Upload
others
View
13
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
E2E Cycle Time Reduction in Components & Accessories Claims Supply Chain Operations and Analytics Hub. HP Computing & Printing India Pvt Ltd. Dec, 2018
1
© Copyright 2014 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. 2
About HP
Founded in 1939 by engineers Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard
HP INC is a Fortune 100 Company with 50000
employees spread across more than 100 Countries.
Who We are… What we do…
2
© Copyright 2014 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. 3
Acronyms and Definitions
Ackn / AKN= Acknowledgement
Asap = as soon as possible
BI = Business Intelligence (Reporting)
CAC = Component & Accessories Claims
e2e = end to end
EODB= Ease of Doing Business
FY = Fiscal Year
KV = consumer notebook product line
NCO – No Charge Order
PDR = Product Defect Report
POD = Proof of Delivery
PPS = Personal Printing Systems
RTM = Route to Market
SC = Supply Chain
SCOM = Supply Chain Order Management
SME = Subject Matter Expert
SCOAH – Supply Chain Operations & Analytics Hub
TAT = Turnaround time
TCE = Total Customer Experience
ww = world wide
E2E CAC Cycle time – i.e. Customer reported date to Claim closed date
2
Section 1.00:Project Background & Purpose
3
Item/Sub Item Content Slide No
1.00 & 1.01 Project Background & Purpose 4
1.01,1.02 & 1.03 Organizational Approach to Project Planning, Identification & Selection 5
1.04 Project Selection Specific 6
1.05 Project Goals and Benefits 7
1.06 Success Measures/Criteria Identified 8
3
1.00 &1.01 :Project Background & Purpose Organization Overview
Supply Chain Operations and Analytics Hub is the shared services organization within HP Inc. which manages multiple processes within the lead to order lifecycle. It is a ~930 member team, located in 2 cities within India and consists of Operations, Analytics, Robotics and Quality functions. LSS Culture is one of the key enabler for the organization multi year turn around strategy
SCOAH -2020 Turn Around Strategy
4
LSS Council @ SCOAH
1.01-1.03:Organizational Approach to Project Planning, Identification & Selection LSS ECO system : LSS Project Planning, Identification & Selection Process
Workshop on Business priorities
Customer experience survey
Business review & Discussion
Voice of internal workforce
S&D – SCOAH Priorities
Ops to deliver/influence
biz metrics
Defect free Ops to reduce
Customer impact
Simplify processes
using technology
Drive customer
loyalty based on quality and
trust
Invest in our people to
drive a culture of excellence
and innovation
Customer experience
Quality Awareness & Events
LSS Site council
LSS training
Accelerate Plans for profitable
GROWTH
Be excellent in the CORE
Deliver on milestones the for our FUTURE
Drive INNOVATION discipline
Reinvent Our Culture
HP FY18 Priorities
Discover the Opportunities aligned
With SCOAH priorities
Decide on the priority project based
on the criteria’s
Develop Create competency to
execute the project
Deploy Map resource & execute
project
Deliver Deliver the result
Business Impact
Operational Excellence
5
4
1.04: Project Selection Specific
Prioritization drivers with project needs
Partner / CSR / END Customer
PC Team (Direct) PC Team (Channel) PDR Team Site & FE Co-ordinator Engineering Team Financial Approver Factory Logistics Onsite Team
AS
- IS
8 Days 3 Days 19 Days
Project Alignment to Business Priorities
HP Computing Business customer experience is impacted due to missing components & accessories( e.g Power card, software pack, privacy screens etc) in the shipped orders. These missing accessories are handled as post shipment claims by CAC team. Key Issues: Longer Cycle time to process CAC Claims - 29 days Complex process due to multiple stakeholder involved Rejection of claims leads to physical return of HP Products Customer Loyalty, trust & relationship is impacted $ 433,000 USD was the claim payout b/w Q1FY16 to Q1 FY 17 HP spends in reverse logistic **Above images describe various stakeholders involved in the claim process which makes it complex and longer Cycle time.
Key points & Data for project Prioritization
29 Days
E2E TAT @ 90% FILL RATE Credit Payout due to Component & Accessories Issue
• • •
• • •
6
1.05 : Project Goals and Benefits Project Goals & Benefit alignment towards SCOAH Priorities
SCOAH Priorities
Reduce Customer
Impact
Deliver/ Influence
Biz Metrics
Improve Customer
Loyalty
Simplify Process & Invest in people
Cycle Time Reduction from 29 days to <=23 days impact biz metrics
Reduction in physical claim returns
Reduction of Claim Payout due to returns
Improve Customer experience by early delivery of Missing Components
Project Goals Aligned with Org Priorities
Simplified Component & Accessories Claim process
Project Benefits SCOAH Priorities
$ 419,860 Benefit realized due to reduced Claim Payout
Improved Customer/ Partner Experience
Improved Operational efficiency
7
5
1.06: Success Measures/Criteria Identified Success Measures/Criteria Approach
Triggers…
Voice of the Customer (VOC) Longer ETA for the component and Accessories.
Voice of (internal) Customer • Reduce CAC Rejection • Simplified E2E CAC process
Voice of Stakeholder Avoid physical return of goods and Credit payout from HP
Derived Project Success measures from Triggers
Primary Metric: Reduce E2E CAC Cycle time from 29 days to 23 days bef Feb’18 Source: Pandora & Spot fire report
Secondary Metric: Reduce CAC rejection by 25% from 7.26% to 5.6% bef Feb’18 Source: Pandora report
Jan'
17
Dec
'16
Nov'16
Oct'16
Sep'16
Aug'16
Jul '1
6
Jun'16
May'
16
Apr'16
Mar
'16
Feb'16
Jan'
16
Dec'
15
Nov'15
50
40
30
20
10
Month
Day
s _X=29.43
UCL=45.75
LCL=13.11
I Chart of E2E Cycle Time
Jan'
17
Dec'16
Nov'
16
Oct
'16
Sep'16
Aug'16
Jul'1
6
Jun'
16
May
'16
Apr'16
Mar'1
6
Feb'16
Jan'16
Dec'15
Nov'
15
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
MonthPr
opor
tion
_P=0.0726
UCL=0.1068
LCL=0.0383
1
P Chart of CAC Rejected
Tests are performed with unequal sample sizes.
Primary Metric measures the
project outcome
Secondary Metric Monitors the
consequences of the primary metric
* CAC Component & Accessories Claims 8
Section 2.00: Project Framework
9
Item/Sub Item Content Slide No
2.00 Project Framework 10 2.00 Project Framework(contd) 11 2.01 Concise Project Statement 12 2.02 Type of Project 13 2.03 Scope Statement 14
2.04 & 2.05 Assumption & Expectation and Project Schedule/High-Level Plan 15 2.06 Budget(Financial Or Resources) 16 2.07 Risk Management 17
6
2.0: Project Framework Project Charter
PROJECT STATEMENT
The E2E Computing CAC Cycle time performance from Nov’15 to Jan’17 stands at 29.43 days (at 90% fill rate), which had resulted in the partner/end customer dissatisfaction and also overall 7.26% of rejection claims had occurred, which is also contributing for the Physical return of products. During the period Q1 FY16 – Q1 FY17 it has been observed $433 K value worth of Physical unit returned, which in turn ended up as a claim pay-out from HP. PROJECT TYPE
The project used a typical DMAIC process: Define, Measure, Analyze, Design, Improve & Control.
ASSUMPTIONS/EXPECTATIONS PROJECT SCOPE
Assumption : Customer/Partner satisfaction related to product availability will improve by reducing the cycle time of the components & Accessories Claims Expectations: • Project to be completed within the timeline and allocated budget • Reduction of 22% in the E2E cycle time (i.e. Meet 23 days of TAT
from 29.43 days @ 90% fill rate) by Feb’2018 • Reduce 25% of the CAC rejection ( i.e. Meet 5.6% of rejection from
the current performance of 7.26%) by Feb’2018
BUDGET (Financial and/or Resource Constraints) Refer the 2.06
Regions In Scope – EMEA Only
10
2.0: Project Framework (Contd..) Project Charter
PROJECT SCHEDULE
RISK MANAGEMENT
• Factory & Logistics commitment on timelines / Supplier standard transit time • On-site service commitment towards the redefined timeline • CSR’s/ Channel partner delays
11
7
2.01 Concise Project Statement
Problem Statement:
The Computing CAC E2E cycle time performance for FY’16 –Q1’17 stands at 29 days (i.e. @ 90% fill rate) and overall around 7.5% of CAC rejection had occurred, due to the multiple touch points or complexity within the process and also the long ETA.
Few of the CAC rejections resulted into claims payout of $433K in FY’16-Q1’17 (impacting the P&L)
Lack of E2E view resulting in the Partner/ end customer dissatisfaction (TCE impact)
Objective:
Improve the E2E CAC Cycle time ( Defined as Customer reported date to claim closed date) and to improve the Customer Experience
Physical Claims pay-out avoidance there by reducing the business impact & increasing the scope of CAC claims
Goal: o Reduce the E2E cycle time by 22 % i.e. Meet 23 days of TAT) o Reduce >50% of claims pay-out
Problem Statement
12
2.02 Type of Project
The project used a typical DMAIC process: Define, Measure, Analyze, Design, Improve & Control.
This Project mandates and poses the following challenges. Hence LSS DMAIC was adopted to improve the process. • Complexity involved in the project
• Advance tools like VA/NVA analysis were
in need to study the E2E process for improvement
• Multiple stakeholder involved . Hence LSS tools like Brainstorming, Cause and effect diagram was leveraged to get their view point and to identify the root cause.
• Statistical tools like hypothesis test, box plot, control chart were extensive leveraged during the project.
Need for LSS DMAIC Methodology
13
8
2.03 Scope Statement
15
The In-scope of this project is Component & Accessories claim process in Computing Business in EMEA Region which includes Distributors, Claim processing team, Hp stores, Retailers etc of Compute segment
In-scope The project is Out of Scope for Computing Business APJ & AMS regions and also Printing Business since the operational model is different.
Out of Scope
In-scope – CAC Computing Business(EMEA)
Project Scope
14
CSR Direct PC
Channel Partner (Distributors)
Channel Partner (Retailers)
HP stores TCE
Channel PC Team PEC WW Tool CAC Team Pandora Tool
Retail Entry
2.04 & 2.05 Assumption & Expectation and Project Schedule/High-Level Plan
Project Start Date 01-02-2017
Project End Date 28-02-2018
Project Miles Stones Assumption & Exceptions
Assumption : Customer/Partner satisfaction related to product availability will improve by reducing the cycle time of the components & Accessories Claims Expectations: • Project to be completed within the timeline
and allocated budget • Reduction of 22% in the E2E cycle time (i.e.
Meet 23 days of TAT from 29.43 days @ 90% fill rate) by Feb’2018
• Reduce 25% of the CAC rejection ( i.e. Meet 5.6% of rejection from the current performance of 7.26%) by Feb’2018
Assumptions and Expectations
15
9
2.06 Budget(Financial Or Resources) Project Cost & Benefit Calculations
16
2.07 Risk Management Risk Management by the project team
Brainstorming Session was conducted to determine the possible risk associated with the project. Individual members were as to identify the risk . The following risk was recorded during the session
S. No Risk associated with Project
1 Identification of appropriate stakeholder
2 Ontime onboarding of stakeholders
3 Not meeting the Project timeline
4 Resource constraint due to unforeseen situation.
Identification of Risk Risk Evaluation & Mitigation
• Ontime onboarding of stakeholders
• Identification of appropriate stakeholder
• Not meeting the Project timeline.
• Resource constraint due to unforeseen situation.
Po
ten
tial
Occ
urr
en
ce
Impact Low High
High
S. No Risk associated with Project Risk Mitigation
1 Identification of appropriate stakeholder
Metro Map and SIPOC tools were leveraged to identify the stakeholder list
2 Ontime onboarding of stakeholders
upfront alignment with senior leadership was done on the onboarding of stakeholders
3 Not meeting the Project timeline
Strong governance around adherence to project timeline was in place
4 Resource constraint due to unforeseen situation.
Back up resources were identified to support the project
17
10
Section 3.00: Project Stakeholders and the Project Team
18
Item/Sub Item Content Slide No
3.00 Project Stakeholders and the Project team 19 3.01 Stakeholders and How Identified 20 3.02 Project Champion 21 3.03 Project Team Selection 22 3.04 Team Preparation 23 3.05 Team Routines 24
Project Team Members
3.0: Project Stakeholders and the Project team
Roles Name Core Team members
CAC SME Stephane Gateil-Barrier
Process Expert Nazli Aktas ( Indirect PC)
Regional Co-ordinators
Channel & CSR’s
CSS Team – Onsite David Ortega
Manager Victor Thomas D (CAC Team )
Direct PC - SME Andreea Nicoleta Birsan
Roles Stakeholders
Sponsor/Champion Ramesh Rajagopalan
Finance Rep Laviron Aude / Marina Kukanova
Mentor Bachu – LSS Black Belt
Business owners Pavel Pucholt / Stephane Gateil-Barrier/ Vinod Pillai
Others stakeholders
Santhosh(Indirect PC) EK Sasireka( PDR team, Rajesh R(Direct PC) & Manikandan R ( PC Team
Project Lead Saravanan. M
Project Team members details
19
11
3.01: Stakeholders and How Identified
SIPOC Tool was used to identify the Key stakeholders of this project
SCOAH Approach to Stakeholder Identification
20
3.02: Project Champion
Champion is responsible for the E2E process of SCOAH India Hub and holds the accountability of the project charter and its success
Director of India SCOAH was the sponsor for this project.
Key Actions Supported by Sponsor
Provided necessary Financial Support and Resources for successful completion of the project
Participated in Project Kick off and was part of all the Toll gate reviews of DMAIC. Upon the sponsors approval team was allowed to move to next phases
Supported the team during the Management of Change with partners and vendors as part of solution implementation
Provided the team with necessary guidance to channelize the focus of the project team, eliminated the road barriers during solution implementation stage
Project Champion Org , Roles and Responsibilities
India SCOAH Hub
EMEA Customer
Operations
EMEA Supply Chain
Order Management
APJ Customer
Operations
Master & Product Data Management
EMEA Customer
Ops
EMEA Supply
Chain Ops
Customer
Partner
21
12
3.03: Project Team Selection
The Project Team onboarded the Stakeholders based on the below RACI Analysis
RACI Chart
22
3.04: Team Preparation
Dedicated Discussion room for Project Discussions Team Meeting - Forming and Storming Stages Brainstorming on the project Goal
Weekly Core Meeting Stakeholder meeting on the project milestones -1 Stakeholder meeting on the project milestones -2
Planned Team Events
23
13
3.05: Team Routines Meeting Cadence
Quarterly Review
Steering committee
Meeting
Core Team Meeting
Meeting Cadence Frequency
Quarterly
Monthly
Weekly
Participant
All Key stakeholders, Champion, Project Lead , & Mentor
All Key stakeholders, Champion, Project Lead , Mentor & Core
team Members
Core team members, Project Lead & Mentor
High Level Agenda
• Review on the project status • Key action implemented and it’s outcome • Challenges & support required
• Project Progress status • Key milestone achieved • Support & Challenges • Next steps
• Project action status review • Planning of Next steps • Deciding the accountability on the actions • Review on the Key challenges & Support
Required
LSS Toll Gate Reviews
As and When the toll gate are completed
Champion, Core team members, Project Lead, Mentor &
Stakeholders
• Review of accomplished of the particular DMAIC Phase
• Evaluation of LSS tool and concept used. • Review the deliverable of the phase are met • Sign off of the tollgate/feedback etc.
24
Section 4.00: Project Overview
25
Item/Sub Item Content Slide No
4.01 Project Overview & Project Approach 26 4.02 Tools used through out the Project 27 4.03 Tool Output at Different Stages of the Project - Define and Measure 28 4.03 Tool Output at Different Stages of the Project - Analyse and Improve 29 4.03 Tool Output at Different Stages of the Project - Control 30 4.04 How Team was prepared to use the Tools 31
4.05 & 4.06 Dealing with Project Risk and Encountering and Handling Resistance 32 4.07 Stakeholder involvement in the project 33
14
4.0 & 4.01: Project Overview & Project Approach
Type of Project: Lean Six Sigma Project Black Belt Project
Description of Project Approach: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve & Control
General SCOAH Approach on LSS DMAIC
26
4.02: Tools used through out the Project
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
SIPOC MSA Brainstorming Brainstorming on Solution
Control plan
Gannt Chart IMR Chart Process flow Analysis FMEA IMR Chart
CTQ Tree Normality chart VA NVA Analysis IMR Chart Balance score card
Process Capability Cause & effect diagram Box plot
Box Plot FMEA Hypothesis Test
Hypothesis test Scatter plot & Correlation Analysis IMR chart
Process flow Pareto chart Normality test
RACI Chart IMR Chart Process capability
Box Plot Analysis
List of Tools used in the project
27
15
4.03: Tool Output at Different Stages of the Project
Define Phase Measure Phase
Tools Tool Output Tool Tool Output
SIPOC • High level overview of the process • Identify the input & output of the
process • Figure out Scope & Stakeholder of the
project
IMR Chart • Stability of the process
Gannt Chart • To ensure the project team adhere to project timelines
Normality chart • Validate the assumption of Normality
CTQ Tree • CTQ i.e metric & Drivers of the project Process Capability • Baseline capability of the process
Box Plot • Variation & Central tendency of the process
Hypothesis test • Validate the target is significant enough to pursue
Process flow • Bottle necks in the process
RACI Chart • Key stakeholder determination
Tools Usage and the Outcome - Define & Measure Phase
28
Analyze Phase Improve Phase
Tools Tool Output Tool Tool Output
Brainstorming • All possible Pain areas Brainstorming on Solution
• Generation of Solution for the identified root cause
Process flow Analysis • Highlighted the bottlenecks that affect the flow of the process
FMEA • Validate the potential risk associated with Solution
• Prioritize the high impact solution
VA NVA Analysis • Identified the NVA in the process IMR Chart • Verified the stability of the improved process
Cause & effect diagram • Root causes were identified Box plot • Validated the improved process against the baseline
FMEA • Prioritization potential of root causes based on their impact
Hypothesis Test • Validate the improved process has met the project goal
Scatter plot & Correlation Analysis
• Statically validated whether the Root cause is having the impact on the output
Normality test • Determined whether improved process is stable
Pareto chart • Identified the top contributors that impacted the output
4.03: Tool Output at Different Stages of the Project(contd) Tools Usage and the Outcome - Analyze & Improve Phase
29
16
Control Phase
Tools Tool Output
Control plan
• Key parameter to be monitored • Monitoring frequency & Thresholds • Response plan if incase the key parameter is out of control
IMR Chart
• To monitor and sustain the improved result
Balance score card • Snap shot of the project
4.03: Tool Output at Different Stages of the Project(contd) Tools Usage and the Outcome - Control Phase
30
4.04: How Team was prepared to use the Tools
The team was provided with the LSS Belt training and has the hand on experience on the various tools used in this project using Minitab software
1 Lean Six sigma Training & evaluation(pass>70%) to develop the capability of tools and concepts
2 Hands on the advance statistical software - Minitab
3 Mentor support to the team
4 Validation and feedback during the toll gate reviews on the tool usuage
LSS Trainings and Support within SCOAH
31
17
4.05, 4.06: Dealing with Project Risk and Encountering and Handling Resistance
Brainstorming Session was conducted to determine the possible risk associated with the project. Individual members were as to identify the risk . The following risk was recorded during the session
Identification of Risk, Risk Evaluation & Mitigation
Approach to Dealing with Risk and Resistance Handling
Encountering and Resistance Handling
Monthly Governance
meeting
Periodic Check-in
Conversation
Stakeholder were assigned accountability and challenges were discussed during monthly governance call
During Storming stage of the project lead had a Check-in conversation with all the core team members
Key Inference: Stakeholder alignment was ensured during the kickoff meeting and business priorities was reiterated during every governance call and challenges were discussed transparently to ensure no resistance during the project course.
32
4.07: Stakeholder involvement in the project
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
Stakeholder was involved in the the project charter & Signoff
Stakeholders consensus on the Data collection plan was done
Summary of Analyze phase was discussed with stakeholder and consensus was obtained
Discussion with the stakeholder the solution identified and the potential risk associated with it was discussed
Stakeholder involved in the Validation on Control mechanism and the response plan for the key parameter to be sustained
Customer VOC and Stakeholder input was considered during Need statement in CTQ Exercise
As is process study and the RACI Chart was developed along with stakeholder and core team members
Implementation of solution and project benefits were signoff by stakeholder during this week
Consensus was obtained on the accomplishment of project goal and approval on the closure.
Consensus was obtain on the timeline – Gannt Chart
Project scoping exercise leveraging SIPOC stakeholder was involved.
Stakeholder Signoff was taken at each phase has a tollgate review completion. Over and above that below are other exercise were stakeholder were involved
Stakeholder involvement in the project
33
18
High-level flow
5.00 :Project Walkthrough
1 2 3
4 5 6
** This slide shows a glimpse of Data Driven approach please refer the subsequent slides for the detailed view
34
Section 5.01: Data-Driven Project Flow
35
Item/Sub Item Content Slide No
5.01-01 Define Phase – Metro Map of EMEA Component & Accessories Claim Process 36
5.01-02 Define Phase –Critical to Quality Tree 37 5.01-03 Measure Phase – Data Collection Plan 38 5.01-04 Measure Phase – Justification of MSA Not applicable 39 5.01-05 Measure Phase – Primary Metric Process stability & Baseline 40 5.01-06 Measure Phase – Target Setting ( BOX Plot Analysis) & Target Validation ( 1 Sample T Test) 41 5.01-07 Measure Phase – Process Capability 42 5.01-08 Measure Phase – Secondary Metric Process stability & Baseline 43 5.01-09 Measure Phase – Secondary Metric Process Capability 44 5.01-10 Analyze Phase – Process Map Analysis 45 5.01-11 Analyze Phase – VA/NVA Analysis 46 5.01-12 Analyze Phase – Brainstorming Analysis 47 5.01-13 Analyze Phase – Cause & Effect Analysis 48 5.01-14 Analyze Phase – RCA Prioritization( Cause & Effect Prioritization Matrix) 49 5.01-15 Analyze Phase – Statistical Validation of X9 & X11 50 5.01-16 Analyze Phase –X1,X7,X8 & X10 - Scatter Plot and Correlation Analysis 51 5.01-17
Analyze Phase : X4 -> Further analysis of Input issue : Query to Task ratio 52 5.01-18 Analyze Phase: X2 : Regression – Factory ETA VS E2E CAC cycle time 53 5.01-19
Analyze Phase – X6: Correlation – Engineer part# confirmation TAT VS E2E CAC Cycle time 54 5.01-20 Analyze Phase :X5 – Regression - Onsite TAT VS E2E CAC Cycle time 55 5.01-21 Analyze Phase: X3 - Qualitative (Passive) Analysis 56 5.01-22 Analyze Phase – Summary of Statistically Validated X’s(Root cause) 57
19
5.01: Data Driven workflow 5.01-01: Define Phase – Metro Map of EMEA Component & Accessories Claim Process
36
5.01: Data Driven workflow(contd..)
5.01-02: Define Phase –Critical to Quality Tree
Primary Metric
Secondary Metric
Voice of Customer/Business Critical to Quality Statement Project Metrics
Efficient and Timely Processing
of the component &
Accessories Claims
• Reduce complexity in Claims
process
• Shorter lead time for
processing of claims
E2E CAC Cycle time ( in days) Goal: To reduce the E2E Cycle time from 29 days to 23 days i.e 22%.
Voice of Business Critical to Quality Statement Project Metrics
• Reduce CAC Rejections
• Avoid Physical return of
goods
• Reduce the Credit Payout
• Timely validation and process
of claims
• Quick delivery of missing
component and accessories
CAC Rejection % Goal: To reduce the CAC Rejection % by 25%.
37
20
5.01: Data Driven workflow(contd..)
5.01-03: Measure Phase – Data Collection Plan
Define the measure Source of the measure Timeframe Sampling / subgrouping plan
(all, days, weeks, month)
Method to measure, collect, and/or analyze data
What Where When Frequency / Instances How
E2E CAC Cycle time @
90% Fill rate
[Primary Metric]
Pandora tool
Base line: Nov’15 to Jan’17
Post improvement : 6 months for control phase and ongoing tracking as per control plan
Sampling Plan: All data.
Subgrouping Plan: Monthly
Pandora report
Excel spreadsheet
Minitab – Stability & Normality
% of total CAC rejected
[Secondary Metric]
Pandora tool
Base line: Nov’15 to Jan’17
Post improvement : 6 months for control phase and ongoing tracking as per control plan
Sampling Plan: All data.
Subgrouping Plan: Monthly
Pandora report
Excel spreadsheet
Minitab – Stability & Normality
CAC rejection lead to claim payout
PEC WW &
Pandora tool
Base line: Nov’15 to Jan’17
Post improvement : 6 months for control phase and ongoing tracking as per control plan
Sampling Plan: All data.
Subgrouping Plan: Monthly
Spotfire
Excel spreadsheet
Minitab – Stability & Normality
38
5.01: Data Driven workflow (contd..)
5.01-04: Measure Phase – Justification of MSA Not applicable
39
21
5.01: Data Driven workflow (contd..)
5.01-05: Measure Phase – Primary Metric Process stability & Baseline
Operational Definition of
Metric
No of days taken for the CAC claim processing (customer reported date till the closure) @ 90% Fill rate
Data Type Continuous
Time Frame Monthly – Nov’2015 to Jan’2017
Process Stability Statement
There is no any special causes observed, which indicates it’s a stable process
p= 0.415
Normality Check Null hypothesis is that the data are normally distributed. With a P-Value > 0.05, fail to reject the null hypothesis, and accept that the data are normal.
Data Transformation
None required
Jan'
17
Dec
'16
Nov'16
Oct'16
Sep'16
Aug'16
Jul '1
6
Jun'16
May'
16
Apr'16
Mar
'16
Feb'16
Jan'
16
Dec'
15
Nov'15
50
40
30
20
10
Month
Days _
X=29.43
UCL=45.75
LCL=13.11
I Chart of E2E Cycle Time
40
5.01: Data Driven workflow (contd..)
5.01-06: Measure Phase – Target Setting ( BOX Plot Analysis) & Target Validation ( 1 Sample T Test)
4035302520
X_
Ho
E2E Cycle Time
Boxplot of E2E Cycle Time(with Ho and 95% t-confidence interval for the mean)
P-Value < 0.05, the target has a significant difference with as-is process E2E cycle time performance
One-Sample T: E2E Cycle Time Test of μ = 23 vs > 23 Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95% CI T P E2E Cycle Time 15 29.43 5.87 1.52 (26.18, 32.68) 4.24 0.001
Test Ho
P>0.05 Ha
P<0.05
1t test
There is no significant difference between current E2E cycle time and the targeted E2E cycle time of 23 days @ 90% fill rate
There is significant difference between current E2E cycle time and the targeted E2E cycle time of 23 days @ 90% fill rate
Box Plot Analysis 1 Sample T Test
In the above Box plot analysis the mean is at 29 days and 50th Percentile i.e Median is closer to the mean. Since there are reference benchmark target for CAC process. Hence the Project team in consensus with stakeholder have chosen >75th percentile i.e 23 days(22% Reduction) as the target for the primary metric
Objective : To test the Target i.e 23 days is significantly higher than the baseline performance. H0: Mean = 23 days HA: Mean > 23 days
41
22
5.01: Data Driven workflow (contd..)
5.01-07: Measure Phase – Process Capability
Process Capability Statement
With Current 44.93% of task out of USL. The process is not capable of meeting the defined target. (With the current mean of 29.43 days, the process is not capable of meeting the goal of 23 days @ 90%
fill rate. Recent data was considered to determine the current process capability)
Dec’16 & Jan’17 only
42
5.01: Data Driven workflow (contd..)
5.01-08: Measure Phase – Secondary Metric Process stability & Baseline
Operational Definition of Metric
No of CAC rejected against the total number of CAC claims received for the respective month
Data Type Attribute
Time Frame Monthly – Nov’2015 to Jan’2017
Process Stability Statement
Process is almost stable with one special cause and it’s due to the FE delay in responses.
Normality Check Null hypothesis is that the data are normally distributed. With a P-Value > 0.05, fail to reject the null hypothesis, and accept that the data are normal.
Data Transformation
None required p= 0.468
Jan'17
Dec'16
Nov'
16
Oct
'16
Sep'16
Aug'16
Jul'1
6
Jun'16
May
'16
Apr'16
Mar'1
6
Feb'16
Jan'16
Dec'15
Nov'
15
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
Month
Pro
po
rtio
n
_P=0.0726
UCL=0.1068
LCL=0.0383
1
P Chart of CAC Rejected
Tests are performed with unequal sample sizes.
Key note: 25% reduction in Secondary metric was unanimously decided by Sponsor and stakeholder. Hence target setting was not done for this metric 43
23
5.01: Data Driven workflow (contd..)
5.01-09: Measure Phase – Secondary Metric Process Capability
Process Capability Statement With the current rejection mean of 7.26% the process is not capable of meeting the target of 5.6%
44
5.01: Data Driven workflow (contd..)
5.01-10: Analyze Phase – Process Map Analysis
45
24
5.01: Data Driven workflow (contd..)
5.01-11: Analyze Phase – VA/NVA Analysis
46
5.01: Data Driven workflow (contd..)
5.01-12: Analyze Phase – Brainstorming Analysis
Complexity of multiple internal TAT within teams
Multiple touch points & repeated validation checks
within PC & CAC Teams
Lack of E2E knowledge gap & impact of $ credit payout
Updating & analyzing same information in different tools
take more time
Missing input waiting time from Customer/Partner end
Incomplete & missing details from CSR
Logistics delay in Customs Countries
Multiple queries/follow-up on same CAC request
iQor Long ETA Ageing claim approval delay
from SME Reduce Financial approval
waiting time
Improvement required in Engineering team response
time
No defined Onsite TAT & governance/escalation
matrix
Knowledge gap - varying knowledge levels within the
dependency teams
Rework caused due to incomplete CAC logging by
the CSR’s
Educating FE on BOM clarification
Delay in getting the CSR Manager approval
Supplier taking long time to delivery components at iQor
Lack of E2E Backlog Management
No visibility of CAC progress or status updates
Brain Storming sessions conducted with SMEs, TLs & Managers to identify reasons for the long E2E cycle time 47
25
5.01: Data Driven workflow (contd..)
5.01-13: Analyze Phase – Cause & Effect Analysis
Critical root causes
48
5.01: Data Driven workflow (contd..)
5.01-14: Analyze Phase – RCA Prioritization( Cause & Effect Prioritization Matrix)
49
26
5.01: Data Driven workflow (contd..)
5.01-15: Analyze Phase – Statistical Validation of X9 & X11
Prioritized X’s (Refer Slide 42)
50
5.01: Data Driven workflow (contd..)
5.01-16: Analyze Phase –X1,X7,X8 & X10 - Scatter Plot and Correlation Analysis
Prioritized X’s (Refer Slide 42)
51
27
5.01: Data Driven workflow (contd..)
5.01-17: Analyze Phase : X4 -> Further analysis of Input issue : Query to Task ratio
Prioritized X’s (Refer Slide 42)
Dec16Nov16Oct16Sep16Aug16July16
5.4
5.1
4.8
4.5
4.2
Months
Ra
tio
n _
X=4.871
UCL=5.459
LCL=4.283
Dec16Nov16Oct16Sep16Aug16July16
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Months
Ra
tio
n
__MR=0.2211
UCL=0.7223
LCL=0
I-MR Chart of Queries to Task ration
In EMEA CAC team for the last 6 months- July’16 to Dec’16, queries to order processed ratio stands at 4.8:1 ratio resulting in high manual efforts spent in follow-up, clarifications etc. Need to do further analysis to see what are the main factors contributing to the Queries/ Input issues.
Focus –
From the Pareto chart we have 3X’s which has high impact on number of queries.
- Part/BOM clarifications
- Missing inputs
- Contact info 94%
The above analysis statistically confirms that higher the queries in the top categories, higher has been the number of queries. The solutions will hence be driven around these root causes, to reduce the input issues to avoid significant waiting time/delay. 52
5.01: Data Driven workflow (contd..)
5.01-18: Analyze Phase: X2 : Regression – Factory ETA VS E2E CAC cycle time
Prioritized X’s (Refer Slide 42)
53
28
5.01: Data Driven workflow (contd..)
5.01-19: Analyze Phase – X6: Correlation – Engineer part# confirmation TAT VS E2E CAC Cycle time
Prioritized X’s (Refer Slide 42)
Part clarificationAsset Tag - Clarification
20
15
10
5
0
Data
3.523.26232
Boxplot of Asset Tag - Clarification, Part clarification
Inference: P<0.05 Positive correlation indicates that when Engineering TAT increases, it affects the E2E Cycle time.
The predominant confirmation sent for the Asset Tag & alternative part#, where it’s average TAT stands at 3.52 & 3.26
days.
Need to have solutions in place to reduce the dependency with Engineering team on this kind of issues
54
5.01: Data Driven workflow (contd..)
5.01-20: Analyze Phase :X5 – Regression - Onsite TAT VS E2E CAC Cycle time
Prioritized X’s (Refer Slide 42)
Inference: P<0.05 Positive correlation indicates that when Onsite TAT increases total CAC cycle time increases.
Observations:
Strong correlations exists with the onsite support request from the iQor shipments & below are the findings from our brainstorming meetings.
• Lack on Onsite progress update visibility
• BES tickets – Ageing claims without update
• ITRC tool managed by the 3rd party team
• Proposal to have a defined governance with CRT Team
• BES Tickets on-hold – Due to the lack of information from CSR
like customer availability, alternative contact number details etc.
• Tool/Platform replacement for Onsite case logging
• How to avoid waiting time, between the technician and
end-customer for service.
55
29
5.01: Data Driven workflow (contd..)
5.01-21: Analyze Phase: X3 - Qualitative (Passive) Analysis
Prioritized X’s (Refer Slide 42)
56
5.01: Data Driven workflow (contd..)
5.01-22: Analyze Phase – Summary of Statistically Validated X’s(Root cause)
57
30
Section 5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification
58
Item/Sub Item Content Slide No
5.02 & 5.03 -01 FMEA Analysis for the Statistical validated X’s(X1,X3, X5, X4, X2,X7) 59 5.02 & 5.03 -02 FMEA Analysis for the Statistical validated X’s(X1,X3, X5, X4, X2,X7) with Revised RPN 60 5.02 & 5.03 -03 FMEA Analysis for the Statistical validated X’s(X6, X9, X12, X11, X8,X10) 61 5.02 & 5.03 -04 FMEA Analysis for the Statistical validated X’s(X6, X9, X12, X11, X8,X10) with Revised RPN 62 5.02 & 5.03 -05 Solution Implemented & Benefit Details 63 5.02 & 5.03 -06 Solution Implemented & Benefit Details 64 5.02 & 5.03 -07 Re-engineered E2E Process 65 5.02 & 5.03 -08 Multiple Input Complexity Reduction – Before & After 66 5.02 & 5.03 -09 Identifying & Reduction of NVA - Before & After 67 5.02 & 5.03 -10 Computing CAC – E2E Process Flow Before 68 5.02 & 5.03 -11 Computing CAC – E2E Process Flow After 69 5.02 & 5.03 -12 Improve Phase: Validation of Results -CSR Delay and Query Reduction 70 5.02 & 5.03 -13 Improve Phase: Validation of Results – Engineering Activity Hand over & Query Management 71 5.02 & 5.03 -14 Improve Phase: Validation of Results – iQor Factory - Improvement 72 5.02 & 5.03 -15 Improve Phase: Validation of Results – Onsite Support - Improvement 73 5.02 & 5.03 -16 Improve Phase: Validation of Results – TNT Shipments Customs Issue Improvement 74
5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification
Total RPN = 6730 with the top list of potential causes, impacting the E2E Cycle time
What is the step? (sub processes)
In what ways can the step go wrong?
What is the impact on the customer if the failure mode is not prevented or
corrected?
What is the Severity Rating for the Effect
from 1:10?
What causes the step to go wrong? (i.e., How could the
failure mode occur?)
What is the Occurrence Rating of the Cause from 1:10?
What are the existing controls that either prevent the failure
mode from occurring or detect it should it occur?
What is the Detection Rating of the Failure or Effect
from 1:10?
RPN = SEV * OCC * DET
Process step Potential failure mode Potential failure effects SEV Potential causes (from C&E
matrix) OCC Current process controls DET RPN
Performing Eligibility &
Submission of CAC Claim
Logged CAC with the unclean input given, wrong localization, incorrect quantity/CAC treatment, Ship date too old & $ hinder Value updation
Delay in processing of CAC shipment, lead to end customer dissatisfaction
and unable to use the original Shipment delivered before.
9 Handover b/w PC Channel,
Direct & CAC teams 9 No control in place 10 810
NCO creation for Customs regions
Fail to change the Incoterm field as DDP and also the HTS code in the
NCO file
Partner had been asked to pay some charges to collect the shipment, hence there is a refusal to do business with
HP & avoid to accept CAC claim
9 TNT NCO Shipment delay in
Customs Countries 8 No control in place 10 720
Logging Onsite ticket for technician Visit, based on the Partner/customer
request
Delay in logging the onsite tickets within the timely manner
Unable to use both the original & CAC shipment accessories, may lead to
return of goods back to HP 8
Long TAT or lack of governance model with the
Onsite Support team 8 No control in place 10 640
Mandatory inputs are not provided like alternative contact # & Serial
number from PC team end
Overlooking the ETA of component delivery and PDR+ component field
isn't checked
CAC Claim Validation and
Processing
Incorrect/missing customer address/contact details, business
justification reason & Part clarification provided
Answering for multiple queries from different teams and delay in
component delivery, unable to use the complete original shipment delivered
earlier
8 No clear input template to
submit a CAC 8 No control in place 10 640
Part ordering from iQor factory
Delay in sending the no charge order confirmation to iQor factory
Rejection of CAC claim, due to late shipment
9 Suppliers sending
components through Standard Shipments
7 No control in place 10 630
CAC claim entry in Pandora
Duplicate claim entry in Pandora tool & multiple no charge orders sent to factory for the same PDR
Delay in delivery of CAC shipment 7 CSR/Partner directly logging
incomplete PDR claims 8 No control in place 10 560
X1
X3
X5
X4
X2
X7
5.02 & 5.03 -01: FMEA Analysis for the Statistical validated X’s(X1,X3, X5, X4, X2,X7)
59
31
what is the severity
Rating for the Effect from 1:10
what causes the step to go wrong?(i.e.,
How could the Failure Mode May Occur)
what is the Occurrence
rating of the
Causefrom 1: 10
what is the Detection Rating of
the Failure or Effect
from 1:10?
RPN=SEV*OCC*DET
what are the Actions for reducing the Occurrence of the cause or for improving
Detection? You Should provide actions on all high
RPNs and on severity ratings 9 or 10
Who is responsible for
the recommended Action ?what date should it be completed
by?
what were the actions implemented? Include completion month\year(then recalculate resulting RPN)
what is the new
severity Rating for the Effect from 1:10
what is the New
Occurrence rating of
the Cause from 1: 10
what is the Detection
Rating t from 1:10?
RPN=SEV*OCC*DET
9 Handover b/w PC Channel, Direct &
CAC teams 9 10 810
Involving the PDR lead/agents directly to monitor the origin of PDR
request, in the respective tools (e.g 3W)
Rajesh (PDR Team lead)
Nov'17
Internal transition of PDR activities movement to the subpart of Physical claims hub (Bangalore)
E2E Process Re-Engineering are done and Simplified the CAC process complexity - July 31st 2017
9 3 5 135
9 TNT NCO Shipment delay in Customs
Countries 8 10 720
Setup monthly review inviting Custom regional experts & PDR
Process SME
Saravanan/Stephane Gateil-Barrier
Mar'18
Implemented the change in Commercial invoice & incoterm process, by setting up the governance
with EMEA L4 -Logistics Manager, Customs regional experts & PDR process SME - September 2017
9 4 4 144
8
Long TAT or lack of governance model
with the Onsite Support team
8 10 640 PDR monthly joint meeting with the
CRT/CS team + PDR SME
PDR Team Lead + David Ortega (CS
CRT) Nov'17
Onsite delay reason & Process gaps are shared with the CRT teams Organized a forum where the CRT support agent & all regional CSR's are
highlighting the deviation & scope within the process May 9th 2017
8 5 5 200
8 No clear input
template to submit a CAC
8 10 640
Involve CSR's & highlight any field change in template/process isn't
followed in the Monthly CSR Champs forum
Rajesh/ Ionut (Direct PC SME)
Oct'17
Created an automated PDR form with all mandatory fields Delivered training to the CSR's on the usage of template
July 10th 2017 8 3 4 96
9
Suppliers sending components
through Standard Shipments
7 10 630 Express shipments should be
continue monitored with the new SMS factory
Stephane Gateil-Barrier (EMR Team)
Feb'18
Through EMR L3/L4 & SME Support & approval, ODM/supplier shipments changed from Standard to Express.
Monitoring performed for 1 month and relevant communication are done - July 2017
9 1 10 90
7
CSR/Ops Specialist directly logging incomplete PDR
claims
8 10 560 Reviewing the PDR input request
process flow by the team lead on a daily basis
Saravanan & Team Lead
Oct'17
Delivered training & implication of unclean input, during the CSR's Champs forum
No more direct PDR entry, by CSR's into Pandora tool - June 2017 7 1 10 70
After the improvement actions have been implemented, the RPNs of all the actionable root causes have been significantly reduced
X1
X3
X5
X4
X2
X7
60
5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification(Contd..)
5.02 & 5.03 -02: FMEA Analysis for the Statistical validated X’s(X1,X3, X5, X4, X2,X7) with Revised RPN
5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification (Contd..)
5.02 & 5.03 -03: FMEA Analysis for the Statistical validated X’s(X6, X9, X12, X11, X8,X10)
What is the step? (sub processes)
In what ways can the step go wrong? What is the impact on the
customer if the failure mode is not prevented or corrected?
What is the Severity Rating for the Effect
from 1:10?
What causes the step to go wrong? (i.e., How could the failure mode occur?)
What is the Occurrence Rating of the Cause from 1:10?
What are the existing controls that either prevent the failure
mode from occurring or detect it should it
occur?
What is the Detection Rating of the Failure or
Effect from 1:10? RPN = SEV * OCC * DET
Process step Potential failure mode Potential failure effects SEV Potential causes (from C&E
matrix) OCC Current process controls DET RPN
Part reference or alternative PN identification
Incorrect details like wrong HP order & localaization, unclear problem
description, part # without checking the EOL etc
Delay in CAC shipment, partners are unable to use the original
shipment results in dissatisfaction
7 Delay in Part # confirmation
from Engineering team 8 No control in place 10 560
Query sent for CSR Manager approval
Not investigated the correct 'Error Owner' &
Delay in CAC shipment delivery, partner unable to use the
original shipment results in dissatisfaction
7
Multiple approvers waiting time (CSR Manager/OS &
PDR SME)
8 No control in place 10 560 delay in initiating the approval email
request to FE team
CAC Shipment through the iQor
Delay in sending the no charge order confirmation to iQor factory
Late shipment & dissatifiction with the HP service
6 iQor factory long ETA
8 No control in place 10 480 Based on CSR requirement again
changing the Part number in the existing NCO and requesting for the
Express shipment
Financial & Process SME approval
Incomplete/incorrect details like $ hinder value, business justification,
shipped/delivery date isn't provided in approval request Late shipment 7
Pre defined $ threshold cost approval process
6 No control in place 10 420
Copying the different approvers, while sending the approval email
Part availability Check
Ordering for component, without checking the factory report of EOL
details on ordered part. Delay in CAC shipment delivery, partner unable to use the
original shipment results in dissatisfaction
6
No Built in stock model, parts need to be procured
after NCO created
6 No control in place 10 360 Based on the part description, directly requesting for availability to iQor instead of checking with the other
EMEA factories.
Processing of exception parts to
avoid potential 'RET'
Fail to check for the alternative PN, instead of the requested part # Delay in
sending the no charge order confirmation to factory
Delay in CAC shipment 7
CAC team failed to provide Proactive notification to the
factory
5 No control in place 10 350
X6
X9
X12
X11
X8
X10 61
32
5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification (Contd..)
5.02 & 5.03 -04: FMEA Analysis for the Statistical validated X’s(X6, X9, X12, X11, X8,X10) with Revised RPN
what is the severity
Rating for the Effect from 1:10
what causes the step to go
wrong?(i.e., How could the Failure
Mode May Occur)
what is the Occurrence rating of the Cause from
1: 10
what is the Detection
Rating of the Failure or
Effect from 1:10?
RPN=SEV*OCC*DET
what are the Actions for reducing the Occurrence of the
cause or for improving Detection? You Should provide actions on all high RPNs and on
severity ratings 9 or 10
Who is responsible for
the recommended
Action ?what date should it be
completed by?
what were the actions implemented? Include completion month\year(then recalculate resulting RPN)
what is the new severity
Rating for the Effect from 1:10
what is the New
Occurrence rating of the Cause from
1: 10
what is the Detection Rating t
from 1:10?
RPN=SEV*OCC*DET
7
Delay in Part # confirmation
from Engineering
team
8 10 560
Engineering checks are currently done by the PDR team
immediately and initiated access to all the agents
Rajesh & Stephane March'18
Trained PDR team on the Part# checks and other activities performed by Stephane Lelong (Engineering team)
- October 2017 7 3 4 84
7
Multiple approvers
waiting time (CSR
Manager/OS & PDR SME)
8 10 560
Review and update approver's names list (based on the
approval matrix, whenever it's getting revised)
Saravanan Jan'18
Implemented Passive approval process for CSR Manager, OS & SME approval request - July 2017
7 3 5 105
6 iQor factory long
ETA 8 10 480
Follow-up through weekly consolidated report will be sent to factory on all the high ageing
PDR's & escalate to the EMR manger/SME (Wherever it's
required)
Stephane & Estelle (EMR
SME's) Nov'17
Shared the impact to the PDR E2E TAT, therby proposed reduction of factory long lead time from 12 -16 Weeks to 6-8
weeks - August 2017
6 5 5 150
7 Pre defined $ threshold cost
approval process 6 10 420
Periodically review and update approver's name list
Saravanan/Stephane Gateil-Barrier
Nov-17
Simplified approval matrix created, same day PDR cost approval by EMR L4 - June 2017
7 1 10 70
6
No Built in stock model, parts need to be
procured after NCO created
6 10 360
Continue dropping an email directly to the factory on the
immediate component requirement, during the pre-
validation stage itself
Saravanan & PDR team Jan'18
Implemented effective Pre-validation checks and component visibility to all the PDR agents
August 2017
6 3 5 90
7
CAC team failed to provide Proactive
notification to the factory
5 10 350
Created list of exception components PN, where the PDR
agents should review mandatorily for all cases
Saravanan & Team Feb'18
Created list of exception PDR components and trained the processing agents, to quickly fulfill the request
June - July 2017 7 3 5 105
X6
X9
X12
X11
X8
X10
Prioritized X’s (Refer Slide 42)
62
5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification (Contd..)
5.02 & 5.03 -05: Solution Implemented & Benefit Details
Before After Benefits
Handover b/w PC Channel, Direct & CAC teams
Internal transitioned the CAC activities within the PC hub Incomplete CAC entry, Multiple Validation, duplicate checks are avoided (including the back & forth exchange of emails) Reduced significant waiting time, due to multiple dependency teams involvement and touch points
Cycle Time improvement, Improve quick validation
Suppliers sending components through Standard Shipments
• Through the help of EMR team management, there is a process change had been implemented where the Supplier delivery to iQor will be an express shipment • Proactive notification to the factory, during the claim validation stage itself • Created the list of exception PN’s data, which helps in effective follow-up with CSR’s/Partners
Factory TAT Improvement
TNT NCO Shipment delay in Customs Countries
• Initiated multiple discussion with Marian, Stephane, Monika and Thomas Sengel for the role clarity on the TNT NCO shipments getting stuck in the Customs regions • With all the approval, amended the current NCO into Commercial invoice only for the customs countries • Also briefed EMEA factories like Foxconn, LSS role in accepting such shipment request and the TNT should carry relevant papers from their end
Quick delivery of components, Improved TCE
No clear input template to submit a PDR
o Created an excel enabled PDR/CAC template with all the required fields and provided training to the CSR’s o Also piloted the automated form in few regions and it had become, now the template is mandatory without that CAC request can’t be submitted o Details like Clearing business justification, alternate contact#, SN, CSR manger approval, ageing reason are received as a clean input now.
Query/waiting time reduction and reduce rejection rate
Long TAT or lack of governance model with the Onsite Support team
• Initiated discussions with CRT team and did an onsite process deep dive between the teams • Onsite CRT support involvement in the CSR champions forum and established a better communication flow involving all of them • Robust governance in place, also the visibility on BES onsite ticket case id through the SharePoint
Onsite TAT & overall cycle time improvement, avoid CAC rejection
Delay in Part # confirmation from Engineering team
• The Part# clarification activity had been managed by the CAC team, where it takes some minutes and move the claim into the next queue • Avoided Non Value added steps like performing checks in Wizpart, MYPIM, SAP applications, instead directly work in the Pulsar tool • Eliminated multiple reminders/queries email exchanges and follow-up
Reduction in wait time and cycle time improvement
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
63
33
5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification (Contd..)
5.02 & 5.03 -06: Solution Implemented & Benefit Details
Before After Benefits
CSR/Partner directly logging incomplete PDR claims
• CSR’s directly logging CAC claim in the Pandora tool with unclean inputs, had been eliminated. • Effective validation checks are performed and the CAC team manages the claim entry till closure
100% Clean throughput & cycle time improvement
No Built in stock model, parts need to be procured after NCO created
• Created list of exception part numbers, using which the team performs the effective pre validation at the initial stage and provide confirmation to the factory early for procuring the component • Predominantly the Notebook keyboards, ABF,AB9,ABZ, LCD Panel/WLAN request can’t be forecasted, hence there is pre checks process implemented before sending the no charge order to factory team
Support factory ETA, thereby overall Cycle time improvement
Multiple approvers waiting time (CSR Manager/OS & PDR SME)
• It’s mandatory to provide the CSR manager approval, along with the PDR/CAC form • All the ageing claim and Channel Ops specialist approval for >20 units are passive now • There is no more waiting time for the different level of approval process
Cycle time improvement & reduce rejection %
CAC team failed to provide Proactive notification to the factory
• Trained CAC team on how to notify and proactive manage the communication between the factory team and the FE/Partner end • Regular Quality check in place to monitor the same within the process
Cycle time improvement & reduce rejection %
Pre defined $ threshold cost approval process • The PDR cost approval had been simplified with clear business case and threshold process, now it’s getting approved directly by the EMR L4 manager & above. • Revised and updated approval matrix place and will be reviewed periodically
Cycle time improvement & reduce rejection %
iQor long ETA
• Significant improvement in ETA from 12 weeks to 6 to 8 weeks, especially for of the few components, where there is no built in stock model • CAC process expert had helped in implementing the change within the iQor, to standardize and quicker delivery of components.
Cycle time improvement & reduce rejection %
X7
X8
X9
X10
X11
X12
64
5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification (Contd..)
5.02 & 5.03 -07: Re-engineered E2E Process
Partner / CSR / END Customer
PC Team (Direct) PC Team (Channel) PDR Team Site & FE Co-ordinator Engineering Team Financial Approver Factory Logistics Onsite Team
Bef
ore
Partner / CSR / END Customer
Site & FE Co-ordinator Financial Approver Factory Logistics Onsite Team
Aft
er
8 Days 3 Days 19 Days
PC HUB
PC Team (Direct & Channel) PDR Team / Engineering Team
23 Days
Key Callouts:
• Process Merger of CAC within PC hub (Significant Operational Waiting time reduction) • Approval Simplification • Process & knowledge gap fix in rejection leading to Payout • Factory long ETA Improvement • TNT NCO Shipments Improvement • Onsite governance & follow-up • Engineering activity – Wait time reduction • Multiple input Standardization
8 Days 3 Days 19 Days
65
34
5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification (Contd..)
5.02 & 5.03 -08: Multiple Input Complexity Reduction – Before & After
66
5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification (Contd..)
5.02 & 5.03 -09: Identifying & Reduction of NVA - Before & After
Partners/CSR PC Team CAC Team PC Team Partner / Customer
Eligibility & reduced duplicate input validation checks performed by PC &
CAC Team
Creation of CAC claim in Pandora or claim move
into the next activity
Validation & BOM verification by CAC team
Raise unclean input queries like
missing/incorrect info to FE/PC by CAC team
Part # confirmation & Manual component
availability checks by la-scala or CAC team
Waiting time on Finance/SME approval &
create NCO send to factory
NCO reference & ETA confirmation provided
550
Average Volume/Month
CAC Process Efficiency VA Time (mins) NVA Time (mins) VA Time (mins) NVA Time (mins)
Analyze CAC eligibility criteria before submitting the claim 8 0 8 0
Basic input validation checks performed by PC team 5 6 5 3
Create new CAC task in Pandora tool or move into next activity 4 7 4 0
Validation checks and BOM verification by the CAC team 3 6 5 3
CAC team raise query on missing/incorrect info to FE & PC teams 4 6 4 1
Part # confirmation from Eng. Team & rechecking with PC team 6 7 8 0
Manual component availability check with factory teams by la-scala 5 0 5 0
Waiting for Finance/SME exception approval for ageing claim etc 8 9 8 2
Creation of NCO & communicate to Partner, CSR's & PC teams 6 7 7 3
Total Time (mins) 49 48 54 12 Total Lead Time (VA + NVA) mins 97 66
Process Efficiency (VA/Total Lead Time) mins 51% 82%
Reduced
NVA
Reduced
NVA
Reduced
NVA
Key Callouts
Reduction in NVA activities
Improved from 51% to 82%
Eliminated Multiple touch points
Waiting time reduction with dependency teams
16 Min
Before
After 4 Min 5 Min 8 Min 13 Min 13 Min 7 Min
19 Min 9 Min 10 Min 18 Min 20 Min 10 Min 11 Min
67
35
5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification (Contd..)
5.02 & 5.03 -10: Computing CAC – E2E Process Flow Before Computing CAC – Current Process f low
Cust
omer
/
Partn
erPh
ysica
l Cla
ims
CSR/
OSPD
R te
amBU
App
rova
l
Fact
ory/
LogC
oOn
site
Engi
neer
ing
Customer request to CSR
CAC Request
Eligibility
Check3W / PEC WW
Validation
Missing Info/
CSR Manager/OS
Approval
Clarification Information
CAC logged in Pandora
Validation of claims
Missing Info
Unclean inputComponent
Availability
Part #
ConfirmationPDR cost
>1K
NCO
Creation
Onsite
BU/ SME
Approval
Onsite Support
ITRC
<10
Units
BES
>10
Units
RejectNo
Logistics
Delivery
Check & provide
6:3 PN
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Ageing
Approval
Yes
Factory
Confirmation
Focus areas, impacting the E2E Cycle time • Hands off b/w multiple teams • Long ETA from factory end
• Multiple queries & waiting time with
CSR/FE teams • Engineering Team dependency
• Delay in TNT Shipments delivery
• Lack of Onsite governance & backlog
monitoring • Delay in BU/SME approval and different
level of approver’s list
68
5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification (Contd..)
5.02 & 5.03 -11: Computing CAC – E2E Process Flow After Computing CAC – Current Process f low
Cust
omer
/
Partn
erPh
ysica
l cla
ims
CSR/
OSCA
C HUB
BU
App
rova
l
Fact
ory/
LogC
oOn
site
Engi
neer
ing
Customer request to CSR
CAC Request
Eligibility
Check
3W / PEC WW
Clarification Information
Claim is moved
to La-scala
Missing Info
E2E ValidationComponent
Availability
Part #
ConfirmationPDR cost
>1K
NCO
Creation
Onsite
EMR Manager
Approval
Onsite Support
ITRC
<10
Units
BES
>10
Units
RejectYes
Logistics
Delivery
Part # Check in
Pulsar tool
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
NoNo
Yes
No
Factory
Confirmation
Eliminated
E2E Process Re-Engineering to improve Cycle time:
CAC+PDR Process Merger
CSR’s mandatory Input Template
ODM shipments changed from Standard to Express
Complete Engineering activity are managed by Ops
Established Robust governance & case id monitoring
Fixed TNT NCO Shipments for the Customs Countries
Cost approval directly from EMR Manager
CSR Manager/ OS & SME approval’s are Passive now
SCOAH Knowledge gap 69
36
5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification (Contd..)
5.02 & 5.03 -12: Improve Phase: Validation of Results -CSR Delay and Query Reduction
70
5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification (Contd..)
5.02 & 5.03 -13: Improve Phase: Validation of Results – Engineering Activity Hand over & Query Management
Key Callouts
Virtual training provided to CAC Team
Knowledge transfer done by Stephane Lelong
Part# clarification - Average waiting time of 3 days had been avoided
Reduced multiple reminders/queries email exchanges
Avoided Non Value added steps like performing checks in Wizpart, MYPIM, SAP applications
Only Asset tag ‘Sub PN/Template’ checks is currently dependent with Rene & team
AfterBefore
40
30
20
10
0
Co
un
t f
o Q
uerie
s
21.4
1.25
Engineering Queries raised month on month - Befor & After
71
37
5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification (Contd..)
5.02 & 5.03 -14: Improve Phase: Validation of Results – iQor Factory - Improvement
72
5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification (Contd..)
5.02 & 5.03 -15: Improve Phase: Validation of Results – Onsite Support - Improvement
73
38
5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification (Contd..)
5.02 & 5.03 -16: Improve Phase: Validation of Results – TNT Shipments Customs Issue Improvement
74
Section 5.04: Results
75
Item/Sub Item Content Slide No
5.04-01 Results Achieved: Improved Process Stability of E2E Cycle time( Primary Metric) 76
5.04-02 Results Achieved: Process Capability of CAC E2E Cycle time ( primary Metric) Before and After 77
5.04-03 Results Achieved – Reduction of CAC Rejection %(Secondary Metric) Post Improvement 78
5.04-04 Results Achieved – Process Capability of CAC Rejection%(Secondary Metric) Before and After 79
5.04-05 Benefit Realized In dollars 80
39
5.04: Results 5.04-01: Results Achieved: Improved Process Stability of E2E Cycle time( Primary Metric)
• Improved Process Stability
Operational Definition of
Metric
No of days taken for the CAC claim processing (customer reported date till the closure) @ 90% Fill rate
Data Type Continuous
Time Frame Monthly – Sep’2017 to Feb’2018
Process Stability Statement
There is no any special causes observed, which indicates it’s a stable process
Normality Check Null hypothesis is that the data are normally distributed. With a P-Value > 0.05, fail to reject the null hypothesis, and accept that the data are normal.
Data Transformation
None required
Feb'18Jan'18Dec'17Nov'17Oct'17Sep'17
25.0
22.5
20.0
17.5
15.0
Month
Days
_X=21.17
UCL=25.95
LCL=16.38
I Chart of E2E cycle time - After
p= 0.708
Due to logistic issues in
Dec’17 & Early Jan’18. We
see bit upward. This
issue is sorted out now.
76
5.04: Results(Contd..)
5.04-02: Results Achieved: Process Capability of CAC E2E Cycle time ( primary Metric) Before and After
Key Inference
77% reduction in the task, which are out of USL. 77
40
5.04: Results (Contd..)
5.04-03: Results Achieved – Reduction of CAC Rejection %(Secondary Metric) Post Improvement
Operational Definition of Metric
No of CAC rejected against the total number of CAC claims received for the respective month
Data Type Attribute
Time Frame Monthly – Sep’2017 to Feb’2018
Process Stability Statement
Process is almost stable with one special cause and it’s due to the low CAC rejection in Month of Feb’18. * Delay from the Asian factory confirmation, due to Chinese new year in Feb’18
Normality Check Null hypothesis is that the data are normally distributed. With a P-Value > 0.05, fail to reject the null hypothesis, and accept that the data are normal.
Data Transformation
None required
Feb'18Jan'18Dec'17Nov'17Oct'17Sep'17
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
Month
Pro
po
rtio
n _P=0.04351
UCL=0.07415
LCL=0.012871
P Chart of CAC Rejected_After
Tests are performed with unequal sample sizes.
78
5.04: Results (Contd..) 5.04-04: Results Achieved – Process Capability of CAC Rejection%(Secondary Metric) Before and After
Key Inference:
40% reduction in the overall Rejection rate. 79
41
5.04: Results (Contd..) 5.04-05: Benefit Realized In dollars
80
Section 5.05: Maintaining the Gains
81
Item/Sub Item Content Slide No
5.05-01 Control Plan to Maintain the Improvements 82
5.05-02 Control Phase: Monitoring the CAC E2E Cycle time(primary metric) Using I Chart 83
5.05-03 Control Phase: Monitoring the CAC Rejection %(Secondary Metric) Using P Chart 84
42
5.05: Maintaining the Gains
83
EMEA Computing CAC Claims - Control Plan
Category Task/Action Control Plan Owner Start Date / Frequency Target / Expected Performance
Value Corrective
Action
Metric performance monitoring
Measure the number of days taken to fulfill a CAC from the Customer/Partner claimed till Closed
Check that the 90% of CAC’s are closed within 23 days are within specification
Saravanan M/ Rajesh(Backup)
January’2018
CAC’s Closed @ 90% fill rate within 23 days
Investigate root cause(s) for deviation
Monthly Define and implement corrective action(s)
Metric performance monitoring
Measure the number of Rejected PDR's, against the total PDR closed for the month
Check that the rejection rate of PDR's are within the defined specification
Saravanan M/ Rajesh(Backup)
January’2018 Number of CAC’s rejection %
<= 5.6% in comparison with the total CAC’s closed for the respective month
Investigate root cause(s) for deviation
Monthly Define and implement corrective action(s)
PC & CAC Co-ordinators knowledge sharing
Sessions will be held to discuss on the process changes & other findings
Based on the results from the metrics detect the ¨main¨ contributor for the delay and provide the training
Rajesh & Bahampriyal (Backup)
Febrauary’2018
100% accuracy on the Input & Output of the PDR claim
Investigate root cause(s) for deviation
Weekly Define and implement corrective action(s)
5.05-01: Control Plan to Maintain the Improvements
82
5.05: Maintaining the Gains (Contd..)
5.05-02: Control Phase: Monitoring the CAC E2E Cycle time(primary metric) Using I Chart
Two-Sample T-Test and CI: E2E CAC Cycle time Before & After Two-sample T for E2E cycle time Before vs E2E cycle time After N Mean StDev SE Mean E2E cycle time Before 15 29.43 5.87 1.5 E2E cycle time After 6 21.17 1.47 0.60 Difference = μ (E2E cycle time Before) - μ (E2E cycle time After) Estimate for difference: 8.26 95% CI for difference: (4.82, 11.70) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs >): T-Value = 5.07 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 17
Using 2-Sample T-Test on iQor TAT, with a null and alternative hypothesis of: H0: mean before = mean after HA: mean before > mean after gives a P-Value = 0.000, which is < 0.05. Therefore, at a 95% confidence level, we reject the null hypothesis and the improvement is confirmed statistically.
83
43
5.05: Maintaining the Gains (Contd..)
5.05-03: Control Phase: Monitoring the CAC Rejection %(Secondary Metric) Using P Chart
Test and CI for Two Proportions Sample X N Sample p 1 12 15 0.800000 2 0 6 0.000000 Difference = p (1) - p (2) Estimate for difference: 0.8 95% CI for difference: (0.597576, 1) Test for difference = 0 (Vs >0): Z = 7.75 P-Value = 0.000
Using a Two-Proportion Test, with a null and alternative hypothesis of: H0: proportion of CAC Rejected before< = proportion of CAC Rejected HA: proportion of CAC Rejected before > proportion of CAC Rejected After improvement gives a P-Value = 0.000 < 0.05. Therefore, at a 95% confidence level, we reject the null hypothesis and the improvement is confirmed statistically.
Delay from Asian factory ,due to
Chinese New year
84
Section 5.06: Project Communications
85
Item/Sub Item Content Slide No
5.06-01 Executive summary of Improvement communicated to stakeholders 86
5.06-02 Snap Shot of Mails communication mails 87
44
5.06: Project Communications 5.06-01: Executive summary of Improvement communicated to stakeholders
86
Project Title: CAC -E2E Cycle time Improvement
Description: Identify and implement deliverables which will decrease the unclean lines.
Alignment to Strategic Objectives : $ claims return avoidance & TCE
Total Estimated Project Savings: Hard savings : $419K
Two-Sample T-Test and CI: E2E cycle time Before, E2E cycle time
After
N Mean StDev SE Mean
E2E cycle time Before 15 29.43 5.87 1.5
E2E cycle time After 6 21.17 1.47 0.60
Difference = μ (E2E cycle time Before) - μ (E2E cycle
time After)
Estimate for difference: 8.26
95% CI for difference: (4.82, 11.70)
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs ≠): T-Value = 5.07
P-Value = 0.000
Test and CI for Two Proportions
Sample X N Sample p
1 12 15 0.800000
2 0 6 0.000000
Difference = p (1) - p (2)
Estimate for difference: 0.8
95% CI for difference: (0.597576, 1)
Test for difference = 0 (vs ≠ 0): Z = 7.75
P-Value = 0.000
Using a Two-Proportion Test, with a null and
alternative hypothesis of:
H0: proportion of CAC Rejected before< =
proportion of CAC Rejected
HA: proportion of CAC Rejected before >
proportion of CAC Rejected After
improvement gives a P-Value = 0.000 < 0.05.
Therefore, at a 95% confidence level, we reject
the null hypothesis.
The improvement is confirmed statistically.
Using 2-Sample T-Test on E2E cycle time,
with a null and alternative hypothesis of:
H0: mean before = mean after
HA: mean before > mean after
gives a P-Value = 0.000, which is < 0.05.
Therefore, at a 95% confidence level, we
reject the null hypothesis. The improvement is
confirmed statistically.
5.06: Project Communications 5.06-02: Snap Shot of Mails communication mails
Recognition from L2 & L3 Leader’s- HP Supply Chain Project Closure & Certification Note to all Stakeholders
87
45