Six Sigma Project :

Quality
 D M A I C
Understanding VOC
Customer Customer Comments Customer (CTQ's)

The objective is to maximize the process level

Champion Assistant Vice quality and raise the overall quality of the Number of agents
President process without compromising on the process meeting target
productivity. I expect at least 85% percent of
my associate population to meet or exceed the
Process Productivity
process quality.

Process Manager I am looking towards a target of 85% of my Number of Agetns meeting

agent population meeting or exceeding the target
quality target. This project will lead to
increasing the Quality /Efficiency/Client Client satisfaction
satisfaction
Efficiency
 Project Charter D M A I C

Project Leader: Vivek kumar Team Members

Stakeholders Business Leader

Champion Vice President
Sponsor Assistant Vice President
Business Case:
ABC Ltd is a one of the leading recruiting & consulting company. They have
back end canter in Gurgaon. One of the Acoount Payable process which is
migrated in March12 not meeting the process Quality SLA target Its been
now 3 months and there is no Improvement in the process performance,
LBB
looking for Immediate actions to Improve the performance. As an outcome Mithlesh Nautiyal
this will have an impact on potential business.

Team Member Pradeep

Problem Statement: For the period March 2012 to May 2012 the Goal Statement: To increase the median value for the overall
average quality score for the process was 75.43% against a target of 85%.
Quality of the process from 75.4% (monthly) to at least 85% by
Currently 117 agents) out of the total population (181) are not meeting the
Quality Target .
30th Aug2012

Timelines/Phases Start Date End Date

Project In Scope: 1. Associates in production effective March Start date: 1st June2012 -
2012
DEFINE 1st June2012 6thJune2012
Project Out of Scope: 1. Associates in training as on March2012 MEASURE 7th June2012 th
10 June2012
2. Any new work or queue added effective March 2012 ANALYZE 11th June2012 12th July2012
IMPROVE 13th July2012 30th July 2012
CONTROL 1st Aug2012 30th Aug2012
 ARMI and Communication Plan D M A I C

Key ARMI Worksheet

Stakeholders
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
Stakeholders I I I I I
Sponsor I I I I I
Champion I&A I&A I&A I&A I&A
LBB I&R I&R I&R I&R I&R
Process Manager I&M I&M I&M I&M I&M
Vivek kumar R R R R R

Communication Plan
Information Or Activity Target Audience Information Channel Who When

Project Status Leadership E-mails Pradeep BI-Weekly

Tollgate Review BB,LBB & Champion E-mails or Meetings Pradeep As per Project Plan
Project Deliverables or
Members Emails, Meetings Pradeep Weekly
Activities

A Approval of team decisions I.e., sponsor, business leader, MBB.

R Resource to the team, one whose expertise, skills, may be needed on an ad-hoc basis.
M Member of team whose expertise will be needed on a regular basis.
I Interested party, one who will need to be kept informed on direction, findings.
 D M A I C
CTQ Tree
Percentage of Quality
Parameters met by each
Quality improvement advisor per week.
monthly/daily/weekly/ag
ent wise??
85% weekly quality
score per advisor
(Target)

Improvement in
Process Quality CTQs 85%
(Lower Specification
Limit)

Weekly Audit Score less

than 85%
(Defect Definition)

Weekly
(Opportunity)
 COPIS
D M A I C

ABC Ltd
 Data Collection Plan D M A I C

Specification
Project-Y Operational Definition Defect Def Performance Std Limit Opportunity
LSL USL
Weekly Audit
Improvement in Percentage of Quality Parameters 85% weekly quality
Score less than 85% NA Weekly
Process Quality met by each advisor per week. score
85%

Plan to
Plan to collect Data
sample

What
When will When is the
Data Data Items Formula to be Database Is this an
Project-Y Unit the new planned
Type Needed used will be existing Date
database start date
used to database Range
be ready for data
record or new?
for use? collection?
the data?

Improvement in Total calls 1 Total (No of successful audits

Already June12
Process Quality Discrete audited in a Defects/Total / Total no of audits) Excel Yes NA
*100
started to Aug12
Monthly target week opportunities
Measurement of Efficiency and Effectiveness of Data D M A I C

Agreement 98.78% Number of Number of

Data Type Sample size
Disagreement 1.22% Operators Opportunities 181
2 Discrete 181 Defects 117
DPU 0.6022099
PPM 602209.9

The above sample size of 181 transaction has been evaluated by 2 different evaluators
and the variance between the 2 evaluators is pretty low as they both are in agreement
up to a level of 98.78% which is enough to conclude that the evaluation scores are
accurate and precise
 Current Capability D M A I C

Defect
Opportunities Number of units Total number of defects Defects per unit PPM Sigma
per unit

1 181 117 60.22 602209.9 1.76

Current sigma level of the process is 1.76

 Stability D M A I C

There is clustering and

trends in the data

P-Value is less than 0.05

P-Value is greater than 0.05

The data is free from

mixtures and oscillations

The above patterns suggest that the variation observed is due to "special causes and
further investigation needs to be done to ascertain the causes of trends and clusters.
 Normality Test D M A I C

Based on the above Normality test it can be said that the data is non normal as the
p value is less THAN 0.05.
 Graphical Summary D M A I C

Normality P value is < 0.005

Shape of data Non-Normal
Since the data is non-normal so the
measure of central tendency will be
median = 0.7543

Stability factor = Q1/Q3

Stability factor = 0.55779//0.90500 =

0.6164

On the basis of the above summary the project shall aim at shifting the central tendency
and reduction in variation. Stability factor is 0.61
 D M A I C
Box Plot (Shift Wise)
Target

It has been observed that there is a high variation in Night shift employees compare to
Morning & Evening shift employee. Also there is an outlier in night shift.
 D M A I C

Box Plot (Gender Wise)

Target

It has been observed that there is variation in the Male and Female employees.
Female employees has high performance issues.
Spread of Data D M A I C
 D M A I C

Organizing Potential Causes

All these factors affecting the overall quality score have been identified through
brainstorming with all the stakeholders
 D M A I C
Proposed tests as per the factors
S.No Measure Type Data Type Operational Definition Type of Test

Percentage of Quality
1 Quality Score Y Discrete Parameters met by each
advisor per week

Advisor's Team leader Chi Square Cross

2 Team Leader X Discrete
profiling tabulation
Call scoring parameters
as defined Chi Square Cross
3 Shift X Discrete
tabulation
in the Quality form
Advisor's Trainer Chi Square Cross
4 Trainer X Discrete
profiling tabulation
Marital Status Record of Chi Square Cross
5 Gender X Discrete
the Employee tabulation
Employee's Age as per
6 Age X Continous B.L.R Test
HR Records
Experience type as per
7 X Discrete Chi-sq Test
Experience Type HR record
Highest Educational
Qualification of an Chi Square Cross
8 X Discrete
Employee as per HR tabulation
Qualification Records
As per process Chi Square cross
9 Process Complexity X Discrete
definitions Tabulation
 D M A I C
Statistically Significant Xs
Relationship between Quality Scores and Experience Type Relationship between Quality Scores and Shift

Chi-Square Test (Cross Tabulation) Chi-Square Test (Cross Tabulation)

Pearson Chi-Square = 88.160, DF = 93, P-Value = 0.623 Pearson Chi-Square = 34.324, DF = 62, P-Value = 0.998
Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square = 115.956, DF = 93, P-Value = 0.054 Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square = 37.841, DF = 62, P-Value = 0.993

Since , P value is >0.05 , we thus

Since , P value is >0.05 , we thus
conclude that There is no significant
conclude that There is no significant
relationship between Experience Type
relationship between Shift and Quality
profiling and Quality Score
Score
 D M A I C
Statistically Significant Xs
Relationship between Quality Scores and Team Leader Relationship between Quality Scores and Trainer

Chi-Square Test (Cross Tabulation) Chi-Square Test (Cross Tabulation)

Pearson Chi-Square = 0.383, DF = 4, P-Value = 0.984 Pearson Chi-Square = 0.881, DF = 3, P-Value = 0.830
Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square = 0.384, DF = 4, P-Value = 0.984 Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square = 0.875, DF = 3, P-Value = 0.831

Since , P value is >0.05 , we thus Since , P value is >0.05 , we thus

conclude that there is no conclude that there is no
significant relationship between significant relationship between
Quality Score and Team Leader Quality Score and Trainer
 D M A I C
Statistically Significant Xs
Relationship between Quality Scores and Age

Binary Logistic Regression: Met/Not Met versus Age

Link Function: Logit

Response Information

Variable Value Count

Met/Not Met Good 64 (Event)
Bad 117
Total 181

Logistic Regression Table

Odds 95% CI
Predictor Coef SE Coef Z P Ratio Lower Upper
Constant -0.551695 0.818219 -0.67 0.500
Age -0.0019486 0.0303466 -0.06 0.949 1.00 0.94 1.06

Log-Likelihood = -117.583
Test that all slopes are zero: G = 0.004, DF = 1, P-Value = 0.949

Since, P value is > 0.05 , that means there is no

significant relationship between Quality Scores and Age
 D M A I C
Statistically Significant Xs
Relationship between Quality Scores and Gender Relationship between Quality Scores and Qualification

Chi-Square Test (Cross Tabulation) Chi-Square Test (Cross Tabulation)

Pearson Chi-Square = 6.394, DF = 1, P-Value = 0.011
Pearson Chi-Square = 0.177, DF = 2, P-Value = 0.915
Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square = 6.385, DF = 1, P-Value = 0.012
Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square = 0.179, DF = 2, P-Value = 0.914

Since, P value is < 0.05 , that Since , P value is >0.05 , we thus

means there is a significant conclude that there is no
relationship between Quality significant relationship between
score and Gender Quality score and Qualification
 D M A I C
Statistically Significant Xs
Relationship between Quality Scores and Process complexity

Chi-Square Test (Cross Tabulation)

Pearson Chi-Square = 0.005, DF = 1, P-Value = 0.943

Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square = 0.005, DF = 1, P-Value = 0.943

Since, P value is < 0.05 , that means there is a significant

relationship between Quality score and Process Complexity
 D M A I C
Summary of Statistical Analysis
S.No Measure Type Data Type Operational Definition Type of Test P Value Conclusion

Percentage of Quality Parameters

1 Quality Score Y Discrete No significant relationship
met by each advisor per week

Chi Square Cross

2 Team Leader X Discrete Advisor's Team leader profiling No significant relationship
tabulation
0.984
Chi Square Cross
3 Shift X Discrete Call scoring parameters as defined No significant relationship
tabulation
0.993
Chi Square Cross
4 Trainer X Discrete Advisor's Trainer profiling No significant relationship
tabulation
0.831
Marital Status Record of the Chi Square Cross
5 Gender X Discrete
Employee tabulation
0.012 Significant relationship
6 Age X Continous Employee's Age as per HR Records B.L.R Test 0.949 No significant relationship

Chi Square Cross

7 X Discrete Experience type as per HR record No significant relationship
tabulation
Experience Type 0.54
Highest Educational Qualification Chi Square Cross
8 X Discrete No significant relationship
of an Employee as per HR Records tabulation
Qualification 0.914
Chi Square cross
9 Process Complexity X Discrete As per process definitions No significant relationship
Tabulation
0.943

Highlighted factors will be worked upon in the next phase

 D M A I C
Summarizing Findings on Root Causes

Cause Root cause

While doing the Brainstorming with the team It has been

Process Knowledge observed that there is a difference in the understanding.
Certain process concepts are not clear.

It has been observed after doing the Brainstorming that

there is no formal procedure for ongoing updation of the
Process Documentation
process query & resolutions. There is no central approach
for the same.
 D M A I C

Quality Function Deployment

Action Items for Quality Function Deployment
Cause Improvement Action Responsibility

Weekly Refresher Trainings

Process Trainer
Process Knowledge Weekly Assessment Process Trainer
Use cheat sheets to roll out updates Quality Analyst
Best practice sharing by top associates Team Leader
Specific session for Bottom Performer Quality Analyst

An update dismintaiton process needs to

be in place so that all the queries
resoltuion can be captured at common
location
Quality Analyst

Process Documentation Paste case documentation guidelines

workstations

Team Leader
Team huddles to include case
documentation discussion Team Leader
Roll out cheat sheets for documentation
for top issues Quality Analyst
 D M A I C

Failure Mode Effect Analysis

RMS (Risk
Severity Occurance Detection RPN (Risk RTP (Risk
Actionable Items Failure Mode Effect Management Responsibility Start Date End Date
(1-10) (1-10) (1-10) Priority No.) Treatment Plan)
Strategy)
Different
Non Availability of concern Hiring not having the
Hiring Criteria 9 9 3 243 Reduce applicants short Recruitment Team 1/7/2012 1/8/2012
resource desired benefits
listed
Applied candidates not Speeding the
Hiring delay 8 8 3 192 Reduce Recruitment Team 1/7/2012 1/8/2012
meeting the requirements hiring the process
Creating the
Interview panel not aware of Not getting the correct awarness by
9 4 2 72 Transfer Recruitment Team 1/7/2012 1/8/2012
requirement resource Knowledge
Transfer
Creating awarness
Reward on experience Retainment issue No resource to deliver 9 3 2 54 Reduce on experience Talent acq. Team 1/7/2012 15/07/2012
program

Non satisified Experienced Creating the HR-Operations

Motive not fullfilled 9 5 1 45 Reduce 1/7/2012 15/07/2012
staffs Motivated Staffs Team
Wrong resource on Updating the
Wrong data base 9 2 1 18 Reduce Database Team 1/7/2012 15/07/2012
Stage existing Data

Creating awarness
HR-Operations
Experience Sharing Session Retainment issue No resource to deliver 9 3 1 27 Reduce on experience 10/7/2012 28/07/2012
Team
Sharing program

Creating awarness
Wrong resource on HR-Operations
Wrong data base 7 5 2 70 Reduce on experience 10/7/2012 28/07/2012
Stage Team
Sharing program

All updates does not come to

Creating awarness
team Manager and difficult to Process steps can be HR-Operations
Update tracking process 5 6 1 30 Reduce on experience 10/7/2012 20/7/2012
keep a track from each missed Team
Sharing program
individual

Impact on team Creating awarness

Lack of knowledge amogts the HR-Operations
performance (Quality of 6 7 1 42 Reduce on experience 10/7/2012 20/7/2012
team Team
work) Sharing program

Not getting the

Development Plan for Creating awarness
Awarness missing on Plan information on 7 5 1 35 Reduce Recruitment Team 10/7/2012 30/07/2012
communication on plan
resources
New Mode of communication No idea of new mode 7 2 3 42 Reduce Getting trained Recruitment Team 10/7/2012 30/07/2012

Revisit Screening
Local Hiring No trained localist Delay in hiring 7 2 1 14 Reduce Recruitment Team 10/7/2012 30/07/2012
process

Out stationed candidates Revisit Screening

failure of objective 8 3 2 48 Reduce Recruitment Team 10/7/2012 30/07/2012
turned up as localist process
 Pilot Run Snapshot D M A I C

We decided to conduct 50 random audits in the team.

Quality Analyst has conducted 20 quality checks each per Team leader (Stratified Sampling)

1 transaction was monitored per week for each associate

Audits were conducted for both top and bottom performers (Based on Historical Data)

2 different quality analyst have given the audit task to gauge the variance as well.

Quality monitoring has been done for 5 days and the daily findings were reported
to the Quality Manager.

Observations before and while conducting the pilot tests for the
sample population
There is a lack of process knowledge
Majority of the agents were not aware of different SLAs in the process.
Timely feedback post any audit has was not being delivered
A centralized update sharing process is not in place.
Work allocation mechanism need to improve which will help the agent to have optimize work load.
 Pilot Observation D M A I C

Below is the comparison of Pilot run results and Historical data which clearly evident that both
variation and of outliers has significantly gone down after the Implementation of Improvement
plan.
 Pilot Observation D M A I C

Based on the chart given below it is concluded that the action items implemented have significantly benefited the sample
population as the number of defects has considerably decreased and the population under Good is higher than Bad

Findings

Team is now up-to-date with current process updates & query resolutions.
There is no repetition of any of the top errors which was noted previously.
Centralized process is established to capture the ongoing updates for the proce
 D M A I C

Box Plot Comparison (Shift wise)

The above box plot depicts the Shift wise improvement in Quality
Scores
 D M A I C

Box Plot Comparison (Gender Wise)

Improvement can also be seen amongst both male and female

employees
 Graphical Summary D M A I C

Stability factor = Q1/Q3 Stability factor = Q1/Q3

Stability factor =.55/.91= 0.61 Stability factor = 88/91 = 0.967

The above graphical summary clearly shows the shift of median as the median has now
exceeded the target of 85% whereas previously median was below target.
 D M A I C

Box Plot Comparison (Overall Quality)

Finally we can see that the overall Quality of the process has
increased from an average of 70.83% to an improved figure of 90.50%
 D M A I C

Stability for Quality

It has been observed there is improvement in the process stability

 CONTROL PLAN D M A I C

Reasons
(If Not
Actionable Items Periodicity Owner Status Done) Impact
RnR - SPOT award intiated for
Weekly Team Leader
the top performer of the week
Quality score weightage has
been increased for agent's Monthly/Ongoing Sr Manager and Manager
monthly performance
Process knowledge test will be
conducted on monthly basis
Monthly/Ongoing Trainer & Team Leader
Test scores will be a criteria
for monthly performance
Test scores will be a criteria Quality Evaluator & Team
Monthly/Ongoing
for monthly performance Leader
Callibration process has been
intiated between client and
Team Leader. This will ensure Monthly/Ongoing Team Leader & Client team
the adequate process
understanding

Menter - Mantiee programme

has been established for
Bottom performer and new Ongoing Quality Evaluator & TL
joinees

Process Manager is responsible to update and publish the control plan to the Sr
Manager and all interested parties.
 D M A I C

Capability Analysis (Post implementation)

Defect
Total number of
Opportunities per Number of units Defects per unit PPM Sigma
defects
unit

1 181 17 0.9392265 93922.65 2.82

Sigma level of the process is now at 2.82

Thanks