Quality Project for Sales System

A M E T H O D T O I M P R O V E T R A I N I N G

P R E S E N T E D B Y : T H O M A S K A S T E R , F A Z I LH A Y A T I , J A R E D W A L K E R

E D G E W O O D C O L L E G E

M A D I S O N , W I

Quality Control Chart

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Introduction

Thomas Kaster

MBA Student at Edgewood College, Madison WI

Focus on Quality Management and International Studies

Training Consultant and Facilitator for Large Insurance Company

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Project Background

Inbound Call Center

Direct Marketing to 28 states

Licensed in Internal Health and Life Insurance Agents

2 Virtual Call Centers

On located in South and one in the North

Same resources

Same Management

Same Training Department

Supposed different results

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Project Background Continued

Project Goal

Evaluate key metrics using control charts

Determine if a discrepancy exists

If so, determine why

Recommend plan for improvement

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Performance Analysis

Product Selection:

Main Product

3 Ancillary Products

Product : A

Product : B

Product : C

Measure Sales Conversion:

Main Product: All inbound calls to sales

Ancillary Products: Percentage of products added to main product

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Core Product Analysis: All Sales Operations

Month

All

Op

s

987654321

0.14

0.12

0.10

__X=0.12062

UC L=0.14721

LC L=0.09403

Month

All

Op

s S

tDe

v

987654321

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

_S=0.02577

UC L=0.04539

LC L=0.00616

Core Product

Total Core Product Sales Across Operations

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Core Product Analysis by Location

Core

No

rth

Me

an

987654321

0.14

0.13

0.12

0.11

__X=0.12667

UC L=0.14064

LC L=0.11269

Core

No

rth

StD

ev

987654321

0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000

_S=0.00858

UC L=0.01945

LC L=0

Core North

Core

So

uth

Me

an

987654321

0.14

0.13

0.12

0.11

0.10

__X=0.12444

UC L=0.14397

LC L=0.10492

Core

So

uth

StD

ev

987654321

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

_S=0.01368

UC L=0.02858

LC L=0

Core South

Final Analysis for Core Product: Sales Are In Statistical Control

Need to Improve System to Improve Sales

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Product A: All Operations

Month

All

Op

s M

ea

n

87654321

0.60

0.55

0.50

0.45

0.40

__X=0.4995

UC L=0.6237

LC L=0.3752

Month

All

Op

s S

tDe

v

87654321

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

_S=0.1051

UC L=0.1979

LC L=0.0124

Product A: All Operations

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Product A: by Location

Month

No

rth

Me

an

987654321

0.60

0.55

0.50

__X=0.5394

UC L=0.6009

LC L=0.4780

Month

No

rth

StD

ev

987654321

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

_S=0.03775

UC L=0.08555

LC L=0

Product A: North Location

Month

So

uth

Me

an

987654321

0.56

0.52

0.48

0.44

0.40

__X=0.4704

UC L=0.5469

LC L=0.3940

Month

So

uth

StD

ev

987654321

0.100

0.075

0.050

0.025

0.000

_S=0.0535

UC L=0.1119

LC L=0

Product B: South Location

North is Averaging 7% More PA Sales Than South Is Considered Significant

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Product B: By Location

Month

No

rth

Me

an

987654321

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

__X=0.2561

UC L=0.3605

LC L=0.1517

Month

No

rth

StD

ev

987654321

0.16

0.12

0.08

0.04

0.00

_S=0.0641

UC L=0.1453

LC L=0

Product B: North Location

Month

So

uth

Me

an

987654321

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

__X=0.1724

UC L=0.2636

LC L=0.0813

Month

So

uth

StD

ev

987654321

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

_S=0.0639

UC L=0.1334

LC L=0

Product B: South Location

North is Averaging 9% More PB Sales Than South Is Considered Significant

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Product C: By Location

Month

No

rth

Me

an

7654321

0.80

0.75

0.70

0.65

0.60

__X=0.7

UC L=0.8234

LC L=0.5766

Month

No

th S

tDe

v

7654321

0.16

0.12

0.08

0.04

0.00

_S=0.0758

UC L=0.1718

LC L=0

Product C: North Location

Month

So

uth

Me

an

7654321

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

__X=0.482

UC L=0.6299

LC L=0.3341

Month

So

uth

StD

ev

7654321

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

_S=0.1036

UC L=0.2164

LC L=0

1

Product C: South Location

North is Averaging 22% More PC Sales Than South Is Considered Significant

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Summary

Overall Summary:

• For Some Reason, the North Location is Having Significantly More Success in Selling Ancillary Products: A, B and C.

• Why??

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Per Sales Teams Veriation: Product A: Both Locations

Per Sales T eam

PA

Me

an

987654321

0.60

0.55

0.50

0.45

0.40

__X=0.5011

UC L=0.5404

LC L=0.4618

Per Sales T eam

PA

StD

ev

987654321

0.06

0.04

0.02

_S=0.03809

UC L=0.06707

LC L=0.00911

1

1

1

1

Between Group For Product A

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Per Sales Team Variation: Product B: Both Locations

Per Sales T eam

PB

Me

an

987654321

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

__X=0.2096

UC L=0.2517

LC L=0.1675

Per Sales T eam

PB

StD

ev

987654321

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

_S=0.04081

UC L=0.07186

LC L=0.00976

1

5

1

1

1

1

Between Group for Product B

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Per Sales Team Veriation: Product C: Both Locations

Per Sales T eam

PC

Me

an

987654321

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

__X=0.5789

UC L=0.6948

LC L=0.4629

Per Sales T eam

PC

StD

ev

987654321

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

_S=0.0981

UC L=0.1847

LC L=0.0115

5

11

51

1

Between Group for Product C

5/14/2010DSI 2009

What is Happening?

Per Sales T eam

PA

Mea

n

987654321

0.60

0.55

0.50

0.45

0.40

__X=0.5011

UC L=0.5404

LC L=0.4618

Per Sales T eam

PA

StD

ev

987654321

0.06

0.04

0.02

_S=0.03809

UC L=0.06707

LC L=0.00911

1

1

1

1

Between Group For Product A

Per Sales T eam

PB

Me

an

987654321

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

__X=0.2096

UC L=0.2517

LC L=0.1675

Per Sales T eam

PB

StD

ev

987654321

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

_S=0.04081

UC L=0.07186

LC L=0.00976

1

5

1

1

1

1

Between Group for Product B

Per Sales T eam

PC

Me

an

987654321

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

__X=0.5789

UC L=0.6948

LC L=0.4629

Per Sales T eam

PC

StD

ev

987654321

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

_S=0.0981

UC L=0.1847

LC L=0.0115

5

11

51

1

Between Group for Product C

Two Distinct Systems In

Regards to Selling Ancillary Products

WHY?

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Fishbone Diagram / Cause and Effect

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Training History

Approximately 18 months prior to analysis new hire sales training was significantly modified

This modification resulted in significant improvement in ancillary sales cross selling for trained individuals

The north location had substantially more recruitment during that 18 months 60% of North location sales individuals were hired during that

18 months

30% of South location sales individuals were hired during same timeframes

70% of South Location Reps Did Not Receive New Training

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Pareto Chart AnalysisC

all

Ty

pe

Co

un

t

Call Discription

Count

29.0 27.0 14.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 6.0

Cum % 29.0 56.0

29

70.0 80.0 88.0 94.0 100.0

27 14 10 8 6 6

Percent

None

offe

red

2 of 3 not using

new

All 3

not using

new

1 of th

ree no

t using

new

1 of 3 w

ith new

2 of 3 w

ith new

All 3

with

new

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

7.2 North Call Analysis

Ca

ll Ty

pe

Co

un

t

Call Discription

Count

29.0 22.0 18.0 13.0 9.0 5.0 4.0

Cum % 29.0 51.0

29

69.0 82.0 91.0 96.0 100.0

22 18 13 9 5 4

Percent

2 of 3 w

ith new

All 3

with

new

1 of 3 w

ith new

2 of 3 not using

new

All 3

not using

new

1 of th

ree no

t using

new

None

offe

red

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

7.1 South Call Analysis

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Final Decision

Train all South location Managers and Supervisors on new ancillary sales techniques

Train all South location sales representatives on new ancillary sales techniques

Training was administered in the spring of 2009

Let’s see the results Was the training effective in improving ancillary sales in the South

location?

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Between Subgroup Variation: Both locations post training: Product A

Per Sales T eam

PA

Me

an

87654321

0.60

0.55

0.50

0.45

0.40

__X=0.4995

UC L=0.6237

LC L=0.3752

Per Sales T eam

PA

StD

ev

87654321

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

_S=0.1051

UC L=0.1979

LC L=0.0124

Product A: Per Sales Team

Product A: In Statistical Control

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Between Subgroup Variation: Both locations post training: Product B

Per Sales T eam

PB

Me

an

87654321

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

__X=0.1765

UC L=0.2818

LC L=0.0711

Per Sales T eam

PB

StD

ev

87654321

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

_S=0.0818

UC L=0.1612

LC L=0.0025

1

Product B: Per Sales Team

Product B: In Statistical Control

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Between Subgroup Variation: Both locations post training: Product C

Per Sales T eam

PC

Me

an

87654321

0.76

0.72

0.68

0.64

0.60

__X=0.6835

UC L=0.7686

LC L=0.5985

Per Sales T eam

PC

StD

ev

87654321

0.12

0.09

0.06

0.03

0.00

_S=0.0661

UC L=0.1302

LC L=0.0020

Product C: Per Sales Team

Product C: In Statistical Control

5/14/2010DSI 2009

What did we do?

Using control charts we identified a potential discrepancy in sales performance between to virtual sales call center: North and South

Through the use of Ishikawa’s Fish Bone Diagram, we identified that the potential cause was due to improved training for new hires and 70% of South staff not having received the training

We took a trip down to the manufacturing floor to solidify our hypothesis and recorded result in a Pareto Chart

We initiated a training plan based on results Using control charts, we were able to conclude that the

training was successful

5/14/2010DSI 2009

Questions?

Questions?

5/14/2010DSI 2009