WNS helps in reducing the supplier rejects thereby ... · CTQ drill down tree helped establishing linkage between Project Y (Reduction in Supplier Rejects) & Business Y ( VOC/Customer

1

© Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved

WNS helps in reducing the supplier rejects thereby avoiding revenue loss to the customer

July 2016

WNS Global Services nomination for 2016 South Asia Team Excellence Award

2 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 2 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved

Project Overview

The project focused on reduction of

order validation rejects by supplier

Involved co-ordination with client

stakeholders, suppliers & requestor

communities based globally

Active participation by team in

creation of technical guidelines

Appreciated by clients during C-SAT

surveys

Project Overview

Reduction of Supplier Rejects by 50%

Revenue Realization of 93115 USD

Client Benefit

Time Savings of 70.215 hrs / month

Hard Savings of 0.49 FTE (9110 USD)

Project Impact

Reduction of Supplier Rejects Project with 93K USD Client Benefit

2


Section 1: Project and Team Selection


1.1.0 Understanding the context for project selection

1.1.1 (A) – Who is responsible for selecting the project?

M D A I C

Project Selection

CUSTOMER WNS

Head of Revenue Assurance Group

Business Owner - Order provisioning Mgnt

Process Owner - OPM

Black Belt Process Owner

Project Lead Departmental Leader

- The selection of project was done based on Voice of Customer - Head of Revenue Assurance Group & Business owner for OPM Team from client side were involved in the decision along with WNS stakeholders

3



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

M D A I C

Service Delivery Unit

OPM Team



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

M D A I C

Context of the Project

The project was carried out for the networking orders placed by a global leader in IT solutions & communication service provider for the air transport industry

We at WNS, perform back office functions for this client which include processing of work orders and dispatching them to the supplier

Rate of rejects occurring during technical & local customer validation phase was a major concern to the client stakeholders as well as WNS, as this caused:

Delays in delivery of service Rework on rejected orders Delay in revenue generation Business loss to the end customer

4


1.2.0 Project Selection Process

1.2.1 (A) – How was the gap or opportunity brought to the attention of the project identification group?

M D A I C

Project Opportunity Identification

• Monthly dashboards showed increasing trend in rejects over the period

Monthly reviews with client helped to understand the criticality of increasing rejects in terms of revenue, delay in service delivery & customer dissatisfaction

This concern was getting highlighted during committee meetings between client & supplier

Rate of rejects occurring during technical & local customer validation phase was a major concern to the client stakeholders as well as WNS, as this caused:

Delays in delivery of service

Rework on rejected orders

Delay in revenue generation

Monthly Review

Client, WNS & Suppliers Problem Area Project Opportunity

Monthly review between Client, WNS & Suppliers on service delivery performance



1.2.1 (B) – Answer only one of these: What was the gap (Problem Solving)? Or What was the opportunity (Process Improvement)?

M D A I C

Project Opportunity Identification

Average weekly reject rate at 18.07% of incoming volumes resulted in: Rework involved in resolution of rejects Delayed delivery of connections leading to

increased customer escalations & dissatisfaction Delay in revenue generation - Revenue loss of

~$15K USD/month to client

Problem Area

5



1.2.1 (C) – what area of the organization had the gap or opportunity?

M D A I C

Project Opportunity Identification OPM section of

Service Delivery chain acting as a mediator between receiving the order from requestor & dispatching & tracking it with the supplier, could help in bringing the rejects % down


Project Selection


1.2.2 (A) – what data was generated to help select the project?

M D A I C

Reject data & Trending for 6 months

Feedback from client

Threat vs Opportunity Matrix

6



1.2.2 (B) – What methods and / or tools were used to assesses or prioritize the need for the project?

M D A I C

Linkage of Project opportunity with Business objective using CTQ Drill Down Appropriate metric was defined

as “Reduction of Supplier Rejects”

Metric was affecting 3 SLAs of

Order Provisioning & Management unit (OPM)

Poor performance on SLA could

impact overall operational performance, eventually impacting Voice of Customer

The linkage was created with the

help of CTQ drilldown tree to establish linkage between Project Y & Business Y



1.2.2 (C) – Why were these methods and / or tools used to select the project?

M D A I C

CTQ Drill Down Tree

CTQ drill down tree helped establishing linkage between Project Y (Reduction in Supplier Rejects) & Business Y ( VOC/Customer Satisfaction)

It helped creating linkage of the project metric with the specific Key performance indicators for the team i.e. TAT, CDD Compliance & Process adherence

TAT

CDD Compliance

Process Adherence

Project Metric “Reduction of

Supplier Rejects”

Business Y “VOC/Customer

Satisfaction”

Operational Performance

Poor performance on SLA could impact the Overall operational Performance, Eventually impacting Voice of Customer

7



1.2.3 (A) – What goals (organizational and / or local), performance measures , and / or strategies were the project expected to impact?

M D A I C

Project Impact

Reduction of Supplier Rejects

On time revenue generation

Reduce Weekly Reject %

On Time delivery of connections

Customer Satisfaction

The project was targeted to reduce Weekly Reject % which was also expected to bring improvement in:

On time delivery

On Time Revenue generation




1.2.3 (B) – What was the relationship between the stated measures and perceived gap in 1.2.1?

M D A I C

Relationship between stated measures & perceived gap

Stated measures: Weekly Reject %

On time delivery of connections

Customer satisfaction


Perceived gap: Average weekly reject rate at 18.07%

of incoming volumes

Delivery of connections getting delayed due to rework involved in resolution of rejects

Increasing customer complaints

Delay in revenue generation

Perceived gaps were validated with the help of collected data

8



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

M D A I C

Problem Statement & Goal Statement

Supplier rejects during the period of Apr-Sep’14 showed that an average of 18.07% volumes per week were rejected by Supplier in the service delivery operations leading to revenue loss for customer

Problem Statement

To reduce the percentage of Supplier rejects from 18.07% to 12% per week (approx 33% reduction) by Dec’15

Goal Statement


1.3.0 Team Selection and Preparations

1.3.1 (A) – How were the stakeholder groups identified?

M D A I C

Stakeholder Group

Project Lead for ensuring communication & execution of the project in structured manner MBB & BB to execute the project in structured quality methodology Leadership & teams involved in processing & dispatching of orders to the supplier due to

active ownership in the process

Customer entities such as Head of Revenue Assurance Group, Business & Process owners of the team who shared Voice of Customer were identified as stakeholders. They were the approving authorities for any possible process changes to be incorporated

Service Designer was identified as the stakeholder as he is custodian of all process documents and crucial help in communicating the changes in process towards the customer entities

Customer

WNS

9



1.3.1 (B) – What or who were the stakeholder group?

M D A I C

Stakeholder Group

The teams responsible for processing & dispatching of orders to the supplier & respective leaders were identified as key stakeholders


Business Owner - OPM

Process Owner - OPM

MBB Champion

Project Lead Departmental Leader

Service Designer

VoC / Process change

approvers

APAC Leader

EURO Leader

AMER Leader

MEIA Leader

Regional Teams

Black Belt

CUSTOMER

WNS


Knowledge / Skill Sets


1.3.2 (A) – What knowledge or skill sets were determined to be necessary for successful completion of the project?

M D A I C

Understanding of Ordering process

Lean Six Sigma Knowledge

Communication Skills

Project Management approach

Change Management skills

10



1.3.2 (B) – To what extent did the existing stakeholder groups have the required knowledge or skills?

M D A I C

Skill Set Mapping

Understanding of Ordering process

Lean Six Sigma Knowledge

Communication Project

Management Change

Management

Process Owner (Champion)

Departmental Leader

Project Leader

MBB

BB

Regional Leaders

Team Members

It was not expected for all the stakeholders to possess all skills across domains. Expertise in their functional domains was utilized for the execution of project



1.3.2 (C) – What additional knowledge and skills were brought in to make the project successful?

M D A I C

Additional Knowledge / Skill Sets

Skills Reason

Presentation Skills It was anticipated that team will need to

explain the changes in interactive manner for better understanding

Training Training expertise were required to ensure possible changes in the existing process are

communicated effectively

11



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

M D A I C

Additional Knowledge / Skill Sets

Training Scope

Process Training

Overview of the process was shared with the entire group to highlight the area of

improvement in scope and possible impact on relative activities

Six Sigma Green Belt Training

Green Belt Training is mandatory for the project lead

Project / Change Management

A small session on Project / Change Management was conducted by In-house

resources

Quality Tool Training Sessions were conducted by the mentor for the project team to make them understand

quality tools



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

M D A I C

Skill Set Mapping

Team preparation activities were followed to ensure the team understood Current challenges, Project objectives, goals, Key project deliverables along with timelines Roles & responsibilities as well as Escalation / feedback channels

2 awareness sessions involving stakeholders & requestor communities from APAC / MEIA and EURO / AMER regions to give them heads-up on the project and receive first feedback

E-mail communication announcing the initiation of project to all the Geo-Heads requesting their support in spreading awareness, giving suggestions Implementing identified solutions

Customer WNS

12



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

M D A I C

Role Expectation

Customer


Approve project toll gates, fundamental changes to the 'as is' process, financial changes

Business Owner / Process Owner - OPM

Approve fundamental changes to the 'as is' process, support in communicating with requestors & suppliers, participate in review calls

Service Designer

Approve fundamental changes to the 'as is' process and support document changes, participate in review calls

WNS

Champion Approve project toll gates, fundamental changes to the 'as is' process, financial changes

MBB/BB Responsible for execution of the project in structured quality methodology

Project Lead

Establish communication channels & convey progress updates in relevant forums to all stakeholders, Ensure execution of project as pre- defined toll gates & sustenance

Departmental /Regional Leaders

Active participation in review calls/meetings, support in leading the workforce in desired direction, implementation & sustenance of identified solutions

Regional Teams Active participation in root cause analysis, solution generation & implementation, sustenance of the identified measures



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

M D A I C

Deliverables & Timelines

No Deliverables Planned start date Planned end date Responsibility

1 Project charter approval (End of Define) 20-Oct-14 14-Nov-14 Project Leader, BB

2 Data Collection Plan 15-Nov-14 30-Nov-14 Project Leader, BB

3 Identification of root causes (X's) 17-Nov-14 15-Dec-14 Project Leader, BB, regional teams, regional leaders

4 Key root cause validation 16-Dec-14 15-Jan-15 Project Leader, BB

5 Possible solutions for key root causes 16-Jan-15 23-Jan-15 Project Leader, BB, regional teams, regional leaders, Client stakeholders

6 Execution of pilot 23-Jan-15 23-Feb-15 Project Leader, BB, regional teams, regional leaders, WNS & Client stakeholders

7 Validation of improvement 23-Feb-15 25-Feb-15 Project Leader, BB, regional teams, regional leaders, WNS & Client stakeholders

8 Final solution implementation 25-Feb-15 28-Feb-15 Project Leader, BB, regional teams, regional leaders, WNS & Client stakeholders

9 Sustenance monitoring 1-Mar-15 31-Mar-15 Project Leader, BB, regional teams, regional leaders, WNS & Client stakeholders

10 Final presentation 31-Mar-15 31-Mar-15 Project Leader, BB

13



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

M D A I C

Communication Plan

Meeting Purpose Attendees Frequency Responsibility

Step 0 Approval Initial Approval MBB Panel One Time Swati Bhattacharya

Meeting with Mentor Coaching & Status Updates BB Weekly Swati Bhattacharya

Threat Opportunity Matrix

Convincing the team of the importance of the project

Team Members One Time Swati Bhattacharya

Brainstorming Cause and Effect Analysis Team Members As per requirement Swati Bhattacharya

Brainstorming Process Improvements Team Members /Leaders/Process-Business owner/Service Designer

As per requirement Swati Bhattacharya

Client Calls Approval on Process Changes Head of RAG / Process-Business

Owners, Service Designer Weekly in Analyze &

Improve phase Swati Bhattacharya

Team Meetings Progress of the Project Team Members Weekly in Analyze &

Improve phase Swati Bhattacharya

FMEA Risk Analysis Team Members & Leaders One Time Swati Bhattacharya


Section 2: Current Situation and Root / Improvement Opportunity analysis

14


2.1.0 Key Measures Expected of the Project

2.1.1 (A) – What specific goals and / or measures was the team trying to achieve with the project?

M D A I C

Project Goal

To reduce the percentage of Supplier rejects from 18.07% to 12% per week (i.e. approx 33% reduction) by Dec’15


2.1.0 Key Measures Expected of the Project

2.1.1 (B) – What additional potential benefits, other than the specific goals and / or measures, was the project expected to impact?

M D A I C

Additional Potential Benefit

On time revenue generation – [Baseline study output: Revenue loss of ~$15K USD/month to client]

Meeting the committed delivery timelines for connections leading to increased customer satisfaction

Reduction of rework involved in resolution of rejects

15


Additional Potential Benefit

2.2.0 Possible Root Cause / Improvement Opportunities

2.2.1 (A) – what methods and / or tools were used to identify possible root causes / improvement opportunities?

M D A I C

SIPOC

SIPOC, Process Flow and Cause & Effect Diagram were used to derive 7 main categories of root causes

Brain-

storming

Cause &

Effect

Diagram

Process

Flow


Tools & Usage


2.2.1 (B) – Why were these methods and / or tools selected [ to identify possible root causes / improvement opportunities]?

M D A I C

Tool Usage

SIPOC Identification of inputs for the process and output from customer perspective

CAUSE & EFFECT DIAGRAM

Analyze the failure mode to the problem & identify potential root cause

PROCESS FLOW Understand the process boundaries & cross functional activities

BRAINSTORMING Get the inputs on possible root causes from team members, leaders, requestors & client stakeholders

16


Team Preparation


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

M D A I C

Possible Root Causes

Data Collection – Supplier Comments

Project Review – Scope & Goals

Quick Refresher on Quality tools

Current Challenges – Impact of Rejects

Current state of rejections, project scope was shared with the team along with refresher on quality tools

Expertise of the team members & their experience on relative cases helped to identify possible root causes



1.2.3 (A) – What goals (organizational and / or local), performance measures , and / or strategies were the project expected to impact?

M D A I C

Project Impact

Reduction of Supplier Rejects


Reduce Weekly Reject %

On Time delivery of connections


The project was targeted to reduce Weekly Reject % which was also expected to bring improvement in:

On time delivery



17


Data Generation & Analysis

High proportion of

Supplier Rejects

Machine Material People

Mother Nature Measurement Method

Local Customer Issue – X3

Supplier Issue – X4

Local Customer Not aware / agreeing to the request – X3.1

Tool Issue – X7 ORDERING Issue – X5

Duplicate Order Creation – X2

Incorrect/Incomplete order processing – X5.1

No follow up on order during validation – X5.4 Welcome Letter process not followed – X5.6

Invalid rejects by Local Delivery Manager – X4.7


PoP / MTN Node closing – X4.2

Hardware not available (EoS / EoL / Incompatible Hardware) – X4.4

Data Discrepancy in requestor input & supplier database – X4.5

Ordering Issue – X5

Lack of visibility on Supplier validation rules/guidelines – X5.5


ORDERING Issue – X5

Soft Change Order – X4.1 Incorrect assignment / supporting partner – X4.3

Incorrect/Incomplete Technical Validation – X5.2

Requestor Issue – X6


Lack of response – X6.4


Bad input from requestor – X6.1

Incompatible solution design – X6.2

Insufficient steps to ensure Local Customer awareness/availability – X6.5

Frequent changes in the scope of work – X6.3

Local Customer Not responding / not reachable – X3.2


No response from SDM on Local Delivery Manager queries – 4.6


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

M D A I C

APH DS Issue – X1

Rejects data was collected for the period of Apr’14 to Sep’14 for analysis

This was categorized into Reasons of rejects based on the comments provided by local delivery manager of supplier


Possible Root Causes


2.2.2 (B) – What were the possible root cause / improvement opportunities?

M D A I C

X No Root Cause Measurable / Not

Measurable Control (Low / High) Impact (Low / High)

X 1 APH DS Issue Measurable Low Low X 2 Duplicate Order Creation Measurable High Low

X 3 Local Customer ISSUE

X 3.1 Local Customer Not aware / Not agreeing to the request Measurable High High X 3.2 Local Customer Not responding / not reachable Measurable High High X 4 Supplier Issue

X 4.1 Soft Change order Measurable Low High X 4.2 PoP / MTN Node closing Measurable High High X 4.3 Incorrect assignment / supporting partner Measurable High High X 4.4 Hardware not available (EoS / EoL / Incompatible Hardware) Measurable Low Low X 4.5 Data Discrepancy in requestor input & supplier database Measurable High High X 4.6 No response from SDM on Local Delivery Manager queries Measurable Low High X 4.7 Invalid rejects by Local Delivery Manager Measurable High High X 5 Ordering Issues

X 5.1 Incorrect/Incomplete order processing Measurable High High X 5.2 Incorrect/Incomplete Technical Validation Measurable High High X 5.4 No follow up on order during validation Measurable Low High X 5.5 Lack of visibility on Supplier validation rules/guidelines Not Measurable Low Low X 5.6 Welcome Letter process not followed Measurable High High X 6 Requestor Issues

X 6.1 Bad input from requestor Measurable High Low X 6.2 Incompatible solution design Measurable High Low X 6.3 Frequent changes in the scope of work Measurable High Low X 6.4 Lack of response Not Measurable High Low

X 6.5 Insufficient steps to ensure Local Customer awareness/availability

Measurable High High

X7 Tool Issues Measurable Low Low

18


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

2.3.1 (A) – What methods and / or tools were used to identify the final root cause(s) / improvement opportunity(ies)?

M D A I C

Discrete Y

1 Group HOV CHI

2 Groups HOV F Test σ21 =σ22 Levene's test σ21 =σ22

>2 Groups HOV Bartlett σ21=σ22=σ23=σ24 Levene's test σ21=σ22=σ23=σ24

Test Criteria Null Hypothesis Test Null Hypothesis

1 sample t test (Unknown Std deviation) µ1 =stdµ 1 Sample Sign test M=std M

1 Sample Z Test (Known Std deviation) µ1 =stdµ Wilcoxon test M=std M

2 sample t test(Samples are not

related)µ1 =µ2

Paired t test(Samples are related)

Homogenous Groupµ1 =µ2

ANOVA (No Plot of Effects) µ1 =µ2=µ3=µ4 Moods median M1=M2=M3

ANOM (Plot of Effects) µ1 =µ2=µ3=µ4

Kruskal Wallis test No Outliers M1=M2=M3 Kruskal Wallis test M1=M2=M3

Moods median test Outliers M1=M2=M3 Moods median test M1=M2=M3

M1=M2

CHI Square Test

Test Of

Independence

Cross Tabulation

Goodness of fit

Proportion Test

1 Proportion

2 Proportion

Normal Data

Same

variance

≥2 Groups

Mann Whitney test

>2 Groups

Comparing Means & Medians

Different

Variances

Logistic Regression

1 Group

2 Groups

Number of

Groups

Comparing Medians

Non Normal Data

Continuous Y

Linear Regression

Correlation

Scatter

Continuous X

Discrete X

Same

variance

Comparing Variances

Tools for Identification of Final root causes


Tools for Identification of Final root causes


2.3.1 (A) – What methods and / or tools were used to identify the final root cause(s) / improvement opportunity(ies)?

M D A I C

X No. Root cause Statistical Problem Test applicable

X1 APH DS Issue Is APH DS Issue having a significant impact on Reject % Box Plot / Test of Equal Variance/Kruskal Wallis Test

X2 Duplicate Order Creation

Is Duplicate Order Creation having a significant impact on Reject %

Box Plot / Test of Equal Variance/Kruskal Wallis Test

X3 Local Customer Issue

Is Local Customer Issue having a significant impact on Reject %

Box Plot / Test of Equal Variance/Kruskal Wallis Test

X4 Supplier Issue Is Supplier Issue having a significant impact on Reject % Box Plot / Test of Equal Variance/Kruskal Wallis Test

X5 Ordering Issue Is Ordering Issue having a significant impact on Reject % Box Plot / Test of Equal Variance / Anova Test

X6 Requestor Issue Is Requestor Issue having a significant impact on Reject % Box Plot / Test of Equal Variance/Kruskal Wallis Test

X7 Tool Issue Is Tool Issue having a significant impact on Reject % Box Plot / Test of Equal Variance/Kruskal Wallis Test

19


Tools & Usage


2.3.1 (B) – What were these methods and / or tools selected [to identify the final root cause(s) / improvement opportunity(ies)]?

M D A I C

Tool Usage

Box Plot The box plot is a standardized way of displaying the distribution of data based on the five number summary: minimum, first quartile, median, third quartile, and maximum.

Test of Equal Variance Test of equal variance is used to assess the equality of variances for a variable calculated for two or more groups

Kruskal Wallis Test

The Kruskal-Wallis H test is a rank-based nonparametric test that can be used to determine if there are statistically significant differences between two or more groups of an independent variable on a continuous or ordinal dependent variable. It is considered the nonparametric test to allow the comparison of more than two independent groups.

Anova Test Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is a statistical method used to test differences between two or more means


Team Preparation for Identification of Final root causes


2.3.1 (C) – How was the team prepared to use these methods and/or tools [to identify the final root cause(s) / improvement opportunity(ies)]?

M D A I C

These tools were part of the Lean Six Sigma training attended by project lead

Refresher was given by mentor at the time of usage of these tools during project execution

Outcome was verified by the mentor before finalizing the results

20


Identification of Final root causes - Data Generation & Analysis


2.3.2 (A) – What data was generated and how was the data analyzed in order to identify the final root cause(s) / improvement opportunity(ies)]?

M D A I C

Since the Project Y is identified as continuous and Xs are Discrete, referring to table on 2.3.1(A), the key hypothesis tests conducted to understand significance of Various Root causes involved Kruskal Wallis Test, Anova Test depending on Variance

Too

l Issue

Requ

estor Issu

e

Ordering Issue

OBS

Issue

LCON Is

sue

Dup

licate Order Creation

APH

DS Is

sue

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

Reason of Reject

Re

ject %

Boxplot of OBS Reject Reasons

Variation - LCON Issue, Requestor Issue, OBS Issue, Duplication Order Creation

Tool Issue

Requestor Issue

Ordering Issue

OBS Issue

LCON Issue

Duplicate Order Creation

APH DS Issue

0.140.120.100.080.060.040.020.00

Re

aso

n o

f R

eje

ct

95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs

Test Statistic 35.52

P-Value 0.000

Test Statistic 6.45

P-Value 0.000

Bartlett's Test

Levene's Test

Test for Equal Variances for OBS Reject %

P-Value < 0.05 Data does not have equal variance


Final Root Causes – Data Analysis


2.3.2 (B) – What are specific examples of data analysis that led to the final root cause?

M D A I C

Box plot for the possible root causes of reject reason showed Local Customer Issue & Requestor Issue as significant categories

Kruskal-Wallis test confirmed that these categories have significant impact on total reject %

Kruskal-Wallis Test – Local Customer Issue

LCON Not responding / not reachable

LCON Not aware / Not agreeing to the request

0.0400.0350.0300.0250.0200.0150.010

Pro

ject

Ca

teg

ory




0.100.080.060.040.020.00

Pro

ject

Ca

teg

ory

%

Test Statistic 0.29

P-Value 0.003


P-Value 0.001

F-Test

Levene's Test

Test for Equal Variances LCON Issue

P-Value < 0.05 data does not have equal variance

Test for Equal Variance – LCON ISSUE Category

Tool Is

sue

Requ

esto

r Issu

e

Ord

ering Is

sue

OBS Is

sue

LCON Is

sue

Duplic

ate

Order

Cre

ation

APH D

S Issu

e

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

Reason of Reject

Re

ject

%



21



2.3.2 (C) – What was (were) final the final root cause(s) / improvement opportunity(ies)?

M D A I C

Potential Root Causes Analysis Tools/Methods Final Root Causes

Duplicate Order Creation X Local Customer ISSUE Local Customer ISSUE

Local Customer Not aware / Not agreeing to the request Local Customer Not aware / Not agreeing to the

request Local Customer Not responding / not reachable Local Customer Not responding / not reachable

Supplier Issue

X

Soft Change order PoP / MTN Node closing

Incorrect assignment / supporting partner Hardware not available (EoS / EoL / Incompatible Hardware)

Data Discrepancy in requestor input & supplier database No response from SDM on Local Delivery Manager queries

Invalid rejects by Local Delivery Manager Ordering Issues

X

Incorrect/Incomplete order processing Incorrect/Incomplete Technical Validation No follow up on order during validation

Lack of visibility on Supplier validation rules/guidelines Welcome Letter process not followed

Requestor Issues Requestor Issues Bad input from requestor Bad input from requestor

Incompatible solution design Incompatible solution design Frequent changes in the scope of work Frequent changes in the scope of work

Lack of response Lack of response

Insufficient steps to ensure Local Customer awareness/availability Insufficient steps to ensure Local Customer

awareness/availability

Tool Issues X

Potential Root Causes Analysis Tools / Methods Final Root Causes

Tool Issue

Requestor Issue

Ordering Issue

OBS Issue

LCON Issue

Duplicate Order Creation

APH DS Issue

0.140.120.100.080.060.040.020.00

Reas

on o

f Rej

ect



P-Value 0.000

Test Statistic 6.45

P-Value 0.000

Bartlett's Test

Levene's Test

Test for Equal Variances for OBS Reject %

P-Value < 0.05 Data does not have equal variance

Box Plot

Test of Variance

Kruskal-Wallis Test

Tool

Issue

Requ

esto

r Iss

ue

Order

ing Is

sue

OBS Is

sue

LCON Is

sue

Duplic

ate

Order

Cre

ation

APH D

S Iss

ue

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

Reason of Reject

Re

ject

%




Validation of Final Root Causes


2.3.3 (A) – How was (were) final the final root cause(s) / improvement opportunity(ies) validated?

M D A I C

Local Customer Issue & Requestor Issue categories were validated as final root cause with the help of Kruskal-Wallis test

H0: There is no impact of different Requestor issue Category on Rejected order % Ha: There is an impact of different Requestor ISSUE Category on Rejected order %

H0: There is no impact of different Local Customer ISSUE Category on Rejected order % Ha: There is an impact of different Local Customer ISSUE Category on Rejected order %

Since P-Value < 0.05, accept Ha: There is an impact of Local Customer ISSUE Category on Rejected order %

Since P-Value < 0.05, accept Ha: There is an impact of Requestor Issue Category on Rejected order %

Kruskal-Wallis Test – Requestor Issue

Kruskal-Wallis Test – Local Customer

22


Validation of Final Root Causes


2.3.3 (B) – What evidence showed that the final root cause(s) / improvement opportunity(ies) were validated prior to the solution development?

M D A I C



0.0400.0350.0300.0250.0200.0150.010

Pro

ject

Ca

teg

ory




0.100.080.060.040.020.00

Pro

ject

Ca

teg

ory

%

Test Statistic 0.29

P-Value 0.003


P-Value 0.001

F-Test

Levene's Test

Test for Equal Variances LCON Issue

P-Value < 0.05 data does not have equal variance

Validation of the root causes was done as shown on left side

Same technique was used for remaining root causes

Box Plot

Test of Variance

Kruskal-Wallis Test

Tool

Issue

Requ

esto

r Iss

ue

Orderin

g Iss

ue

OBS Is

sue

LCON Is

sue

Duplic

ate O

rder

Cre

ation

APH D

S Iss

ue

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

Reason of Reject

Reje

ct %




Correctness of scope, deliverables & timing

2.4.0 Project Management Update

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

M D A I C

Initial project scope was identified based on Voice of Customer

Weekly / Monthly reports published by Supplier showed an increase in Order Rejects

Project scope and targets were discussed with Business Owners and finalized

Conformance on project deliverables was discussed with Process Owners in weekly project Governance calls

In Scope:

Orange Based services (orders) which are validated & managed

through SESAM (Supplier application)

Teams: OPM, APH &COT

Out of Scope:

Orders which are not managed through SESAM

Teams: MRM

Project Scope

No Deliverables Planned start

date Planned end

date Status

1 Project charter approval (End of Define) 20-Oct-14 14-Nov-14 Initiation & completion on track 2 Data Collection Plan 15-Nov-14 30-Nov-14 Initiation & completion on track

3 Identification of root causes (X's) 17-Nov-14 15-Dec-14 Initiation & completion on track

4 Key root cause validation 16-Dec-14 15-Jan-15 Initiation & completion on track

5 Possible solutions for key root causes 16-Jan-15 23-Jan-15 Initiation on track

23


Stake Holder Communication


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

M D A I C

Brainstorming meetings with regional teams to

Identify possible root causes

Audience – Regional teams, leaders, BB

Outcome shared through emails

Audience – Customer & WNS Stakeholders

Identification of final root causes with the help of

quality tools

Audience – Project Leader, BB, Regional Leaders

Communication of final root causes for approval

Audience – Customer & WNS Stakeholders

Communication of final root causes via Emails

Audience – Regional teams, leaders, BB, MBB,

Champion, Client Stakeholders

Approval of project charter (Define), Measurement

systems & Data Collection Plan

Audience – BB, MBB, Champion, Client Stakeholders




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

M D A I C

Concerns Identified by How

Possible process Change adaption by global requestors

Client stakeholders

Involvement of key entities right from the beginning through email communication, re-iteration of benefits of reduction in rejects in all reviews, awareness sessions for global requestor communities for direct involvement

Possibility of increased process steps for frontline team members

Project Lead, Regional Leaders

Re-iteration of benefits due to reduction of rejects, counter effect of reduced rework due to first time validation

Resistance from frontline team members to share thoughts


Group addressing by Champion, BB during meetings, regular updates through reviews, huddle sessions, brainstorming with the help of Fish bone diagram

Process Change???

Is this beneficial??

More work??

24


Project Team Skills


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

M D A I C

Required Skills Project

Lead

Team

Members Champion Leaders

Project

Mentor

Service Delivery

experience

Process / Domain

knowledge

Quality tools

Project Management

Change Management

Desirable Skills Project

Lead

Team


Project

Mentor

Documentation skills

Training skills

Project team was selected mainly based on domain / process knowledge of Client products

Some of the project team members were required to work on documentation / training

LEGEND

EXPERT

EXPERIENCED

TRAINED

Project Governance This was done as mentioned earlier in

Section 1.3.4 (A) and 1.3.4 (C)


Section 3: Solution/ Improvement Development

25


Identification of Possible Solutions & Improvements


3.1.1 (A) – What methods and / or tools were used to identify the possible solutions / improvements?

M D A I C

BRAINSTORMING VALUE STREAM MAPPING

BENCH MARKING PROCESS MAP ANALYSIS

The mentioned tools were used for generating possible solutions

Brainstorming sessions were conducted to analyze each of the identified root causes

Process map analysis and VSM were done to identify process changes to work around the major root causes

Bench marking was also used to identify possible solutions


Identification of Possible Solutions & Improvements


3.1.1 (B) – Why were these methods and / or tools selected [to identify the possible solutions / improvements]?

M D A I C

Brainstorming sessions were conducted by Project Lead with Project Team who were subject matter experts and had hands-on experience in the service delivery processes

VSM and Process map analysis were used in order to identify gaps and delays in the existing processes and find work arounds or alternative process steps / changes

26


Identification of Possible Solutions & Improvements (Team Preparation)


3.1.1 (C) – How was the team prepared to use these methods and / or tools selected [to identify the possible solutions / improvements]?

M D A I C

TOOLS Project

Lead

Team

Member Champion Leaders

Project

Mentor

BRAINSTORMING

VALUE STREAM

MAPPING

BENCH MARKING

PROCESS MAP

ANALYSIS

LEGEND

EXPERT

EXPERIENCED

TRAINED

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

A GREEN BELT TRAINING D

D

D

D

B QUALITY WORKSHOPS

C LEAN TOOL TRAINING

D BLACK BELT TRAINING

B

C C


Possible Solutions & Improvements (Data Generation & Analysis)


3.1.2 (A) – What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to determine the possible solutions / improvements]?

M D A I C

BRAINSTORMING VALUE STREAM MAPPING

BENCH MARKING PROCESS MAP ANALYSIS

Analysis

Reject data & Trending for 6 months

Final Root Causes - 6

Data Possible solutions

Collective feedback from requestors /

clients thru awareness sessions, mails Information Pack

Governance Reporting

Improved TAT/Follow Up

Mistake Proofing

Standardization

Training Modules

27


Possible Solutions & Improvements


3.1.2 (B) – What are the possible solutions / improvements?

M D A I C

X3 Local Customer Issue Solution Generated

X3.1

- Local Customer Not aware / Not agreeing to the request

a. Service Request Form - to be amended for added guidelines for mandatory fields and notification about Local Customer awareness b. Running script to be added in mail sign off of OPM team in lotus notes regarding Local Customer awareness

X3.2 - Local Customer not responding / not reachable

a. Start measuring performance of the Welcome Letter process on weekly basis. Provide feedback to the defaulters on the same day. b. OPM team to inform the requestor of no response or negative response from Local Customer to Client Welcome Letter c. Team members to be informed to call the numbers given in SRF to check the correctness and inform requestors in case of issues d. Welcome Letter template to be changed to add Customer order ref., Primary & Secondary site contact & Delivery site address e. Supplier Local Delivery Manager should copy Ordering while sending validation mail to Local Customer

f. Addition of POP up in Cross check list for reminder on Welcome Letter Process

g. Prepare a number of different templates based on the type of implementation instead of sending generalized Welcome Letter for all orders

h. Change the TAT of CHASE GAD & CDD to TODAY + 2 Days (from TODAY+ 3 Days) For Gold Order, TAT of CHASE GAD & CDD to be TODAY + 7 Days (TODAY+ 9 Days)

Improved

TAT

Reminders

Mistake

Proofing

Governance

Reporting





M D A I C

X6 Requestor Issue Solution Generated Responsibility

X6.1 - Bad Input from Requestor

a. Service Request Form - to be amended for added guidelines for mandatory fields and notification about Local Customer awareness

Francois

b. Share the reject analysis with Process Owners and Client Requestors every week to drive improvements within Requestor community

Swati

c. Awareness sessions with Client Requestors explaining impact of rejects on order delivery and business revenue

Swati

d. Client Mgmnt to share financial impact caused due to rejects with Geo heads on monthly basis to get support from GEO in avoiding rejects

Anton

e. A presentation (Requestor Guidelines) on Renaissance program to be shared with all the requestors so that they are aware & understand the prerequisites for Ordering connections in CAT1, 2 & 3 countries

Swati

X6.2 Requestor Issue - Incompatible Solution design

a. Service Request Form - to be amended for added guidelines for mandatory fields and notification about Local Customer awareness

Francois

b. Share the reject analysis with Process Owners and Client Requestors every week to drive improvements within Requestor community

Swati

c. Technical training modules for OPM staff from Client Solution Designer or equivalent

Swati

Governance

Reporting

Reminders

Training

Modules

Information

Pack

Awareness

28





M D A I C

X6 Requestor Issue Solution Generated Responsibility

X6.5

- Insufficient steps to ensure Local Customer awareness/availability

a. Start measuring performance of Welcome Letter process on weekly basis. Provide feedback to the defaulters on same day.

Amit S / Ajay J / Kapil R / Aarti

b. OPM team to inform the requestor of no response or negative response from Local Customer

Amit S / Ajay J / Kapil R / Aarti

c. To add an item in the SRF and even better in SSOA where the requester must (it has to be mandatory) tick off a box if he wants Client ordering desk to notify the customer local contact, and add comments if necessary.

Francois / Alex

d. A word document listing action required by Local Customer to be prepared. It could be shared with them before order placing for their awareness and understanding of their role in the delivery process

Alexandre / Natacha D /Swati

e. A presentation with work flow diagram to be prepared for easy understanding of the delivery process by HQ & Local customers. Local Customer role in validation and delivery progress to be elaborated

Alexandre / Natacha D /Swati

f. Weekly reporting for Pending validation orders from Client Dashboard to ensure team takes actions to avoid rejects

Swati

Standardization

Tool Upgrade

Information

Pack

Reminders




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

M D A I C

Trending of other Key metrics

After using control impact matrix for the identified solutions, some were coming in the category of Out of Control which could not be considered as final solutions

29


Possible Solutions & Improvements – Tools Used

3.2.0 Final Solutions / Improvements

3.2.1 (A) – What methods and / or tools were used to identify the final solution(s) / improvement(s)?

M D A I C

Control Impact Matrix Brainstorming




3.2.1 (B) – Why were these methods and / or tools selected [to identify the final solution(s) / improvement(s)]?

M D A I C

Control-Impact matrix helped to identify the solutions which had very low Control in implementation & impact on benefits

Brainstorming sessions were conducted by Project Lead with Project Team to understand the benefits & feasibility of the proposed solutions from the perspective of return on investment on each solution

30




3.2.1 (C) – How was the team prepared to use these methods and / or tools [to identify the final solution(s) / improvement(s)]?

M D A I C

Control-Impact matrix was used by Project Leader & BB and it was part of the Six Sigma Training

The same group as previous brainstorming sessions was given the details of all possible solutions and feedback was taken on benefits & feasibility of implementing each solution




3.2.2 (A) – How were the methods and / or tools used to determine the final solution(s) / improvement(s)?

M D A I C

Tools Checks

Effort estimation

Stakeholder approval

Return on Investment

Relevance with Root Cause

Feasibility

Time for implementation

Possible solutions (19)

Information Pack



Mistake Proofing

Standardization

Training Modules

Final Solutions (18)

Tool Upgrade

Information Pack



Mistake Proofing

Standardization

Training Modules

31



3.2.2 (B) – What was (were) the final solution(s) / improvement(s)?

M D A I C

Final Solutions & Improvements

X3 Local Customer Issue Solution Implemented

X3.1

- Local Customer Not aware / Not agreeing to the request

a. Service Request Form - to be amended for added guidelines for mandatory fields and notification about Local Customer awareness b. Running script to be added in mail sign off of OPM team in lotus notes regarding Local Customer awareness

X3.2 - Local Customer not responding / not reachable

a. Start measuring performance of the Welcome Letter process on weekly basis. Provide feedback to the defaulters on the same day. b. OPM team to inform the requestor of no response or negative response from Local Customer to Client Welcome Letter c. Team members to be informed to call the numbers given in SRF to check the correctness and inform requestors in case of issues d. Welcome Letter template to be changed to add Customer order ref., Primary & Secondary site contact & Delivery site address e. Supplier Local Delivery Manager to use standard email template & copy Ordering while sending validation mail to Local Customer

f. Addition of POP up in Cross check list for reminder on Welcome Letter Process

g. Prepare a number of different templates based on the type of implementation instead of sending generalized Welcome Letter for all orders h. Change the TAT of CHASE GAD & CDD to TODAY + 2 Days (from TODAY+ 3 Days) For Gold Order, TAT of CHASE GAD & CDD to be TODAY + 7 Days (TODAY+ 9 Days)

Standardization

Reminders

Governance

Reporting

Improved

TAT

Mistake

Proofing





M D A I C

X6 Requestor Issue Solution Implemented

X6.1 - Bad Input from Requestor

a. Amendments done in Service Request Form - added guidelines and notification about Local Customer awareness

b. Reject report is shared with process owners & requestors every week. Feedback is given wherever applicable to re-iterate the measures identified to control Supplier rejects

c. Awareness sessions held with global Client Requestors in 2 slots to cover (APA+MEIA+EURO) & (EURO+AMER) regions along with stakeholders to explain impact of rejects on order delivery and business revenue and proactive actions expected from requestors to keep the rejects under control

d. Client Mgmnt is sharing financial impact caused due to rejects with Geo heads on monthly basis to get support from GEO's in avoiding rejects

e. Requestor Guidelines on Renaissance program has been shared with Requestors to increase awareness on Ordering connections in CAT1, 2 & 3 countries

f. Running script added in mail sign off of OPM team to share Product Portfolio link which is useful to get guidelines / information about all Client products

Awareness

Reminders

Governance

Reporting

32





M D A I C

X6 Requestor Issue Solution Implemented

X6.2 - Incompatible Solution design

a. Amendments done in Service Request Form - added guidelines and notification about Local Customer awareness

b. Reject report is shared with process owners & requestors every week. Feedback is given wherever applicable to re-iterate the measures identified to control Supplier rejects

c. WebAlc verification guidelines verified by OOSD & Quotation team have been shared with OPM team and Client Requestors PoP verification & GINI check guidelines prepared by team members and circulated in the team

X6.5

- Insufficient steps to ensure Local Customer awareness/availability

a. Weekly reporting for Welcome Letter process in place. Used for giving feedback to defaulters

b. OPM informed to update the requestor of no response or negative response from Local Customer to Client Welcome Letter. They can use the medium of mails, calls or Sametime chats

d. A word document explaining Local Customer role in delivery process in simple steps has been rolled out for reference of HQ customers and local customers

e. A Workflow diagram for easy understanding of the delivery process by HQ & Local customers has been prepared and shared with global requestors. Local Customer role in validation and delivery progress has been elaborated

f. Weekly reporting has been initiated for Pending validation orders from Client Dashboard to ensure team takes possible actions to avoid rejects

Information

Pack

Training

Modules

Governance

Reporting


Validation of Final Solutions & Improvements


3.2.3 (A) – How were the final solution(s) / improvement(s) validated?

M D A I C

H0: Supplier Reject % is > 12%

Ha: Supplier Reject % is <= 12%

Validate Improvement (1 Sample T-Test)

Since P Value is low (<0.05) Null must Go, Accept Alternate Hypothesis, which concludes that Supplier Reject % <=12% (Target)

Results post Pilot phase of implementing final solutions were validated with 1 sample T-test

33


PILOT STRATEGY


3.2.3 (B) – What evidence showed that validations was performed prior to implementation?

M D A I C

Validate Improvement (1 Sample T-Test)

How many Days: > 91 days (13 Weeks) On how many People: > EUROPE Region of (OPM, APH &COT) teams Requirements: > Adherence to all implemented solutions by WNS

Ordering/Client/Supplier > Project Leader need to monitor adherence of implemented solutions Assumptions: > Normal Production on all orders Roles and Responsibilities: > Ordering Leaders - Operation: Responsible for implementing all possible solutions within WNS > Client Process Owners: Responsible for implementing all possible solutions within Client > Supplier Team Leaders: Responsible for implementing all possible solutions within Supplier > Ordering Team members: Responsible for adhering to implemented solutions

> Project Leader Responsible for monitoring the adherence of implemented solutions

Timelines: > 29th Jun 2015 – 27th Sep 2015

A pilot phase was run with the final solutions before full fledged implementation The improvement of this phase was confirmed with 1 Sample T-test


Additional Benefits


3.2.4 (A) – What additional potential benefits were anticipated from the final solutions(s) / improvement(s)?

M D A I C

The project was targeted to reduce Weekly Reject % and to improve the below:

On time delivery



34


Additional Benefits


3.2.4 (B) – Were the additional potential benefits anticipated prior to implementation?

M D A I C

The additional benefits were anticipated as mentioned in section 1.2.0

On time delivery




Data generation & Analysis


3.2.5 (A) – What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to justify why the chosen final solutions(s) / improvement(s) should be implemented?

M D A I C

Final Solutions (18)

Information Pack



Mistake Proofing

Standardization

Training Modules

Reminders

Data Analysis

H0: Supplier Reject % is > 12%

Ha: Supplier Reject % is <= 12%

Since P Value is low (<0.05) Null must Go, Accept Alternate Hypothesis, which concludes that Supplier Reject % <=12% (Target).

A pilot phase was run with the final solutions before full fledged implementation.

The improvement of this phase was confirmed with 1 Sample T-test

35



3.2.5 (B) – What evidence showed justification was performed prior to implementation?

M D A I C

PILOT STRATEGY Validate Improvement 1 Sample T-Test)

How many Days: > 91 days (13 Weeks) On how many People: > EUROPE Region of (OPM, APH &COT) teams Requirements: > Adherence to all implemented solutions by WNS

Ordering/Client/Supplier > Project Leader need to monitor adherence of implemented solutions Assumptions: > Normal Production on all orders Roles and Responsibilities: > Ordering Leaders - Operation: Responsible for implementing all possible solutions within WNS > Client Process Owners: Responsible for implementing all possible solutions within Client > Supplier Team Leaders: Responsible for implementing all possible solutions within Supplier > Ordering Team members: Responsible for adhering to implemented solutions

> Project Leader Responsible for monitoring the adherence of implemented solutions

Timelines: > 29th Jun 2015 – 27th Sep 2015

A pilot phase was run with the final solutions before full fledged implementation

The improvement of this phase was confirmed with 1 Sample T-test



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

M D A I C

In Scope:

Orange Based services (orders) which are validated & managed

through SESAM (Supplier application)

Teams: OPM, APH &COT

Out of Scope:

Orders which are not managed through SESAM

Teams: MRM

Project Scope

Initial project scope was identified based on Voice of Customer

Weekly / Monthly reports published by Supplier showed an increase in Order Rejects

Project scope and targets were discussed with Business Owners and finalized



36




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

M D A I C


No Deliverables Planned start date Planned end date Status

1 Project charter approval (End of Define) 20-Oct-14 14-Nov-14 Initiation & completion on track

2 Data Collection Plan 15-Nov-14 30-Nov-14 Initiation & completion on track

3 Identification of root causes (X's) 17-Nov-14 15-Dec-14 Initiation & completion on track

4 Key root cause validation 16-Dec-14 15-Jan-15 Initiation & completion on track

5 Possible solutions for key root causes 16-Jan-15 23-Jan-15 Initiation & completion on track

6 Execution of pilot 29-Jun-15 27-Sep-15 Initiation was postponed until all the key solutions

were finalized with clients & supplier heads

7 Validation of improvement 28-Sep-15 30-Sep-15 Initiation & completion on track

8 Final solution implementation 01-Oct-15 15-Oct-15 Initiation & completion on track

9 Sustenance monitoring 15-Oct-15 31-Dec-15 Initiation & completion on track

10 Final presentation 15-Jan-16 15-Jan-16 Initiation & completion on track




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

M D A I C

Stakeholders

Client Stakeholders

Leaders

BB/MBB

Champion

Regional Teams

Service Designer

Involvement

Generation / Validation of ideas

Generation / Validation of ideas / Applying

Quality Methods

Validation of ideas / Approval on implementation

Generation / Validation of ideas / Applying

Quality Methods / Communication of progress

Generation / Validation of ideas /

Documentation / Approval on implementation

Generation / Validation of ideas /Approval on

implementation

Project Leader

Generation / Validation of ideas

37




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

M D A I C

DB & LR




3.3.1 (C) – What stakeholders resistance was identified and / or addressed in this phase of the project?

M D A I C

Concerns Identified by How

Possible process Change adaption by global requestors

Client stakeholders

Involvement of key entities right from start through email communication, re-iteration of benefits of reduction in rejects in all reviews, awareness sessions for global requestor communities for direct involvement

Possibility of increased process steps for frontline team members


Re-iteration of benefits due to reduction of rejects, counter effect of reduced rework due to first time validation

Resistance from frontline team members to share thoughts


Group addressing by Champion, BB during meetings, regular updates through reviews, huddle sessions, brainstorming with the help of Fish bone diagram, healthy competition to get more ideas flowing

Process Change???

More work??

38



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

M D A I C

Project Team Skills

Required Skills Project

Lead

Team


Project

Mentor

Service Delivery

experience

Process / Domain

knowledge

Quality tools

Project Management

Change Management

Desirable Skills Project

Lead

Team


Project

Mentor

Documentation skills

Training skills

LEGEND

EXPERT

EXPERIENCED

TRAINED

Project Governance This was done as mentioned earlier in

Section 1.3.4 (A) and 1.3.4 (C)

Project team was selected mainly based on domain / process knowledge of Client products

Some of the project team members were required to work on documentation / training


Section 4: Implementation and Results Verification

39


Stake Holder Involvement (Planning)

4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation

4.1.1 (A) – How were stakeholders involved in planning the solution / improvement implementation?

M D A I C

Stakeholders

Client Stakeholders

Leaders

BB/MBB

Champion

Service Designer

Involvement

Addressing the teams, anticipating resistance, Using

Quality forums to cascade the progress

Addressing the teams, anticipating resistance

Communication of identified solutions through emails, Team

Meetings, Soft Boards, Conf calls, anticipating resistance

Communication in reviews, anticipating resistance

from requestor communities

Heads-up to the requestor community heads,

re-iteration in reviews, anticipating resistance

Project Leader


Meetings, Soft Boards, Conf calls, anticipating resistance

Outcome

Pilot for EURO with all validated solutions

Roll out in all regions post successful verification of improvement


Stake Holder Involvement (Implementation)


4.1.1 (B) – How were stakeholders involved in implementing the solution / improvement?

M D A I C

Stakeholders

Client Stakeholders

Leaders

BB/MBB

Champion

Regional Teams

Service Designer

Involvement

Addressing the teams, managing resistance, Using

Quality forums to cascade the progress

Addressing the teams, managing resistance


Meetings, Soft Boards, Conf calls, managing resistance

Support in ensuring adherence from requestor

community, re-iteration in reviews, managing resistance

Project Leader

Actual implementation of ideas, Feedback on progress


Meetings, Soft Boards, Conf calls, managing resistance

Communication in reviews, managing resistance

from requestor communities

40


Anticipated Resistance


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

M D A I C

Various sessions such as meetings, reviews, conference calls, one-on-one sessions with frontline team members & requestor communities were used to anticipate resistance

We requested for feedback at the end of each session There were conscious efforts to involve all participants at all the stages The communication was kept transparent with all involved


Actual Resistance Encountered


4.1.2 (B) – What types of resistance were actually encountered during the course of solution / improvement implementation?

M D A I C

Concerns Details

Increased follow-up steps Proposed Change of TAT in CHASE GAD & CDD activity increased no. of checks to be done by OPM

Additional information to be typed in Welcome Letter

It was proposed to add the details such as Pri & Sec. Local Contact details, delivery site information in the welcome letter sent to local customer

Resistance to accept change General resistance to accept the change in teams, delay in implementing the identified solutions

Resistance by supplier local delivery managers to contact local customers through email

It was made mandatory for all the local delivery managers of supplier to contact the given local customers through email. This was taking time to be accepted and implemented by LDM communities based globally

41


Identification of Actual Resistance


4.1.2 (C) – How was the actual resistance identified?

M D A I C

Actual resistance was mainly identified through weekly analysis of rejects. Meetings with the team Members & communication from requestors during order follow up helped to identify the specific resistance areas

Weekly analysis of rejects Team meetings Order communication


Mitigation of Actual Resistance


4.1.3 (A) – How was the actual resistance addressed?

M D A I C

Concerns Details How

Increased follow-up steps

Proposed Change of TAT in CHASE GAD & CDD activity increased no. of checks to be done by OPM

Weekly report for Pending validation orders Only orders where no action is taken identified & requested to be

worked upon by OPM



Application support team was contacted to see if this information could be fetched into email from the application

Post positive confirmation, a Change Request was implemented successfully which pulled this information into the email

Resistance to accept change

General resistance to accept the change in teams, delay in implementing the identified solutions

This was resolved through feedback sessions & one-on-one sessions



Gap in communication for order validation before delivery was identified as one of the critical local issue that had to be fixed urgently. Local Delivery Mangers at site are responsible to confirm scope of order, availability of customer and successful delivery /installation of networking product. A standard communication template was designed for LDMs with seven specific questions to cover critical information required to validate the order before delivery.

Reduced

checks for

OPM

Automation

Standardization

One-on-

One

42


Mitigation of Actual Resistance


4.1.3 (B) – How did the team know it was successful in addressing the resistance?

M D A I C

Concerns Details Outcome

Increased follow-up steps Proposed Change of TAT in CHASE GAD & CDD activity increased no. of checks to be done by OPM

This reduced the no. of orders were checked by each OPM and updated in the report

Proactive follow up from OPM helped to reduce the delays in assignment of LDM, contacting Local customer for validation and brought reduction in rejects



All the welcome letters sent by OPM had the required information such as Pri & Sec Local customer details, delivery site details which helped local customer to verify these details and make corrections if necessary

Resistance to accept change General resistance to accept the change in teams, delay in implementing the identified solutions

Overall feedback was improved and it was evident from the regular analysis of reject reports



This helped the Local Delivery Mangers to get feedback from local customer with all information and have the orders validated in minimum attempts

Positive

Feedback

Regular

Analysis

Reduction

in rejects


Stakeholder buy-in


4.1.4 (A) – What was the evidence of stakeholder group buy-in?

M D A I C

Pending Validation Orders Report updated by the team

Feedback from Requestor

43


Stakeholder Buy-in


4.1.4 (B) – What evidence showed that buy-in was obtained prior to implementation ?

M D A I C

Supplier Rejects


Process & System Changes - Implementation

4.2.0 Solution / Improvement Implementation

4.2.1 (A) – What process(es) or system(s) were changed or created to implement the solution / improvement?

M D A I C

E-mail

Template for

LDM

Change in

Follow Up

TAT

Technical

Guidelines

44


Process & System Changes – Measurement & Reporting

4.2.0 Solution / Improvement Implementation

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

M D A I C

Weekly

Supplier

Reject

Report

Weekly

Welcome

Letter

Report

Weekly

Pending

LVO Report


Project Results – Trending of Key Metrics

4.3.0 Project Results

4.3.1 (A) – What were the results?

M D A I C Trending of other Key metrics

45


Project Results – Communication


4.3.1 (A) – What were the results?

M D A I C


Project Results – Comparison with Project Goals


4.3.1 (B) – How did the results compare to specific project goals / measures from item 2.1.1?

M D A I C

Project Goal was to reduce the Supplier Rejects by 33% (from 18.07% to 12%

Actual achievement at the time of project closure was reduction of 47% (from 18.07% to 9.61%)

46


Project Results – Additional Benefits


4.3.2 (A) – What additional benefits were realized from the project?

M D A I C

93.12K USD Client Benefit

Reduction of Rejects

18.07% to 9.61%

70.215 Hrs/Month

0.49 FTE


Soft Benefits – Appreciation from Process Owners


4.3.2 (B) – How did the team measure any of the additional benefits that were “soft”?

M D A I C

47


Expected v/s Actual Benefits


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

M D A I C

On Time Delivery

On Time Revenue Generation


Reduction of Delay in validation by average 10 days

resulting in improved delivery

timelines

Revenue protection of

93.1K USD due to reduction in

rejects

Positive feedback from

Clients, Improved VoC

Expected Benefits

Additional Benefits


Section 5: Sustaining and Communicating Results

48


Sustenance of Process & System Changes

5.1.0 Sustaining Results over Time

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

M D A I C

Failure Modes &

Effects Analysis was conducted to mitigate the risks in sustenance of the implemented solutions





M D A I C

X3 LCON Issue Solution Implemented Controls

X3.1

LCON Issue - LCON Not aware / Not agreeing to the request

a. Amendments done in SRF1 - added guidelines and notification about LCON awareness

One time activity

b. Running script added in mail sign off of OPM team regarding LCON awareness This will be monitored by the regional leaders and managers

X3.2 LCON Issue - LCON not responding / not reachable

a. Weekly reporting for Welcome Letter process in place and used for giving feedback to defaulters

It will be a responsibility of lead coach (Snehal Jadhav) to send this report on weekly basis. Regional leaders & managers will provide the feedback to defaulters as necessary

b. OPM informed to update the requestor of no response or negative response from LCON to Customer Welcome Letter. They can use the medium of mails, calls or sametime chats

This will be re-iterated in huddle sessions by regional leaders and will also be monitored through Quality checks as per opportunity list

d. Welcome Letter template has been changed to add Customer order ref., Auto-population of Primary site contact & Delivery site address. Secondary site contact details to be manually updated by the team

One time activity

e. It has been agreed by supplier that starting Oct'15, LDM will start copying Ordering Status in the mail sent to Local customer for validation and will use the approved template for communication

New activities have been created to capture the adherence of LDM validation mails. This will be monitored by regional managers along with the process owner and performance will be shared with the supplier

f. The TAT of CHASE GAD & CDD has been changed to TODAY + 2 Days (from TODAY+ 3 Days) For Gold Order, TAT of CHASE GAD & CDD to be TODAY + 7 Days (from TODAY+ 9 Days)

This will be checked as part of the Process adherence reporting and monitored by leaders and managers

49





M D A I C

X6 Requestor Issue Solution Implemented Conclusion / Comments

X6.1 Requestor Issue - Bad Input from Requestor

b. Reject report is shared with process owners & requestors every week. Feedback is given wherever applicable to re-iterate the measures identified to control supplier rejects

It will be a responsibility of Sr. CSA (Kanchan Unde) to send this report on weekly basis. Regional leaders & managers will be responsible to reply to requestor responses and ensure consecutive actions are taken

c. Awareness sessions held with global Requestors in 2 slots to cover (APA+MEIA+EURO) & (EURO+AMER) regions along with stakeholders to explain impact of rejects on order delivery and business revenue and proactive actions expected from requestors to keep the rejects under control

This will be co-ordinated with the Regional SDC managers & other stakeholders by Project lead

X6.2 Requestor Issue - Incompatible Solution design

c. WebALC verification guidelines verified by OOSD & Quotation team have been shared with OPM team and Requestors PoP verification & GINI check guidelines prepared by team members and circulated within the team

The guidelines will be updated as and when there are changes in the mandatory checks & it will be a responsibility of Project lead along with Regional Managers

X6.5

Requestor Issue - Insufficient steps to ensure LCON awareness/availability

f. Weekly reporting has been initiated for Pending validation orders from weekly Dashboard to ensure team takes possible actions to avoid rejects

It will be a responsibility of lead coach (Snehal Jadhav) to send this report on weekly basis. Regional leaders & managers will provide the feedback to defaulters as necessary



Evidence


5.1.1 (B) – What evidences showed that this became part of the organization’s culture / operating strategy?

M D A I C

Evidence of sustained improvement is seen from monthly Rejects report circulated in the 1st week of every month by Project Lead to Client

50


Training


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

M D A I C

Weekly Analysis & Reporting

Awareness Sessions

Process Change

Sr. No. Solutions Description Responsibility Frequency

1 Product documentation Product documents were amended to ensure the changes were cascaded as part of the training imparted to all joining the process

Trainer NA

2 Weekly reporting for Welcome Letter process in place and used for giving feedback to defaulters

This will ensure Welcome Letters are sent by all OPMs to identify any LCON issues and sort it before LDM validation

SME - Lead Coach

Weekly

3 Share the reject analysis with Process Owners and Requestors every week to drive improvements within Requestor community

This reporting will be used to highlight & educate frequent defaulters to ensure they are aware of precautions to be taken to avoid rejects

Assistant Manager

Weekly

4 Awareness sessions with Requestors explaining impact of rejects on order delivery and business revenue

The session is conducted to highlight impact of rejects & share measures, process changes & improvements with the Requestor community to ensure Reject % is kept to minimum

Deptuy Manager

Half-Yearly

5

Client Mgmnt is sharing financial impact caused due to rejects with Geo heads on monthly basis, to get support from GEO's in avoiding rejects

Push from Client Management towards Geo Heads to ensure all necessary measures are taken by Requestor community to ensure clean orders are placed

Anton David Monthly

6 Weekly reporting for Pending validation orders from weekly sDashboard to ensure team takes possible actions to avoid rejects

Proactive measure to work on orders that are still pending validation and ensure necessary actions for speedy validation of orders by OPM

SME - Lead Coach

Weekly

7

The TAT of CHASE GAD & CDD has been changed to TODAY + 2 Days (from TODAY+ 3 Days) For Gold Order, TAT of CHASE GAD & CDD to be TODAY + 7 Days (from TODAY+ 9 Days)

Reduction in TAT will show the activity as due a day before & team will get a reminder to check if Pending Validation order has been assigned with LDM and progressing for validation

OPM NA



5.1.2 (B) – What evidence showed that this became part of the organization's culture / operating strategy?

M D A I C


Weekly

Supplier

Reject

Report

Weekly

Welcome

Letter

Report

Weekly

Pending

LVO Report

Weekly reporting & regular governance on control plan ensured this became part of operating strategy

51


5.2.0 Communication of Results

5.2.1 (A) – How did the team communicate the results to the various stakeholders?

M D A I C

• To report the monthly Rejects % to Process Owners during and after the implementation of project

Monthly Rejects Trending

• To confirm closure of project and the benefits & success of project to Client Process Owners and Client Management to get final sign-off on closure and delivered benefits

Project Closure and Sign-off

• To communicate successful closure of project to all internal and external stake holders

Organizational Announcement

• Project was added in annual Process Excellence forum run between WNS and Client management

Process Excellence Governance



THANK YOU

Will always be thankful to my wonderful project team

52


OUTPERFORM with WNS

This presentation and any files attached and/or transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

No part of this presentation may be given, lent, resold, or disclosed to any unintended recipients or exploited for any commercial purposes. If you are not the intended

recipient and you have received this presentation in error, please return this material to the sender immediately and forthwith delete and destroy the presentation

including any copies thereof from your records. We hereby notify that disclosing, distributing, copying, reproducing, storing in a retrieval system, or transmitting in any

form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of the presentation in its entirety or

any part thereof is strictly prohibited without the prior written consent of WNS, such consent being given at the sole discretion of WNS. Any views or opinion expressed in

this presentation are those of the author and do not necessarily represent that of WNS. WNS makes no representations and to the full extent permissible by applicable

law, WNS disclaims any warranties of any kind, express or implied, including any warranty of merchantability, accuracy, fitness or applicability for a particular purpose, and

non-infringement of third party rights, as to the information, content and materials.

wns.com

Documents

WNS helps in reducing the supplier rejects thereby ... · CTQ drill down tree helped establishing linkage between Project Y (Reduction in Supplier Rejects) & Business Y ( VOC/Customer