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
3 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 3 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Section 1: Project and Team Selection
4 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 4 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
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
5 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 5 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
1.1.0 Understanding the context for project selection
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
6 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 6 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
1.1.0 Understanding the context for project selection
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
7 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 7 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
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
8 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 8 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
1.2.0 Project Selection Process
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
9 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 9 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
1.2.0 Project Selection Process
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
10 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 10 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Project Selection
1.2.0 Project Selection Process
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
11 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 11 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
1.2.0 Project Selection Process
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
12 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 12 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
1.2.0 Project Selection Process
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
13 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 13 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
1.2.0 Project Selection Process
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
Customer Satisfaction
14 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 14 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
1.2.0 Project Selection Process
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
On time revenue generation
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
15 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 15 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
1.2.0 Project Selection Process
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
16 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 16 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
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
17 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 17 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
1.3.0 Team Selection and Preparations
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
Head of Revenue Assurance Group
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
18 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 18 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Knowledge / Skill Sets
1.3.0 Team Selection and Preparations
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
19 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 19 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
1.3.0 Team Selection and Preparations
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
20 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 20 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
1.3.0 Team Selection and Preparations
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
21 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 21 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
1.3.0 Team Selection and Preparations
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
22 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 22 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
1.3.0 Team Selection and Preparations
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
23 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 23 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
1.3.0 Team Selection and Preparations
1.3.4 (A) – What roles and expectations were determined ahead of the project?
M D A I C
Role Expectation
Customer
Head of Revenue Assurance Group
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
24 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 24 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
1.3.0 Team Selection and Preparations
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
25 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 25 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
1.3.0 Team Selection and Preparations
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
26 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 26 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Section 2: Current Situation and Root / Improvement Opportunity analysis
14
27 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 27 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
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
28 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 28 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
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
29 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 29 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
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
30 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 30 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Tools & Usage
2.2.0 Possible Root Cause / Improvement Opportunities
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
31 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 31 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Team Preparation
2.2.0 Possible Root Cause / Improvement Opportunities
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
32 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 32 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
1.2.0 Project Selection Process
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
Customer Satisfaction
17
33 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 33 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
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
Supplier Issue – X4
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
Supplier Issue – X4
ORDERING Issue – X5
Soft Change Order – X4.1 Incorrect assignment / supporting partner – X4.3
Incorrect/Incomplete Technical Validation – X5.2
Requestor Issue – X6
Requestor Issue – X6
Lack of response – X6.4
Requestor Issue – X6
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
Supplier Issue – X4
No response from SDM on Local Delivery Manager queries – 4.6
2.2.0 Possible Root Cause / Improvement Opportunities
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
34 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 34 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Possible Root Causes
2.2.0 Possible Root Cause / Improvement Opportunities
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
35 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 35 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
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
36 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 36 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Tools for Identification of Final root causes
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
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
37 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 37 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Tools & Usage
2.3.0 Final Root Cause(s) / Improvement opportunity(ies)
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
38 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 38 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Team Preparation for Identification of Final root causes
2.3.0 Final Root Cause(s) / Improvement opportunity(ies)
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
39 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 39 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Identification of Final root causes - Data Generation & Analysis
2.3.0 Final Root Cause(s) / Improvement opportunity(ies)
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
40 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 40 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Final Root Causes – Data Analysis
2.3.0 Final Root Cause(s) / Improvement opportunity(ies)
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
95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs
LCON Not responding / not reachable
LCON Not aware / Not agreeing to the request
0.100.080.060.040.020.00
Pro
ject
Ca
teg
ory
%
Test Statistic 0.29
P-Value 0.003
Test Statistic 13.05
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
%
Boxplot of OBS Reject Reasons
Variation - LCON Issue, Requestor Issue, OBS Issue, Duplication Order Creation
21
41 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 41 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
2.3.0 Final Root Cause(s) / Improvement opportunity(ies)
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
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
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
%
Boxplot of OBS Reject Reasons
Variation - LCON Issue, Requestor Issue, OBS Issue, Duplication Order Creation
42 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 42 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Validation of Final Root Causes
2.3.0 Final Root Cause(s) / Improvement opportunity(ies)
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
43 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 43 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Validation of Final Root Causes
2.3.0 Final Root Cause(s) / Improvement opportunity(ies)
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
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
95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs
LCON Not responding / not reachable
LCON Not aware / Not agreeing to the request
0.100.080.060.040.020.00
Pro
ject
Ca
teg
ory
%
Test Statistic 0.29
P-Value 0.003
Test Statistic 13.05
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 %
Boxplot of OBS Reject Reasons
Variation - LCON Issue, Requestor Issue, OBS Issue, Duplication Order Creation
44 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 44 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
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
45 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 45 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Stake Holder Communication
2.4.0 Project Management Update
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
46 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 46 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Stake Holder Communication
2.4.0 Project Management Update
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
Project Lead, Regional Leaders
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
47 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 47 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Project Team Skills
2.4.0 Project Management Update
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
Members Champion Leaders
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)
48 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 48 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Section 3: Solution/ Improvement Development
25
49 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 49 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Identification of Possible Solutions & Improvements
3.1.0 Project Management Update
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
50 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 50 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Identification of Possible Solutions & Improvements
3.1.0 Project Management Update
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
51 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 51 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Identification of Possible Solutions & Improvements (Team Preparation)
3.1.0 Project Management Update
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
52 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 52 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Possible Solutions & Improvements (Data Generation & Analysis)
3.1.0 Project Management Update
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
53 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 53 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Possible Solutions & Improvements
3.1.0 Project Management Update
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
54 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 54 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Possible Solutions & Improvements
3.1.0 Project Management Update
3.1.2 (B) – What are the possible solutions / improvements?
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
55 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 55 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Possible Solutions & Improvements
3.1.0 Project Management Update
3.1.2 (B) – What are the possible solutions / improvements?
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
56 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 56 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Possible Solutions & Improvements
3.1.0 Project Management Update
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
57 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 57 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
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
58 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 58 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Possible Solutions & Improvements – Tools Used
3.2.0 Final Solutions / Improvements
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
59 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 59 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Possible Solutions & Improvements – Tools Used
3.2.0 Final Solutions / Improvements
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
60 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 60 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Possible Solutions & Improvements – Tools Used
3.2.0 Final Solutions / Improvements
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
Governance Reporting
Improved TAT/Follow Up
Mistake Proofing
Standardization
Training Modules
Final Solutions (18)
Tool Upgrade
Information Pack
Governance Reporting
Improved TAT/Follow Up
Mistake Proofing
Standardization
Training Modules
31
61 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 61 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
3.2.0 Final Solutions / Improvements
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
62 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 62 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Final Solutions & Improvements
3.2.0 Final Solutions / Improvements
3.2.2 (B) – What was (were) the final solution(s) / improvement(s)?
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
63 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 63 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Final Solutions & Improvements
3.2.0 Final Solutions / Improvements
3.2.2 (B) – What was (were) the final solution(s) / improvement(s)?
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
64 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 64 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Validation of Final Solutions & Improvements
3.2.0 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
65 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 65 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
PILOT STRATEGY
3.2.0 Final Solutions / Improvements
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
66 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 66 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Additional Benefits
3.2.0 Final Solutions / Improvements
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
On Time Revenue generation
Customer Satisfaction
34
67 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 67 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Additional Benefits
3.2.0 Final Solutions / Improvements
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
On Time Revenue generation
Customer Satisfaction
68 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 68 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Data generation & Analysis
3.2.0 Final Solutions / Improvements
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
Governance Reporting
Improved TAT/Follow Up
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
69 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 69 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
3.2.0 Final Solutions / Improvements
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
70 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 70 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
3.3.0 Project Management Update
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
Conformance on project deliverables was discussed with Process Owners in weekly project Governance calls
Correctness of scope, deliverables & timing
36
71 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 71 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Correctness of scope, deliverables & timing
3.3.0 Project Management Update
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
Conformance on project deliverables was discussed with Process Owners in weekly project Governance calls
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
72 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 72 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Stake Holder Communication
3.3.0 Project Management Update
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
73 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 73 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Stake Holder Communication
3.3.0 Project Management Update
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
74 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 74 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Stake Holder Communication
3.3.0 Project Management Update
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
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
Project Lead, Regional Leaders
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
75 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 75 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
3.3.0 Project Management Update
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
Members Champion Leaders
Project
Mentor
Service Delivery
experience
Process / Domain
knowledge
Quality tools
Project Management
Change Management
Desirable Skills Project
Lead
Team
Members Champion Leaders
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
76 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 76 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Section 4: Implementation and Results Verification
39
77 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 77 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
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
Communication of identified solutions through emails, Team
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
78 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 78 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Stake Holder Involvement (Implementation)
4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in 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
Communication of identified solutions through emails, Team
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
Communication of identified solutions through emails, Team
Meetings, Soft Boards, Conf calls, managing resistance
Communication in reviews, managing resistance
from requestor communities
40
79 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 79 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Anticipated Resistance
4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation
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
80 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 80 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Actual Resistance Encountered
4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation
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
81 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 81 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Identification of Actual Resistance
4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation
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
82 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 82 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Mitigation of Actual Resistance
4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation
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
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
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
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
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
83 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 83 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Mitigation of Actual Resistance
4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation
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
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
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
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
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
84 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 84 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Stakeholder buy-in
4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation
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
85 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 85 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Stakeholder Buy-in
4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation
4.1.4 (B) – What evidence showed that buy-in was obtained prior to implementation ?
M D A I C
Supplier Rejects
86 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 86 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
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
Template for
LDM
Change in
Follow Up
TAT
Technical
Guidelines
44
87 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 87 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
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
88 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 88 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
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
89 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 89 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Project Results – Communication
4.3.0 Project Results
4.3.1 (A) – What were the results?
M D A I C
90 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 90 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Project Results – Comparison with Project Goals
4.3.0 Project Results
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
91 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 91 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Project Results – Additional Benefits
4.3.0 Project Results
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
92 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 92 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Soft Benefits – Appreciation from Process Owners
4.3.0 Project Results
4.3.2 (B) – How did the team measure any of the additional benefits that were “soft”?
M D A I C
47
93 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 93 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Expected v/s Actual Benefits
4.3.0 Project Results
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
Customer Satisfaction
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
94 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 94 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Section 5: Sustaining and Communicating Results
48
95 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 95 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
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
96 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 96 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
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
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
97 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 97 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
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
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
98 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 98 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Sustenance of Process & System Changes
Evidence
5.1.0 Sustaining Results over Time
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
99 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 99 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
Training
5.1.0 Sustaining Results over Time
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
100 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 100 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
5.1.0 Sustaining Results over Time
5.1.2 (B) – What evidence showed that this became part of the organization's culture / operating strategy?
M D A I C
Sustenance of Process & System Changes
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
101 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 101 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
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
Stake Holder Communication
102 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 102 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
THANK YOU
Will always be thankful to my wonderful project team
52
103 © Copyright 2013 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved 103 © Copyright 2016 WNS (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved
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