1 The Voice of the Customer (VOC) Project Sheri G. Espinoza Director, Customer Care American Society for Quality (ASQ) World Conference on Quality and Improvement May 18-20, 2009 Minneapolis, MN Kaye Stambaugh Vice President, Customer Care Ayesha Basheer Manager, Quality Leader
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
The Voice of the Customer (VOC) Project
Sheri G. EspinozaDirector, Customer Care
American Society for Quality (ASQ) World Conference on Quality and Improvement
May 18-20, 2009Minneapolis, MN
Kaye Stambaugh Vice President, Customer Care
Ayesha BasheerManager, Quality Leader
2
HD Supply FM BusinessWho are we?
• Phone/Fax/Internet/EDI Ordering
• Multi-site Call Center– 600+ seats in TX– 300 + seats in SD– 30+ seats in VA • 300 Dedicated Delivery Trucks
• 35+ Distribution Centers• 300 National and
Field Acct Managers
• B2B Wholesale Distributor of Maintenance products• Annual catalog features 18,000+ products
Leading supplier of maintenance, repair & operation s products
Formally, Home Depot Supply, HD Supply is the market leader in wholesale distribution of maintenance products to the multi-family customer segment. Distributing over 18K products to over 22K customers nationwide and also in Canada.
Key features of Our Business
Next-day delivery
One-stop shop for more than 18,000 products
In-stock guarantee
Dedicated fleet of delivery trucks
Extensive field sales and national account team
Product technical support and special orders
Fabrication and renovation services
Training programs
Customer advocate center
Online solutions
3
Over 3 decades grown from a multi-Million $ company to a multi-Billion $ company . . . Need to continue Customer/Personalized focus, but also ‘scale’ for operations
Rapid growth and change over years, left a void in the personalized touch aspect of the business. The business wanted to streamline the process of de cision making and drive back customer centricity. Therefore, a Voice of the Customer (VOC) project was born as a DESIGN project.
The project was developed using Six Sigma Methodology DMADV
Project Launched In Oct 2006
Project Verified/ Implemented Apr 2007
Since April 2007 VOC has supported business through Integration/ SAP releases or where customer feedback is captured.
4
Voice of the Customer (VOC) Team
VOC Customer Advocate Team Customer Feedback- Data capture Team
Teaming up for Success
VOC Captain Team Cross-functional Business Team
The story of the VOC project begins with 3 associates, that extends out to form of a cross-functional business team. The VOC Captain team is made up of six functional areas represented by 20 process owners, 30 VOC Captains, 9 Advocates and 600+ Customer Service Reps (CSRs) spread across 5 locations who touch 600 unique customers each month (via VOC Survey).
The VOC Captains are set in a cross functional matrix, they are Subject Matter Experts/problem solvers representing their respective business functional team. The binding force between these team members is being “Customer Focused”.
VOC’s – Customer Advocate Team – Represented by 8 associates is responsible for, data collection, customer issue resolution and root cause analysis. These associates are the ‘front line’ who talk to customers everyday about escalated issues, things we are doing well and also areas that the business can be doing better.
5
Project Selection & Purpose
Section 1
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
In the first section, we will discuss the initiation of the Voice of the Customer project, the project methodology used and its relevant importance to the business.
6
Overall Methodology Used - DFSS/DMADV
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) was used for the VOC Pr ojectDMADV is a data-driven quality strategy for designi ng products and processes, and it is an integral part of a Six Sigma Quality Initia tive. DMADV consists of five interconnected phases: Define, Measure, Analyze, De sign, and Verify 1
For the VOC Project, the standardized Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) methodology was used. This is a 6sigma methodology that can be used for the development of products/services from the basis of customer requirements it uses several sequential tools for the development of robust products/services.
The DFSS methodology relies on a heavy focus on the Type 1: Customer Quality - The features that customers want.
It is also used when there is lack of existing process or the current process does not support measurement.
7
1A.a Types of Data and Quality Tools Used to Select the VOC Project and why they were used?
Data/Quality Tool
Provide Solutions to customer complaints
Identify active hot issues in the field
Assess financial impact of poor service
Analyze concessions given for service failures
Baseline Customer Satisfaction/Loyalty
Analyze customer satisfaction
Why it was usedHow it was Used
Select tools and data illustrate the lack of data depository…
Perfect Order Survey
Concession Reports
Anecdotal Data
Define Measure Analyze Design VerifyVerify
1A.a By conducting a SIPOC, deficiencies were identified. The analysis of the current state, existing reports and infrastructure provided insight on various input and output to customer experience. The existing data/quality tools were not adequate in determining customer loyalty and taking action on areas of improvement. Here are some examples:
Perfect Order Survey. Analyzing the quantitative data of Customer Satisfaction from Perfect Order survey provided answers to the question “was your last order perfect?” Yes or No. It did not have clear drill down data to answer questions if “No”. Why, where, when, what etc.
If the customer complained about a service or requested resolution it was handled by third tier Customer Service Rep. support. The information that was logged had several deficiencies. The Field Sales Reps. did not support the process and content had serious quality issues.
Generic reports were produced to disseminate the information limited to high level distribution and mostly it did not make its way to the process owner.
The Customer Concession report , which had 4000 data points, also confirmed a gap in driving actionable reporting and identifying proces s improvement opportunities. Although data points were collected, they were not organized in a fashion that would drive action from the report given. Therefore, the business had a Customer Concession report that was not used to drive action.
Anecdotal Data. The subjective/qualitative data – collected through interviews with process owners to either develop SIPOC and map out AS- IS process maps also showed majority of the projects were run without assessing the impact on the customer. As a result there were constant corrective actions. For example, a corrective action in Merchandising impacted the normal operations of sales team and the end result was customer was confused or
8
1A.b Reasons Why the Project was Selected…contd
Enhance customer loyalty and drive business $ savings
1. Customer Touch points and alignment to all organi zational departments
2. Enhance customer loyalty via Customer Experience from start to finish
3. Develop infrastructure/ framework to promote cont inuous improvement
and cost savings
4. Prioritize improvements from customer need/requir ements
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
1A.b. The data analysis confirmed lack of a holistic appr oach to drive continuous improvements. The Functional silos limited the focu s on customer centricity. The information gathered from customer touch points was either irrelevant or not in a ready to use form. There was a need for a cohesive force that would bind customer feedback to customer touch points of the business. This project would drive the Customer Centricity in making business decisions.
In the existing structure, the information gathered from customer touch points was either irrelevant or not in a ready to use form to drive continuous process improvement. Hence the leadership wanted a new appr oach that would instill the focus on “Customer Experience” and drive continuous process improvements . This project was selected to drive the change and fill t his gap.
1A.b. We concluded from the initial assessment that current structure of data collection and reporting was not adequate to support the needs/direction of a customer driven organization. The information that existed did not lead to action.
There was also a need for a cohesive force that wou ld bind customer feedback to customer touch points of the business. This project would drive the Customer Centricity in making business decisions. The data analysis confirmed lack of a holistic approach to drive continuous improvements. The Functional silos also limited the focus on customer centric approach.
Hence the leadership wanted a new approach that wou ld instill the focus on “Customer Experience” and drive continuous process i mprovements . This project was selected to drive the change and fill this gap.
9
1A.b Reasons Why the Project was Selected
Project Selection Criteria Used
VOC: Critical To Customer Loyalty
VOB: Voice of Business ($)
VOT: Voice of Team
Feasibility (Likelihood of Success)
Leverage (Positive Impact on other Processes)
5
5
4
A Score of 2500 is a product of a selection criter ia
5
5
2500 Score
Scoring guidelines (scale 1-5)
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
Each Selection criteria had a scale of 1-5, with defined description
• 1 being lowest • 5 being highest
1A.b. The project was identified as main platform to iden tify/ develop process that would capture customer experience and drive improve ment. The team developed the scoring guidelines and it was ranked as one of the highest scoring project . Use of project selection criteria helped in prioritization and allocation of the resources. The ratings were assigned by the Sponsors and key leaders.
Selection Criteria had a scale of 1-5
VOC – Top quartile Supports first level of Critical to Quality (CTQ) attribute
VOB – Project Implementation will results in hard $ savings Revenue Increases and Direct Expense reductions of >$40K
VOT – Project Implementation will results in soft $ savings (cost avoidance, revenue retention, Capacity etc)
Feasibility – Low risk of implementation
Leverage – Project will result in significant Positive Impact on other processes
Since the project score was high supporting a busin ess need and alignment to organizational goals, the VOC Project was selected for immediate execution.
10
1A.c Involvement of Potential Stakeholders in Project Selection
SIPOC analysis was used to identify Stakeholders. Based on the role, their participation was aligned with various phases of the project
Internal Stakeholders
External Stakeholders
Executive LeadersRole: Project Selection
Functional Leaders, Process Owners , SME
Process Analysis, Brainstorming, Process validation, Root cause analysis
Customer Facing Teams
Training, Pilot,
Validation & Testing
Vendor Customers
Validation, Training, Testing
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
Define Measure Analyze Design Validate
6 Sigma BeltsRole: Project Execution
1A.c. In this section an overview of stakeholder involvement in project selection and their association and contribution at the various phases of projects is presented.
The Six Sigma Methodology, ensures that Stakeholders are identified in the Define phase. As the team completed SIPOC Analysis, potential sta keholders were identified. They were grouped under two sections: Internal and Exter nal. As the roles and responsibilities were defined, they were later alig ned with respective phase of the project and managed through an active communication plan and tollgates.
Pre – Define and Define Phase: Executive leadership – President, Vice Presidents representing all functional areas were actively eng aged in the selection and definition of criteria & policy.
Executive leaders representing functional areas spe arheaded in spreading the message about the project in the their respective a reas. They served as ambassadors of change.
In the later phases of the project other stakeholder participation increased.
Measure/Analyze/ Design/ Verify phases – Process owners and SME were actively engaged for process analysis, brainstorming solution, Multi voting etc
Implement Phase – Customer Facing teams were trained on root cause analysis methodology
External Stakeholders
Customer – Selection criteria was established to identify potential candidates to be surveyed. Research Analyst were involved to determine the criteria, Statistically significant sample size, reporting design, regression methodology for CTC assessment
Vendor – Was trained on root cause methodology for conducting survey
11
1B.a. Affected Organizational Goals/Performance Measures and Strategies
Per
form
ance
Mea
sure
s
A strong linkage shows a higher purpose of the proj ect
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Goa
lsO
rgan
izat
iona
l S
trat
egie
sCustomer Process Financial
�Expand verticals
�Remain the market leader with multifamily customers
World - classCustomer Service
World - classCustomer Service
Operational ExcellenceOperational Excellence
Market Growth & Cost Savings
Market Growth & Cost Savings
�Drive decision making based on customer feedback to increase customer loyalty
� Net Promoter Score (NPS) TM
>60%
� Customer Issue Index (CII) Score <25%
�Reduce Service Failure Defects
� Number of Process Improvement & Just Do It Improvement Activities Completed
� Increase Annualized cost savings $
Define Measure Analyze Design verify
1B.a. The project clearly aligns with Performance Measures and support our Company’s Goals and Strategies. The Customer, Process and Financial strategies are supported by the VOC Project.
HDS Goals/ Strategies are
•To provide World Class Customer Service
•To be Operationally Excellent
•To Increase Market Share while driving down costs
Our Customer Loyalty project directly supports the organization goals and strategies as each of the performance measures ties up to the company goals and strategies.
The project directly supports the organization goal s and strategies as each of the performance measures ties up to the company goals a nd strategies.
These performance measures were also used as baseli ne measurements to evaluate and validate the effectiveness and results of the p roject.
12
1B.b. Types of Impact the Project will have on each Goal/Performance Measure
World - classCustomer Service
World - classCustomer Service
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Goa
lsO
rgan
izat
iona
l S
trat
egie
sCustomer Process Financial
Operational ExcellenceOperational Excellence
Market Growth & Cost Savings
Market Growth & Cost Savings
�Drive decision making
based on customer feedback to increase
customer loyalty
� Net Promoter Score (NPS) TM >60%
� Customer Issue Index (CII) Score <25%
�Reduce Service Failure Defects
�Process Improvement & Just Do It Improvement Activities Completed
�Expand verticals
�Remain the market leader with multifamily customers
� Annualized cost savings $
Impact•Increase NPS TM
•Decrease CII
Impact•Reduce service failures
•Increase productivity
Impact•Hard & Soft $ Cost Savings
•Market/Service offering expansion
Impa
ct
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
1B.b. The project will impact each of the organizational goals.
For the Customer Strategy , an increase in the NPS and decrease in the CII will have a direct and significant impact to our ability to evaluate customer loyalty. The project will produce these customer loyalty scores so we can evaluate how ‘well’ or how ‘much we need to improve’ to capture ‘World Class Customer Service’.
For the Process Strategy , a reduction in service failures and an increase in productivity will directly impact our goal of operational excellence. The project will quantify improvement and productivity efficiencies/deficiencies so that we can best understand where to expend our improvement efforts and where we are excelling in operational execution.
For the Market Growth & Cost Savings strategy , a sales growth indicator and cost savings tracking will directly impact our ability to evaluate whether our efforts in gaining and retaining customer satisfaction/loyalty is actually ‘paying off’ in terms of bottom line and top line financial growth.
13
1B.c. Degree of impact on each goal, performance measure – Methodology … contd.
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
2*3 = 6 (High)3*3 = 9 (High)
3. High3. High
2*2 = 4 (Medium)2. Medium2. Medium
1*2 =2 (Low)1. Low1. Low
Degree of ImpactFeasibility Likelihood of Success
Effort of Change Management
1B.c The ranking of impact of each goal was evaluated by scoring the effort of change management and the feasibility or likelihood of success. Each area was scored by the project team and functional leaders and then combined to determine the degree of impact. A high score would mean that there would be a high influence on current state while a low score would be a minimal impact to the current state.
14
1B.c. Degree of impact on each goal, performance measure, and/or strategy and how was this determine d
Customer Process
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
Degree of ImpactScoreMarket Growth
Customer Loyalty will result in sales growth.
4Sales Growth
Degree of ImpactScoreOperational Excellence
Reduce Cost of Poor Quality9Reduce Service Failures
2
6
6
6
6
Score
Increased quality and productivity will result in savings
Hard & Soft $ Cost Savings
Capture more market shareMarket/Service offering expansion
Streamline operationsIncreased Productivity
Decreased customer complaints
Decrease Customer Issue Index (CII)
Increased Customer LoyaltyIncrease Net Promoter Score (NPS TM)
Degree of ImpactWorld Class Customer Service
Cus
tom
erP
roce
ssF
inan
cial
1B.c The degree of impact on the three main organization al strategieswas quantified based on the product of effort of ch ange management required in influencing/altering the current state and the feasibility (likelihood of success).
For example, as shown above, Operational Excellence had the highest score a product of high effort and higher rate success due to continued focus.
15
HD Supply - FM Customer
VOC/CAC
- Communication through VOC process of customer driven improvements
- Communication to Customers
Verification of Customer Resolution
Recurring IssuesCAC
HD Supply - FM Functional AreasVOC/CAC
CAC ReportsCommunicate cause to functional area
CAC Document Issue in Seibel –Services Tab
CAC
HD Supply - FM Customer
Solution for the customerAssignment of Concession
Responsibility
Resolve Customer Issue
Input to the Issue Resolution Options
THDS Functional Area
HD Supply - FM Functional Area
- Identification of cause- Determination of responsible functional area (ad-hoc informal call)
Determine Root/CauseOracle Order DataFunctional Team InputCustomer InputCAC Product/ Process
Knowledge
CSRsCustomersDistribution CentersSales/FARs
CreditAcct. Svcs
HD Supply - FM Functional Area
Documented CAC Submit forms of issue/inquiry
Assess Customer Issue
Oracle CAC FormsSeibel DataHughes Voice Mail
CAC Inbound CallsCAC Inbound EmailsFunctional Team Calls
1C.a Potential internal and external stakeholders a ndexplain how they were identified…contd
Inte
rnal
Sta
keho
lder
Ext
erna
l Sta
keho
lder
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
1C.a. In the Define Phase of the Project, a SIPOC (Supplier, Input, Process, Output Customer) was used to capture the high level process. Potential stakeholders (both internal and external) were identified during this exercise. You can notice them in the “Suppliers” and “Customers” columns.
After the SIPOC, detailed process mapping was performed from a partnership of process owners and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs).
16
1C.a Potential internal and external stakeholders and explain how they were identified
Define Measure Analyze Design Validate
Internal Stakeholders
External Stakeholders
Functional Leaders, Process Owners, SME
Process Analysis, Brainstorming, Process validation, Root cause analysis,
Validation, Training, Testing
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
SIPOC analysis was used to identify Stakeholders. B ased on role, their participation was aligned with various phases of the project
Executive LeadersRole: Project Selection
6 Sigma BeltsRole: Project Execution
Customer Facing Teams
Training, Pilot,
Validation & Testing
Vendor Customers
1C.a. Stakeholder involvement in project selection and th eir association and contribution at the various phases of projects was based on their decision making authority and the role they play during various pha se of DMADV
Since this was a strategic project for the company there were three levels of Stakeholders involved at the different stages of the project life cycle.
Pre – Define and Define Phase: Executive leadership – President, Vice Presidents representing all functional areas were actively eng aged in the selection and definition of criteria & policy.
Executive leaders representing functional areas spe arheaded in spreading the message about the project in the their respective a reas. They served as ambassadors of change.
In the later phases of the project other stakeholder participation increased.
Measure/Analyze/ Design/ Verify phases – Process owners and SME were actively engaged for process analysis, brainstorming solution, Multi voting etc
Implement Phase – Customer Facing teams were trained on root cause analysis methodology
External Stakeholders
Customer – Selection criteria was established to identify potential candidates to be surveyed. Research Analyst were involved to determine the criteria, Statistically significant sample size, reporting design, regression methodology for CTC assessment
Vendor – Was trained on root cause methodology for conducting survey
17
1C.b. Types of Impact on Stakeholders and How these were determined
Customer Process
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
Type of ImpactDegreeExternal Stakeholders
Continue to execute outbound calling survey.
LowVendor
Participation in process Improvement activities
MediumSubject Matter Experts
Medium
High
High
Degree
Assume additional responsibility of capturing Customer Issues
Customer Facing Teams –Customer Service, Credit, Sales Support
Sponsor Projects and allocate resources, Responsible for timely resolution of customer issues
Functional Leaders; Process owners
Use quantitative VOC data to drive decisions
Executive Leaders
Type of ImpactInternal StakeholdersE
xecu
tives
F
unct
iona
l Le
ader
sP
roce
ss
Ow
ners
/ Tea
ms
Ven
dor
High – Project will significantly alter current stat e (3)Medium – Project will have moderate influence on cur rent state (2)Low – Project will have no/low impact to current sta te (1)
1C.b. The types of impact on the stakeholders were based on the projects influence on the current state. The impac t was determined by understanding what type of action would be required by the stakeholder after project implementation and whethe r this greatly differed from what they were doing in the current s tate.
Low – Project will have no/low impact to current state (1)
Medium – Project will have moderate influence on current state (2)
High – Project will significantly alter current state (3)
Executive Leaders, Functional Leaders and Process Owners had the highest degree of impact as what they would be doing after project implementation differed the most from what they were doing in the current state.
18
1C.c Degree of Impact on Stakeholders and How these were determined
Customer Process
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
Type of ImpactScoreExternal Stakeholders
Continue to execute outbound calling survey.
2Vendor
Participation in process Improvement activities
4Subject Matter Experts
4
9
9
Score
Assume additional responsibility of capturing Customer Issues
Customer Facing Teams –Customer Service, Credit, Sales Support
Sponsor Projects and allocate resources, Responsible for timely resolution of customer issues
Functional Leaders; Process owners
Use quantitative VOC data to drive decisions
Executive Leaders
Type of ImpactInternal StakeholdersE
xecu
tives
F
unct
iona
l Le
ader
sP
roce
ss O
wne
rs/
Tea
ms
Ven
dor
Based on the index of effort in Change Management and Feasibility
1C.c We used the same methodology stated in 1b. c to ass ess the degree of Impact on the stakeholders. The product of effort of change management required in influencing/altering the cur rent state and the feasibility (likelihood of success) comprised of th e impact scoring.
Estimated Impact
Change Management Factor
1. Low effort,
2. Medium
3. High effort
Feasibility (likelihood of success)
1. Low
2. Medium
3. High
19
Current Situation Analysis
Section 2
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
This Section 2, we will discuss the team’s evaluation of the current Customer satisfaction process and activities.
20
2A.a Describe the methods and tools used to identif y possible root causes/improvement activities
Method/ToolStakeholder Interviews
Assessment of current reporting
Lean 6σσσσ SIPOC Process Analysis
•Inconsistent data entry•Lack of quality data to take action•Lack of quantifiable data•Lack of capture of critical root cause analysis data•Lack of common data field definitions•Lack of reporting•Lack of trending or analysis•Lack of actions based on customer feedback•Root cause analysis not consistent in the HDS culture•Survey questionnaire does not provide adequate probes
2A.a In assessing the current Customer satisfaction process and activities, the team used various methods and tools to identify possible root causes/improvement activities. Among these were:
•Stakeholder Interviews- We chose a few of the Stakeholders to interview (Ranging from Functional Leaders to Subject Matter Experts). Feedback from these interviews indicated that that the current activities that were being used to understand customer satisfaction were not adequate.
•Assessment of Current Reporting- The team looked at the reports and data structure that was coming from the Perfect Order Survey and other customer reports and assessed the quality and integrity of the data that came from those reports. The assessment also evaluated whether the current reporting was actionable or even being used by the business.
•Lean 6sigma SIPOC Process Analysis- The team performed a high level SIPOC which outlined the Suppliers/Inputs/Process/Outputs/Customers of the current activities. This activity identified many gaps and deficiencies.
21
2A.b Describe the team’s analysis of data to identi fy possible root causes/improvement activities
•Lack of capture of critical root cause analysis data
•Lack of common data field definitions
•Lack of reporting
•Lack of trending or analysis
•Lack of actions based on customer feedback
•Root cause analysis not consistent in the HDS culture
•Survey questionnaire does not provide adequate probes
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
2A.b The team used methods and tools and then also performed analysis of those methods/tools to identify possible root causes of deficiencies in the current activities and also outline root causes.
A Gage R&R Study was performed to understand the repeatability and reproducibility of the customer data being captured by Surveyors and Customer Service Representatives. This study identified that the data capture of customer feedback was NOT being done in a consistent or diligent way.
Process Drill Down- From the high level SIPOC, the team performed a drill down of the activities that were occurring in capturing, reporting and taking action on customer feedback. By analyzing the process steps, the team identified several root causes and areas for improvement.
Fishbone Diagrams- The team then developed and analyzed the gaps/deficiencies/rootcauses using fishbone diagrams. The fishbone structure outlined the results of the team’s assessments and organized them in functional areas.
These exercises resulted in a listing of possible r oot causes/improvements.
22
2A.c Describe how or if any stakeholders were invol ved in identifying the possible root causes/improvement opportunities
6sigma Belts, Process Owners, Subject Matter Expert s (SMEs)Functional LeadersStakeholder Involvement
Method/ToolStakeholder Interviews
Assessment of current reporting
Lean 6σσσσ SIPOC Process Analysis
Possible root causes/improvements
Team’s Analysis
Fishbone Diagrams
Process Drill Down
Gage R&R Study Repeatability & Reproducibility •Inconsistent data entry
•Lack of quality data to take action•Lack of quantifiable data•Lack of capture of critical root cause analysis data•Lack of common data field definitions•Lack of reporting•Lack of trending or analysis•Lack of actions based on customer feedback•Root cause analysis not consistent in the HDS culture•Survey questionnaire does not provide adequate probes
Define Measure Analyze Design Validate
2A.c Stakeholders were involved in identifying the possible root causes/improvement opportunities.
•Functional Leaders were instrumental in giving feedback of the current process and also recommending areas for improvement. These leaders were users of the data and were very vocal about what was ‘wrong’ with the current Customer data capture activities.
•6Sigma belts were essential in evaluating the quality and statistical measurement of the process and the customer satisfaction indexes.
•Process Owners and Subject Matter Experts gave tactical input of how the data was being captured and also what the current process was.
23
2A.c Describe how or if any stakeholders were invol ved in identifying the possible root causes/improvement opportunities
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
Performing data analysis, quality and statistical measurement and compiling results.
6Sigma Belts
No involvement at this stageCustomer
Process deficiencies, underlying causes, future sta te requirements , root cause no action
SubjectMatter Experts
Identifying customer issues, deficiencies in action time and quality of resolution, root cause of failures
Customer Facing Teams
No involvement at this stageVendor
Identifying the gaps in the current state that limi t proactive actions and allocation of resources
Functional leaders, Process owners
Identify deficiencies that are limiting executive d ecision in favor of customer needs
Executive leaders
Stakeholder InvolvementStakeholderIN
TE
RN
AL
EX
TE
RN
AL
2A.c Stakeholders were involved in identifying the possible root causes/improvement opportunities.
•Executive Leaders identified areas where they needed concise and quantitative customer information to validate and contribute to decision making.
•Functional Leaders were instrumental in giving feedback of the current process and also recommending areas for improvement. These leaders were users of the data and were very vocal about what was ‘wrong’ with the current Customer data capture activities.
•Process Owners and Subject Matter Experts gave tactical input of how the data was being captured and also what the current process was.
•6Sigma belts were essential in evaluating the quality and statistical measurement of the process and the customer satisfaction indexes.
•The customer and vendors did not have involvement at this stage of the project.
24
2B.a Describe the methods and tools used to identif y possible final causes/improvement activities
Method/Tool
Review and Evaluation
Possible root causes/improveme
nts
6Sigma Belts, Process OwnersFunctional LeadersStakeholder Involvement
Final root causes/improvement
Opportunities• Inconsistent data entry• Lack of capture of critical root cause analysis data•Lack of reporting•Lack of structure to support actions based on customer feedback
Team’s Analysis
• Can system support data capture?
• Can data entry Associates support entry?
• Does the training support data capture?
•Do we have the infrastructure to support
capturing and taking action on customer feedback?
•Inconsistent data entry•Lack of quality data to take action•Lack of quantifiable data•Lack of capture of critical root cause analysis data•Lack of common data field definitions•Lack of reporting•Lack of trending or analysis•Lack of actions based on customer feedback•Root cause analysis not consistent in the HDS culture•Survey questionnaire does not provide adequate probes
A ‘process walk’ of data capture via data entry
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
2B.a After the potential root causes were identified the team did performed more activities to narrow the listing down and to identify “the Critical X’s” (six sigma term) or the final root causes.
•A process walk of data capture was conducted. A team member actually sat with a Customer Service Representative (Advocate) to experience how they were capturing customer data. A team member also listened to Surveyor calls to experience how they were capturing customer data.
•The team Reviewed and Evaluated the root causes aligning with the Gage R&R that was performed to really understand which root causes were the main drivers.
•The team continually performed the 5 Why’s when assessing the processes and steps of the current activities.
25
2B.b Describe the team’s analysis of data to select the finalroot causes/improvement activities
Final root causes/improvement
Opportunities
• Inconsistent data entry
• Lack of capture of critical root cause analysis data
•Lack of reporting
•Lack of structure to support actions based on customer feedback
Team’s Analysis
• Can system support data capture?
• Can data entry Associates support entry?
• Does the current training support data capture?
•Do we have the infrastructure to support
capturing and taking action on customer feedback?
Possible root causes/improveme
nts
6 Sigma Belts, Process OwnersFunctional LeadersStakeholder Involvement
Method/Tool
Review and Evaluation
•Inconsistent data entry•Lack of quality data to take action•Lack of quantifiable data•Lack of capture of critical root cause analysis data•Lack of common data field definitions•Lack of reporting•Lack of trending or analysis•Lack of actions based on customer feedback•Root cause analysis not consistent in the HDS culture•Survey questionnaire does not provide adequate probes
A ‘process walk’ of data capture via data entry
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
2B.b The team then used the following questions to confirm the final root causes/improvement opportunities:
Can system support data capture?
Can data entry Associates support entry?
Does the current training support data capture?
Do we have the infrastructure to support capturing and taking action on customer feedback?
26
2B.c Identify the root causes/improvement opportuni ty (ies) and explain how the team validated the final rootcause( s)/Improvement opportunities
Final root causes/improvement Opportunities
• Inconsistent data entry
• Lack of capture of critical root
cause analysis data
• Lack of reporting
• Lack of structure to support
actions based on customer
feedback
Validation
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
• Gage R & R Study outcome
• Performance trend analysis and
incident summary reviews
• Interview feedback that current
reports are “not usable or
actionable”
• One on one interviews with Stakeholders
2B.c The team then validated the final root causes/improvement opportunities by taking the strongest methods/tools used to identify them and re-validate that these were indeed the key drivers for improvement.
The outcome of the Gage R&R revealed that there was very LOW data integrity in the data capture by Customer Service Representatives and Customer Advocates. Each associate was capturing information differently and interpreting customer feedback inco nsistently.
There was not a structured Root Cause Analysis that supported the business in customer data capture. Training did not exist for Customer Service Reps and Customer Advocates on how to deter mine the ‘root cause’ of customer feedback. This led to a lack of ca pture of critical root cause analysis data.
Interview feedback that current reporting was ‘not usable’ validated that reporting was a key opportunity for improvement. If the business could not use information from the customer, how could they take action? A concise and meaningful reporting was needed for Executives and functional leaders.
Taking action. Since reporting was not being used, action was not being taken. But beyond the reporting, a structure of process to support action needed to be created.
27
Solution Development
Section 3
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
Now that we have walked through the team’s activities to assess and analyze the Current Customer satisfaction process, in Section 3, we will discuss the activities the team performed to develop and design the new Customer Loyalty program solution.
28
3A.a Describe methods and tools to develop possible solutions/improvement actions
Financial Analysis�Cost Benefit Analysis�Pay Back period
Brainstorming - System Enhancement Eval.
�Can Siebel be enhanced?�Would Oracle be
impacted?
Customer Sat. Benchmarking
�What are other companies doing?
Talent Review�Do we have the resources skilled
and available to implement?�What ‘dependency’ risks are
involved with Outsourcing?
Methods & Tools
Potential Solutions
1. PURCHASE an IVR software to
detect customer feedback
2. OUTSOURCE Customer Loyalty
program
3. BUILD Internal Customer Loyalty
program
Industry Best
Practice
Evaluation
Cost
Assessm
ent
IT Assessm
ent
Outsource
Vs.
Insource
Potential Solutions
Team
Ana
lysi
s Team Analysis
Team
Ana
lysi
sTeam Analysis
Team Analysis
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
3A.a To develop the possible solutions to a Customer Loyalty program, the team performed various activities.
The team performed research in form of Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking . By reading academic articles/books and assessing various industry company customer programs, the team was able to better understand the approaches that others were taking to understand Customer Loyalty.
The team performed a System Enhancement Evaluation . Since unavoidably, system changes would need to be made to support better customer data capture, the team needed to evaluate the feasibility of making changes to Siebel and/or Oracle (current systems).
A Financial Analysis was imperative to understand the investment that would be needed along with return that would be associated.
A Talent Review was conducted to evaluate whether we currently had the appropriate resources with the skills to execute a Customer Loyalty solution.
29
3A.b Describe Team analysis of data to develop possible solutions/improvement actions
Industry Best
Practice
Evaluation
Cost
Assessm
ent
IT Assessm
ent
Outsource
Vs.
Insource
Potential Solutions
Team
Ana
lysi
s Team Analysis
Team
Ana
lysi
s
Team Analysis
Financial Analysis�Cost Benefit Analysis�Pay Back period
System Enhancement Eval.�Can Siebel be enhanced?�Would Oracle be impacted?
Customer Sat. Benchmarking�What are other companies
doing?
Talent Review�Do we have the resources
skilled and available to implement?
�What ‘dependency’ risks are involved with Outsourcing?
Potential Solutions
1. PURCHASE an IVR
software to detect customer
feedback
2. OUTSOURCE Customer
Loyalty program
3. BUILD Internal Customer
Loyalty program
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
Team Analysis
Outside knowledge + SME +Requirements = Potential Solutions
3A.b The team took time to perform further analysis based on the methods/tools used previously.
By evaluating customer measurement and industry best practice , the team chose ‘best in breed’ practices that could fit into our business goals and company culture.
The team worked with IT to understand the constraints or flexibility we had in terms of enhancing our current customer data capture systems.
The team analyzed the results of the Cost Benefit Analysis and the Payback period of implementing solutions.
Analyzing the resource capabilities and skill sets needed to implement potential solutions was conducted to evaluate with an Outsource or Insource model would fit the program needs.
30
3A.c Indicate criteria the team decided to use in selecting final solution(s)/improvement actions
1. Purchase an IVR software to detect
customer feedback
2. Outsource Customer Loyalty program
3. Build Internal Customer Loyalty/Process Improvement Program
Selection Criteria
� Internal capability to analyze Formal
Customer Survey
� Covers all Customer touch points
� No outsourcing dependency risk
� Strong Performance Analysis
� Internal capability to perform
process improvement
Possible Solution
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
3A.c The 3 possible solutions were either to PURCHASE, OUTSOURCE or BUILD a customer loyalty program.
The criteria the team used to select the final solu tion were based on our company’s ability and human resource capabiliti es to develop the program ‘in house’. We assessed our own capability t o perform a Customer Survey. We assessed if would could create an approach that would cover all customer touch points and then perform deepanalysis based on the data that came out of the sur vey. We also made an assessment of our Process Improvement capabiliti es. Did we have the talent ‘in house’ and on staff to be able to exe cute customer driven change to the organization based on survey and cust omer feedbackdata capture.
All of these selection criteria's proved to be favorable which is what drove the final solution: BUILD an Internal Customer Loyalty/Process Improvement Program.
31
3B.a Describe methods and tools to select final solutions/improvement actions
�Low Risk Solution
�Feasibility Assessment
�Critical To Quality (CTQ) evaluation
�Resource Mapping
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
Quality
Assurance Plan
Risk A
nalysis
IT, Capability,
Ease of Implem
enation
Determine
Team
FinalSolution
Team
Ana
lysi
s
Team Analysis
Team
Ana
lysi
sTeam Analysis
Team Analysis
3. BUILD Internal Customer
Loyalty/Process Improvement
program
3B.a To finalize solution, the team used a few methods and tools.
Critical to Quality (CTQ) Evaluation- The team reviewed the initial specifications to be sure there was a direct mapping to the final solution.
The team conducted a feasibility assessment to gage whether the final solution could actually be implemented from an IT and internal capability standpoint.
The team assessed the risk of having an external outsourcer conduct customer assessment. They do not know our business like we do, if they misinterpret customer feedback there is high risk to business decisions.
The team identified key resources that would work on the program. This revealed if the company actually had the skill set and resources available for the final solution.
32
3B.b Describe Team analysis of data to select final solutions/improvement actions
Team Analysis
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
Determine
Team
Team
Ana
lysi
s Team Analysis
Team
Ana
lysi
s
Team Analysis
Final Solution
Quality
Assurance Plan
Risk
Analysis
IT, Capability,
Ease of Implem
enation
Determine
Team
Low Risk
Failure Modes Error Analysis (FMEA)
System enhancements
Resource capability
Critical To Quality (CTQ) Evaluation
New Process Design meets Requirements
Proof of Concept
3. BUILD Internal
Customer
Loyalty/Process
Improvement program
3B.b The analysis the team performed analysis in form of a Quality Assurance plan, IT Capability and ease of implementation, a team vote and an actual determination of the team makeup. By evaluating these factors on each of the potential solutions, the final solution was selected as it ‘passed’each area.
Quality Assurance/CTQ Evaluation– New Process Design /Met Requirements. For final analysis, the team weighed and scored the final solution against specific requirements that were identified during the Define and Measure phases of the project. The team did this to ensure that weights and scores still pointed to the final solution. These requirements supported the new process design.
After a risk analysis , the team deemed that the final solution was low risk to implement.
IT performed an evaluation of what would be required to make the needed system enhancements and deemed that they could be done with moderate ease.
A resource and talent capability was conducted to determine if we had the resources ‘in house’ to execute the solution and it was determined that resources were available and could be aligned to support the project.
33
3B.c Involvement of stakeholders in selection of final solutions/improvement actions
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
Performed statistical validation and provided recommendations to the team.
6Sigma Belts
No direct involvement at this stageCustomer
Analysis of new process design, scoring of design against CTQ, modification of concept , multi voting process
SubjectMatter Experts
Validation of proof of conceptCustomer Facing Teams
Communication of potential changes to customer survey
Vendor
Brainstorming and to be process analysis design, FMEA , check list validation, multi voting process
Functional leaders, Process owners
Tollgate review of Analyze phase, final say on solu tion combinations
Executive leaders
Stakeholder InvolvementStakeholderIN
TE
RN
AL
EX
TE
RN
AL
3B.c The following stakeholders were heavily involved in determining the final solution.
Executive Leadership- The team briefed the Executives on the pro’s and con’s of each potential solution along with the recommendation of the final solution. The Executives agreed with team recommendation to BUILD an Internal Customer Loyalty/Process Improvement Program
Functional Leaders and Subject Matter Experts were key participants in performing the methods/tools and partaking in the team analysis.
The 6sigma Belts led the execution of the methods/tools and performed all the quantitative analysis on the team.
The Customer Facing Teams (Customer Service Reps, Customer Advocates), who are on the ‘front line’ servicing and talking to customers validated the Proof of Concept that was executed.
The vendor provided feedback on how the survey was going.
34
3C.a Describe the final solution/improvement and explain how the team validated the final solution(s)/improv ement action(s)…contd
VOC Database
Customer Feedback Repository
VOC Outbound Survey
Voice of the Field (VOF)
Customer Care Dept.
VOC/CAC Captains
Cross functional teamIncoming Customer Calls
Drill Down Analysis
Review of Customer Issues
Critical To Customer Analysis
Hard/Soft $ Savings Assessment
Prioritization using ‘scoring’ method
Just Do Its (JDIs) Process Improvement Projects
3C.a This is an overview of our final solution . A central Data repository for customer feedback collected through multiple channels. Root cause methodology, developed using the Fishbone analysis. that points to cause of failure at process level. A periodic Regression analysis to determine what is most Critical to customer, preview and prioritization of issues. Selection of an appropriate track for execution
35
3C.a Describe the final solution/improvement and ex plain how the team validated the final solution(s)/improvement action(s)
Build Internal
Customer Loyalty/Process Improvement Program
(Voice of the Customer Program)
Team Validation
against Specification Requirements
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
� Quantifiable data
� Routine reporting
� Consistent root cause analysis
� Consistent data entry
� Better utilization of the VOC team resources
� Leadership directive for a common root cause analysis
approach
� VOC Team role and mission defined
� Input into the VOC: Critical to Customer Assessment
� High Level and Detailed reports
� Specific data analysis for key/critical areas
� Reports tailored for team requirements
� Data integrity and credibility
� Voice of the Customer data
3C.a The final solution was to Build an Internal Customer Loyalty/Process Improvement Program that we call The VOC Program--- The Voice of the Customer Program
The team used specification requirements that came from the Current Situation Analysis to validate that the program met all project and company needs.
36
3C.b Indicate the types of tangible and intangible benefits that are expected to be realized by implementing the team’s solution’s/improvement action(s)
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
Intangible Benefits Tangible Benefits
•Improved Customer Experience
•Foster company culture of continuous improvement
•Foster data-based decision making at the middle manager level
•Environment of ‘Customer First ’
•Increased Customer Loyalty via the Net-Promoter Score (NPSTM)
•Decrease in Customer Issue Index (CII) Score
•# of Process Improvement Projects/Activities completed
•Cost Savings $$
3C.b The new solution has many Intangible and Tangible Benefits to the business which are outlined as.
Intangible Benefits
•Improved Customer Experience
•Foster company culture of continuous improvement
•Foster data-based decision making at the middle manager level
•Environment of ‘Customer First’
Tangible Benefits
Increased Customer Loyalty via the Net-Promoter Score (NPSTM)
Decrease in Customer Issue Index (CII) Score
# of Process Improvement Projects/Activities completed
Cost Savings $$
37
3C.c Explain how the team used data to justify the implementation of the team’s solutions/improvement actions
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
Build Internal Customer Loyalty/PI Program (VOC
Program)
Proof of Concept � Cost Benefit Analysis
� Leverage internal talent, no
incremental cost.
� Customer Loyalty
� Operational Excellence
� Actionable reports
Pilot results concluded the Concept works
3C.c The team confirmed the concept and the financial be nefits were validated. The voice of the customers and Critical To Customer (CTC) assessment, indicated customers were not pleased when their call were transferred multiple times. An orange belt project was lead to test out all elements of the design. CSR were empowered to handle wide variety of issues and resolve them at first contact.
It set an example in the organization – Team approach in making improvements data collection, analysis, prioritization, execution and control.
38
Project Implementation and Results
Section 4
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
We now have a solution, To Build our own Customer Loyalty Program called the VOC Program, chosen and designed to best capture and take action on Customer feedback. In Section 4, we will discuss the steps the team took in implementing and rolling out the new VOC Program.
39
4A.a. Internal and External Stakeholder Involvement in implementation
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
Active engagement in testing and retesting of system, coding customer issues with new Root Cause Methodology
Customer Facing Teams
Performed statistical validation and provided recommendations to the team.
6Sigma Belts
No direct involvement at this stageCustomer
Developing the testing scripts, content for trainin g, system readiness
SubjectMatter Experts
Training on new survey questionnaire and coding of customer issues
Vendor
Planning and development of Implementation plan, approving the resource engagement for training & testing
Functional leaders, Process owners
Toll gate review of Analyze phase, final say on solution combinations
Executive leaders
Stakeholder InvolvementStakeholder
INT
ER
NA
LE
XT
ER
NA
L
4A.a The following stakeholders were heavily involved in in the implementation of the project
Executive Leaders - The team briefed Executives on the implementation plan, and risk mitigation plan
Functional Leaders and Subject Matter experts were engaged in committing resources, time line of go –live, or preparing the content for training.
Vendor was involved to train their associates on using questionnaire and coding customer issues on new survey.
40
4A.b. How Various Types of Resistance were Identified and Addressed…. contd
Hmm… we don’t have time or resources?
“This is another Change activity. from the top”
“Defects of my process will be used against my team in a punitive form”
Data input into common repository. Will my teams increase handle time”
Stakeholder resistance analysis during Define and P rocess analysis
4A.b. Stakeholder resistance analysis was done during the define phase and prior to implementation. In this section few examples of resistance faced during launch and implementation is highlighted. Most of it came as normal resistance to change.
Consorted efforts to focus a positive message within the leadership meetings, design session, awareness session and trainings was most effective means of addressing resistance. At times one on one interviews helped in overcoming resistance. While in one situation we had to pilot a concept to collect data and share analytical results for buy -in .
41
4A.b. How Various Types of Resistance were Identified and Addressed
Shared results of FCR project on the impact of handle time over time
A training plan was developed for data entry
“Data input into common depository Will increase handle time”
Guidelines on usage of reports were communicated top , across and down the organization. Information usage limited to improvement action.
Review of performance metrics, design of actionable reports
“Defects of my process will be used against my team in a punitive form”
Established a defined time and established a representation of “Captain”
Initial working session participation was reluctant
“We don’t have time or resources”
Functional Leaders were used to spread positive message and its importance for organization
Initial meetings with Process owners who were not thrilled about impact to their process
“ This is another Change activity”
AddressedHow identifiedType
Timely resolution of resistance is critical for pro ject Success
INT
ER
NA
L S
TA
KE
HO
LDE
RS
4A.b. Stakeholder resistance analysis was done during the define phase and prior to implementation. In this section few examples of resistance faced during launch and implementation is highlighted. Most of it came as normal resistance to change.
Consorted efforts to focus a positive message within the leadership meetings, design session, awareness session and trainings was most effective means of addressing resistance. At times one on one interviews helped in overcoming resistance. While in one situation we had to pilot a concept to collect data and share analytical results for buy -in .
42
4A.c. How Stakeholder Buy-in was Ensured
Timely completion of milestones; application readiness for implementation and admin activities
Early participation in the design and modification of fields
SMESystem Admin
Strong participation in design and root cause analysis
Phased entry by Credit, custom reports SME (Finance)
On going communication with project team on design and report reviews
Establishments of guidelines for use of defects reports, involvement in defect mapping
Functional Leaders SME (Logistics)
Good participation at all phases. Commitment for data entry by CSR
Participation in all phase of Project, comprehensive training, Trail period after go -live
Process Owners & SME(Customer Care)
Design reviews, representation on CAC Captains
Early engagement from process mapping through design
Subject Matter Experts - SME (Merchandizing)
Strong participation is design, training, & mock reports
Involvement in Design, hosting a VOF pilot to captures field sales issues
Functional Leaders(Sales)
On time completion of training and status reports, pilot results
Lead Vendor training on new survey –partnership of process
Process owners(marketing)
Validated ByPlan to Ensure Buy-inStakeholder
Early Participation of stakeholders and timely resolution of concerns
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
4A.c. All stakeholders were involved early in the project and actively participated through the various phases. They provided feedback on the changes and helped in prioritization and selection of solution options.
They also become the advocates of the approach by being early adopter. The table provides a list how we ensured buy in.
For example Sales team was interested but was not certain that approach will address their issues. We ensured to run a pilot to capture their issues. When the pilot results were compared with the overall customer feedback, their interest and responsiveness continued through all phases.
Another feature that helped us to ensure stakeholder buy in was to establish guidelines & enforce its usage to promote discussion “on customer centricity” and circumvent figure pointing.
43
4B.a Plan Developed by team to implement solution
�CAC Team conducting root cause analysis and data entry
�Siebel data Testing and Validation
�Report Testing and Validation
�Sales Support team conducting root cause analysis and data entry
�VOT reviews report formats and defect definitions
�Other teams conducting RCA and data entry
�CAC Team practicing root cause analysis and data entry
�Siebel data modified
�Report development with real data feeds
�Sales Support team practicing root cause analysis and data entry
�VOT reviews report formats and defect definitions
�Other Teams train/practice
January Feb-March
�Develop training material and CAC Team Training
�Develop and test in Siebel
�Report development
�Develop Sales Support transition strategy
�VOT reporting strategy communication
Preparation Transition Testing & Validation
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
S
olut
ion
Pilo
t
April
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
4B.a A comprehensive Project Plan was developed and mana ged through the project life cycle of a Six Sigma project.
Project Plan provided detail activities through DMA DV milestone & Tollgate reviews.
The team identified and laid out three major waves f or implementation. In preparation mode VOC team developed the training Material, application modification, mock report design and training associates etc.
The “Preparation” Phase included the process flows, training documentation, report requirements, system change specifications and communication plans.
In the “Transition” Phase the training of teams was full force. Data entry teams were given additional time to understand and practice root cause analysis.
In the “Testing and Validation” wave, Mock reports were tested, QA on the test data was analyzed, Additional teams were trained on the Root Cause Analysis data capture approach.
44
4B.b. Procedure, System or Other Changes Made to Implement the Solution and Sustain the Results
• Siebel system modifications
• Defect Change process
• Quality Assurance PlanThe QA Program components include:
• VOC Issue Reporting Data Flow Module and Validation
• Data entry through Seibel• Data entry through Oracle – CAC Submit form• Data processing in Access – CAC Issue reporting
tool• Data Flow Validation
TYPE New Concession Type
RES CODE New Concession Item
Same Same
STATUS Modif ied Data Options
Def ine status of CAC Issue
Email #: New Content: Concession
Amount
Same
FAX #: New Content: Department Concession
Charged
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
4B.b Several System field changes and procedures were modified or developed to enable Root cause analysis methodology. To ensure the changes are controlled and QA is maintained change control strategy and QA plan was developed and implemented.
The Defect Change Process was designed to ensure continuity of RCA methodology and defect maintenance. As the business processes change, the defects would have to be changed or revised or retired. Therefore it needed a well defined change process with clear accountability. It answered questions like who, when where, how and what. To ensure the change process is followed with consistency simple tools were developed and provided to end users.
Quality Assurance Strategy focused on ensuring the integrity of the dataflow between systems an regular Quality Check of the data entry. CAC team was tasked with the regular QC check. QC log was randomly audited by VOC team to ensure the error rate was within the tolerance range.
A quarterly check of Measurement System Analysis was implemented due to high involvement of CSRs.
45
4B.c. Creation and Installation of a System for Measuring and Sustaining Results… contd
1. Customer Loyalty Measurement : Period/Quarterly/Yearly NPSTM and CII
2. Customer Feedback : Top 10 Customer Defects
3. Process Improvement/Just Do It (JDI)Project tracking
4. Hard/Soft $ Cost Savings
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
Customer Issue Index (CII)% of Customers Reporting > 1 issue
4B.c. The Measurement System Analysis (MSA) is made up of a few key performance measurements to understand results and sustain results. Among these measurement areas are the following:
•Net Promoter Score (NPS) and Customer Issue Index ( CII)- These are Customer Satisfaction/Loyalty indicators. The team monitors these scores periodically/quarterly and also yearly. There are thresholds set for these measurements and these are also reported with the company and lie on associate performance scorecards.
•Top 10 Customer Defects- Customer feedback is captured and service failure data capture is translated into process defects. These defects are tracked and reported to the functional/process owner for resolution and action. The VOC Team tracks to see if these defects are rising or falling and the affect on the customer and the business.
•Process Improvement/JDI Project Tracking- By looking at the defects and then translating those defects into action, a process improvement project is usually initiated. These projects/JDIs are tracked to understand the action that is being taken from customer feedback.
•Hard/Soft$ Cost Savings- Once the corrective action is taken a financial analysis is conducted to assess and understand whether there was a financial savings that resulted from the improvement. Many times there is an operational efficiency savings, “soft$ saving”that is realized from the improvement. Other times, there is a bottom line “hard $ saving”from the improvement. The VOC Team tracks this financial savings.
These 4 measurement system areas are used to quanti fy project sustainability, understand customer feedback and assess project res ults.
46
4B.c. Creation and Installation of a System for Measuring and Sustaining Results
1. Open Architecture and transparent process – Results on intranet
Open Architecture, standardized & reliableinformation for business
4B.c Four new measures were created that would track customer loyalty scores and improvement activities.
The results are stored in an architecture that is open. The Data is standardized, reliable and consistently produced on a defined frequency.
47
4C.a. Types of Tangible and Intangible Results that were Realized… contd
5
21
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1
Cou
nt
Active
Complete
Identified� Net Promoter Score-NPS
TMincreased 6%
� Customer Issue Index (CII) decreased 4%
� 47% decrease in commonly occurring
customer defects
$2.7M
Net Savings 2008
$0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0
$ Cost Savings $
Process Improvement Activities Completed
Increased Customer Loyalty!! Year over Year average change
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
� VOC Captain team committed to continuous
improvement
� VOC data evaluation prior to decision making
Cultural Change(Intangible)
4C.a There were many tangible and intangible results realized from the VOC Project execution. Among these were:
Increasing our YoY NPS and Decreasing our Customer I ssue Index can be attributed to rigorous customer data analysis, cross-functional teaming and 6sigma/lean process improvement execution.
Cultural Change. Previously, the business relied on a ‘gut fee’ or anecdotal information to understand how customers perceived us as a business. Therefore, customer data analysis or evaluation was not conducted prior to making key business decisions. Due to the new project reporting and VOC Captain collaboration, customer data is used to drive actions and decision making.
Process Improvement. Per the chart above, process improvement activities have been completed and the process through the VOC Captains are ‘in action’. Prior to the project, process improvement activities were notbeing actively identified or executed.
Cost Savings . While not all improvement activities have a financial $ savings, many do impact our internal processing costs or result in a bottom line impact.
48
Year Over Year NPS TM & CII favorable trend
NPSTM increased an average of 6% from2007 to 2008 Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
4C.a. Types of Tangible and Intangible Results that were Realized
4C.a. As mentioned previously, the key indicators of Customer Loyalty became the NPS and CII scores. This graph depicts a direct tangible result of these scores from 2007 to 2008.
Tangible Results Realized . . . An example:
From 2007 to 2008 the NPS increased by 6% -- An increase in the NPS translates to STRONGER CUSTOMER LOYALTY!
From 2007 to 2008 the CII decreased by 4% -- A decrease in the CII translates to LESS CUSTOMER ISSUES/Defects– STRONGER SERVICE LEVELS!
49
4C.b. How Results Link with Organization Goals, Performance Measures and Strategies
Per
form
ance
M
easu
res
World - classCustomer Service
World - classCustomer Service
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Goa
lsO
rgan
izat
iona
l S
trat
egie
s Customer Process Financial
Operational ExcellenceOperational Excellence
Market Growth &
Cost Savings
Market Growth &
Cost Savings
�Drive decision making based on customer
feedback to increase customer loyalty
� Net Promoter Score (NPS) TM >60%
� Customer Issue Index (CII) Score <25%
�Reduce Service Failure Defects
�Process Improvement & Just Do It Improvement Activities Completed
�Expand verticals
�Remain the market leader with multifamily
customers
� Annualized cost savings $
Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
RE
SU
LTS
�NPS TM increased 6%�CII decreased 4%
�21 Process Improvement Activities completed�47% decrease in commonly occurring customer defects
�$2.7M in cost savings
4c.b The project results directly supported organizations goals and strategies. The approach was well received. Within 1-2 months, it was leveraged to address all customer facing issues of acquisition.
Senior leaders regularly use these as Dashboard indicators to gauge customer loyalty
50
4C.c. How Results were shared with Stakeholders
Reports shared across the organization Define Measure Analyze Design Verify
Executive Leaders
NPSTM CII Monthly Dashboard
VOC Monthly Report
Customer Facing Teams
SME
Process Owners
Functional Leaders
WeeklyVOC Captains Meeting Minutes
Customized Defects Report
StakeholdersIn
tern
al S
take
hold
ers
4C.c Open architecture and availability of information for all stakeholders was one of the requirement of design. Associates are trained to extract this information from intranet for their use. VOC team also fulfill on demand requests via email.
The use of data in non punitive way helped in embracing the free flow of information.
51
Team Management and Project Presentation
Section 5
52
5A. How Team Members were Selected and Involved Throughout the Project
Extended Team through Project
VOCCore Team
PO
PO
POPO
PO
PO
FL
FL
FL
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
Lean Six Sigma, Program Management
Visionary, Decision Making authority
Process owners – Knowledge& resource control ,Operational Experts
Process Team - SME
Selection Criteria
Roles & Responsibilities
Selection Criteria based on skills for various roles was used in forming the team
5A.The core team members, with niche skills - Lean Six Sigma and Program Management were selected to lead this project. The core team developed and Managed Project Plan. Remaining cross functional team members were identified in the Define Phase through SIPOC and Stakeholder analysis. The members represented all functional area of the business. The Selection Criteria was developed considering the key desired features for team performance.•Ability to Multi task & Multi skill•Clear & effective communication•People skills •Creativity - think out of the box•Customer Focus
Roles and Responsibilities originated from Stakeholder Identification/analysis.VOC Core team tasked with Project design and execution/project management
Functional leaders – were early adopters of the concept. They were engaged in toll gate, requirement collections and solution selectionProcess owners – Knowledge Keepers and Resource owners, key players in mapping out As Is process, brainstorming, customer requirements for future state, committing resource for the project, Multivoting in selecting solution.Process Team members: Front line associates, process experts, SME, Key contribution in Process mapping, root cause analysis, brainstorming, Solution development. After the implementation these experts were referred as “CAPTAIN” . They were also key partners in ensuring the movement of project with in the timelineRole definition, alignment of key stakeholders and team members contributions with project phase and proactive notification on time commitment and timely communication were critical in managing a large cross functional team to effectively focus on the goal.
53
5B. How Team Members were prepared to work together effectively as team
Training on
Using Quality Tools
• SIPOC
•Affinity Diagrams
• FMEA
• Fishbone
Open Communication
• Facilitation• Meeting Minutes• Roles & Responsibilities• Team activitiesProject Team
Review of Action logProject Management
Overview of Lean Six Sigma Methodology - DMADV
Clear objective & judicious use of Training/Tools “Customer Focus”
5B. The core team was responsible to build and effectively lead the cross functional team. Team was briefed on the Project plan, goals and timeline and methodology. The Ground rules for participation, building consensus, roles and responsibilities were developed in partnership.
Team was given an overview of DMADV approach. Team members were trained on select quality tools like the use of Fishbone for Root Cause Analysis, Story boarding, affinity tree for solution design and multi voting etc. Principles of Project Management were also mixed in the training.
The team meetings were run in a structured fashion, use of meeting minutes and action log kept the members involved through the DMADV phases of the project. Design and effective use of communication plan was instrumental in keeping the process transparent. It kept members prepared and engaged in the process. Member participation directly or indirectly in the preparation and presentation of tollgate was another cohesive force.
A back up for each role was also identified in case of non availability of the primary. This helped the team move on the specified timeline.
At the start of each meeting beside stating the objective a reference was made to “customer” as a binding force for the team.
54
5C. How the Team managed performance to ensure it was effective as a team
In Section 5C, we will give examples of how team managed it performance as effective team
The reinforcement of ground rules, commitment to succeed and timely recognition of associates for over and above efforts wereextensively used.
We used milestone completion/tollgates as the team performance metric . Passing of all Tollgates on time was an indicator of the team performance.
Team members had an opportunity to review all the Tollgate documentation prior to the event. They were also debriefed on the take away from tollgate. Some of the action items from tollgate were directly addressed by the extended team members.
Recognizing the efforts of team member for consistency, problem solving for going over and above was a motivating tool. It is recognized and celebrated across the organization.