Parivartan - Living In Customer Satisfaction · 2018-06-14 · Seven QC tools Project ... Training 1.3.3 (CQ 1): Before the project started, what specific training was done? 18 Maintenance

1

GRIHA PRAVESHImproving Living In Customer Satisfaction

© Copyright Tata Housing Development Corporation

a global business group

with products and services in over 150 countries

over 660,800 employees and operations

in over 100 countries

group revenue of $103.51 bn

with 67.3% generated in geographies other than India

global leader in several sectors

2

2


Vision of Excellence

One must forever strive for excellence,

or even perfection, in any task, however

small and never be satisfied with second

best.

“

“

TBEM

To Run The Business

“Excellently”

Business Ethics

To Run The Business

“Ethically”

JRD Tata, Former Chairman Of Tata Sons

3


Our Presence

CHANDIGARH

Kansal

Myst (Kasauli)NEW DELHI

Hailey RoadAHMEDABAD

New Haven

MUMBAI

Prive (Lonavala)

Amantra (Kalyan)

Aveza (Mulund)

RPG (Thane)

NH/SG (Boisar)

SG/NH (Vasind)

Boisar 2

Amantra phase-2

New Haven

PUNE

Inora Park (Undri)

La Montana (Talegaon)

La Montana Phase-2

(Talegaon)

BHUBANESHWAR

Ariana

NCR

Raisina (Gurgaon)

Primanti (Sec 72-Gurgaon)

Gurgaon Gateway(Sec 113)

Arebella (Sohna Gurgaon)

Bahadurgarh (Haryana)

Primanti-Phase-2 (Gurgaon)

KOLKATA

Eden Court (Rajarhat)

Avenida (Rajarhat 2)

Kona

Alipore

BENGALURU

Promont (Bhanshankari)

Alstom

Kartk PPP (Baglur)

NH (Peenya)

Peenya Phase-2

CHENNAI

Santorini (Sriperumbudur)

NH RibbonWalk(Mambkkm)

Crescent Lake Homes

36 Projects

In 3 Countries

Sri Lanka

One Colombo

Maldives

Apex Realty

4

3


Tata HousingLuxury 200 Lakhs

Lavishness ,Pampering,

Exclusivity, ExperiencePremium 75 – 200 lakhs

Prestige, Lifestyle,

Achievement,

Number of AmenitiesAffordable 20-65 lakhs

Pride of Ownership, Moving

Up in Life

Self Identity, Upgrade

Value 12-18lakhs

Utility and practicality

emphasized

Community Life A Better

Future for Children

Security

5

Tata Value Homes

SECTION 1

Project and Team Selection

4


Understanding the Context for Project Selection1.1.0

1.1.1 (CQ 1): Who was responsible for selecting the project?

7

Management Review Committee

Strategy & Business Excellence Group

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION GROUP

Brotin BanerjeeMD & CEO

Vivek GoyalCFO

Sachin GargHead – Strategy, Business

Excellence & Technical Training

Kangkan ChakrabortyHead Engineering

Ashoka MohantyHead – HR, CRM &

Estate

Alcide CoelhoHead – QA&QC

APEX Customer Committee


▪ TBEM Assessment Report

▪ Strategy Map & BSC

▪ Voice of Customer Study

Understanding the Context for Project Selection1.1.0

1.1.1 (CQ 2): What background information of the company or those who selected the project is needed to better understand the context of the project?

Improving Customer Satisfaction

▪ Tata Housing is part of Tata Group one of the Fortune 100 companies. Tata group wants to touch 25% of worlds population through its different products & services.

▪ Tata Housing has 36 projects spread across 03 countries, which involves more than 15000 workmen and serves more than 10000 customers

Our Role

8

Company’s background

Project Identification

5


APEX Customer Committee

Project Selection Process1.2.0

1.2.1 (CQ 1): How was the gap or opportunity brought to the attention of the project identification group?

9

1. Low CSAT score:• Pest control• Club house & swimming pool maintenance• Lift operations

2. Dis-satisfiers:• Follow up required• Inaccessible Estate Manager• Time taken to resolve complaints

Management Review Committee

Strategy & Business Excellence Group

ONLINE CSAT SURVEY

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION GROUP

Cross Functional Team


FUNCTION/AREA GAP IDENTIFIED

Engineering Product Quality

Estate

Management

Low CSAT

Prompt Service

Customer

Relationship

Management

Low Collection

Legal

Litigations by

Customers for

defective/poor

product and services


1.2.1 (CQ 2): What was the gap (problem solving)? 1.2.1 (CQ 3): What area of the organization had the gap or the opportunity?

10

GAP

STRATEGY MAP

GAP AREA

6


1.2.2 : What data was generated to help select the project ? 1.2.2 : What methods and/or tools were used to assess/prioritize the need for the Project ?


1.2.2 (CQ 1): What data was generated to help select the project?

11

DATA

CSAT Analysis

Snag Reports

Complaints Log

TAT Analysis

Customer Satisfaction Survey Parameters


1.2.2 : What data was generated to help select the project ? 1.2.2 : What methods and/or tools were used to assess/prioritize the need for the Project ?


1.2.2 (CQ 2): What methods and/or tools were used to assess/prioritize the need for the Project?1.2.2 (CQ 3): Why were these methods and/or tools used to select the project?

12

KANO Model

1. To helps gain better

insights into the services

attributes which

are important to our

customers.

2. To classify customer

preferences into categories

as delighters, satisfiers,

dissatisfies.

INDUSTRY FIRST

7



13

Perceived Gap

Strategy Map

1.2.3 (CQ 1): What goals (organizational and/or local), performance measures, and/or strategies is the project expected to impact? 1.2.3 (CQ 2): What was the relationship between the stated measures and perceived gap in 1.2.1?



1.2.3 (CQ 3): What is the problem statement that expresses where the organization wants to be at the end of the project?

B U S I N E S S C A S E

Tata Housing is on a mission to delight their customers by providing quality lifespaces through continuous improvement. This will help them become mostpreferred brand and industry leader fulfilling Tata Group’s vision and mission. With itsinitial success in handing over apartments, the company needs to ensure highcustomer satisfaction scores while living in these apartments

P R O B L E M S T A T E M E N T

Customer Satisfaction (Living in Experience) is consistently low and at an average of38% for last 2 quarters against a desired target of 75% (Top 2 Box ) Score

14

8


Team Selection And Preparation1.3.0

1.3.1 (CQ 1): How were the stakeholders groups identified? 1.3.1 (CQ 2): What or who are stakeholder groups?

Engineer-ing

Executor

Finance

Interested Party

Project Team

Executor

CRM

Interested Party

Design

Interested Party

Customer

Buyer

15

STAKEHOLDER GROUPS

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT METHODOLOGY

MRC

Approver

Legal

Influencer

01 02 03 04

SIPOC ARMI

Process mapping Impact Analysis



1.3.2 (CQ 1): What knowledge or skill sets were determined to be necessary for successful completion of the project? 1.3.2 (CQ 2): To what extent did the existing stakeholder groups have the required knowledge or skills?

16

STAKEHOLDER CLASSFICATION

NECESSARY SKILL SETS

STAKEHOLDER GROUP

1. MRC 2. Project Team 3. Engineering 4. Design 5. Legal 6. CRM 7. Finance 8. Customer

Intermediate Intermediate

Current Level: Beginner Intermediate Expert

Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate

▪ ChangeManagement

▪ ProjectManagement

▪ Quality Improvement

▪ Maintenance skills

▪ Benchmarking

▪ Customerrequirements

▪ Operational requirements

▪ Customer cases & its resolution

▪ Complaint resolution

▪ Financial outflow ▪ Do’s & Don’ts

9



1.3.2 (CQ 3): What additional knowledge and skills were brought in to make the project successful?

17

01. Domain Specific Skills

▪ Basics of Construction▪ Maintenance skills▪ Service Standard specifications

02. Six Sigma Skills

▪ DMAIC methodology

▪ Seven QC tools

▪ Project Management

▪ Process Mapping, SIPOC, Swim Lane, Cause Effect

▪ General Concepts & Goals of Hypothesis Testing

03. Leadership Skills

▪ Innovative thinking▪ Change Management▪ Team building

▪ Collaboration



Training

1.3.3 (CQ 1): Before the project started, what specific training was done?

18

Maintenance Skill Training for the frontline (Electrician)

32 members trained on ASQ ITEA Criteria and Problem Solving (Six Sigma GB) TRADE

Practitioner Program for Benchmarking Training with 81 members

10



1.3.3 (CQ 2): Before the project started, what was done to prepare the team to work together as a team?

19

Identification of Key Measures

• High impact defects defined and identified

Project Charter with Timeline

• Timelines with milestones defined for each stakeholder & respective function defined

Escalation Matrix

• Process defined for faster & easier Issue & Conflict resolution

Risk & Mitigation Matrix

• Process defined for resolution & minimization of Risk if any

Project Kick-Off Meeting (MoM)

• Project launched with all primary and critical stakeholders

STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVEMENT


ARMI LegendA : Approver or Key decision maker

R : Resource with expertise and skills

M : Member with defined roles and responsibilities

I : Interested party to be kept informed

KEY STAKEHOLDERS DEFINE MEASURE ANALYZE IMPROVE CONTROL

1. MRC A - - A -

2. Project Team M M M M M

3. Engineering - - - R R

4. Design - - - I I

5. CRM R R - I I

6. Legal - - - R R

7. Finance - - - - R

8. Customer - - - - I


1.3.4 (CQ 1): What roles and expectations were determined ahead of the project? 1.3.4 (CQ 3): Before the project started, what team routines, including communication were established?

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS (ARMI TOOL)

COMMUNICATION PLAN

Stakeholder routines and communication

20

WHAT WHY WHEN WHOM WHO

Team meetings To discuss way forward and next steps for

the project

Fortnightly Team Members & Leader Project Mentor

Project reviews To present updates on Status to Champion

and Mentor and receive guidance

Monthly Champion Mentor Team

Project plan update To apprise on project status and take

advise on methodology

Fortnightly Sponsor, Champion, Mentor

& Relevant Stake holders

Project Leader

11



1.3.4 (CQ 2): What deadlines and deliverables did the team have to consider ahead of actually starting the project?

21

Goal Statement Project Scope

Metric Current level Goal / Target Process under improvement : Post Handover Facility Management for Prive, Amantra, SG/NHC –Ahmedabad and La Montana, Raisina, Eden Court

Out Of Scope: All other projects

Living In CSAT – Top 2 Box

37 %(Sep -16)

75 % (Apr –17)

Project Plan Cross Functional Team

Phase Start Date End Date Sponsor: Brotin Banerjee (MD & CEO)

Define 10th Oct 2016 20th Oct 2016Champion: Ashoka Kumar Mohanty (Head - CRM & Estate)

Measure 21st Oct 2016 31st Oct 2016 Mentor : Sachin Garg (Head - SBE)

Analyze 1st Nov 2016 15th Nov 2016 Project Leader: Sarosh Tata

Improve 16th Nov 2016 31st Jan 2017Members : Prakash Devadiga, Amogh Bhave

Control 1st Jan 2017 31st Mar 2017

DEADLINES Enterprise Project Management System

Phase

Activity

no Activity Description Start Date

Planned

completion

Actual

Completion

D D1 Business impact 09-Jun-16 16-Jun-16 09-Jun-16

D2 Team Charter 21-Jul-16 31-Jul-16 26-Oct-16(R)

D3 VOC 21-Jul-16 31-Oct-16 28-Oct-16

D4 SIPOC 21-Jul-16 28-Jul-16 21-Jul-16

D5 Cause Effect Drawing 25-Jul-16 31-Oct-17 26-Oct-17

D6 Flow Chart 03-Aug-16 31-Oct-17 31-Oct-17

D8 Quick Wins 29-Sep-16 06-Oct-16 30-Sep-16

D9 Quick win Implementation Plan 25-Oct-16 30-Nov-16 28-Feb-17

M M1 Cause and effect matrix 03-Aug-16 17-Aug-16 10-Oct-16

M2 Pareto Diagram 09-Aug-16 16-Aug-16 10-Aug-16

M3 Data Collection 09-Aug-16 10-Aug-16 10-Aug-16

M4 Graphical Statistics 06-Sep-16 20-Sep-16 08-Nov-16

Phase

Activity


Planned

completion

Actual

Completion

A A1 Use Pareto and stratify ys 09-Aug-16 23-Aug-16 12-Sep-16

A2 Brainstorming on causes 25-Oct-16 26-Oct-16 27-Oct-16

A4 Base Sigma Performance 19-Jan-17 31-Jan-17 27-Jan-17

A5 Action Planning 30-Jan-17 31-Jan-17 31-Jan-17

I I1 Carryout affinity diagram 15-Nov-16 16-Nov-16 18-Nov-16

I2

Do Solution mapping six

thinking hats 20-Nov-16 22-Nov-16 24-Nov-16

I3 Select solutions 22-Nov-16 24-Nov-16 25-Nov-16

I4 Pilot the solution 26-Nov-16 15-Dec-16 10-Dec-16

I5 Validate the improvement 31-Jan-17 31-Mar-17 20-Feb-17

C C1 Implementation Plan 25-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16

C2 Review and release FDP 1-Dec-16 7-Dec-16 7-Dec-17

C3

Redo FMEA-Introduce Mistake

proofing 7-Dec-16 10-Dec-16 10-Dec-16

C4 Install Control Charts 10-Dec-16 15-Dec-16 20-Dec-16

C5 Monitor xs 15-Dec-16 20-Dec-16 24-Dec-16

C6 1.Integrate with ISO system 31-Mar-17 30-Apr-17 31-May-17

C7

Prepare for project closure

and recognition 31-Mar-17 31-Jun-17 31-Mar-17

SECTION 2

Current Situation and Root Cause/Improvement Opportunity Analysis

12


Key Measures Expected of the Project2.1.0

2.1.1 (CQ 1): What specific goals and/or measures was the team trying to achieve with the project? 2.1.1 (CQ 2): What additional potential benefits, other than the specific goals and/or measures, was the project expected to impact?

PRIMARY GOAL

23

Living In Customer Satisfaction Scores (Top 2 Box)

ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL BENEFITS

1. Product Quality

Improvement

2. Maintenance Cost

Reduction

3. Customer

Referral Rate

T1 Past Performance

T2 Internal Strategy

T3 Internal Benchmark

T4 External Benchmark

T5 Regulatory requirements

Corporate Balance Card Matrix


Possible Root Causes/Improvement Opportunities2.2.0

2.2.1 (CQ 1): What methods and/or tools were used to identify possible root causes/improvement opportunities?2.2.1 (CQ 2): Why were these methods/tools selected? 2.2.1 (CQ 3): How was the team prepared to use these methods and/or tools?

TOOLS

Cause Effect MatrixSIPOC Swim Lane Flowchart

SELECTION CRITERIA

To identify possible causes and derive relationship between the potential factors causing an overall effect

To understand the overall process in terms of supplier, process and output

To diagram the detailed business processes along with key players; in this multiple functional project

TEAM TRAINING

As mentioned in 1.3.2 (CQ 3) – Six Sigma Skills Training

24

13



2.2.2 (CQ 1): What data was generated and how was the data analysed to identify the possible root cause/improvement opportunities?

25

DATA GENERATED

Customer Complaint Log CSAT Analysis

37

22 2215

8 5 4 3 231%

50%69% 81% 88% 92% 96% 98% 100%

0%20%40%60%80%100%120%

0

10

20

30

40

La Montanna - Customer Snags Pareto Analysis - Period Oct'15 - Oct'16

Customer Snag Pareto Chart


POSSIBLE ROOT CAUSES


2.2.2 (CQ 2): What were the possible root cause/improvement opportunities?

26

49High CAM charges (Environment)

1. DLP not clear

2. Finance issues

Brand (Method)

1. Transparency

2. High ethics

3. Very high expectations of customers

Quality of Apartment (Material)

1. Defects in finished units – Leakages

2. Faulty Fixtures & fittings

3. Design Issues

Project not as per AFS (Method)

1. Committed dates not adhered

2. PLC

3. Area less than committed

4. Statutory requirements

Readiness of project (Material)

1. Incomplete approach roads

2. Incomplete building

3. Ongoing work in complex

4. Access not ready

Quality of project (Material)

1. Parking not ready

2. Issues regarding services

3. Landscape issues

Service providers (Personnel)

1. Local / political interference

2. Non-availability of vendors

3. High Cost of vendors

4. Competencies of vendors engaged

5. Dependency on specialized agencies

Communication (Method)

1. Availability of data

2. Delay in communication

3. Inadequate follow up

4. Timely decision

5. Incorrect communication

6. Delay due to software issues

Survey mechanism (Method)

1. Influence of EM manager

2. Difference in attributes

3. Inadequate sample size

4. Timing of survey

5. Customer profile

Livability (Environment)

1. Non availability of schools

2. No occupancy in neighborhood

3. Hospital & medical services not available

4. Daily need shops not available

5. Utilities not complete

6. No public transport facilities

Estate management team (Personnel)

1. Role allocation

2. Additional load of internal works

3. Customer groupism / differences

4. SME not available

5. Lack of training

6. Inadequate manpower

7. Budget constrains

8. Automation

14


Final Root Cause(s)/Improvement Opportunity(ies)2.3.0

2.3.1 (CQ 1): What methods and/or tools were used to identify the final root cause(s)/improvement opportunity(ies)? 2.3.1 (CQ 2): Why were these methods and/or tools selected? 2.3.1 (CQ 3): How was the team prepared to use these methods and/or tools?

Selection Reasons Team Preparation

Pareto Chart of Customer Complaints

To understand & priortize key issues faced by customer

Six Sigma Green Belt

Baseline Sigma Calculation To obtain Baseline DPMO & Sigma Level

Refresher training on Quality tools to team-members

Cause Effect Analysis To Identify key issues faced Knowledge sharing during team meetings

Tools

27

Cause Effect

Pareto

Process Analysis



2.3.2 (CQ 1): What data was generated and how was the data analysed in order to identify the final root cause(s)/improvement opportunity(ies)?

28

Failure Modes51

Segmentation08

37

22 2215

8 5 4 3 231%

50%69% 81% 88% 92% 96% 98% 100%

0%20%40%60%80%100%120%

0

10

20

30

40

La Montanna - Customer Snags Pareto Analysis - Period Oct'15 - Oct'16

Potential Failure Mode & Effects Analysis

Process Steps

or Product

Functions

Potential

Failure

Mode

Severit

y (1-10)

Potential

Cause(s) of

Failure

Occurrenc

e (1-10)

Detection

(1-10)

Recommended

Action

Surface

Preparation8

Non Compliance to

MS & checklist2 2 Internal audits

Breakage of

WP8

Incorrect material

specs/ Material not

suitable for location

5 3

Revise specs &

standarization of

material as per

location

Corner Not

treated8 Poor Workmanhsip 6 5

1.Training to workers

2. Internal auditsLeakage

Physical

supervision240

Physical

supervision

Material

approval at site120 Dec'2016

ofResponsibility: Project Team Page:

16.08.2017

FMEA Team: Mahendra, Amogh, Sameer, Sagar (Revised) 18.08.17

Process/Product: Product Quality FMEA Date: (original)

Potential

Effects

of

Failure

Current

Controls

Risk Priority

Number (RPN)

Prepared By: Sameer Jorwekar

Process

Responsibility

and Target

Completion Date

Action

Taken

32 Nov'2016

Dec'2016

Leakage

Leakage

Surface Preparation

for Wet area Water

proofing

Actions

Customer Complaint Analysis

Pareto Chart Affinity Diagram

FMEA

15



2.3.2 (CQ 2): What are specific examples of data analysis that led to the final root cause?

29

Voice of Customer Analysis

Sigma Level Calculation

Pareto Chart

4767

2739

14291195

898

558 482 415 355 352 299 215 19662 37 34 34 31 14 10 10

34%

53% 63%

72%78%

82%85%

88% 91% 93% 95% 97% 98% 99% 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Plu

mb

ing

Ele

ctri

cal

Car

pe

ntr

y

Equ

ipm

en

t

Civ

il

San

itar

y/C

P F

itti

ng

Alu

Win

do

ws

Leak

age

/Se

ep

age

Pai

nti

ng

Har

dw

are AC

Mis

cell

ane

ou

s

Ho

use

keep

ing

Lan

dsc

apin

g/G

ard

en

Ele

ctri

city

De

sign

Wa

ter

Ho

me

Au

tom

ati

on

Pe

st C

on

tro

l

Am

en

itie

s

Lift

Customer Request & Complaint Analysis

No of Service Request CUMULATIVE %

Cu

mu

lati

ve%

Cu

mu

lati

ve%

Cu

mu

lati

ve%

Co

mp

lain

ts ,

No

s

Vital Few


SEGMENT ROOT CAUSES (Sample)

Safety and Security

1. Low boundary wall2. Low common lobby windows made of glass3. Strike by security staff 4. Interference by some residents & instances of instigating security guards5. Due to politically dominated area/region, continuation of the same security guards despite change of

agency

Pest Control / Fogging

1. Construction in adjacent area is in progress2. No fogging done 3. Area surrounding the project is dense with vegetation.4. Deck flooring infected by termites/spoiled by rodents.5. Swimming pool/ water bodies not maintained by owners

Landscape Area 1. Very less landscape.2. Trees not fully grown up3. No irrigation system provided

Lifts Operation 1. Lift flooring was done with regular stone, however customers expected it to be polished.2. Monthly check by OEM’s not done

General Lighting ofComplex

1. No Boundary light Installed2. Designed as dim light project


2.3.2 (CQ 3): What was (were) the final root cause(s)/improvement opportunity(ies)? (1/2)

30

FIN

AL

RO

OT

CA

USE

S

28

(continued on next slide)

16



2.3.3 (CQ 1): How was (were) the final root cause(s)/improvement opportunity(ies) validated?

31

Validation Process

49 Root Causes 28 Final Root Causes

• Focus Group Discussion with Customers

• Entire population (not sample) of data were considered & studied

• Root causes were identified based on Pareto of information obtained from customers

FINAL ROOT CAUSES

01. Pareto Analysis

02. Complete Data Analyses

03. Customer Validation



2.3.3 (CQ 2): What evidence showed that the final root cause(s)/improvement opportunity(ies) were validated prior to solutiondevelopment?

32

Root CauseValidation through

Stakeholder involvedValidated

(Y/N)

Low Boundary wall Customer Engineering, Site Estate Team, Customer

No fogging done Customer Site Estate Team, Customers

Very less landscape Customer Engineering, Site Estate Team, Customer

Monthly check of Lifts by OEM’s not done CFT Site Estate Team, Customer

No Boundary light Installed. Customer Engineering, Site Estate Team, Customer

Dependency on Internal Team for resolution of concerns raised by Customers

CFTEngineering, Finance, Legal, Site Estate Team

Poor/No network leading to delayed communication CFT Engineering, Site Estate Team, IT

Non availability of materials/ parts/ manpower CFT Engineering, Site Estate Team

Estate updates customers only on completion of issues CFT Engineering, Site Estate Team

Unable to satisfy most of the customer beyond scope andhence perceived to be not courteous

Pareto Site Estate Team

Validation prior to Solution Development

17


Project Management Update2.4.0

2.4.1 (CQ 1): How was the correctness of the initial project scope, deliverables, and timings confirmed (or, what changes were made)?

33

Changes Reason for change

1. Change in the project scope Projects where final solutions can be deployed identified and incorporated in the scope

2. Introduction of Automated C-SAT Survey process To know the current baseline for the C-SAT and measure improvement regularly

3. Introduction of new team members in project team In order to replace the team members who left the organization & also to extent the reach of the project deployment, new team members were introduced

CHANGES IN PROJECT SCOPE



2.4.1 (CQ 2): How were the stakeholders involved and/or communicated with during the root cause/improvement opportunity phase of the project?

34

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

Project Meetings

Group Discussion

Enterprise Project

Management System

HOW STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATE DURING

ROOT CAUSE PHASE

Stakeholder Group Roles How were stakeholders involved

1. MRCMD, Head EngineeringCFO, Head of Depts.

Approving Authority

2. Project Team Estate, QA&QC, SBE

Resource Allocation Compiled information with focus on objectives Clear road block for the project team

3. EngineeringProject Head, Regional Head, CHP, RHE

Contributed ideas for new development Review the project Brainstorming for the potential reason Provider of internal data

4. Design Head - Design Contributed ideas for new development Review the project

5. Legal Head – Legal NA (Improvement not pertaining to legal issues)

6. CRM Head - Customer Care

Contributed ideas for new development Review the project Brainstorming for the potential reason Provider of internal data

7. Finance Head – Finance Approve & allocate additional budget

8. Customer Buyers Voice of Customers

18



2.4.1 (CQ 3): What stakeholder resistance was identified and /or addressed in this phase of the project?

35

RESISTANCE IDENTIFIED

STAKEHOLDER GROUP

RESISTANCE ADDRESSED


No Resistance No Resistance To attend defects/reworks

of all areas

Approval in redesigning the

light scheme

No Resistance No Resistance Additional budget required to fund activities

Additional Maintenance

cost

Team to certify & release after 100% automated checksof all parameters

Discussion with Engg done to build

consensus & change as required

NA NA NA NA Budget approved for critical items

as needed

Impact on cost of additional

services communicated to customers



2.4.1 (CQ 4): How was the appropriateness of the initial team membership and management routines confirmed?

36

TEAM APPROPRIATENESS

MANAGEMENT ROUTINES CONFIRMED

VALIDATING PARAMETER

DECISION/ RECOMMENDATION

1. Are the team members appropriate for the project now?2. Do we add additional team members?

Not required as the team was in sync and actionable were clearly assigned among current stakeholders



1. Is the frequency of team meetings & MRC review appropriate? 2. Do we need to do any changes?

Current allocated schedule, frequency and timelines are enough and suits the team

Team Model

FormingStormingNorming

Performing

19

SECTION 3

Solution/Improvement Development


Possible Solutions or Improvements3.1.0

3.1.1.(CQ 1): What methods and/or tools were used to identify the possible solutions/improvements? 3.1.1 (CQ 2): Why were these methods and/or tools selected? 3.1.1 (CQ 3): How was the team prepared to use the methods and/or tools?

38

Brainstorming Benchmarking Focus Group Discussion

WHY WAS THE TOOL USED

To generate ideas so as team can come up with long term and better solutions

To understand and adept good practices from across the industry

To align stakeholders and get expert opinion

HOW WAS THE TEAM PREPARED TO USE THE TOOLS

Members meet for 2 Days –

4 hrs each

TRADE Methodology Members meet for 2 Days –4 hrs each

20



3.1.2 (CQ 1): What data was generated and how was the data analysed to determine the possible solutions/improvements?

39

SCATTER DIAGRAM

AFFINITY DIAGRAM

MULTIVOTINGGroup Judgement were used to narrow down the

list of possible solutions

To identify potential RC through correlating relationship between maintenance cost and causes

listed in C-SAT survey

Possible solutions generated from Brain storming were grouped based on their

relationship in work process

How was data

analysed

SME and Technical Experts inputs supported solutions

proposed

Practises from across the

industry supported

solutions proposed

Data Generated

Builder/Developer Name Sobha Prestige Embassy Grp THDC Brigade

Site Name Hetritage South Ridge Habitat Promont Omega

Location Banshankari Banshankari Palace Rd Banshankari Banshankari

Amenities/services provided by

DeveloperOutsourced Outsourced Outsourced

3s / MSF &

EximusOutsourced

Area in ascending order 1 2 3 4 5

Size/saleable area (lac sq ft) 2.3 3.9 6.5 9.3 2.84

No. of Flats 312 264 348 304 520

Status of Society/RWA/Association form or

not

No Yes Yes No Yes

Total Maintenance charges p.s.f /per month

including all heads.

3.5 3.5 3.0 5.0 3.0

Club House charges 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Billing on Actual or Flat Apartment Apartment Apartment Actual Apartment

Diesel charges No Yes Yes Yes No

Security service manpower Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Tech. Manppower Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Housekeeping manpower Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Parking attendents charges Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Pest control Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Consumables cost Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Common area Electricity charges Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Club House operations cost No No No Yes No

Water charges Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Accounting software Charges Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

AMC charges Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Insurance charges Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Audit Charges Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Repair & maintenance charges Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Management fee Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Cost included in CAM Billing


POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS IDENTIFIED


3.1.2 (CQ 2): What are the possible solutions/improvements? (2/2)3.1.2 (CQ 3): What evidence showed that the solutions/improvements identified were possible instead of final?

40

Site Problem Area Root Cause(s) Possible Solutions

Eden CourtTimely Resolution of your queries or complaints

▪ Dependency on Internal Ream for resolution of concerns raised by Customers▪ Estate updates customers only on completion of issues

▪ Progress status to residents

Eden CourtPromptness of attending to issues that were raised to the EM Team

▪ External dependency▪ Non availability of materials/ parts/ manpower

▪ Maintain inventory of critical spares at site▪ Hire or empanel dedicated manpower and/or

technicians for critical services like a mason, electrician, carpenter

▪ Communicate with residents on regular basis

Raisina Residency

Lifts Operation ▪ Lift flooring was done in bottom in stone. However customers wants polished▪ Change in flooring of the lift▪ Monthly inspection of lifts by OEM

Raisina Residency

Parking Area▪ Victoria Tower does not have basement and the residents park in pen spaces▪ No direct access to Victoria Tower residents from basement to their building▪ Leakage from shaft walls & joints

▪ Create a porch from basement to the tower▪ Open Parking arrangement to be constructed

Raisina Residency

Courteousness of Estate Mgt Team

▪ Unable to satisfy most of the customer beyond scope and hence perceived to be not courteous

▪ Conflicting requests from multiple customers▪ Fluency of spoken English coupled with a tone of politeness requires improvement

▪ Formation of the Association▪ Coaching session for the FM team to be

conducted

Evidence of solution possible

but not Final

1. Multiple possible solutions for similar issues were arrived at

2. Solutions would be based on Customer Validation and Feedback

3. Stakeholder approval would be taken to support solutions proposed

21


Final Solutions or Improvements3.2.0

3.2.1 (CQ 1): What methods and/or tools were used to identify the final solution(s)/improvement(s)? 3.2.1 (CQ 2): Why were these methods and/or tools selected? 3.2.1 (CQ 3): How was the team prepared to use the methods and/or tools?

41

TOOLS USED TO IDENTIFY FINAL SOLUTIONS

WHY WERE THESE TOOLS SELECTED

HOW WAS THE TEAM PREPARED TO USE THE TOOLS

To check the viability of the solution

To narrow the list of solutions and built

consensus on it

Trail run of the actual solution on the sample

base to validate & verify

To involve the customer & get first hand review

Cross Functional Team discussion

Pilot Testing the Solution

Pilot Testing the Solution

Cross Functional Team discussion

Customer ValidationFocus Group Discussion Mock upMulti Voting



3.2.2 (CQ 1): How were the methods and/or tools used to determine the final solution(s)/improvement(s)?

42

05

Root Cause : Poor Post Handover Experience - Security

02

01

03

04

Verifying time

Verifying cost

Minimizing resistance

Critical To Quality (CTQ) Impact

TimeImpact

Cost Impact

Potential Resistance

Prioritising Quality

Verifying time

Verifying cost

Minimizing resistance

Verifying environment

and norms

SOLUTION SELECTION MATRIX EXAMPLE

22



3.2.2 (CQ 2): What was (were) the final solution(s)/improvement(s)?

LA MONTANA LM01 Irrigation system to be provided

LM02 Trees should be planted 1 year prior to possession

LM03 Design team to provide mesh in windows

LM04 In-house fogging to be done twice a day

PRIVEPR01 Installation of boundary lights

PR02 Deploy Pest Control Services for Villa LandscapePR03 Progress updates to be given to customer twice weekly

PR04 Till handover, Estate Head/ Operations Manager to meet customers once in 15 days

EDEN COURTEC01 Security agency to be replaced

EC02 Progress status to be given to residents

EC03 Maintain inventory of critical spares at site

EC04 Hire or empanel dedicated manpower and/or technicians for critical services like a mason, electrician, carpenter

EC05 Communicate with residents on regular basis

RAISINA RESIDENCYRR01 Change in flooring of the lift

RR02 Monthly inspection of lifts by OEM

RR03 Create a porch from basement to the Tower

RR04 Open Parking arrangement to be constructed

RR05 Formation of the Association

RR06 Coaching session for the FM team to be conducted

LIST OF FINAL SOLUTIONS & IMPROVEMENTS

43

FINAL SOLUTIONS

19


Identified Solution

Shortlisted Solution

Pilot Testing

Results

Not validated

results

Root Cause Analysis

Modified Solution

Validated results


3.2.3 (CQ 1): How were the final solution(s)/improvement(s) validated?

44

VALIDATION OF FINAL RESULTS

VALIDATION PROCESS

360O degree validation process of each solution

23



3.2.3 (CQ 2): What evidence showed that validation was performed prior to implementation?

45

Validation Process

Technical Validation

would be done through

Mock-ups

Solutions would be

based on Customer

Validation and Feedback

SME & Technical Expert

inputs would be taken to

support solutions

proposed



3.2.4 (CQ 1): What additional potential benefits were anticipated from the final solution(s)/improvement(s)? 3.2.4 (CQ 2): Were the additional benefits anticipated prior to implementation?

46

ADDITIONAL BENEFITS EXPECTED FROM THE FINAL SOLUTIONS

Improvement in Work Productivity

Reducing handover delays

EXPECTED BEFORE

Yes

Yes

24



3.2.5 (CQ 1): What data was generated and how was the data analysed to justify why the chosen final solution(s)/improvement(s) should be implemented? 3.2.5 (CQ 2): What evidences showed that justification was performed prior to implementation?

DATA GENERATED & ANALYZED

PILOT TESTING

47

VALIDATION CRITERIASolution Selection Matrix

BrainstormingData Analysis

Focused Group Discussion

JUSTIFICATION PERFORMED VIA


24 Possible Solutions

19 Shortlisted Solutions

19 Justified Solutions


Phase

Activity


Planned

completion

Actual

Completion

A A1 Use Pareto and stratify ys 09-Aug-16 23-Aug-16 12-Sep-16

A2 Brainstorming on causes 25-Oct-16 26-Oct-16 27-Oct-16

A4 Base Sigma Performance 19-Jan-17 31-Jan-17 27-Jan-17

A5 Action Planning 30-Jan-17 31-Jan-17 31-Jan-17

I I1 Carryout affinity diagram 15-Nov-16 16-Nov-16 18-Nov-16

I2

Do Solution mapping six

thinking hats 20-Nov-16 22-Nov-16 24-Nov-16

I3 Select solutions 22-Nov-16 24-Nov-16 25-Nov-16

I4 Pilot the solution 26-Nov-16 15-Dec-16 10-Dec-16

I5 Validate the improvement 31-Jan-17 31-Mar-17 20-Feb-17

C C1 Implementation Plan 25-Nov-16 30-Nov-16 30-Nov-16

C2 Review and release FDP 1-Dec-16 7-Dec-16 7-Dec-17

C3

Redo FMEA-Introduce Mistake

proofing 7-Dec-16 10-Dec-16 10-Dec-16

C4 Install Control Charts 10-Dec-16 15-Dec-16 20-Dec-16

C5 Monitor xs 15-Dec-16 20-Dec-16 24-Dec-16

C6 1.Integrate with ISO system 31-Mar-17 30-Apr-17 31-May-17

C7

Prepare for project closure

and recognition 31-Mar-17 31-Jun-17 31-Mar-17

THROUGH TOLL GATE REVIEW THE CORRECTNESS OF THE PROJECT SCOPE, DELIVERABLES AND TIMINGS WERE CHECKED


3.3.1 (CQ 1): How was the correctness of the initial or updated project scope, deliverables, and timing confirmed?

Methods Used

02. Timelines Check

48

01. Project Scope & Deliverables Check

Project Plan

Phase Start Date End Date

Define 10th Oct 2016 20th Oct 2016

Measure 21st Oct 2016 31st Oct 2016

Analyze 1st Nov 2016 15th Nov 2016

Improve 16th Nov 2016 31st Jan 2017

Control 1st Jan 2017 31st Mar 2017

Project Tollgate review done on

regular intervals with internal

stakeholders

Project Review with Champions

done on regular intervals to update

on progress and current status

SME Review for validity of the

actionable & its measure its impact

01 02&

Phase

Activity


Planned

completion

Actual

Completion

D D1 Business impact 09-Jun-16 16-Jun-16 09-Jun-16

D2 Team Charter 21-Jul-16 31-Jul-16 26-Oct-16(R)

D3 VOC 21-Jul-16 31-Oct-16 28-Oct-16

D4 SIPOC 21-Jul-16 28-Jul-16 21-Jul-16

D5 Cause Effect Drawing 25-Jul-16 31-Oct-17 26-Oct-17

D6 Flow Chart 03-Aug-16 31-Oct-17 31-Oct-17

D8 Quick Wins 29-Sep-16 06-Oct-16 30-Sep-16

D9 Quick win Implementation Plan 25-Oct-16 30-Nov-16 28-Feb-17

M M1 Cause and effect matrix 03-Aug-16 17-Aug-16 10-Oct-16

M2 Pareto Diagram 09-Aug-16 16-Aug-16 10-Aug-16

M3 Data Collection 09-Aug-16 10-Aug-16 10-Aug-16

M4 Graphical Statistics 06-Sep-16 20-Sep-16 08-Nov-16

25



3.3.1 (CQ 2): How were stakeholders involved and/or communicated with during the solution/improvement phase of the project?

49

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT DURING IMPROVEMENT PHASE

1. MRC

2. Project Team

3. Engineering

4. Design

5. Legal

6. CRM

7. Finance

8. Customer

Periodic project review & update meeting

Analysis, Brainstorming, drafting project critical milestones

Project review & tracking

Project review & tracking

NA (Improvement not pertaining to legal issues)

Updates on actions to be taken

Update on action to be taken on finance requirement, if any

Feedback on Mock-up units



3.3.1 (CQ 3): What stakeholder resistance was identified and/or addressed in this phase of the project?

50


STAKEHOLDER GROUP



No Resistance No Resistance No budgets available for cost

of rework

Approval in redesigning the

light scheme

No Resistance No Resistance Additional budget required to fund activities

NA

Additional budgets allocated as required

Discussion with Engg done to build

consensus & change as required

NA NA NA NA Budget approved for critical items

as needed

NA

26



3.3.1 (CQ 4): How was the appropriateness of the initial or updated team membership and management routines confirmed?

51

APPROPRIATENESS OF INITIAL TEAM MEMBERSHIP CHECKED

APPROPRIATENESS OF MANAGEMENT ROUTINES CONFIRMED



1. Are the team members appropriate for the project now?2. Do we add additional team members?

Not required as the team was in sync on the analysis and action to be taken



1. Is the frequency of team meetings & MRC review appropriate? 2. Do we need to do any changes?

Current allocated schedule, frequency and timelines are enough and suits the team

Appropriates & Timelines

are validated through Team

discussions and meetings

SECTION 4

Implementation and Results Verification

27


Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation4.1.0

4.1.1 (CQ 1): How were stakeholders involved in planning the solution/improvement implementation? 4.1.1 (CQ 2): How were stakeholders involved in implementing the solution/improvement?

53


IN PLANNING & IMPLEMENTING THE SOLUTION


Monthly project review along with key actionable

Validation & Signoff of Solutions & Process changes

Performing Root cause analysis

Brainstorming & Strategy planning

Providing Trainings at project site

Performing Root cause analysis


Providing weekly updates to project team & monthly updates in PRM to senior mgt


Training site team in understanding the best practices & revised project design guidelines

Validation & justification of solutions from legal aspect

Financial validation & justification of solutions implemented

Revision of guidelines

Planning customers site visit for inspection of Mock-up units & capturing customer feedback

Customer Feedback & VOC



4.1.2 (CQ 1): What was done to anticipate resistance before it occurred?

54

RESISTANCE WAS ANTICIPATED BEFORE IT OCCURRED

➢ Tollgate reviews were conducted with project sponsor & champion after completion of each phase

➢ Concerns were discussed & addressed during internal reviews along with CRM team

➢ Focused group discussion were conducted with key stakeholder

➢ Each team/department, evaluated to classify them as blockers, advocates and indifferent.

➢ Customer VoC inputs captured from the calling log during relationship calls

➢ Concerns and inputs from customers were discussed & addressed during internal reviews

Tollgate Review Key Stakeholder Analysis Customer

28


Time allocated for task Completion Sanctioning of Budget Additional Maintenance Cost


4.1.2 (CQ 2): What types of resistance were actually encountered during the course of solution/improvement implementation? 4.1.2 (CQ 3): How was the actual resistance identified?

55

➢ Resident non-availability on the training dates

➢ Delay in the sanctioning of budget and funds

➢ Working on the additional service requirement

TYPE OF RESISTANCE


➢ Availability of the vendor


Time allocated for task Completion Sanctioning of Budget Additional Maintenance Cost


4.1.3 (CQ 1): How was the actual resistance addressed?

56

WHAT TYPE OF RESISTANCE WAS ENCOUNTERED DURING SOLUTION IMPLEMENTATION


29



4.1.3 (CQ 2): How did the team know it was successful in addressing the resistance?

57

CSAT Improvement



4.1.4 (CQ 1): What was the evidence of stakeholder group buy-in?

Stakeholder Group Evidence of buy-in

1. MRC Getting Approvals for the proposed solutions

2. Project Team▪ Acceptance of the proposed solutions arrived▪ Standard policy on some of the Maintenance services

3. Engineering Change in the Process

4. Design NFR approved on Estate Requirement in new projects

5. Legal NA (Improvement not pertaining to legal issues)

6. CRM Appropriate communication to the customer

7. Finance Approval of 1% from Project budget for rectification work

8. Customer Intimation provided w.r.t. actions being taken

EVIDENCE OF STAKEHOLDER GROUP BUY-IN

58

30



4.1.4 (CQ 2): What evidence showed that buy-in was obtained prior to implementation?

EVIDENCES ASSURING BUY-IN OBTAINED PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION

59


Solution/Improvement Implementation4.2.0

4.2.1 (CQ 1): What process(es) or system(s) were changed or created to implement the solution/improvement?

P4. Vendor Evaluation is changed and based on customer feedback

60

P1. Process of takeover from Engineering to Estate changed

Process of takeover is changed, incorporating

100% readiness and testing of all parameters

before handover to Estate Management

P3. Cross function team created to pre-check unit prior to possession offer

P2. Revised Checklist for inspection of the unit prior to takeover and handover to customer

Detailed checklist created to validate the inspection carried out

on the unit.

Subject matter experts from multiple functions

are assigned to work together & validate

readiness of the unit and common services

Process of vendor evaluation is based on Customer Feedback on the Services. This is to

be strictly followed

31


Solution/Improvement Implementation4.2.0

4.2.1 (CQ 2): What systems were changed or created to measure and manage the performance of the implementation?

61

Real Time Report Tracking: To track reports and data in real-time, so as customer complains and concerns can be answered in faster and better way

Online Customer Feedback: To ensure the correct & unbiased feedback, system of Online Customer Feedback is introduced in place of manual feedback collection


Project Results4.3.0

4.3.1 (CQ 1): What were the results?

62

Living in Customer Satisfaction

FY 16-17 (Q2) FY 16-17 (Q4)

37%

80%

4.3.1 (CQ 2): How did the results compare to the specific project goals/measures from Item 2.1.1?

32



4.3.2 (CQ 1): What additional benefits were realized from the project? 4.3.2 (CQ 2): How did the team measure any of the additional benefits that were “soft”?

Customer complaint per unit

Top 2 Boxes Score Additional Revenue Timely Collection

Customer Referrals CollectionsReduction in customer

complaintsProduct Quality

“SOFT” Benefits were lower customer complaint rate

120 Crores 97%2 per unit75%

63

ADDITIONAL BENEFITS



4.3.2 (CQ 3): How do the actual additional benefits that were realized compare to the expected additional benefits identified in Item 3.2.4?

Additional Benefits Baseline AchievedMeasurement Metrix

Improvement in Work Productivity

Reducing handover delay

88%

101 days

93%

67 days

Productivity Report

Average Delays

64

33

SECTION 5

Sustaining and Communicating Results


Sust

ain

abili

ty P

lan

Sustaining Results Over Time5.1.0

5.1.1 (CQ 1): What was done to make sure the process or system changes made during the implementation (Item 4.2.1) continued to be followed?

Monitoring results onmonthly basis

Regular and periodic audits

IMS Process update

Training programs revised

Project Heir

66

34



5.1.1 (CQ 2): What evidence showed that this became part of the organization’s culture/operating strategy?

Rewards & RecognitionCommunication to top management

Online Feedback System created & implemented

67



5.1.2 (CQ 1): What was done to make sure the benefits obtained from the implementation will be maintained?

Monthly Governance Reviews

Vendor Performance Evaluation is linked to Customer rating of services

Sam

ple

s

Beneficiary’s periodic evaluation Dashboard

Established

01.

02.

03.

04.

68

35



5.1.2 (CQ 2): What evidence showed that this became part of the organization’s culture/operating strategy?5.2.1 (CQ 1): How did the team communicate the results to the various stakeholders groups?

Periodic Project Review Communicating Results with Stakeholders

Periodic On-Site Inspection

SOPs Documented

69


KEY LEARNINGS

What went wellStakeholder Involvement

Customer Validation

Online customer satisfaction surveys

What could be better

Statistical Tools

70

36

Thank You

Documents

Parivartan - Living In Customer Satisfaction · 2018-06-14 · Seven QC tools Project ... Training 1.3.3 (CQ 1): Before the project started, what specific training was done? 18 Maintenance