOplacemat• Submitapplication• ReviewParamedplacemattocheckifParamedisrequired?

Detailed Instruction Sheets

• Providesbasicinstructionstosimplifyprocess

March 26, 2014© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc.

es.sgo1.13.32.09.Placemat.14032620 of 28

Placemat H-1: NOGO Prevention Guide for Standard Life Application

Page 1 Page 3 Page 4Policy Number

Application for Life InsuranceCompany (Check the appropriate ONE.) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company General American Life Insurance CompanyNew England Life Insurance Company MetLife Investors USA Insurance CompanyMetLife Investors Insurance CompanyThe Company indicated in this section is referred to as "the Company".

For Additional Insureds please complete the Additional Insureds Supplement form.First Name Middle Name Last Name

Permanent Address City State Zip

Country of Legal Residence Date of Birth E-Mail Address

Primary Phone Number Alternate Phone Number Preferred Time to Call From To Sex

Place of Birth Social Security or Tax ID Number Earned Annual Income Net Worth

U.S. Driver's License If not licensed, please indicate other form of ID: Passport Government Issued Photo ID Issuer of ID ID Number Issue Date (if any) Expiration Date (if any)

Name of Employer Employer City State Zip Position/Duties

NON U.S. CITIZENS ONLY - Country of Citizenship Green Card/Visa Type Expiration Date

Country of Permanent Residence ID Number Years in the U.S.

Complete ONLY if the Owner is NOT the Proposed Insured.OWNER - TRUST / BUSINESS ENTITY - Name of Entity Tax ID Number Trustee / Owner State

Trust Business Entity Charity Qualified Pension Plan Complete the appropriate required form(s).OWNER - OTHER INDIVIDUAL First Name Middle Name Last Name


Country of Legal Residence Citizenship Social Security or Tax ID Number Date of Birth Phone Number

E-Mail Address Earned Annual Income Net Worth Relationship to Proposed Insured

Please indicate form of ID: U.S. Driver's License Passport Government Issued Photo IDIssuer of ID ID Number Issue Date (if any) Expiration Date (if any)

Check if ownership should revert to Insured upon Owner and Contingent Owner’s deaths.

ENB-7-07-MA

SECTION II - About the Owner

SECTION I - About the Proposed Insured

AMPM PMAM FemaleMale

1 of 7

(07/07) eF

Does the Proposed Insured or Owner have any existing or applied for life insurance or annuities with this or any other company? Proposed Insured Yes NoOwner Yes NoIf YES, please provide details of any existing or applied for Life Insurance on the Proposed Insured only.

Company Amount of Insurance Year of Issue Status

Existing Applied ForApplied ForExistingExisting Applied ForExisting Applied For

In connection with this application, has there been, or will there be with this or any other company any: surrender transaction; loan; withdrawal; lapse; reduction or redirection of premium/consideration; or change transaction (except conversions) involving an annuity or other life insurance?

If YES, complete Replacement Questionnaire AND any other state required replacement forms or 1035 exchange forms.Yes No

If Proposed Insured is financially dependent on another individual, indicate individual providing support:Spouse Child Parent OtherAmount of insurance on individual providing support. Existing Insurance Insurance Applied ForIf Proposed Insured is a minor, are all siblings equally insured? Yes NoIf NO, please provide details:

PREMIUM PAYORProposed Insured Owner (If NOT the Proposed Insured.) Other (Complete the box below.)

Other Premium Payor Name Social Security or Tax ID Number Relationship to Proposed Insured or Owner

Reason this Person is the Payor


PAYMENT MODE (Check the appropriate ONE.) Billing Mode: Annual Semi-Annual QuarterlyMonthly Draft per Debit Authorization (See next page.)Monthly Draft per Existing Electronic Payment Number

Special Account: Government Allotment Salary Deduction List Bill If Special Account, provide Employer Group Number (EGN) or List Bill Number

INITIAL PAYMENT Method of Collection:Amount Collected with Application Initial Premium by Electronic Funds Transfer (Must be at least a monthly amount.)Check (Must be at least 1/12 of an annual premium.)

SOURCE OF CURRENT AND FUTURE PAYMENTS (Check ALL that apply.)Earned Income Savings LoansUse of Values in another Life Insurance/Annuity Contract Other

ENB-7-07-MA

Mutual Fund/Brokerage Account Money Market FundCertificate of Deposit

SECTION V - About Existing or Applied for Insurance

SECTION VI - About Payment Information

3 of 7

(07/07) eF

DEBIT AUTHORIZATION Available only if the bank account holder is the Owner and/or Proposed Insured. All others please complete the Electronic Payment (EP) Account Agreement form.The undersigned (“I”) hereby authorize the Company with whom I am completing this application to initiate debit entries through Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to the deposit account designated below, at the Financial Institution named below, using the Automated Clearing House. I authorize: 1. Monthly recurring debits; AND 2. Debits made from time to time, as I authorize. This authorization is to remain in full force and effect until the Company has received written notification from me of its termination at such time and in such manner as to afford the Company and the Financial Institution a reasonable opportunity to act on it.Monthly Debit Date: Issue Date of the PolicyDebit Date on the of each month

Bank Account Type: Checking Savings

Bank Routing Number Bank Account Number

Name of Financial Institution

Note: Please attach a voided check or deposit slip to Section IX - Additional Information.We cannot establish banking services from starter checks, cash management, brokerage, or mutual fund checks. We cannot establish banking services from foreign banks UNLESS the check is being paid in U.S. Dollars through a U.S. correspondent bank (the U.S. correspondent bank name must be on the check).

Use Section IX - Additional Information if necessary.

1. Within the past three years has the Proposed Insured flown in a plane other than as a passenger on a commercial airline or does he or she have plans for such activity within the next year? Yes No

If YES, please complete a separate Aviation Risk Supplement form for the Proposed Insured.2. Within the past three years has the Proposed Insured participated in or does he or she plan to participate in any of the following? Yes No Underwater sports - SCUBA diving, skin diving, or similar activities Racing sports - motorcycle, auto, motor boat or similar activities Sky sports - skydiving, hang gliding, parachuting, ballooning or similar activities Rock or mountain climbing or similar activities Bungee jumping or similar activities If YES, please complete a separate Avocation Risk Supplement form for the Proposed Insured.

3. Has the Proposed Insured traveled or resided outside the U.S. or Canada within the past two years; or does he or she plan to travel or reside outside the U.S or Canada within the next two years? NOTE: That a "YES" answer may result in higher rates or in a denial of coverage. If YES, please provide details.

Yes No

Past Future Duration (weeks) Cities and Countries Purpose

4. Has the Proposed Insured EVER used tobacco or nicotine products in any form (e.g., cigars, cigarettes, cigarillos, pipes, chewing tobacco, nicotine patches, or nicotine gum)? If YES, please provide details. Yes No

Product(s) Frequency / Amount Date Last Used

ENB-7-07-MA

SECTION VII - General Risk Questions

4 of 7

(07/07) eF

• CountryofResidence-MetLifeneedsthecountryandnotcounty.

• Preferredtimetocallshouldbefilledin(e.g.,4:00pmEST–8:00pmEST).

• PlaceofBirth–HomeOfficeneedsState.

• NameofEmployer-Ifnotemployedoutsidethehome,fillinchild,student,homemaker,retiredforthe“Positions/Duties”slot.

• Zipcodeforemployer.

• Earnedincomeandnetworth–Mustbeincludedforbothinsuredandownerifapplicable.

Page 2For additional Beneficiaries, use Section IX - Additional Information.Check here if the Owner is the Primary Beneficiary. For Primary or Contingent Beneficiaries who are NOT the Owner, complete the table below.

Beneficiary Type Name (First, Middle, Last) Date of Birth Relationship to Proposed Insured Social Security Number (Optional)

Percentage of Proceeds (if not equal)PrimaryPrimaryContingentPrimaryContingentCheck here to include all living and future natural or adopted children of the Proposed Insured as Contingent Beneficiaries. (Name all living children above.) If a Custodian is acting on behalf of a minor Beneficiary listed above, please use Co-Owner/Contingent Owner and UTMA Designations Supplement form. Federal law states that if someone with special needs has assets over $2,000, they may lose eligibility for government benefits.

Check the desired coverage(s).

Universal Life Variable Life Product Name

Face Amount*

Riders and Details

Coverage Continuation (UL only) Disability Waiver:Specified PremiumMonthly Deduction (VUL only)Death Benefit OptionDefinition of Life Insurance:Guideline Premium TestCash Value Accumulation TestPlanned PremiumYear 1Years 2 toYears to (UL only)

Whole LifeProduct Name

Face Amount*

Riders and Details

Disability WaiverDividend Options:Paid-Up AdditionsOther, please specify:

Automatic Premium Loan Requested

Term Life

Product Name

Face Amount*

Riders and Details

Disability Waiver:Convertible Non-Convertible

For a full list of riders and options, please consult with your Producer. Note: Some riders may require supplement forms to be completed. For Variable Life products, please complete the Variable Life Supplement form. * If Face Amount is equal to or exceeds $1,000,000, please complete the Personal Financial Information form.

ADDITIONAL OPTIONSOne Time (Single) Payment Amount 1035 Exchange Amount Requested Policy Date Save Age

POLICY OPTIONSAlternate Policy: Product, Face Amount and DetailsAdditional Policy: Product, Face Amount and DetailsGroup Conversion Only Group Conversion Alternative } Please complete the Group Conversion Supplement form for either choice.

ENB-7-07-MA

SECTION IV - About Proposed Coverage

SECTION III - About the Beneficiary / Beneficiaries

2 of 7

(07/07) eF

• PlanofInsurance–ForTermplans,specifynumberofyears,10,15,20,30.

• PlanofInsurance–EVUL,HomeOfficeneedsdeathbenefitoption,definitionoflifeinsurance,plannedpremium(modalpremium).

• PlanofInsurance–GAUL,needsdeathbenefitoption,definitionoflifeinsurance,plannedpremium(annualamount),#ofyearspayableandsubsequentpremiumamount.

• Ifgroupconversionorgroupconversionalternative,markappropriateboxandfilloutGroupConversionSupplement.

• SectionV,existingorappliedforinsurance-confirmbothinsuredandownerboxesaremarked.

• Provideamountofinsuranceandyearofissue,markboxforexistingorappliedfor.

• Iftheproposedinsuredisfinanciallydependentonanotherindividual,filloutthegraybox(homemaker,child,etc.).

• SectionVI–Markboxforpremiumpayer.

• SectionVI–Ifchoosinginitialpremiumbyelectronicfunds,youmustfillin“amountcollectedwithapplication.”

• Iftheapplicanthasanexistingorpreviouspolicythatneedstobeexchangedorreplaced,verifytheappropriateboxischeckedandreplacementquestionnaireisfilledout.

• DebitAuthorization–Markboxforeitherissuedateorspecifydebitdatefordraft,checkboxforeithercheckingorsavings.HomeOfficeneedsavoidcheck(willnotacceptdepositslip).

• DebitAuthorization-Ifaccountholderisotherthantheinsuredorowner,aseparateEPformmustbecompletedandsignedbytheaccountholder.

• SectionVII-Ensurecustomerunderstandsquestions,andanswerstheriskquestionscorrectly.Ifanyanswersare“Yes”,donotforgettofillouttheaviationandavocationsupplementaryforms.

Note: Utilized for Case Management Initiative #9

Issued-Not-Paid Report

Offer Made Data Provided: 21-‐MarIssued Not Paid Data Provided: 21-‐Mar

Office ARIZONA FIN ASSOC

Agent Count Premium $ Avg of Days Since Issue/Offer Outstanding Reqs Insured Name Underwriter Rating ClassDAVID TELLES

ISSUED -‐ NOT PAID 1 $24,659 9 0214017902 1 $24,659 9 0 HOFFPAUIR, EDGAR KATHY GARCIA ELITE/PREF PLUS

OFFER MADE 2 $6,028 8 6214023267 1 $4,269 2 3 WILLIAM CHILDERS KASIE FREAUF -‐214023200 1 $1,759 13 3 MAGDALENA CHILDERS KASIE FREAUF -‐

AARON KHAFIOFFER MADE 1 $21,376 1 3

214018545 1 $21,376 1 3 MEIR GUL KATHY GARCIA -‐

PAUL MCGHIEISSUED -‐ NOT PAID 1 $10,699 4 0

214017919 1 $10,699 4 0 REYNOLDS, PATRICK KATHY GARCIA RATED

THOMAS BROOKSOFFER MADE 2 $8,933 11 8

214019299 1 $6,904 9 5 ROBERT KINGSBURY MARSHA FOX -‐214019307 1 $2,029 13 3 TRACEY KINGSBURY MARSHA FOX -‐

JOHN JACOBSOFFER MADE 1 $8,839 17 3

213230102 1 $8,839 17 3 PAUL GUESS MICHAEL BAUCOM -‐

ROBERT SHULTSISSUED -‐ NOT PAID 2 $2,981 15 0

214011079 1 $2,578 23 0 MEALEY, TEDDY CHRISTINA HENDERSON RATED214022414 1 $403 7 0 SHIPLEY, BARBARA KASIE FREAUF STANDARD

OFFER MADE 4 $5,515 3 9214020497 1 $2,364 6 2 EUTIMIO SCHAMBER JENNIFER HALSO -‐214019962 1 $2,145 3 3 THOMAS CONRAD KATHY GARCIA -‐214029168 1 $514 2 2 CASHAE DAVIS JACKIE LAI -‐214029158 1 $493 1 2 JAMAL COOPER JACKIE LAI -‐

HOWARD RUBINISSUED -‐ NOT PAID 1 $2,400 28 0

214014406 1 $2,400 28 0 RIDGES, BRADLEY KASIE FREAUF STANDARDOFFER MADE 5 $5,795 6 13

214027094 1 $2,765 3 5 MACARIO GALVAN CHRISTINA HENDERSON -‐214027095 1 $1,249 7 2 JACLYN GALVAN CHRISTINA HENDERSON -‐214029152 1 $672 6 2 HUNTER LIKINS KATHY GARCIA -‐214029160 1 $566 6 2 JERA LIKINS KATHY GARCIA -‐214029154 1 $543 6 2 KAYA LIKINS KATHY GARCIA -‐

ALFRED MATT JR.OFFER MADE 4 $7,520 14 8

214018624 1 $2,207 23 2 KEN BEVINS JACKIE LAI -‐214018647 1 $2,114 15 2 RICHARD MATTHEWS KATHY GARCIA -‐214027904 1 $1,639 3 2 MARIN FILIP JACKIE LAI -‐214018671 1 $1,560 13 2 LU ANN MATTHEWS KATHY GARCIA -‐

JENNIE LAMISSUED -‐ NOT PAID 1 $759 3 0

214021925 1 $759 3 0 NGUYEN, BICHTHUY JACKIE LAI STANDARDOFFER MADE 4 $6,471 13 13

214007995 1 $4,968 1 4 LAN NGUYEN CHRISTINA HENDERSON -‐214012595 1 $784 2 3 DIEM-‐TRANG TRAN MARSHA FOX -‐214012591 1 $607 36 3 TOAN NGUYEN MARSHA FOX -‐214019977 1 $112 13 3 TONY TRAN JENNIFER HALSO -‐

RYAN GREEN

Outstanding Applications: Offer Made & Issued Not Paid

• ExpeditesIssuedCasestoPay

Capacity Model-MOR

Area: New Business Analysts 3/28/14

Loc Los Angeles 3/10/14

Mgr The Lab

Emp 12

Dates Jan 2014 - Dec 2014

ACT. NO. ACTIVITY UNIT OF MEASURE FREQUENCY VOLUME DAILY

VOLUME KVI TIME [mins]

STD HOURS

% OF STD HOURS ACTIVITY COMMENT

1. Annuities application processing and scrubbing Application Monthly 50 2.37 1.Yes 5.50 0.22 1%

2. Annuity: Reading/responding to case message Case Message Monthly 499 23.74 Non-KVI 1 1.77 0.70 4%

3. Annuity: Live communication with Agent/ UW [Proprietary] Call/ Discussion Monthly 25 1.19 Non-KVI 1 2.58 0.05 0%

4. Annuity: NOGO research Item Monthly 46 2.21 Non-KVI 1 3.22 0.12 1%

5. Annuity: NOGO related communication Item Monthly 46 2.21 Non-KVI 1 1.97 0.07 0%

6. Annuity: Notify agent on cases paid/ placed Application Monthly 50 2.37 Non-KVI 1 1.00 0.04 0%

7. Annuity: Submit and Coordinate Suitability Review Application Monthly 40 1.90 Non-KVI 1 3.90 0.12 1%

8. Annuity -‐ Check logging onto AOC -‐ Inbound Checks Monthly 5 0.24 Non-KVI 1 2.57 0.01 0%

9. Faxing/Imaging pages back into the case if missing Application Monthly 7 0.33 Non-KVI 1 17.50 0.10 1%

10. Annuity -‐ Processing of AOC -‐ Inbound Checks Monthly 200 9.52 Non-KVI 1 12.50 1.98 12%

11. Life Application -‐ processing and scrubbing Application Monthly 185 8.83 2.Yes 10.37 1.53 9%

12. Life Application: Reading/ responding to case message Case Message Monthly 2782 132.48 Non-KVI 2 1.73 3.83 23%

13. Life Application: Live communication with Agent/ UW [Proprietary] Call/ Discussion Monthly 185 8.83 Non-KVI 2 2.58 0.38 2%

14. Order Paramedical Item Monthly 93 4.42 Non-KVI 2 2.28 0.17 1%

15. Paramedical Follow-‐up Call/ Discussion Monthly 185 8.83 Non-KVI 2 2.45 0.36 2%

16. APS Follow-‐up Call/ Discussion Monthly 121 5.74 Non-KVI 2 5.70 0.55 3%

17. Preliminary Applications Application Monthly 9 0.44 Non-KVI 2 2.00 0.01 0%

18. Life: Case Scanning and Submission Application Monthly 278 13.25 Non-KVI 2 5.25 1.16 7%

19. Life: Check item in scan and image bin Application Monthly 278 13.25 Non-KVI 2 2.57 0.57 3%

20. Life: Check if issued cases are paid Application Monthly 0 0.00 Non-KVI 2 0.33 - 0%

21. Life: NOGO research Item Monthly 93 4.42 Non-KVI 2 3.22 0.24 1%

22. Life: NOGO related communication Item Monthly 93 4.42 Non-KVI 2 1.97 0.14 1%

23. Life: GOSC red/green edit resolution Item Monthly 93 4.42 Non-KVI 2 1.00 0.07 0%

24. Life: Mill Data Input and Application Tracking Item Monthly 185 8.83 Non-KVI 2 1.78 0.26 2%

25. Life: Print and file cases paid/ placed Application Monthly 185 8.83 Non-KVI 2 1.00 0.15 1%

26. Life Suitability Review Application Monthly 185 8.83 Non-KVI 2 3.90 0.57 3%

27. Life check scanning and depositing -‐ Inbound Checks Monthly 176 8.39 Non-KVI 2 2.57 0.36 2%

28. Disability Application processing and scrubbing Application Monthly 2 0.11 3.Yes 20.00 0.04 0%

29. DI: Data Collection Case Message Monthly 2 0.11 Non-KVI 3 10.00 0.02 0%

30. DI: Reading/ responding to case message Call/ Discussion Monthly 34 1.61 Non-KVI 3 1.73 0.05 0%

31. DI: Live communication with Agent/ UW [Proprietary] Call/ Discussion Monthly 2 0.11 Non-KVI 3 2.58 0.00 0%

32. DI: NOGO research Item Monthly 0 0.01 Non-KVI 3 1.00 0.00 0%

33. DI: NOGO related communication Item Monthly 0 0.00 Non-KVI 3 1.97 - 0%

34. DI: Suitability review Application Monthly 2 0.11 Non-KVI 3 3.90 0.01 0%

35. DI: Pring and file cases paid/ placed Application Monthly 2 0.11 Non-KVI 3 1.00 0.00 0%

36. DI: Check scanning and depositing Checks Monthly 1 0.03 Non-KVI 3 2.57 0.00 0%

37. Brokerage Application Processing and Scrubbing Application Monthly 57 2.74 4.Yes 3.50 0.16 1%

38. B-‐D Nogo Research Item Monthly 29 1.37 Non-KVI 4 1.00 0.02 0%

39. BD: Reading/ responding to case message Case Message Monthly 287 13.68 Non-KVI 4 1.73 0.40 2%

40. BD: Live communication with Agent/ UW [Proprietary] Call/ Discussion Monthly 115 5.47 Non-KVI 4 2.58 0.24 1%

41. Brokerage NOGO communication Call/ Discussion Monthly 29 1.37 Non-KVI 4 1.07 0.02 0%

42. Brokerage Suitability Review Application Monthly 57 2.74 Non-KVI 4 1.78 0.08 0%

43. Brokerage -‐ check scanning and depositing -‐ Inbound Checks Monthly 57 2.74 Non-KVI 4 2.57 0.12 1%

44. B-D: Log sheet tracking and reporting Application Monthly 57 2.74 Non-KVI 4 5.00 0.23 1%

45. Third Party Application Processing and scrubbing Application Monthly 30 1.41 5.Yes 5.45 0.13 1%

46. Third Party NOGO Research Item Monthly 15 0.70 Non-KVI 5 3.22 0.04 0%

47. Third Party NOGO Communication Item Monthly 15 0.70 Non-KVI 5 1.97 0.02 0%

48. Third Party Application Submission Application Monthly 30 1.41 Non-KVI 5 5.25 0.12 1%

49. Third Party B-‐D and VA Suitability Review Application Monthly 30 1.41 Non-KVI 5 3.90 0.09 1%

50. Term Conversions [Data Collection] Application Monthly 10 0.48 6.Yes 10.00 0.08 0%

51. Policy Change [Data entry] Application Monthly 10 0.48 7.Yes 10.00 0.08 0%

52. Generation of eLeads Application Daily 2 2.00 8.Yes 15.00 0.50 3%

53. Research of eLead polciies Application Daily 4 4.00 Non-KVI 8 10.00 0.67 4%

16.9

2.4

KVI 1: Annuities application processing and scrubbing 3.4

86.3

8.8

KVI 2: Life Application - processing and scrubbing 10.3

70.3

0.1

KVI 3: Disability Application processing and scrubbing 0.1

64.2

2.7

KVI 4: Brokerage Application Processing and Scrubbing 1.3

27.7

1.4

KVI 5: Third Party Application Processing and scrubbing 0.4

17.2

0.5

KVI 6: Term Conversions [Data Collection] 0.1

10.0

0.5

KVI 7: Policy Change [Data entry] 0.1

10.0

2.0

KVI 8: Generation of eLeads 1.2

35.0

Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 4: Brokerage Application Processing and Scrubbing

Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 2: Life Application - processing and scrubbing

Daily Hours Required by KVI 3

Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 5: Third Party Application Processing and scrubbing

Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 7: Policy Change [Data entry]

Daily Hours Required by KVI 6Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 6: Term Conversions [Data

Collection]

Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 3: Disability Application processing and scrubbing

Daily Hours Required by KVI 4Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 4: Brokerage Application

Processing and Scrubbing

Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 6: Term Conversions [Data Collection]

Daily Hours Required by KVI 5Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 5: Third Party Application

Processing and scrubbing

ACTIVITY LIST - New Business Analysts

Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 2: Life Application - processing and scrubbing

Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 3: Disability Application processing and scrubbing


Revised Date:

Date Compiled:

Compiled By:

Total Daily Hours RequiredDaily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 1: Annuities application processing and

scrubbing

Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 1: Annuities application processing and scrubbing


Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 8: Generation of eLeads


Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 7: Policy Change [Data entry]


Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 8: Generation of eLeads

• Providesagencystaffforecastingtool

• FactFindingandCaseDesign

•Use XRAE for risk, price estimate

3 of 39March 25, 2014

© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc.

es.sgo1.13.32.09.Bridge.Agency.140325

Reporting Provides Visibility on an Individual Level, Showing Variance between Agents

NOGO Rates Vary between Agency Sales Directors (ASD), Ranging from 33% to 60%

New Business Life Application Tracking Shows High Level Root Cause Error Areas Driving NOGOs

Life Application NOGO Rate by Agents Reporting to Robert Piscatelli(Feb. 3 - Mar. 21, 2014)

Bridge Financial Life Application NOGO Error Detail(Feb. 3 - Mar. 21, 2014)

Bridge Financial Life Application Tracker Raw Data(Feb. 3 - Mar. 21, 2014)

Life Application NOGO Rate by ASD(Feb. 3 - Mar. 21, 2014)

Bridge Financial: MetLife Proprietary Life Application Tracking

Raw Data Tracker Allows for Simple Filtering by Agency Sales Director and Specific Agent to Identify Detail behind NOGOs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Piscatelli, Robert No Manager Kliss, Elena Begun, Robert

Num

ber

of A

pp

licat

ions

ASD

2133%

4267%

1739%

2761%

2760%

1840%

3251%

63 44 4563

3149%

NOGO

IGO

0

3

6

9

12

15

Fiore,Braken A

Francis Jr.,Robert Eros

Stuart,Diane

Howe,Philip

Banks,Keith

Vitale,Peter

Viglione,Francis

Rafferty,Thomas

Alberico,Matthew J

Perinelli,Michael J

Rozzi,Matthew

Num

ber

of A

pp

licat

ions

Agent

750%

327%

873%

120%

480%

3100% 2

100%

480% 1

20%1

100%1

100%1

100%1

100%1

100%

750%

11 5 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 114

NOGO

IGO

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Err

or C

ount

Application Section/Location

Total = 96 Errors

27

20

17

14

6

4 43 1

28%

21%

18%

15%

6%

4% 4%3% 1%

SupplementalForms

Section V:About Existingor Applied for

Insurance

Section IV:About Proposed

Coverage

Section I:About Proposed

Insured

Section III:About the

Beneficiary

Section VI: Payment

Information

Section VII: General Risk Questions

Section VIII: PersonalPhysician

Section II:About the

Owner

Note: Part of Brooklyn office tracking files missing from last two weeks of data

Source: New Business Life Application tracker





PlacematAgency Support Group

Agent

ClientCo


Summary Descriptions of The Lab’s Standard Tools

Internal Perceptions Interviews (IPI)

Interviews with senior managers and line staff document internal perceptions of customer needs, current performance and perceived improvements.

Existing Data & Benchmark Assessment

Reviews existing reports and previous analysis to identify gaps and avoid costly redundancy. Operating and organizational comparisons set improvement goals.

Business Process Mapping

Large-scale diagrams of business processes identify improvements and create a common understanding of complex end-to-end work flows.

Customer Value Model (CVM)

Compares the priorities of customers to the service levels provided. Identifies ways to reduce over-service and mis-service.

Business Case & Implementation Plan

Outlines the improvement plan and details the costs and benefits. Includes a cash flow model, timetable and milestones.

Improvements/ Best Practices

A database of all improvement opportunities showing links to best practices, organizational areas, root causes and more.

Phase I Analytical Tools

Standard and Flexible

The Phase I effort uses six standard tools to evaluate operations, identify improvements and quantify benefits.

This selection of tools is preliminary and can be adjusted during the first week, if necessary.


1 Representative examples: Scope can vary significantly based on project size.

Typical Phase I Timeline and Output Documents

Internal Perceptions Interview Findings

• 25-35 interviews1

• Confidential

• Summary document

• 25-30 pages

Business Case, Implementation Plan

• Executive summary

• Implementation plan

• Costs/benefits

• Cash flow plan

• 10-15 pages

‘Current-State’ Process Maps

• Wall-sized maps

• Color hard copies

• E-copies (Visio)

• 6-8 processes1

Analytical Findings Documents

• Existing Data Assessment

• Benchmarks

• Customer Value Model

• Financial analysis

• 20-40 pages or more

Improvements/ Best Practices

• Hard copy booklet

• Database

• Improvements (100s)1

• 50-60 pages or more

Week Nos. 3-6Week Nos. 1-2 Week Nos. 7-8

Findings and Documentation: Phase I

Continuous Output

The Phase I analytical activities deliver findings and output documents throughout the A&D effort. Clients monitor progress and collaborate on the design of the improvement plan


1 Applicable for projects covering a total of 250–600 employees.

2 Process Map Fair—a group review of maps.

Week TwoWeek One Week Three Week Four Week Five Week Six Week Seven Week Eight

Wo

rk A

cti

vit

ies

Cli

en

t T

ime

20 1.0

20

20 1.0

20 20

10 2.0

24

12 2.0

24

12 2.0

16

8 2.0

16

8 2.0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Description

Client staff involved

Total client hours (per week)

LogisticsStartup

InterviewsData Analysis

Process MapsCurrent State

OtherAnalysis

ImprovementsWork Plans

Business CaseFinancials

Final PresentationImplementation Plan

Staff involvement (Hours each)

60

0.3200

MAP FAIR2

Week-by-Week Work Plan Detail1

Phase I Work Plan; Minimal Client Time Required

More Templates, Less Time

The Lab’s templates reduce the time required from clients to develop findings and documentation.

The Analysis and Design phase includes seven groups of work activities designed to use the client’s time both frugally and effectively.


1 Applicable for projects covering a total of 250–600 employees.

Client Participation Tasks, Time Requirements1

Conduct Interviews, Existing Data Analysis

(Total hours: 40-50)

Finalize Implementation Plan(Total hours: 20-40)

Week One Week Two Week Three Week Four Week Five Week Six Week Seven Week Eight

Map Business Processes, Develop Findings and Validate Improvements

(Total hours: 100-150)

Phase I: Client Activities – Description

Brief Access vs. Duration

Brief, informal access to clients is far more valuable than lengthy periods of contributed time.

In Phase I, client-participants contribute their time in brief increments, typically in sessions lasting less than 60 minutes.

Internal Perception Interviews

• 45-60 minutes each

• 25-35 individuals

• Informal, confidential

• Semi–structured

Existing Data Assessment

• Organizational charts

• Prior analysis

• Existing process maps

Process Map Development (3 steps)

1. First Draft – Two-hour session per map develops ‘skeleton’ work flow (1-2 client staff)

2. Refine/Validate – Multiple, brief reviews add detail (15-30 minutes each review)

3. Map Fair – Half-day, open invitation, group validation of maps and improvements

Other Analysis (30-minute segments, maximum)

• Data gathering, observations

• Findings review and validation

• Improvement identification; work planning

Financial, Operational Benefits

• Financial validation

• ROI calculations

• Performance goals

• Timeline, Milestones

Implementation Planning

• Resource needs

• Sponsorship

• Launch prep


Multiple Objectives — Six-Month ‘Break-Even’ Point

Labor Savings

Achieve and sustain 10-25% labor savings

Revenue Productivity

Increase uptime percentage (selling tasks) for producers

Service Improvement

Reduce customer over-service

Operational Standardization

Limit needless variation and one-off methods

Organizational Redesign

Align capacity with workload and service demands

12-month payback: Typically 2-5x cost

Project break-even(The Lab is complete)

Maximumout-of-pocket

Implementation Month

Improvement Objectives Most Projects ‘Self-Fund’ by Month 6

Implementation Objectives and Payback

Typical Milestones

Each work plan is unique, but several characteristics are common to every implementation:

• Rapid completion (6 months or less)

• Rapid break-even (6 months or less)

• Substantial payback (2–5x by month 12)

Analysis (I)Suggests how to develop the

sponsorship and project design needed for a successful Phase I Analysis


Five Critical Aspects of Sponsorship and Project Design

Phase I Success: Sponsorship and Project Design

Similar Objectives: The Lab and Clients

Once the Phase I initiative begins, The Lab and clients share similar objectives:

• Frugal scope

• Moderate costs

• Rapid completion

• Credible findings

• Valuable improvement

Sponsor Commitment

Valuable ‘Red Issue’

Efficient Scope

Low-Risk Terms

Minimal ‘Red Tape’

The executive who ‘owns’ the organization(s) in scope must actively support the initiative throughout (p. 27)

The initiative must target an issue that delivers compelling business benefits that appeal to senior executives (p. 26)

The effort must deliver a valuable business case and avoid excessive analysis (Frugal Analytical Footprint, p. 29)

The terms of the proposal must eliminate (or minimize) client risk (early out options, checkpoints, p. 13)

Administrative tasks cannot delay the progress of the Phase I team (See checklist, p. 30)

Sponsorship

Project Design


Efficient Scope: Frugal Analytical Footprint – Example

Representative Organization: 21 Sites; 12,600 EmployeesCollaborative Design

The Frugal Analytical Footprint is developed collaboratively with client management during a brief meeting – the Analysis Design Workshop (ADW). See next page.

Five sites provide broad coverage of core businesses, functions and processes.

After core processes have launched, visits to selected sites test for exceptions.

During Phase I, specialty operations are analyzed on an as-needed basis.

Core Analysis 5 Sites: 66%

Exception Testing 9 Sites: 30%

As-Needed Analysis 7 Sites: 4%

Employees . . . . . . 8,383

Percentage . . . . . . 66%

Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,798

Percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30%

Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479

Percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%

2,72

8

2,14

0

1,24

0

1,09

2

683

845

664

569

509

362

319

226

183

121

132

101

97 68 39 22 18


The Analysis Design Workshop (ADW)

No Client Expense

T he Lab conducts the ADW at its own expense. There is no obligation to proceed. Clients are free to use any output documents, work plans or prioritization templates provided and developed during the session.

A Brief Meeting (60-90 minutes) Designs a Frugal Phase I Scope

Objective: Jointly Design an Efficient Phase I Scope, the Most Frugal Analytical Footprint

The Client Provides…Useful data on hand

• Existing organization chart(s)

• Organizational demographics

– Locations

– Employee headcount

Organization Charts: Locations, Employees

The Lab Provides…Relevant templates on hand

• Previous, successful ‘footprints’

• Ideas to take advantage of

– Scale (organizations)

– Repetition (operations)

Frugal Analytical Footprint

Spreadsheet

SpreadsheetClient NAME JOB TITLE Hierarchy Group Role Hierarchy Function Base Role True Pod Name DEPARTMENT NameJohn Doe Vice President VP and Above Enterprise, Segment Vice President Business Services Vice President Associate Experience Center Business Services AdministrationEmployee 1 Director Directors Director Aviation Director Associate Experience Center Business Services AdministrationEmployee 2 Process Owner Directors Director Business Services Process Owner Associate Experience Center Business Services AdministrationEmployee 3 Process Owner Directors Director Business Services Process Owner Associate Experience Center Business Services AdministrationEmployee 4 Coordinator Non-‐Exempt Administrative Support Administrative Services Coordinator Human Resources HR LeadershipEmployee 5 Process Owner Directors Director Human Resources Process Owner Associate Experience Center Business Services AdministrationEmployee 6 Manager Mgrs/People Ldrs Manager Business Services Manager Associate Experience Center Workplace Solutions

Employee 7 Maintenance Leader Mgrs/People Ldrs Manager Aviation Maintenance LeaderAssociate Experience Center Av OpsEmployee 8 Analyst Ind. Contributors Staff Aviation Analyst Associate Experience Center Av OpsEmployee 9 Process Manager Mgrs/People Ldrs Manager Business Services Process ManagerGovernment Business IHO-‐Facilities Management-‐SCEmployee 10 Pilot Leader Mgrs/People Ldrs Manager Aviation Pilot Leader Associate Experience Center Av OpsEmployee 11 Process Manager Mgrs/People Ldrs Manager Business Services Process ManagerAssociate Experience Center Corporate ProcurementEmployee 12 Process Manager Mgrs/People Ldrs Manager Business Services Process ManagerAssociate Experience Center Travel and Meeting PlanningEmployee 13 Manager Mgrs/People Ldrs Manager Business Services Manager Associate Experience Center Workplace SolutionsEmployee 14 Process Manager Mgrs/People Ldrs Manager Business Services Process ManagerAssociate Experience Center Corporate ProcurementEmployee 15 Process Manager Mgrs/People Ldrs Manager Business Services Process ManagerAssociate Experience Center Corporate ProcurementEmployee 16 Manager Mgrs/People Ldrs Manager Business Services Manager Associate Experience Center Workplace SolutionsEmployee 17 Analyst Ind. Contributors Staff Aviation Analyst Associate Experience Center Av OpsEmployee 18 Process Manager Mgrs/People Ldrs Manager Business Services Process ManagerAssociate Experience Center Corporate ProcurementEmployee 19 Process Manager Mgrs/People Ldrs Manager Business Services Process ManagerAssociate Experience Center Corporate ProcurementEmployee 20 Manager Mgrs/People Ldrs Manager Business Services Manager Associate Experience Center Workplace SolutionsEmployee 21 Process Manager Mgrs/People Ldrs Manager Business Services Process ManagerAssociate Experience Center Corporate ProcurementEmployee 22 Process Manager Mgrs/People Ldrs Manager Business Services Process ManagerAssociate Experience Center Corporate ProcurementEmployee 23 Manager Mgrs/People Ldrs Manager Business Services Manager Associate Experience Center Workplace SolutionsEmployee 24 Manager Mgrs/People Ldrs Manager Business Services Manager Associate Experience Center Workplace SolutionsEmployee 25 Consultant Ind. Contributors Practitioner Business Services Consultant Associate Experience Center Travel and Meeting Planning

September 24, 2013 | po.sgo.13.75.01.OrgChart.Poster | © Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. 1 of 3

Organizational Map

John DoeVice President

340 FTEs

Employee 1Director,

Business Leadership

Employee 6Manager

Employee 4Manager

Employee 10

Manager

Employee 11

Manager

Employee 12

Manager

Employee 13

Manager

Employee 14

Manager

Employee 15

Manager

Employee 16

Manager

Employee 17

Manager

Employee 7Manager

Employee 5Manager

Employee 18

Manager

Employee 19

Manager

Employee 20

Manager

Employee 21

Manager

Employee 8Manager

Employee 9Manager

Employee 3Director, Associated

Communications

Employee 2Director,

Shared Solutions

1 of XMonth Day, Year | Deliverable.Area.ClientCo.Initiative | © Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc.

2,72

8

2,14

0

1,24

0

1,09

2

683

845

664

569

509

362

319

226

183

121

132

101 97 68 39 22 18

Frugal Analytical Footprint

Organizational Map


Valuable ‘Red Issues’: Attract Executive Sponsors

The Lab’s Initiatives Target ‘Red Issues’A Critical Role

Initiatives that fail to target substantive progress on senior executives’ ‘Red Issues’ are unable to garner the resources and sponsorship ‘share of mind’ essential for successful change.

• Customers demand conflicting objectives

– Higher service; lower costs

• Revenue producers impeded by administrative obstacles

• Accrued inefficiencies from multiple, prior acquisitions

• Persistent operational risk

• Successful automation, but shortfall in benefits

Representative Examples of Red Issues

Dissatisfaction with Status QuoHigh Stakes Payoff

• Market or competitive gain

• Structural cost change

• Revenue lift

• Customer experience gain

• Insufficient progress to date

• Time is of the essence

• Internal views: conflicted

Red Issue Characteristics


Two Broad Types of Scope, One Role for Sponsors

Committed Sponsorship: Essential for Initiative Success

Sponsor Positioning

Sponsors who launch Phase I efforts as a ‘call to action’ realize more improvements and benefits. Phase I should never be positioned as ‘analysis only.’

Targets an entire business line or enterprise.

Targets a high-payback, firm-wide process across multiple organizational groups;

• Quote-to-Cash

• Branch Networks

– Retail

– Production

Targets one or more clearly defined organizations (line, staff or both) within a business:

• Finance Group

• Contact Center(s)

• Operations

• Field Sales

• Marketing

Business-Driven Scope

Function-Driven Scope

Strong sponsorship must be demonstrated to the organization throughout the effort:

• Authorize; fund the initiative

• Announce, endorse the effort

• Review findings; take a position

• Encourage progress; set goals

• Discourage ‘analysis paralysis’

Sponsor’s Role


Receiving Administrative ‘Red Tape’ Delay

Preparations for Phase I, Prior to On-Site WorkQuick Start

Rapid completion of administrative tasks helps keep the Phase I Initiative on schedule.

The Lab seeks to ensure that valuable time on site is not squandered on administrative and logistical delays.

Contract Executed: All contract documents (Master Service Agreements, MSAs, Statements of Work, SOWs) must be completed and executed prior to on-site work.

A&D Initiative Start Date Finalized: Agreement concerning the day to begin the initiative with the on-site team must be finalized. (Any loose ends are completed during week zero of the analysis.)

Project Announced: An announcement is essential to describe the initiative, introduce The Lab and provide a brief overview of the project objectives. Announcements are typically handled by memo.

Checklist Completed: The Lab’s checklist of launch tasks ensures that logistics are complete, meetings are scheduled and preliminary data analysis is under way prior to landing on site.

Payment Finalized: The initiative’s accelerated timetable requires expedited processing of The Lab’s invoices to ensure timely payments that reflect the progress of the work and the terms of the proposal.

Payment 1 received prior to week 1

To be determined

Completed prior to week 1

List to be developed and reviewed

ClientCo to provide agreements

CONTRACT

Implementation (II)Explains how The Lab’s implementation

methods rapidly deliver meaningful, measurable – and sustainable – benefits


Five Factors Ensure Implementation and Sustainability

Phase II Success: Implementation and Sustainability

Continued Sponsorship

Project sponsors must remain engaged throughout the Phase II effort to ensure success.

Their continued focus on operational metrics will enable sustained progress and protect the gains achieved by the initiative.

Manageability

Decision Speed

Repeatability

Capacity Model

Work Routines

Hundreds of activity-level improvements must be consolidated into feasible, prioritized work plans

A process for change decisions must be formalized to reduce delay and facilitate repeatability

Successful implementation uses brief repetitive cycles: ‘Lather, Rinse, Repeat;’ avoids ‘Big Bang’ methods

Organizational capacity (at the work activity level) must be linked and reconciled to work products and processes

Variance in work methods must be reduced; ‘desk-level’ standards and performance must be documented

Implementation

Sustainability


Implementation Teams: Designed for Fast Decisions

Executive Sponsors Accelerate Progress, Remove Barriers

Joint Project Team(s)

• Typical team size 2-5 members

• Full-time deployment

• Work on 1 or more work streams

Area Operations Management

• Designated liaisons

• Subject Matter Experts, SMEs

• Typically part-time involvement

Steering Committee

• Typically 3-6 members

• Weekly or biweekly meetings

• Routine decisions/pacing

EXECUTIVE SPONSOR(S)

• Typically 1-3 sponsors

• Progress reviews (4-6 weeks)

• Major decisions/barriers

Executive Sponsors/ Steering Committee

• Senior Management Group

• Project Strategy Validation

• Funding Approval

Project Team

• Accountable to Steering Committee

• Collaborates with Operations Management

• Project Management:

– Milestones Attainment

– Strategy Facilitation

– Resource Management

Operations Management

• Represents In-Scope Functions

• Project Approach and Findings Guides

• Project Member Validation

Roles and Descriptions


A Manageable, Self-Funding Implementation Plan

Process Improvement Records (PIRs) Enable Activity-Level Change Client-Prioritized Plans

During Phase I, activity-level improvements are broadly defined and combined into key opportunity groups and then developed into a sponsor-prioritized implementation plan for Phase II.

Step one of the implementation effort refines the PIRs and validates sponsors’ priorities across the organization.

Map Contributors

Vina TrieuElaine DuongAngela WillamsNancy RamirezJohn B.WalterMacaria MartinezJoe Turda

LEGEND


Decision Box

Excel/AccessCalculation

Low-Value Added Activity

Quoted Class I Opportunity

#

Quoted Class II Opportunity

#

Industry Best Practice#

Best Practice In Use#

Key Performance Indicator

Comment, Additional Information

List

Important ProcessDetail

System Cycle-Time / Time

Live Photos & Scans

Process Split

ClientCo Branches

New Account Review Team

Branches generate a signature card in

System G and gather necessary

documentation from the customer

All documentation,signature card, andsignature specimen

card are placed in to a bag

All bags are placed in to a large bag at the end of the day and sent to Mail

Services

Mail Services separates all bags received from

the branches each morning and distributes them to New Account

Review

New Account Review divides the bags in

amongst the processors

Processors are responsible for an average of 50 branches per FTE

Processors open their bags and remove the signature specimen

cards to be hand delivered to Account

Services

11 FTE

New Accounts Review receives an average of 1500 new account reviews per day

Each FTE works an average of 140 new account reviews per day

80% of account reviews are personal accounts while 20% are business accounts

Processor removes the Transmittal letter in

each bag that lists the account documentation

within the bag

80% of a processor’s time is spent on business account reviews which represent 20% of total accounts reviewed

The Processor checks the hard copy

documents received in the bag against the

account information in System A

Does the information

match?

The processor pulls up first account for review

in System A

Does System A indicate that the account needs to

be reviewed?

If the account is a new personal account with no added nuances and the signature card has been uploaded by the branch in to System F, then the account does not need to be reviewed.

Processor moves on to next account review

NO

YES

40% of all accounts do not require a review

Record all account review information in

System E

YES

Separate and batch account documentation at the end of the day to be picked up by System

F imaging

Record all account review information and

errors in System ENO Follow-up with branches

on all outstanding errors

Processors follow-up with all outstanding errors that are approaching the account closing deadline

Processor manually picks up batched

account hard copy documentation from the previous day’s workload

6 FTE

Processor scans hard copies in to System F

Assign index number to each scanned image

Check index number and images to the hard copy documentation for

accuracy and completion

Do they match?

Processor moves on to check next account in

System FYES

Processor corrects the error and then moves on to check the next account in System F

NO1 FTE performs all follow up on outstanding errors

Client Operations

Function Group

Customer Service

Operations

The branch requests a ‘line of credit’ for a

customer

The request is placed into the OCF pending ‘line of credit requests’ folder (automatically)

80% of ‘Open Line of Credit’ requests are automatically sent to the Pending queue folder

Email box receives ‘the line of credit’ request

Anything that is left in the email box that did not get auto moved is

moved manually to pending ‘line of credit

requests’ folder

20% of requests are manually moved to pending line of credit folder - 1 FTE spends a little time doing this

Check the pending folder and process the

‘line of credit’ (CashReserve) request

Is this a previously

closedaccount?

E-mail branch request and 8 screen shots of

System A account information to Credit

Center

‘Open’ System G cash reserve manually

Based on inquiry record,FICA score, Credit line approval, Branchemployee making inquiry,referral (not critical, can be blank)

Enter maintenance tab on System G and

manually change date based on approval date

of cash reserve

Is line of credit approved from

System H Inquiry

Record?

Reject the request

YES

System G System G

80% of inquiries will need the date changed in System G. All requests that are approved with a previous

date will be changed.

Send Email to the bank branch of the Cash

Reserve approval, andconfirmation of cash

reserve

Input all information from System H in to

System G

System G

A customer reports a lost checkbook, lost

debit card resulting incash reserve transfer from ‘old checking’ to new checking account

Email box checkbook request from Branch to

pending folder

Access the ‘Cash Reserve Transfer’ email template and copy and

paste original email

Is the request for transfer filled out

properly ?

Check account title information on the old

and new checking account

YES

Branch supplies the missing information for

the transfer

NO

On emailAccount title has to be the same, copy and paste original email (credit center wants an explanation on why transferring),

Attach 11 screen shots for the old and new

account from System C and System A

Attach branch explanation of why the cash reserve transfer is

required

Email the Request for approval to the ClientCo

Credit Center

The cash reserve transfer email is

received from the OCF Group

Review the customers account on the email

Was Cash Reserveclosed by

credit center previously?

Decline the request and communicate decision to

OCF Group

The Credit center could have previously closed the account due to a customer bad credit rating/ score and closed in quarterly process

YES

Approve the request and communicate

decision to OCF GroupNO

Notify the customer with the decision and include

contact information in case of questions

NO

YES

NO

Retail Request Review and Processing Commercial Request Review and Processing

System FSystem E

System ASystem A

System E System F

System F

System F

Select the update button to open the cash

account

Is the cash account

request from a previous day?

No further action is required

NO

YES

Other OCF Work StreamsChange of AddressesRedeem Savings BondsCheck OrdersFee ReversalsIncentivesWelcome BonusesException CodesStatement MaintenanceFee WaiversACH BlockStop Payment ReleasesAccount ReactivationVOD“0” Balance ReportInterest ReportingWiresBank by MailReturn MailOffice of the President Requests

Check Inquiry record System J for credit

report, and credit line approval amount

Credit Center reviews request

Does the credit center approve the request?

YES

System J

Reject the request

5-6 Cash Account requests come in daily

5-6 transfer requests come in daily

Processor monitors e-mail box for deposit or withdrawal requests

from Non-BankFinancial Institutions.

Processor takes the information provided in the e-mail request and creates a fund transfer

request

Does the tax ID# in the e-

mail match the ID# in System

A?

Complete the transfer template on the shared

drive and send the template to the Wire

Transfer Department to process

NO

Electronically transfer the deposit or

withdrawal on System AYES

Enter all transfer information in to the

PromontorySpreadsheet

Check to make sure that the information entered

in to the Promontory Spreadsheet balances against the Total Bank Solutions Spreadsheet

Do the spreadsheets

balance?

The balance can not be more than 1 cent off.


YES

Investigate and attempt to locate the source of

the errorNO

Can the error be fixed by the

processor?

YES

Processor fixes the error and checks to

make sure everything balances


Processor sends an e-mail or calls the

relationship manager informing them of the

imbalance

NO

The relationship manager contacts the client to get the error

resolved

System A

Receives an average of 5-6 requests per day

The transfer will be rejected if the FI transfer requests has more than 6 transactions outside of money market accounts.

Front Office Analyst enters client request

information in to System B

System B assigns a case number and sends

it to its appropriate queue

Examples of Requests

ü Adjustmentsü Collectionsü Missing Itemü Encoding Errorü Domestic and

Foreign Collection

ü Stop Payment

Special Handling clients skip the Front Office and send e-mail requests directly to the Research Team

Cases prioritized based off of client priority ranking and urgency of request

Processor performs research on the request

Request research can take any where from 1 day to 6 months based on the complexity of the request

Is a resolution found?

The request escalates to the Case Team to research and review

NO

The Processor logs on to System B and inputs

the resolution information in to the

existing case

YES

The Processor takes the necessary steps to

complete the transaction

Transactions may fall under 17different work flows in order for the process to be completed

Processor sends follow up communication on all

cases that have been outstanding for more

than 2 weeks

Research average 10-30 new requests per day.

7-10 cases are completed on a daily basis

25% of all cases require communication with entities outside of ClientCo

System C

System B

System C System A

System A

System D

Requests from the CSD Front Office come in to the customer service queue in System B

Request Types

ü Cashier Checkü Advancesü OLA Transfersü Foreign Draft

Issuanceü Foreign/Canadian

Deposits

The queue is prioritized by clients with priority

status and urgent requests

Processor actions the first request in the

queue and looks for accuracy and authenticity

Does anything look

suspicious?



NO

Processor investigates anything that looks

suspicious and attempts to validate the

information provided in the request

YESCan the

information be validated?

The processor may request that the FO associate place an outbound call to the client to validate the information provided

NO

YES



Does the client validate the information?

YES

The request is rejected and the FO notifies the

clientNO

System B

The physical check from the client is received by

Customer Services

The Processor calls Foreign Exchange for

the correct foreign exchange rate

Is there a special rate involved?

Processor checks for special deal rate on

System I

YES

Processor fills out the jacket and deposit slip

utilizing the correct foreign exchange rate

NO

The check, jacket, anddeposit slip are sent to Proof to be processed at the end of the day

5-10 checks are received each day

SampleCustomer

Service Request

System I

Processor opens first request in the New

Account queue

Prints off all attached worksheets

Processor enters all account information

provided in the case in to System G

Processor checks System A to see if the

client is an existing customer

Is the client an existing

customer?YES

Processor calls Check Systems to see if the client has any records

NO

Does the client have any records?

NO

Return the case to the FO and log the reason

for rejection and all other notes in System B

YES

System G generates an account number and the

processor e-mails the account number to the relationship manager initiating the request

Processor logs all notes in System B

Prints the clarified case and files the printed worksheet and case

Normally about 5 pages to be filed per new account request

Quality Control picks up the filed cases the

following morning for review

An average of 30-50 cases are received each day

System B

System A System BSystem G System G

Courier goes to the State Department and picks up all warrants and delivers them to

Vendor A

Vendor A scans all warrants and send the images and a customer

log to BOS

Item Processing sends an e-mail each morning providing all other state warrant and WIC check

images

Processors hand write GL tickets for each item

coming in from Item Processing

Processor fills out a deposit slip for each

warrant

The State Department sends notifications of any adjustments that

need to be made to the warrants

The processor types debit notification for the

funding of state warrants and WIC

checks

Are there any adjustment to

be made?YES

The processor hand writes GL tickets for

each of the adjustments

NO

All deposit slips and other GL tickets get sent

to Proof

The GL tickets are then sent to the GL

Adjustment Team for processing

An average of 30-75 warrants are received each day.

Typewriters are used to type all debit notifications.

New Account Review - Retail

Client Operations Function – Cash Reserves Process

Research

System F Imaging Team

Credit Center

Lost Card, Lost Checkbook, Transfer Cash Reserve from Earlier Checking Account to New Checking Account

Composing the email with the ‘copy and paste’ of the original email, the 11

screen shots of old and new account information, and the reason for transfer takes 12 minutes and occurs 5 times a

day.

New Accounts - Commercial

Canadian Deposits

Government

Non – Bank Financial InstitutionsCustomer Service Queue

No volume or productivity reporting exists for Government and Non-Bank Financial Institution deposit and withdrawal requests.

1

The entire Promontory spreadsheet is password protected. If cells need to be altered or fixed, only IT can fix it, sometimes up to a day later, delaying the customer request processing.

2

The Research team spends 10-15 minutes a day manually sorting through open case files in System B in order to perform their bi-weekly follow-up communication. This manual process diverts the Research teams attention away from primary task of processing requests.3

Front Office analysts assign the wrong case type to 5-10% of all requests coming from commercial customers. CSO Analysts take 2-3 minutes per error to return the case and explain the source of the error4

Front Office Analysts will sometimes group multiple cases from one client under one case number. When those errors happen, accuracy in volume tracking is hindered.

5

60% of the time the additional information tab in the System B case file for Cashier Check Requests are not filled out by the Front Office Analyst. BOS analysts spend an additional 1 minute fixing these incomplete case files.6

An average of 10 BOS analysts spend 30-60 minutes a day utilizing a typewriter to manually create debit and credit ticket receipts in order to send archaic carbon copies off to clients.

7

BOS receives Bank by Mail checks and must spend time reviewing them for accuracy before sending them to Proof a wasted effort as Bank by Mail checks do not require review.

8

Supervisors and Work Directors in BOS are spending 25% of their time on lower level front line tasks due to inadequate staffing and task alignment.

9

BOS supervisors are spending an average of 1 hour per day inputting and following up on employee time cards. This is a low value-add task diverting supervisors from team development and management.10

5% of all signature cards are not scanned in to System F by the branches. The System F Imaging Team spends an additional 4-6 hours per day scanning in the missed signature cards.11

10% of Shared Services KQI weekly reports sent to the branches have errors. The New Accounts Review teams spends an average of 3-5 hours in branch resolution communication for each erroneous report. 12

Some branches miss or come close to missing deadlines to correct new account errors flagged on the high priority exception report. One Processor on the New Accounts Team spends 30 minutes daily following-up with these branches.13

Each account package sent in to the New Account Team for review has duplicate confirmation pages. Each processor takes 5 sec per file to remove and shred these duplicate pages. 14

Branch and New Account Review supervisors perform duplicate Enhanced Due Diligence Process reviews. These redundant reviews take just the New Account supervisors 3-5 hours per day.15

Lack of communication for process changes lead to extended process implementation times.

16

There is no standard update/review process for the Standard Operations Manual. Reported errors may not be corrected for up to 6-12 months. Each New Account Review FTE spends an average of 30 minutes a week communicating with branches on errors derived from issues with the Standard Operations Manual. 17

20% of all cash account requests sent from branches to OCF are incorrect or incomplete. OCF processors spend an additional 2-3 minutes on each issue on "error e-mails" back to branch to correct the errors.18

80% of all welcome bonus requests coming in to OCF are due to erroneous codes being entered by the branches. OCF processors spend 2-3 minutes per welcome bonus request fixing these code errors. 19

1 FTE on the Commercial New Accounts Team spends 4-6 hours per day correcting field relationship managers' interest rate errors on new accounts.

20

The BOS Customer Service Team spends 1-2 hours per day hand writing deposit slips to send to Proof for processing. This manual, low value added process is being completed by 5 skilled processors.

21

Construct a daily plan versus actual approach and utilize management reports to control the work routine. 1

LP

Work from one new account file (preferably electronic) and seek to limit the manual copying of specific new account documents and adding to the hard copy file.

2LP

Create weekly activity report to track volumes and plan work3

LP

Create an integrated data warehousing repository which allows the easy transfer and sharing of data between department functions and systems.

4LP

Definitive service level agreements (SLAs) should be agreed upon and continuously monitored5

LPDevelop easily measurable, short-term production and quality metrics, such as documents scanned per hour, percentage of documents with errors, etc.

6LP

Ensure that image exchange systems include robust indexing and audit trail features, since there is no paper trail.7

LP

Ensure that there are adequate security controls to protect the imaging system and confidential customer information.

8LP

Ensure that newly-entered information is automatically updated in all related systems to eliminate redundant data entry and reduce the potential for errors.

9LP

Devise a checklist/procedure that mandates the way inbound documents have to be handled and includes the provision of signatures between staff in charge of different parts of the document control process.

10LP

Develop standards for classifying and routing incoming documents [e.g., complete/incomplete, simple/complex, internal/external, high/low priority, etc.].

11LP

Develop a role and responsibility chart that documents all tasks, responsibilities, and timeliness expectations for all steps of a process.

12LP

Achieve straight through processing for new business by replacing spreadsheets and manual processes for quoting, approval and new account setup using smart forms, automated workflow and integrated to back-end systems.

13LP

Converting legacy data to a newer system allows reporting to be more accurate and easy to reconcile, greatly reducing costs.

14LP

Meet to review the success of internal service level agreements in operation with upstream and downstream transitioning partners.

15LP

Post key service and productivity indicators for operations and update weekly with attainment percentages. Develop competitions between teams to achieve and exceed service and productivity targets consistently.

16LP

Ensure processes are documented and training is in place to maintain compliance and consistency17

LPRecognize individuals and teams in non-monetary ways, such as celebrating with department luncheons, team building events, contests and games, or community service projects as a team.

18LP

Reduce the time required to process transactions and address client inquiries by having all necessary information readily available with automated processes and systems.

19LP

All file material must be in chronological order. Discard all duplicate file material. Multiple volume files should be numbered.

20LP

Calculate unit costs daily for work items based on labor costs so all levels of managers have an immediate, bottom-line understanding of the impact of productivity swings.

21LP

Use materiality limits to reduce entry and account detail and manage time spent on small items. Correction of errors and adjustments, if immaterial, are done in the following month's reconciliation.

22LP

Develop standard capacity modeling and forecasting systems across all departments to increase accountability, determine proper staffing levels and improve resource sharing.

23LP

Document all processing and servicing routines across the organization for training purposes and operational consistency.

24LP

Emphasize employees' role in the business process with an understanding of upstream and downstream impacts instead of being task-oriented.

25LP

Ensure standardization of all inbound forms, documents, and data elements to allow for smooth work flow and to reduce the potential for error.

26LP

Excessive data checking and rechecking removes accountability from users and creates an atmosphere of "someone else will catch it." Assign clear quality standards and accountability for errors and follow up when errors occur.

27LP

Involve agents in continuous process improvement in a structured and results oriented fashion, such as focus groups.28

LP Perform random audits of documents/application packages as they come into a processing area to identify and quantify opportunities for data improvement.

31LP

Tier staffing levels to accommodate peak hours, days or weeks. Utilize seasonal, part-time and contract workers to avoid staffing to peak demand levels or overstaffing during lower demand times.

32LP

On almost all of the 3 to 4 daily new daily accounts, branches send the wrong code for opening the $50 account bonus. This creates 4 to 5 minutes rework for BOS once and the Branch twice.22

300 branches are unfamiliar with System G for the Cash Reserve Overdraft protection. About 5 times a day they unsuccessfully try e-forms to change the account, leading to 4 to 5 minutes rework each time.23

An ineffective project requirement documentation process without proper front-end accountability for senior management or analysts results in compressed back-end project cycle timelines.24

Resource constraints and poor technology testing environments slow the new product-to-market offerings. The perception is that senior management and retail do not appreciate these hurdles.25

There are analysts all over this company. Their true value-add and potential redundancies need to be assessed, hopefully eliminating silos and perceived "turf protection."

26

Without proper, consistent front-end projects requirements documentation, appropriate input and stakeholders only enter later in projects. This delays and extends project timelines.

27

There is poor documentation of processes and best practices as well as prior projects and enhancement. The lack of historical reference enables lost knowledge and repeated future errors.28

Defect management on major initiatives is disconnected as System Integration Testing (SIT) tests specific pieces instead of end to end processes, failing to find errors. A majority of end-to-end testing falls upon the small group at Defect Management who struggle to meet enterprise-wide workload demands.

29

The testing environment at ClientCo is not truly representative of the production environment, leaving less than optimal testing.

30

As UAT occurs across several teams at ClientCo, there is redundant testing occurring.

31

The Workbench QC tool has not been fully developed and implemented bank wide. Fragmented implementation results in a lack of continuity and contributes to the ongoing siloed environment of ClientCo.32

ClientCo uses a ghost system for pre-audits right now on the legacy applications that increases handle times and creates lengthy workarounds.

33

Up-front project business requirement documentation is often populated with "nice-to-have"s versus core requirements for base-level implementation. This increases the odds of ineffective execution, wasted effort and frustration.34

The UAT process remains very manual intensive, a costly and slower methodology.

35

Purpose of PIRs

• Consolidate improvements

• Detail implementation work steps

• Identify performance target

• Document estimated benefits

PIRs and Work Plans

• PIRs grouped into work streams

• Work plans include 3-10 work streams (based on scope)

• Progress is monitored at PIR level

Red, Class I Inputs

Business Process Maps Document Scores–Hundreds of Improvements

200 Improvements ...

... translate into 15-20 PIRs

PIR

August 20xx


Process Improvement

Records

Approved by:

Data Tracked by:

Time frame:

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

TBD Date Originated TBD

Date Assigned TBD

Planned Completion TBD

Actual Completion TBD

X Week One

Week Two

Week Three

X Week Four

X Week Five

Week Six

Week Seven

Date:

IMPROVEMENT PLAN RECORD

Workstream - #20 CART Inbound Data Quality

Location/ Process CART Inbound Data QualityClientCo

Opportunities Key Improvement Opportunity

Impact Benefit per Year

Areas Addressed Work Plan Actions

Policy

Training

Accuracy/Quality

Service/Timeliness

Customer

Other

Cost/Productivity Financial Benefits Operational Benefits

System

Process Change

Other

Location/Area Impacted Solution

Area 2

Area 3

Area 4

Area 5

Key Dates

Area 1

Call Center

PCM

CMB

Branches

CART

Data Tracking OutputDepartment Impacted

Solutions Decision Log Controls

Solution #:

0026, 0116, 0186, 0197, 0227, 0249, 0297, 0422, 0446, 0461, 0543, 0548

1. Increased clarity on policies and guidelines. 2. Elimination of redundancies in processes. 3. Increased customer satisfaction. 4. Fewer touch points between CART and front office.

1. Impacted teams include CART, Branches, Contact Center and PIB 2. Benefits will be realized through reduced rework, decreased cycle time and more accounts being opened. 3. Targeted Benefit: $280K-$360k

All accounts opened online go to the CART team without any pre-review. These accounts are opened automatically, but about 30% are not qualified and must be closed following CART review, wasting time and generating customer complaints. CART requires that prior to manually faxing the application packet to CART, all ID information must be handwritten on the photocopy even if the ID is perfectly legible, which is redundant work that adds no value. When faxing 50+ page packages to CART for review, one incorrect page can cause CART to require the entire package to be resent. It can take 5-15 minutes per package depending on the speed of the fax machine, time that might be needlessly doubled. Online account opening questions do not currently address all KYC questions; therefore, 100% of accounts require follow-up with the customer. This causes unnecessary follow-up and delays in the account opening process.

1.  Observe and analyze end to end account opening process in CART.

2.  Analyze incoming volumes of account openings tasks.

3.  Validate amount of times that the front line incorrectly enters information into the account application

4.  Validate online channel has a rejection rate of 30%.

5.  Validate whether online channel has all of the required KYC information that is needed for CART team.

6.  Partner with PIB team to work on understanding reasoning for online channel not having all of the requirements and how to institute a preliminary risk check online.

7.  Identify CART and front line employees that make recurring errors.

8.  Collect cycle time information of reaching back out to the customer every time an internal error occurs.

9.  Identify "nice to haves" vs. "need to haves" through partnership with CART SME and front line SME

10. Observe the churn and handoffs involved in account onboarding to validate time impact of errors.

11.  Input error log for each CART member and front office team members..

12. Create a list of most common inbound and outbound data errors

13. Educate individual CART employees and front line employees with the highest errors and the new established best practices.

14. Monitor inbound data quality change after best practices are in place.

15. Keep inbound data quality tool in place to monitor improvement on inbound data.

1.  Implement inbound data quality tracker for a series of weeks to establish primary sources of errors. Uncover CART employees and front line employees that provide the most error prone data. Implement best practices to curtail and limit the data errors that create the most rework.

2.  Data Requirement

•  Incoming volume of applications..

•  Amount of time spent reviewing an application

•  Workforce delegated to account openings

•  Amount of applications that are sent back to the customer for more information

•  CART employees with the most errors sent to front line/customers

•  Front line analysts with the most recurring errors sent back to CART team.

•  Cycle time of the account opening process.


Implementation Cycle: Pilot, Monitor, Refine, Repeat

‘Repeatability’ Reduces Risk, Accelerates Change‘Big Bang’ Methods

The Lab avoids across-the-board, single-cycle implementation techniques because these often increase risk due to:

• Over-analysis

• False precision

• Operational disruption

• Less time for optimization

• Organization anxiety

Implement ‘Pilot Stage’ Process Change

Improvement Strategy

Optimize Change with Capacity Model

Refine End-to-End ‘Future State’ Processes

• Upgrade ‘As-Is’ Processes

• Replace ‘As-Is’ Processes

• Combination of above

1 2

3


The Lab’s 4-Way Capacity Match: How It Works

Why Reconciliation Matters

Unless organizational capacity allocations balance (or reconcile) with work volumes, savings and productivity gains are likely to be elusive, ‘soft’ benefits.

• Inaccurate standards

• Inconsistent activity definitions

• Incomplete capacity management

• Low credibility

– Standards

– Forecasts

Reconciles Organizational Capacity with Processes, Products and Activities

Organization Charts: These provide the baseline of organization capacity, or available work time. This capacity will be compiled in the Data Cube and allocated into three reconciled ‘views’ of capacity: Business Process View, Work Product View and Activity-Based View.

Work Product View:

Work products are typically defined as the output of business processes. These are typically selected or defined to enable easy identification and tracking throughout the organization and workflow.

Business Process View:

Process maps developed during the project enable estimation of the organization capacity and related cost of each process. Reconciles with the Organization Chart.

Activity-Based View: The activities on the business process maps help calculate costs of processes and work products. Activities are tasks with durations of no more than 15 minutes each. The Lab uses a directory of 25 standard work activities.

Data Cube… A standardized database that compiles and links the operating cost ledger to work activities, cost drivers, business processes and work products.


Work Routines: Desk-Level Standardization, Simple Metrics

False Complexity

Existing work activities, methods or outputs are perceived as “too complex” to review, standardize or measure.

Placemats, MORs

Retain and extend the gains achieved through operational Class I Improvement

1 A survey of scholarly research reveals that studies identify between 18-40 standard work activities.

Without Standards, Definitions of Work Tasks Proliferate

Example: From a recent engagement

• Desk-Level Guides

• One-page, user-friendly

• Standardize tasks

• Set performance goals

• Operations metrics

• Concise: 5-10 data points

• Short interval: daily, weekly

• Track actual vs. target

Finance Group

Employees “self-defined” their work activities

> 4,000 Unique Definitions

150 Employees

25 Standard TasksThe Lab uses standard

activity definitions1PLACEMAT

AppendixProvides representative examples

of Non-Technology Improvements, related analysis, barriers and insights


Typical Mismatch: Management vs. Customer Perceptions

Customer Value Model: Mis-Aligned Perceptions

Contact Center Example

The Lab’s CVM analysis frequently identifies errors of interpretation, which can have significant implications for operations. Often, these can be easily remedied.

“Sooner!”

Customer Needs

Prompt first payment

General information

Courteous service

One-stop shopping

Admin. quality

2.

1.

3.

4.

5.

ClientCo Perceptions

“Sooner!”

ClientCo’s Internal Six Sigma Team

• ClientCo: “Customers want their first check sooner.”

• Purchased a technology upgrade

– Cost: $2.7 million

– Lead time: 26 months

• The upgrade reduced check issue cycle time by two-thirds.

The Lab’s Customer Value Model (CVM)

• Customer: “Nobody told me when to expect the first check.”

• ClientCo: “Retirees never listen. The info is in their pocket folder.”

• User-unfriendly pocket folder:

– More than one-inch thick

– 60 loose-leaf pages

• The Lab’s non-technology solution:

– Placed Post-it® note on pocket folder

– Eliminated 60% of ‘1st check’ inquiries“When?”

Customer Needs

Investment security

Admin. quality

Personalized service

General information

Accessibility

2.

1.

3.

4.

5.

Customer Perceptions

“When?”


Overlooked NeedsDuring internal perception interviews ClientCo senior executives identified and prioritized the top 5 purchase-related customer needs and quantified their estimate of customer perceived performance (x%).

Improvement StrategyClientCo’s marketing group developed a new strategic plan to increase revenue, targeting what they mistakenly believed to be their customers’ top three needs.

Market-Level Example (Part I of II): Executive Misperceptions

Indicates a match between management and customer perception.

Indicates a ‘blind spot’ based on ClientCo internal perception of customer needs.

Indicates a ‘purchase attribute’ targeted by ClientCo strategy.

LEGEND

Customer Value Model Analysis

ClientCo’s internal view is poorly aligned with its customers’ priorities

and perceptions of satisfaction…

* Management perception of customers’ satisfaction

ClientCo Perceptions Senior Executives

Customer Perceptions Actual Prioritized Purchase Needs

Customer Needs

Quality (of print) . . . . .83%*

Cost/Price . . . . . . . .65%

Timeliness . . . . . . . .N/A

ROI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80%

Customer Service . .74%

2.

1.

3.

4.

5.

Amount of response advertising receives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (63%)

Quality (of advertising operations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . (82%)

Amount spent vs. response received (ROI) . . . . . . (53%)

Efficiency in delivering demographic targets . . . . . . . . . . . . (86%)

Ability to choose ad position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (51%)

1

4

5

…and ClientCo’s ‘new’ strategy for improvement recommends further

investment in low-priority, over-served customer needs.

ClientCo’s Response Misdirected Improvement Strategy

6. Easy to do business with . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (88%)

7. Rep’s ability to act as a partner to my business . . . . . . . . . . (93%)

11. Portfolio of products & multimedia packages . . . . . . . . . . . (110%)

New Strategic Plan:

Increasing Media Sales

A

A.

B.

B


Market-Level Example (Part II of II): Mistargeting Segments; Criteria

Customer Perceptions of ClientCo Performance Levels:

Under-Served (-15% or more)

Approximate parity/ minor shortfall (0 – 15%)

Over-Served (+5% or more)

Customers’ Purchase Criteria

1 Amount of response advertising receives

2. Quality of advertising environment

3. Amount spent vs. response received (ROI)

4 Efficiency in delivering demographic targets

5 Ability to choose ad position

6. Easy to do business with

7. Rep’s ability to act as a partner to my business

8. Ability to target by geography

9. Sheer size of overall audience reached

10. Lowest out-of-pocket cost

11. Portfolio of products & multimedia packages

Clie

ntCo

Und

er-S

erve

sCl

ient

Co O

ver-

Serv

es

-37% -51% -37% -35% -26% -37% -47% -18% -44% -46% -30%

-18% -50% 12% 15% 7% +11% -17% -45% 6% +19% -32%

-47% 4% -51% -59% -21% -33% -64% -74% -57% -52% -46%

14% -33% 0% 13% 26% +25% -31% 6% 1% -23% -27%

-49% -32% -51% -64% -37% -67% -58% -54% 12% -63% -53%

12% +33% -50% +5% +7% -19% 10% -36% +1% 4% 13%

7% -28% 8% 7% +7% 2% +8% -31% 1% 0% 4%

4% +100% -35% 14% 13% -51% 9% +20% +20% +6% 10%

+9% 4% -36% -25% 0% +13% +33% +11% 9% 8% N/A

-73% -34% -100% -67% -78% -77% -66% -60% -88% -76% -80%

+10% -63% +22% +6% +36% +300% -37% -37% -37% +99% +16%

ClientCo Marketplace ‘Sweet Spot’

Top 5 Market Segments; Top 5 Market Criteria

1Dept. Stores

2

Wireless

3Real

Estate

4

Banks

6

Travel

7

Jewelry

8National

Auto

9

Fashion

10Home

Furnishings

5

Discounters

SegmentAverage(1-10)

LEGEND

Customer Value Model Analysis (Cont.)

Indicates a match between management and customer perception.

Indicates a ‘blind spot’ based on ClientCo internal perception of customer needs.

Indicates a ‘purchase attribute’ targeted by ClientCo strategy.


Process Amendment (Annual Volume = 134,422)

15 Check CMS Work queue and identify next item to work on (also, assign self to item) _ _ Amendment 70% 94,095 _ 1.0 1,568 9.6% 0.83

16 Open mail boxes for requests that do not come via CMS _ _ Amendment 30% 40,327 _ 0.8 538 3.3% 0.29

17 Print request _ _ Amendment 100% 134,422 _ 0.8 1,792 11.0% 0.95

18 Fill out SSI Call Back Checklist _ _ Amendment 7% 9,410 _ 1.5 235 1.4% 0.13

19 Set up SSI/cash wire instruction _ _ Amendment 68% 91,407 _ 2.5 3,809 23.3% 2.03

20 Input changes to existing accounts _ _ Amendment 30% 40,327 _ 3.5 2,352 14.4% 1.25

21 Submit request for customer type update in CMS _ _ Amendment 5% 6,721 _ 1.0 112 0.7% 0.06

22 Close down accounts _ _ Amendment 2% 2,688 10.0 _ 448 2.7% 0.24

23 Ask colleague for verification / verify colleague's work _ _ Amendment 100% 134,422 _ 1.5 3,361 20.6% 1.79

24 Notify requestor of request completion _ _ Amendment 40% 53,769 _ 0.5 448 2.7% 0.24

25 Communicate with requestor _ _ Amendment 25% 33,606 2.0 _ 1,120 6.9% 0.60

26 Communicate with supervisor _ _ Amendment 5% 6,721 2.0 _ 224 1.4% 0.12

27 Communicate with client _ _ Amendment 7% 9,410 2.0 _ 314 1.9% 0.17

Process Amendment Total 16,321 100% 8.68

Frequency-Based1

Required

Hours/Yr

% of Total

Hrs

Required

FTE3Observed

Min/UnitUnits/Yr

KVI-Based2

No.Estimated

Min/UnitFrequency Units/Freq

Ave. Time SpanActivity

Activity Description KVI Reference % of KVI

Process Amendment (Annual Volume = 134,422)

15 Check CMS Work queue and identify next item to work on (also, assign self to item) _ _ Amendment 70% 94,095 _ 1.0 1,568 9.6% 0.83

16 Open mail boxes for requests that do not come via CMS _ _ Amendment 30% 40,327 _ 0.8 538 3.3% 0.29

17 Print request _ _ Amendment 100% 134,422 _ 0.8 1,792 11.0% 0.95

18 Fill out SSI Call Back Checklist _ _ Amendment 7% 9,410 _ 1.5 235 1.4% 0.13

19 Set up SSI/cash wire instruction _ _ Amendment 68% 91,407 _ 2.5 3,809 23.3% 2.03

20 Input changes to existing accounts _ _ Amendment 30% 40,327 _ 3.5 2,352 14.4% 1.25

21 Submit request for customer type update in CMS _ _ Amendment 5% 6,721 _ 1.0 112 0.7% 0.06

22 Close down accounts _ _ Amendment 2% 2,688 10.0 _ 448 2.7% 0.24

23 Ask colleague for verification / verify colleague's work _ _ Amendment 100% 134,422 _ 1.5 3,361 20.6% 1.79

24 Notify requestor of request completion _ _ Amendment 40% 53,769 _ 0.5 448 2.7% 0.24

25 Communicate with requestor _ _ Amendment 25% 33,606 2.0 _ 1,120 6.9% 0.60

26 Communicate with supervisor _ _ Amendment 5% 6,721 2.0 _ 224 1.4% 0.12

27 Communicate with client _ _ Amendment 7% 9,410 2.0 _ 314 1.9% 0.17

Process Amendment Total 16,321 100% 8.68

Frequency-Based1

Required

Hours/Yr

% of Total

Hrs

Required

FTE3Observed

Min/UnitUnits/Yr

KVI-Based2

No.Estimated

Min/UnitFrequency Units/Freq

Ave. Time SpanActivity

Activity Description KVI Reference % of KVI

1 KVI: Key Volume Indicator2 FTEs: Full-Time Equivalent

Employees

Key to Reading the Capacity Model Output

Frequency/KVI-Based1

Direct activities are categorized as KVI-based (i.e., related to core products) or frequency-based (e.g., reports)

Required FTEs2

Total required FTEs to complete activities over the period.

Key Volume Indicator

Key Volume Indicator (business driver) of the activities listed. Units per year are the KVI for the one-year base period.


Detailed listing of area’s activities based on feedback and discussions

Required Hours/Year

Total required hours to complete activities during the year

Average Time Span

Minutes required to complete the activity once; based on observations and The Lab’s standards.

Customer Value Model Analysis (Cont.)

Capacity Model

The capacity model determines necessary staff level based on workload and activity analysis.This work is conducted during the Phase II Implementation effort.


CM Group: Organization Capacity Utilization

• CM Support 12%

• CM Management 14%

New Account Setup 16%– Simple accounts (45%)

– Complex accounts (55%)

58% Amendments

Examples:

– Missing data/information

– Inconsistent instructions

– Cash transfer problems

Internal CM Activities

Organization Capacity Utilization(Segmented by Work Activity; Total = 100%)

Phase I Observation

Almost 60% of customer master organization capacity is devoted to processing amendments — virtually all of which is avoidable rework. More than one-quarter of capacity is consumed by internal CM activities.

Customer Master (CM) Group: Activity Analysis

Perception

“ We are the new account onboarding organization .”

Reality

“The CM group is predominantly a rework organization .”

www.thelabconsulting.com [email protected] 201.526.1200