spmd automation - asq€¦ · an iso/iec 27001:2013 company spmd automation lean six sigma project...

1

©2016.eClerx Services Ltd. An ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Company

SPMD Automation

Lean Six Sigma Project –

Global Parts and Upgrades Product Management Support


2 eClerx at a Glance

Domain. We provide core and critical

services to 80+ global

companies; servicing client

operations on 50+ industry

leading platforms across

500+ business lines

Key Stats

Key Industries

Delivery. We’re recognized for

responsiveness and

accuracy – two critical

attributes for success in

the high velocity, complex

industries we serve

Data. We allow companies to

realize their data as a

strategic asset – streamlining

business processes, driving

innovations and data quality,

and ultimately impacting the

top and bottom line.

Digital Services

Cable and Telecom

Financial Services

Started in 2000, IPO in 2007 on

BSE / NSE

$200mm revenues

80 global clients; 30 in Global F /

FT 500

>8,500 staff in four India delivery

centers

Client centered offices in New

York, London, Philadelphia, Silicon

Valley, Austin, Dublin, Milan,

Munich, Hamburg and Singapore.

2


3 eClerx Verticals

eClerx supports core business processes for its clients

DIGITAL SERVICES

Services provided to leading global hi-tech,

manufacturing, retail, travel and leisure

enterprises

Services include commerce & content, data

management, analytics & insights

FINANCIAL SERVICES

CABLE & TELECOM

Specialist middle and back office support provided to

world’s largest banks and hedge funds

Asset classes including equity, fixed income, loans,

currencies and commodities supported

Key services include trade documentation,

reconciliations, confirmations, settlements, risk

management and reference data management

Services provided to leading cable, internet and telecom

providers in the US and UK

Services include spend optimization, customer care

monitoring and analytics, quality control on work orders


4 Accolades

Analyst Recognition

Service Excellence & Technology

Quality & Process Excellence

Organization

3

©2016.eClerx Services Ltd. An ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Company ©2016.eClerx Services Ltd. An ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Company

Project and Team Selection 1


6

1.1.0 | Understanding the Context for Project Selection

1.1.1. A – Who was responsible for selecting the project?

Client eClerx

Vice President

(Product and Catalog)

Product Manager

(Product and Catalog)

Associate

Principal

Quality

Black Belt

CFO

Program

Manager

Quality Head Project Approval Committee

Project Steering Committee

Leading Computer Technology

company based in the United States

Service provider for client’s parts

and upgrades business

Process

Manager

1.0.0: PROJECT AND TEAM SELECTION

4


7


1.1.1. B (1/2) – What background information on the company or those who selected the project was provided to better understand the context of the project?

About the Client

High Tech Computer Technology Company headquartered in US

Line of Business: Desktops, Laptops, Servers & Storage, Networking, Software & Peripherals,

Parts & Upgrades

Parts & Upgrades Sold Online

Convenience for customers

Drives extra revenue for the client

Driving Activities

New Model Launch

– Make compatible parts available for every new product / model launched in the market

Gap Fill

– Make replacement parts available online when they go out of stock for existing products / models

Parts and Upgrades Business

Parts and Upgrades Sold Online

Driving Activities

Battery & Adapter

Memory

Hard Drive, Storage Drive

Cable

Ink & Toner

New Model Launch

Gap Fill

Client Objective: Provide Maximum Parts Coverage and Enhance Customer Experience



8


1.1.1. B (2/2) – What background information on the company or those who selected the project was provided to better understand the context of the project?

About eClerx Category Specialist team

Supports ‘Driving Activities’ for client business by identifying and mapping compatible parts for

products / models

The process required team to refer to multiple client tools to check categories by region and

by product

Team used to carry out this activity for ~34 categories for multiple regions. Each category had

multiple products mapped to it

Activities Involved

SKU Mapping / Un-mapping for compatible products

SKU Activation if compatible SKU is deactivated

Content & Image treatment for products

Check for negative pricing on the SKU

All these activities required rigorous follow ups with upstream / downstream teams,

som e of them being in eClerx

Com patibility Identification

eClerx Process

Activities Involved

Driving Activities

SKU Mapping / Un-mapping

SKU Activation

Content and Image

Pricing

New Model Launch

Gap Fill

eClerx Objective: Support our Clients to be Successful in their Organization

Tool 1 Tool 2 DB 1 DB 2


5


9

1.2.0 | Project Selection Process

1.2.1. A – How was the gap or opportunity brought into the attention of the project identification group?

‘We have revised targets

and need your support!’

‘Let’s review our progress

and discuss strategic plans

for upcoming quarter’

Quarterly Business Review

FY14 Q2 – During QBR discussion client

had set additional targets for eClerx.

The target was to improve the Product

Catalogue Coverage by 20%

Voice of Customer

Client

Team

eClerx

Management

Project Approval Committee


eClerx Project Identification Group

Discussion on Voice of Customer

Project Metrics Identification

Project Selection



10


1.2.1. B – What was the opportunity (process improvement)?

Parts and Upgrades Online Revenue

Product Returns Product Coverage

New Model Launch Gap Fill

Compatibility Identification

Quality Productivity

AHT TAT Defects Compliance

Part to Product Compatibility Accuracy

Consumes 70% of total team bandwidth

Online Traffic Sales

Client KPI eClerx KPI Process Improvement Opportunity


6


11


1.2.1. C – What area of the organization had the gap or opportunity?

Compatible Part

Research

Model Launch

Online Troubleshooting

Validate Compatibility

Catalog Refinement

eClerx Category

Specialist Team

AMER | EMEA | APJ

Product

Configuration

Data source

Product Ready for

Online Sales

Reporting &

Analysis

SKU Engineering

Teams

Demand and Supply

Product Configuration Management

Pricing

Content Management

SKU Management

Product Configuration Analysis



12


1.2.2. A – What data was generated to help select the project? 1.2.2. B – What methods and/or tools were used to assess or prioritize the need for the project? 1.2.2. C – Why were these methods and /or tools used to select the project?

Voice of Customer

Critical to Quality Metrics

SIPOC

Project Selection and Prioritization

Threat and Opportunity Matrix

Average Handling Time data

Error % data

Stakeholder Analysis

QBR is an opportunity to review the current performance and identify areas of improvement for the client process

We used CTQ drilldown tree to distinguish the Project ‘Y’ from Business ‘Y’

It also helped us to list down the upstream / downstream processes within eClerx

To gauge viability of project as per eClerx project selection criteria and set priority for Six Sigma project selection

To identify the threats and benefits of taking up a Six Sigma project

Used as project baseline to draw as is process control charts

Used as project baseline to draw as is process P charts

To identify key stakeholders, their level of support and measure resistance, if any

1.2.2 C – Why Used? 1.2.2 A – What Data was Generated?

QBR Feedback (1.2.1 A)

CTQ Drill down tree

A SIPOC chart was created with the help of process experts in MS Visio

Pugh Matrix

4 quadrant matrix

eClerx time tracker tool

Process audit logs

Stakeholder Analysis Matrix

1.2.2 B – Methods / Tools Used


7


13


1.2.3. A – What goals (organizational and / or local), performance measures, and / or strategies were the project expected to impact? 1.2.3. B – What was the relationship between the stated measures and perceived gap in 1.2.1?

Strategies / Objectives

Goals Performance Measures

Perceived Gaps (1.2.1.)

Average Handling

Time

Defects

1. Enhanced Customer

Experience

1. Increase availability

of parts and

upgrades options

2. Lessen product

returns

1. Product Catalogue

Coverage

2. Product Returns

Cli

en

t e

Cle

rx

1. Help our clients be

successful in their

organizations

1. Fulfill spoken, and

unspoken client

needs

1. Productivity

2. Quality

1.2.3. C – What was the problem / project objective statement that expresses where the organization wanted to be at the end of the project?

Im provement Opportunity Current Perform ance T arget

Average Handling Time 15 minutes <=7.5 minutes

Defects 10% <5%



14

1.3.0 | Team Selection and Preparation

1.3.1. A – How were the stakeholders groups identified? 1.3.1. B – What or who were the stakeholder groups?

What were the Stakeholder Groups? Who were the Stakeholders? How were the Stakeholders identified?

Sponsor

Champion

Master Blackbelt

eClerx defined

structure (1.1.1A)

Project Lead (Green

Belt)

Process SMEs

Knowledge

Management (KM)

Project Lead selected

by Operation Head

Process SMEs –

identified by Senior

Process Manager

KM: Dedicated

knowledge team for

operations

Black Belt

Dedicated Quality

resources mapped

by Program /

Vertical

Senior Process

Manager

Process Manager

Analysts /

Sr. Analysts

Using detailed

process flows all

upstream and

downstream

processes within

eClerx

Manager – Product

and Catalogue

Point of contact from

client org


Project Team

Quality Team

Process Owners

Client SPOC


8


15


1.3.2. A – What knowledge or skill sets were determined to be necessary for successful completion of the project? 1.3.2. B –To what extent did the existing stakeholder groups have the required knowledge or skills? 1.3.2. C – What additional knowledge and skills were brought in to make the project successful?

Knowledge and Skills Determined

Project Steering Committee Project Team Process Owners Black Belt

Already

Trained Additional

Already

Trained Additional

Already

Trained Additional

Already

Trained Additional

Domain / Process Knowledge

Knowledge of ecommerce Domain – – – –

Knowledge of Process tools and systems – – – –

Knowledge of Process Execution steps NA – – – NA NA

Quality Knowledge

Lean Six Sigma Methodology –

Basic Quality Tools –

Skills

Leadership – NA NA NA NA NA NA

Communication – –

Project Management –

Decision Making –

Conflict Management –

Team Work – –

Problem Solving – –



16


1.3.3. A – Before the project started, what specific training was done?

Lean Six Sigma Six Sigma Green Belt

Basic Quality Tools

Conflict Management

Project Management

All Project

team members

undertook the LSS

methodology training

under the guidance

of Black Belt

Internal 72 hours Six

Sigma GB training as

mandated by eClerx

Quality Framework

for Project Lead

To familiarize the

project team with

various tools /

methods in Quality

which would be used

later in this project

To enable team to

resolve issues that

might arise in any of

the project phase

Project Management

tools and

methodology training

was conducted for

Project Lead and

Project team

members

Training

What was done?

Conceptual

knowledge of Lean

and Six Sigma

methods and tools

Understanding

DMAIC framework

Understanding

fundamental Quality

tools

Team’s ability to

resolve any internal

issues which may

arise during the

course of the project

Project Management

basics and tools Outcome Expected

9


17


1.3.3. B – Before the project started what was done to prepare the team to work together as a team?

4 2 1

3 5

Project plan

shared with team

(GANTT Chart)

Email distribution

list created

Common repository

for project

documentation

created using

SharePoint

Project kick-off

meeting with

Sponsor /

Champion

An initial meeting with

the sponsor /

champion was

conducted to reiterate

the project goals and

get a formal sign-off

on the same

Project kick-off meeting

with project team and

process owners

An initial meeting with the

project team along with

the project lead was

conducted for expectation

setting and explaining the

role of each team

member in the project

A Project Gantt chart was created

detailing steps for each project

phase, their expected completion

dates and tollgate review dates.

The GANTT Chart was shared with

all stakeholder groups indicating

where their support will be required

We created a common

email distribution list

with all project

stakeholders so that no

team member is missed

out when sending email

communication

For storing all

documentation related

to the project to be

referred to during the

project and future

reference purpose

Objective

T ask


18


1.3.4. A – What roles and expectations were determined ahead of the project?

Role D M A I C

Project Sponsor A A A A A

Project Champion A A A A A

Project Lead M M M M M

Team Member M M M M M

Quality Head I I I I I

Blackbelt R R R R R

Client SPOC I I I I I

Know ledge Management R R R R R

Role Expectations of the role

Project Sponsor

Oversees that process improvement projects are aligned to company’s business goals and strategies

Ensure that right team members are selected for the project

Gets buy-in from other stake holders in the company / client

Approves any f inancials that are required for completing the project

Project

Champion

Acts as a subject matter expert for the process and guides the project team from time to time

Supervises the project team and assists in decision making

Validates low control –high impact factors identif ied in the project can be taken forw ard for solution

Project Lead

Green Belt resource responsible for driving the improvement project

Ensure data availability for analysis

Follow Project Management timelines and ensure timely completion of each phase

Highlight / Call out any challenges that may arise in the project and require guidance from project

sponsor/champion

Team Member Contribute w ith process know ledge and expertise during the project

Provide helping hand to Green belt for data gathering and analysis

Contribute during brainstorming sessions in identifying causes and solution gathering

Quality Head /

Master Blackbelt

Oversees organization w ide quality initiatives

Review s and approves viable Six Sigma projects taken up in the organization

Provide guidance to Black belt w ith their expertise during project phase

Project Mentor /

Blackbelt

Mentors w ith expertise in Six Sigma, Lean and other process improvement methodologies

Trains Greenbelts on Six Sigma methodologies prior to project initiation

Guides Greenbelt from initiation till completion of improvement projects

Influences people decision w ith respect to process change management

A pprover Approval of team decisions outside their charter /

authorities, i.e. sponsor, business leader

Resource Resource to the team, one w hose expertise, skills,

‘clout’ is needed

Mem ber Member of team, w ithin the authorities and

boundaries of the charter

Informed Interested party, one w ho w ill need to be kept

informed on direction, f indings


10


19


1.3.4 B – What deadlines and deliverables did the team have to consider ahead of actually starting the project?

High Level DMAIC Deliverables

Focus Group Segmentation Multi-Voting Feasibility study Focus Group Measure Analyze Improve Control

Identify and prioritize possible X’s (Cause and Effect Analysis)

Control and Impact Analysis

Data Collection Plan

Identify and Validate Vital X’s (Data / Process Door Analysis)

Root Cause Identification

Generate Possible Solutions

Prioritize and Pilot Solutions

Validate and justify solutions

Implementation of Solutions

Process Control Analysis

Quality Net Saving calculations

Monitoring and Response Plan

Institutionalize and Sign-off

Project Selection and Prioritization

Project Charter (with approval)

SIPOC / Process Flow

Define

November 2014 January 2015 March 2015 May 2015 July 2015

TOLLGATE TOLLGATE TOLLGATE TOLLGATE TOLLGATE



20


1.3.4. C – Before the project started, what team routines, including communication, were established?

What Team Routines? How? Responsibility Frequency

Project Plan shared in common

SharePoint location An alert email triggered to all stakeholders with any change in the project plan Project Lead / Black Belt Need Basis

Update all project documentation All documents / data related t the project along with documentation of each

phase to be done Knowledge Management On phase completion

Weekly Huddle All team members to meet once a week to discuss project status Project Lead Weekly

Tollgate Reviews By end of each phase, tollgate review was scheduled with Sponsor / Champion /

Client SPOC Project Lead / Black Belt On phase completion

Minutes of Meeting MOMs to be circulated to all project stakeholders for every meeting Project Lead As per meeting schedule

Sign-off Procedure All key decisions / changes to be signed off by Sponsor / Champion via e-mail Project Lead / Black Belt Need Basis

Project Gantt Chart


11


Current Situation and Root Cause / Improvement Opportunity Analysis

2


22

2.1.0 | Key Measures Expected of the Project

2.1.1. A – What specific goals and / or measures was the team trying to achieve with the project? 2.1.1. B – What additional potential benefits, other than the specific goals and / or measures, was the project expected to impact?

Sr. No. Project Im pact Areas Additional Benefits

1

Average Handling Time

Additional Volumes Processed

2 Possible addition of more activities for the client

3 Reduced Operational Costs for eClerx

4 Quality

Decrease in rework

5 Decrease in Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ)

Voice of Customer

Increase product catalogue

coverage by 20%

Issues to be addressed

How to meet client target of 20% product

coverage improvement?

How to meet additional volume requirement

without compromise on process Quality?

Project Goal Statement:

Primary: Improve the AHT by ~50%

Secondary: Improve the Quality by 50%

Timeline for completion: July 2015

2.0.0: CURRENT SITUATION AND ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS

12


23

2.2.0 | Possible Root Causes / Improvement Opportunities

2.2.1. A – What methods and / or tools were used to identify possible root causes / improvement opportunities? 2.2.1. B – Why were these methods and / or tools selected (to identify possible root causes / improvement opportunities?

Process

Map

Why was the tool used?

To understand the as-is process steps

followed

To understand the involvement of

upstream and downstream teams in the process

To identify if there were any loops in

the process leading to increased AHT

Fishbone

Diagram


To organize the ideas we collected

during brainstorming session into

logical buckets

The buckets were: People, Measurement, Material, Method

Machine & Mother Nature


To identify all possible causes for

high handling time for Compatibility

Identification process with help of

process SMEs and team members

Brain-

storming

Internal Stakeholders External Stakeholders

Tool Used



24


2.2.1. C – How was the team prepared to use these methods and / or tools t (to identify possible root causes / improvement opportunities)?

Brainstorming Techniques Training on various

brainstorming techniques

To gauge their understanding level and readiness for usage,

a generic topic was given to the team for brainstorming

Process Mapping Using MS Visio Process Flow Creation MS Visio 2010 (basic flow

chart / swim lane chart)

3 days – 4 hours each

2 Days – 3 hours each


Cause and Effect Diagram Usage of Cause and Effect

Analysis (fishbone diagram)

Specific topics covered were the categorization of various causes

in respective buckets


Project Lead Process SMEs Process Owners

Methods / Tools – A pre and post training assessment was conducted for the trainees

People Trained


13


25


2.2.2. A – What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to identify the possible root cause / improvement opportunities? 2.2.2. B – What were the possible root cause / improvement opportunities?

Process Mapping

Potential areas of processing steps that lead to high AHT

Brainstorming All possible causes leading to high AHT

Fishbone

Diagram

Categorization of possible causes

T ool used What data was

generated? How was it

analy zed?

Control

Impact Matrix

SME

Review

HIGH CONTROL HIGH IMPACT FACTORS

Possible Root Causes / Improvement Opportunities

1. Lack of tenured / experienced team members Dependence on SMEs

2. No backup for skilled resources

3. Lack of mapping of appropriate/ relevant request to appropriate/ relevant skilled resource

4. No master file available for certain categories

5. Process Knowledge test not measured periodically

6. Multiple Data sources

7. Back end compatibility data not available and has to be extracted manually

8. Manually copy pasting piece part information


10. Audit done incorrectly

11. Resource intensive data extraction process

12. Stringent timelines to launch new models on time

13. Process too complex

14. Manual Processing 14 possible root causes / improvement opportunities



26

2.3.0 | Final Root Causes / Improvement Opportunities

2.3.1. A – What methods and / or tools were used to identify the final root cause(s) / improvement opportunities? 2.3.1. B – Why were these methods and / or tools selected to identify the final root causes(s) / improvement opportunities?

5 Why Analysis

Value Stream

Mapping

Pareto Analysis

Hypothesis Testing

Failure Mode Effect

Analysis

Attribute Agreement

Analysis

To identify the non-value adding steps in the compatibility

identification process. It helped us detect process waste

FMEA helped us in prioritizing high risk areas in the process by

calculating RPN for each step

To understand if a knowledge gap existed in the

process as identified in the possible root causes

Two way Anova test was conducted to conclude if individual

resource and multiple data sources had significant impact on

AHT

For all data door factors, we did a Pareto analysis to prioritize the

top 20% factors

To identify the root causes of possible factors responsible for

high AHT

14


27


2.3.1. C – How was the team prepared to use these methods and / or tools to identify the final root causes / improvement opportunities?


Methods / Tools


FMEA Training on

FMEA fundamentals Identifying defects and

defect opportunities Understanding of RPN

calculation Table of Opportunities

Value Stream Mapping Training on VSM Basics Identifying VA / NVA in process

Process Cycle Efficiency


Control and Impact Matrix Understanding the CI

Matrix rating

Identifying High / Low Impact and High / Low

Control factors Prioritizing causes for

solution phase

2 days – 2 hours each Pareto

Chart Analysis Hypothesis Testing Attribute Agreement

Analysis


Statistical Methods and Analysis

People Trained




28


2.3.2. A (1/2) – What data was generated and how was the data analyzed in order to identify the final root causes / improvement opportunities? 2.3.2. B (1/2) – What are specific examples of data analysis that led to the final root cause?

How was Data Analy zed?

Specific Exam ples

What Data Generated?

1 – Value Stream Mapping

Grouping of VSM Observations and FMEA RPNs

Listing of common Process ‘X’s

Validation of possible X’s with grouped X’s in VSM and FMEA

RCA was done on validated possible causes

Validated root causes taken ahead as final

Non Value Adding steps

Process Waste

Process Cycle Efficiency

VSM Observations on NVA steps

Defects due to manual process of

identifying compatible part numbers

Over Processing – Multiple audits,

Multiple Excel trackers

2 – FMEA

Process Failure Modes

Effects of Failure

Criticality and Severity

Failure Causes

Occurrence and Detection

RPN Number

User did not verify the business rules applicable for this activity

User copied incorrect MOD number, User selected incorrect Part number

User entered incorrect part number in search box

User searched for incorrect model name against part number

User mapped the SKU to incorrect models in the tool

User identified incorrect compatible SKUs for new model launches


15


29


2.3.2. A (2/2) – What data was generated and how was the data analyzed in order to identify the final root causes / improvement opportunities? 2.3.2. B (2/2) – What are specific examples of data analysis that led to the final root cause?

Specific Exam ples

What Data Generated?

3 – Pareto Chart

Pareto chart was created using Minitab

Process X’s were listed along with their

occurrences

Top 20% of occurrences were

considered

Total number occurrences for data

door factors

Total number of occurrences for

possible data door factors using

historical process records

Manual Processing of Data

Multiple Data sources

Procedural Issues

Interaction Errors

Process Knowledge Gap

Dependency on SMEs

4 – 5 Why Analysis

Final root causes as validated using VSM, FMEA, Pareto,

and Statistical Analysis

Lack of tenured experienced team members

Procedural standardization missing

Inefficient Training process

Resource and skill mismatch

Access issues

No master file available for certain categories

Project team brainstormed along with process owners on the root

causes of all validated final causes How was Data Analy zed?



30


2.3.2. C – What was(were) the final root causes / improvement opportunities?

Possible Root Causes / Improvement Opportunities (2.2.2. B)

1. Lack of tenured / experienced team members Dependence on SMEs

2. No backup for skilled resources

3. Lack of mapping of appropriate/ relevant request to appropriate/ relevant skilled resource



6. Multiple Data sources

7. Back end compatibility data not available and has to be extracted manually

8. Manually copy pasting piece part information


10. Audit done incorrectly

11. Resource intensive data extraction process

12. Stringent timelines to launch new models on time

13. Process too complex

14. Manual Processing

FMEA

Value Stream Maps

Pareto Analysis for data door factors

5 Why Analysis

1. Multiple Data Sources

2. Manual Processing

3. Resource Skill Mismatch


5. Process Knowledge Gap

Final Root Causes

Analysis (Tools / Methods – 2.3.1.)


16


31


2.3.3. A – How was the final root cause / improvement opportunities validated? 2.3.3. B – What evidence showed that the final root causes / improvement opportunities were validated prior to solution development?

How was Data Validated?

Evidence

What Was Done?

1 – Hypothesis Testing

2 way ANOVA test conducted to

confirm if individual AHT n multiple

data sources had an impact on

High AHT

eClerx Time Tracker AHT data

Time spent on compatibility

identification – individual resource

Time taken per activity by

Data source

Two way

ANOVA

2 – Attribute Agreement Analysis

Conducted individual process assessment

Individual execution steps scores v/s process standard was noted

AAA

Attribute Agreement Analysis done for all team members scores v/s

the standard steps to confirm if there was a process knowledge gap

Team Member 4Team Member 3Team Member 2Team Member 1

80

60

40

20

0

AppraiserP

erc

en

t

95.0% C I

Percent

Date of study:

Reported by:

Name of product:

Misc:

Assessment Agreement

Appraiser vs Standard

4321

5

4

3

2

1

Resources_1

AH

T_1

Boxplot of AHT_1

Single Multiple

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

Data sources

AH

T

1

2

3

4

Resources

Multi-Vari Chart for AHT by Resources - Data sources



32

2.4.0 | Project Management Update

2.4.1. A – How was the correctness of the initial project scope, deliverables, and timing confirmed (or, what changes were made?

Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk5 Wk6 Wk7 Wk8 Wk9 Wk10 Wk11 Wk12 Wk13 Wk14 Wk15 Wk16 Wk17 Wk18 Wk19 Wk20 Wk21 Wk22 Wk23 Wk24 Wk25 Wk26 Wk27 Wk28 Wk29 Wk30 Wk31 Wk32 Wk33 Wk34 Wk35 Wk36

3-Nov 10-Nov 17-Nov 24-Nov 1-Dec 8-Dec 15-Dec 22-Dec 29-Dec 5-Jan 12-Jan 19-Jan 26-Jan 2-Feb 9-Feb 16-Feb 23-Feb 2-Mar 9-Mar 16-Mar 23-Mar 30-Mar 6-Apr 13-Apr 20-Apr 27-Apr 4-May 11-May 18-May 25-May 1-Jun 8-Jun 15-Jun 22-Jun 29-Jun 6-Jul

Start Date End Date

Gather VOC data 3-Nov 8-Nov

Define the Bus iness Case 10-Nov 22-Nov

Understand Stakeholders 17-Nov 22-Nov

Define Problem and Goals 17-Nov 29-Nov

Develop project charter 24-Nov 6-Dec

Define the Process (SIPOC) 24-Nov 6-Dec

Describe the Key Customer and Process Requirements 1-Dec 13-Dec

8-Dec 13-Dec

Map As-Is State of the process 15-Dec 27-Dec

Time Series Plot of Primary Metric 22-Dec 27-Dec

Veri fy Data Qual i ty 22-Dec 3-Jan

Col lect Process Data 15-Dec 11-Jan

Understand Process Behavior 29-Dec 17-Jan

Basel ine Process Capabi l i ty 5-Jan 24-Jan

Conclus ions / Issues / Next Steps 19-Jan 31-Jan

26-Jan 31-Jan

Root Cause - Potentia l Cri tica l X's 26-Jan 14-Feb

Analyze Process Data - Identi fy Signi ficant X's 9-Feb 21-Feb

Root Cause va l idation 16-Feb 7-Mar

Conclus ions / Issues / Next Steps 2-Mar 14-Mar

16-Mar 21-Mar

Generate Potentia l Solutions / Future State VSM 23-Mar 11-Apr

Demonstrate Potentia l Solutions 6-Apr 18-Apr

Select & Test Best Solutions (Pi lot tests ) 13-Apr 23-May

Implement Solutions w/ Action Plan 18-May 30-May

Statement of Y=f(x) 18-May 30-May

Conclus ions / Issues / Next Steps 25-May 30-May

25-May 30-May

Clear Indication of Improved Primary Metric 1-Jun 6-Jun

Formal Control Plan - Control Methods Appl ied 8-Jun 20-Jun

Project Approval by Champion or equiva lent 15-Jun 27-Jun

Discuss Financia l Va l idation 22-Jun 27-Jun

Provide Project Closure Documents 22-Jun 27-Jun

Conclus ions / Issues / Next Steps 22-Jun 27-Jun

29-Jun 4-Jul

29-Jun 11-Jul

Define Tol lgate Review

Week

PHASE ActivitiesStarting

DEFINE

CONTR

OL

Control Tol lgate Review

Assessment & Panel Interview

MEA

SURE

Measure Tol lgate Review

ANALYZE

Analyze Tol lgate Review

IMPR

OVE

Improve Tol lgate Review

Project

deliverables

completed as per planned dates

Toll Gate

Review + email

Sign-off

Six Sigma Steering

Committee

Quality

Team

Project

Team

Process

Owners

Scope Confirmed No change Identified


17


33


2.4.1. B – How were stakeholders involved and / or communicated with during the root cause / improvement opportunity phase of the project?

Stakeholders How Involved

Project Steering

Committee

Participated in Project Steering Meetings

Supported by ensuring resource availability as planned

Provided guidance during project discussions

Process Owners

Actively participated in brainstorming sessions

Helped project team identify possible root causes

Ensured team attendance in process tests

Helped with required historical data for various analysis

Quality Team

Conducted Quality specific trainings

Facilitated team on use of Quality tools / methods

Administered DMAIC phase implementation

Knowledge

Management Team

Facilitated process tests

Managed all project documentation

Assisted in creation of process flows

How Com m unicated

By When

Steering Committee

Meetings Monthly

Tollgate Meetings After each phase of DMAIC

Team Connect Weekly

Email Communication Based on project finding

and validation



34


2.4.1. C – What stakeholder resistance was identified and / or addressed in this phase of the project?

Stakeholder Group What Resistance? How Identified? How Resolved?

Project Steering Committee No Resistance

Process Owners Few team members resisted

undergoing process tests

Discussed in weekly

project meeting

Explained the implication of process knowledge

gap on AHT / Quality

Further support received from Champion /

Sponsor to complete this activity

Quality Team No Resistance

Knowledge

Management Team

KM Team insisted timelines for

conducting tests for all team

members was not sufficient

Discussed during

planning the tests with

KM team

Divided the test schedule in multiple shifts so that

entire team could be covered within the given

timeframe

Client SPOC No Resistance


18


35


2.4.1. D – How was the appropriateness of the initial team membership and management routines confirmed (or, what changes were made)?


Project deadlines achieved as planned

No Changes

Routine checks done on planned dates v/s actual implementation dates

KM team audited availability of required documentation

Feedback and support received from Sponsor / Champion

Minutes of meeting published after each meeting

Received email sign-off on phase completion

Routines administered and approved by MBB and BB

No Changes

Team Membership and Management Routines How did we Confirm Appropriateness? What Changes were Made?

Initial Team Membership

Management Routines


Solution / Improvement Development

3

19


37

3.1.0 | Possible Solutions or Improvements

3.1.1. A – What methods and / or tools were used to identify the possible solutions / improvements? 3.1.1. B – Why were these methods and / or tools selected?

This was used to organize the

ideas with the reference points

and thereby relating to the root

cause identified before.

Affinity Diagram

This tool is easy to use and is

capable of generating multiple

solution proposals for a single

cause.

Brainstorming

This was done to get expert

opinion and knowledge in

generating solutions

Focused Group Discussion

3.0.0: SOLUTION / IMPROVEMENT DEVELOPMENT


38


3.1.1. C – How was the team prepared to use these methods and / or tools?

Brainstorming Techniques Training on using brainstorming

for arriving at solutions

To gauge their understanding level and readiness for usage,

a generic topic was given to the team for brainstorming

Affinity Diagram Process Flow Creation

MS Visio 2010 (basic flow chart / swim lane chart)

1 day – 4 hours


Focused Group Discussion Training on focused group

discussion fundamentals



Methods / Tools

People Trained


20


39

Using Affinity diagram solutions were identified and

organized as below:

Process Automation

Process Enhancement

Training, Skill and Process Knowledge

Improvement

Workflow Management

Central Data Repository.


3.1.2. A – What data was generated and how was it analyzed?

What Data was Generated?

How was IT Analyzed?

Future State VSM was prepared to

analyze the alignment and relevance of

solutions generated by the team

Training Need Analysis and Team Competency

Mapping was conducted by Knowledge Management

team for training and skill related solutions

Technical assistance was taken from

Software team for automation

opportunities in the process

Affinity Diagram

Possible solutions for each of the

above mentioned categories

Brainstorming

Involvement of team SMEs and

technical experts to validate the

possible solution



40


3.1.2. B – What are the possible solutions / improvements?

5 Final

Root

Causes

20 Possible Solutions 1. Automate activities where high skilled resource is required

2. Identify manual steps that can be automated to improve quality of execution and turn around time

3. Develop an automation software for the entire process

4. Create an automation that will identify the Piece Part information for the new model launches

5. Remove people dependency by providing tool access to all the users

6. Introduce one centralized team for reporting

7. Identify risk associated activities that needs capability building and provide trainings accordingly

8. Review team composition to have a balanced mix of experienced and new team members

9. Build more domain expertise by providing extensive training and personal development in terms of communication and capability building

10. Refresher training on clearing the concept, doubts and risk associated areas that has high impact

11. Build checkpoint mechanism to ensure all steps are covered during audits

12. Initiate regional cross process audits to maintain integrity, ensure standardization and get better results

13. Ensure all high risk deliverables are audited frequently by Team Leads

14. Design tools where the entire global team can follow standardized execution procedure

15. Eliminate the tool launching time by linking the SQL Query to Excel backend

16. Highlight the business rules information in the output that will help the user save time in identifying the final SKU list

17. Create master file for all categories and share with all category specialist

18. Build domain expertise by providing extensive training and personal development in terms of communication and capability buil ding

19. Create request Management tool that captures end to end activity

20. Automate the SKU details extraction method remove chances of copy paste errors


21


41


3.1.2. C – What evidence showed that the solutions / improvements identified were possible instead of final?

Solution Identification and Prioritization

Technical Consultation

SME Validation

Example: Development of new software to

automate entire process – possible but not

viable considering the cost and time factor



42

3.2.0 | Final Solutions or Improvements

3.2.1. A – What methods and / or tools were used to identify the final solutions / improvements? 3.2.1. B – Why were these methods and/or tools selected?

Solution Identification

and Prioritization

Payoff Matrix

Future State Value

Stream Mapping

Focused Group

Discussion

FMEA

Multi-voting

To identify viability of automation in the process

To narrow the list of solutions and know which solutions most of

the team members agree upon

To detect possible opportunities for defects in solutions generated

This tool was used to prioritize and eliminate non feasible solutions from the list of possible solutions

To analyze the alignment and relevance of solutions generated by the team

To identify implementable solutions based on risk and payoff


22


43


3.2.1. C – How was the team prepared to use these methods and / or tools?

Multi Voting Team was trained on N/3

voting technique

1 day – 4 hours

Solution Identification and Prioritization Prioritizing and scoring methodology

for solution identification Training and practice sessions done

1 day – 4 hours

Pay off Matrix Training and practice

sessions done

1 day – 2 hours


Methods / Tools

People Trained

* VSM, FMEA and Focused Group Discussion training and preparation was already covered in previous project phases



44


3.2.2. A – How were the methods or tools used to determine the final solutions? 3.2.2. B – What was the final solution?

Num ber Final Solutions

FS1 Build domain expertise by providing extensive training and personal development in

terms of communication and capability building

FS2 Create request Management tool that captures end to end activity

FS3 Create master file for all categories and share with all category specialists

FS4 Create an automation that will identify the Piece Part information for the new model

launches

FS5 Eliminate the tool launching time by linking the SQL Query to Excel backend

FS6 Highlight the business rules information in the output that will help the user save time in

identifying the final SKU list

FS7 Automate the SKU details extraction method

FS8 Remove people dependency by providing tool access to all the users



Multi Voting

Pay Off Matrix

23


45


3.2.3. A – How were the final solutions validated?

Num ber Final Solutions SME

Validation

Future

State VSM FMEA

Pilot

T esting

Statistical

Validation

FS1 Build domain expertise by providing extensive training and personal

development in terms of communication and capability building

FS2 Create request Management tool that captures end to end activity

FS3 Create master file for all categories and share with all

category specialists

FS4 Create an automation that will identify the Piece Part information for

the new model launches

FS5 Eliminate the tool launching time by linking the SQL Query to

Excel backend

FS6 Highlight the business rules information in the output that will help the

user save time in identifying the final SKU list

FS7 Automate the SKU details extraction method

FS8 Remove people dependency by providing tool access to all the users



46


3.2.3. B – What evidence showed that validation was performed prior to implementation?


AHT-pilotAHT-pre

20.0

17.5

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

Da

ta

Boxplot of AHT-pre, AHT-pilot

24


47


3.2.4. A – What additional potential benefits were anticipated from the final solutions? 3.2.4. B – Were the additional benefits anticipated prior to implementation?

Additional Benefits Expected After Final Solutions Expected Results How Obtained

Improvement in customer visits to Client website >=5% Improving quality in catalogue coverage leads to more customer visits

Increase in product catalogue coverage >=20% Increase in volumes of compatible products increases product coverage

Employee satisfaction >=75% Reduction in manual job and rework increases employee satisfaction

FS1, FS4, FS7 Improvement in quality Improvement in customer

visits

FS4, FS5, FS6, FS7, FS8

Increase in volumes Increase in catalogue

coverage

FS1, FS2, FS3 Reduce rework, Training Employee Satisfaction

The additional

benefits were

anticipated after

freezing the final

solutions



48


3.2.5. A (1/3) – What data was generated and analyzed to justify implementation? 3.2.5. B (1/3) – What evidence showed that justification was performed prior to implementation?

Data was Generated from

New Process Flow Chart

Future State VSM

Pilot Test Results

Process Flow Analysis derived from VSM


25


49



Future State VSM



Future State VSM

Pilot Test Results



50



P Chart – Before Improvement

P Chart – Pilot Test Results

Control Chart – Before Improvement

Control Chart – Pilot Test Results

Week 19Week 17Week 15Week 13Week 11Week 9Week 7Week 5Week 3Week 1

0:21:00

0:18:00

0:15:00

0:12:00

0:09:00

Week

In

div

idu

al

Va

lue

_X=0:15:08

UC L=0:21:03

LC L=0:09:13


0:08:00

0:06:00

0:04:00

0:02:00

0:00:00

Week

Mo

vin

g R

an

ge

__MR=0:02:13

UC L=0:07:16

LC L=0:00:00

I-MR Chart of AHT - Project Baseline Data


0:07:00

0:06:00

0:05:00

0:04:00

Week_1

In

div

idu

al

Va

lue

_X=0:05:35

UC L=0:07:13

LC L=0:03:56


0:02:00

0:01:00

0:00:00

Week_1

Mo

vin

g R

an

ge

__MR=0:00:37

UC L=0:02:01

LC L=0:00:00

I-MR Chart of AHT - Pilot Test

Pilot Test Results



Future State VSM

Pilot Test Results


26


51


3.3.1. A – How was the correctness of the initial or updated project scope, deliverables and timing confirmed?

Project

deliverables

completed as per planned dates

Toll Gate

Review + email

Sign-off

Six Sigma

Steering

Committee

Quality

Team

Project

Team

Technical

Team

Addition in Scope: Technical Team On-boarded

Process

Owners



52


3.3.1. B – How were the stakeholders involved and communicated with during the solution phase of the project?

Stakeholders How Involved

Project Steering

Committee Reviewed progress of the team

Provided support by getting technical team onboard

Process Owners

Process teams in bringing up solutions and ideas during

Brainstorming, Affinity diagram; Team Leads and Process

Managers in Multi-voting, Payoff Matrix, Pilot tests

Coordination in Solution Generation phase, Conducting and

analyzing VSM, Analysis of Pilot test results

Quality Team

Conducted Quality specific trainings

Facilitated team on use of Quality tools / methods

Administered DMAIC phase implementation

Knowledge

Management Team

Assisted with Training Need Analysis and Team Competency

Mapping review

Updated project documents

Technical Team Provided technical guidance on process automation

Built SPMD Automation

Supported in pilot testing of automation

How Com m unicated

BY WHEN

Steering Committee

Meetings Monthly

Tollgate Meetings After each phase of DMAIC

Team Connect Weekly

Email Communication Based on project finding

and validation


27


53


3.3.1. C – What stakeholder resistance was identified / addressed in this phase of the project?

Stakeholder Group What Resistance? How Identified? How Resolved?

Project Steering Committee No Resistance

Process Owners No Resistance

Quality Team No Resistance

Knowledge Management Team No Resistance

Client SPOC No Resistance


54


3.3.1. D – How was the appropriateness of the initial or updated team membership and management routines confirmed (or, what changes were made)?


Project deadlines achieved as planned

Technical team added to

project scope

Routine checks done on planned dates v/s actual implementation dates

KM team audited availability of required documentation

Feedback and support received from Sponsor / Champion

Minutes of meeting published after each meeting

Received email sign-off on phase completion

Routines administered and approved by MBB and BB

No Changes

Team Membership and Management Routines How did we Confirm Appropriateness? What Changes were Made?

Initial Team Membership

Management Routines

28


Implementation and Results Verification

4


56

4.1.0 | Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation

4.1.1. A – How were stakeholders involved in planning the solution / improvement implementation? 4.1.1. B – How were stakeholders involved in implementing the solution / improvement?

Sr. No. Stakeholders Contribution in Planning Solution Contribution in Implementing Solution

1. Project Steering

Committee

Sponsor: ensured availability of all resources on scheduled

meeting dates Champion: Liaised with client SPOC to get required accesses

and approvals

Sponsor / Champion: Change agents to make the improvements a part of

the process

2. Project Team

Project Lead ensured required stakeholder’s presence while

planning the solutions Process SME’s contributed with their knowledge and

experience on planning solutions

Project Lead: Took the onus of training the entire team on the new procedures

Process SME’s built new process flows for the revised procedures

2. Quality Team Ensure team readiness for usage of various Quality tools

Facilitated solution planning sessions Helped with statistical validation and justification of implemented solutions

3. Technical Team

Helped with identifying the areas in the process that can

be automated Helped in troubleshooting various automation options

Built the automation for the process

Technical team helped us fixed bugs that were identified in the pilot phase They also supported the team with initial training on using the new automation

4.

Knowledge

Management Team

Helped in creating training need analysis based on

proposed solutions

Worked with the project lead and SMEs in updating the Standard Operating

Procedures, Process Checklists, Process Training Plans and assessments Carried refresher trainings and conducted post training assessments for the

process team

6. Client SPOC NA Supported us by providing required backend accesses to the tools used in the

process for automation

4.0.0: IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS VERIFICATION

29


57


4.1.2. A – What was done to anticipate resistance before it occurred?

Tollgate reviews were

conducted with project

Sponsor / Champion and

Master Blackbelt after

completion of each phase

Stakeholder’s concerns were

thoroughly discussed

during reviews

Tollgate Reviews


was conducted

For each stakeholder, we

tried to anticipate where and

what phases of the project could be resisted


Email sign-offs were

taken from stakeholder for

each important decision

taken in the project. This

was also followed for tollgate reviews and solution

implementation plan

Email Sign-offs for Each Phase



58


4.1.2. B – What types of resistance were actually encountered during the course of solution / improvement implementation? 4.1.2. C – How was the actual resistance identified?

4.1.2 C: How identified? 4.1.2 B: What resistance?

Identified during solution discussion with

client and technical team

No Resistance

No Resistance

Delayed email sign-off from process owners

Low attendance in new process trainings

Client– resistance to provide continued

backend access to certain database

Knowledge Management

Process Team – Resistance to follow new

process / resistance to change management



30


59


4.1.3. A – How was the actual resistance addressed? 4.1.3. B – How did the team know it was successful in addressing the resistance?

Sponsor / Champion intervention

Multiple meetings with client to explain

the benefits of automation

Received approval from VP – Product

and Catalogue for required access

Project team did 1X1 discussion with all

team members

Shared pilot results with the team which

clearly showed the project benefits

Project Champion motivated the team

to go ahead with changes

Process team supported end to end

implementation of changes once the

initial resistance issues were sorted

4.1.2 B: What resistance?

4.1.3 A: How addressed? 4.1.3 B: Success confirmed?

Client SPOC Resistance

Team Resistance



60


4.1.4. A – What was the evidence of stakeholder group buy-in? 4.1.4. B – What evidence showed that buy-in was obtained prior to implementation?


Stakeholders Impact of

Change

(H/M/L)

Present

Mindset

(R/N/S/C)

Desired

Mindset

(N/A/S/C)

Concerns/

Issues;

Resistance

Strategic

Influence;

Responsibi

lity

Project Steering

Committee H C S NA H

Project Approval

Committee M S S NA H

Quality H S S NA NA

Process Ow ners H S S NA NA

Project Team H C S NA NA

Know ledge

Management M S S NA NA

Keys: 1. (H/M/L) = High, Med., Low 2. (R/N/S/C) = Resistance, Neutral, Supportive, Committed

3. (N/A/S/C) = Neutral, Accept, Support, Commit

31


61

4.2.0 | Solution / Improvement Implementation

4.2.1. A – What processes or systems were changed or created to implement the solution / improvement?

Tool 1 Tool 2 DB 1 DB 2

Multiple data sources combined into one tool

Saved time on compatibility identification

Business Analytics was introduced to enhance current reporting procedure

ETL Process

Automated Single Tool

Business Analytics

Efficiency Up

Cost Down

New

Pro

cess C

reate

d

New System Created



62

4.2.0 | Solution / Improvement Implementation

4.2.1. B – What systems were changed or created to measure and manage the performance of the implementation?

Benchmark AHT Redefined

Automated Tracking of Tool Usage Time

Weekly Review with Process Owners and Team Members on Tool Performance Feedback

New Process Training Plans Created as per the Newly Defined Process


32


63

4.3.0 | Project Results

4.3.1. A – What were the results? 4.3.1. B – How did the results compare to the specific project goals / measures from item 2.1.1? 4.3.2. A – What additional benefits were realized from the project?

Pre- Project Target What were the results? Achieved

Average Handling Time ~15 minutes ~50% improvement AHT reduced to

~7.5 minutes

Errors % 10% ~50% reduction 3% errors noted

post implementation

Increase in processing volume

by eClerx P&U Team

Increased online

product offerings

Product coverage

Increased

Improvement in

customer visits

Additional Benefits

Revenue generated from

improved offerings

~300% extra volumes

processed post automation ~1.7X ~21% ~14% $18.2 Million


64


4.3.2. B – How did the team measure any of the additional benefits that were soft?

Streamlined process and

helped reduce people

dependency

Employee Satisfaction

Improved catalogue and

product coverage

Scalable to parts business in

any domain / industry

Build online customer

confidence for purchasing

the correct product

Strengthened client

relationship

Surveys

Client

Feedback

Employee

feedback

Process SME

feedback

Improved

customer

visits %

Additional

value add

projects


33


65


4.3.2. C – How do the actual additional benefits that were realized compare to the expected additional benefits identified in item 3.2.4?

Increase in processing volume by ~300%

Increase in product catalogue coverage

Improvement in customer visits to Client website

Expected Actual Realized

~9,000

~20%

~5%

~27,000

21%

14%

Project Benefits


Sustaining and Communicating Results

5

34


67

5.1.0 | Sustaining Results Over Time

5.1.1. A – What was done to make sure the process or system changes made during the implementation (4.2.1.) continued to be followed?

System Changes Sustenance Plan Responsibility

Monitoring and Response Plan

Change Management

Refresher Process Training

Fortnightly Audits

Process Checklists

Project Lead

Process Owner (Manager)

Knowledge Management

Project Lead / Blackbelt

Process Owner (Manager)

5.0.0: SUSTAINING AND COMMUNICATING RESULTS


68


5.1.1. B – What evidence showed that this became part of the organizations culture / operating strategy?

Monitoring and Response Plan Change Management Process Checklists – Document Center


35


69


5.1.2. A – What was done to make sure the benefits obtained from the implementation (Item 4.2.1.) will be maintained?

This were revised to include the new process steps to be followed by the team. The SOPs were saved on a SharePoint Document Library which made it easier for process team to access.

This were also taken up for the new procedure. As per eClerx requirements, all Analysts working on client process need to clear these tests before going live on the process.

This plan basically assesses team’s current skill and process knowledge to required skills / knowledge. Based on the assessment, every team member is rated as N,B,I or E

This was initiated for the team to keep a check if a process variation occurs. The project lead was responsible to carry out an RCA if any deviation was noticed.

TAPS was planned and conducted for each team member as per the new process

Standard Operating Procedure

T raining Plan and T est Changes

T eam Competency Movement Plan

Weekly T racking and Reporting of AHT and Quality Data

Monthly TAPS



70


5.1.2. B – What evidence showed that this became part of the organizations culture/operating strategy?

Standard Operating Procedure

T raining Plan and T est Changes

Weekly T racking and Reporting of AHT and Quality Data

Monthly TAPS


36


71

5.2.0 | Communication of Results

5.2.1 B (1/2) – How did the team communicate the results to the various stakeholder groups?

Project Steering

Committee

Project Review

Meeting

Project closure email

Tollgate Sign-off

Client SPOC

Project closure email

Quarterly Business Review Meet

Project team /

Knowledge

Management

Project closure email communication

Formal project presentation by Project Lead

Process Owners

Formal project presentation by Project Lead

New process walkthrough sessions



72

5.2.0 | Communication of Results

5.2.1 B (2/2) – How did the team communicate the results to the various stakeholder groups?

Quarterly Newsletter Program Intranet

The project success was documented in our quarterly newsletter

‘Synapse’ which is shared with the entire organization

The project was also published on the program intranet portal

congratulating the team on their success


37


Thank You