cem fnb case study ~ by iq business
TRANSCRIPT
consulting | research | contracting
Certified Process Professional Forum
Case Study: FNB Collateral
17 September 2015
2
Background• The client: The Collateral team within FNB Core Lending Products (overdrafts/loans for small business)
• The brief: Review existing business processes, to find process improvements
• Key drivers:
› Reduce the time it takes to provide their client with the requested funding
› Free up operational capacity (to process more business)
› Keep operating costs low
• Suggested approach: focus on improving the client experience, i.e. apply the CEMMethod®.
• 18 work processes in total, 2 to be chosen as the key focus areas
• A two-week consulting engagement was planned, consisting of:
› A set of facilitated, participative workshops
› Documentation of workshop output, including a list of agreed action items
3
4
Workshop approach• Workshop participation:
› Head of the Collateral area
› Three team leads
› A number of other team members joined at various stages of the workshops
• Time pressures:
› Workshops condensed from full days into 4-hour slots
› Additional pre-work by IQ Business (understand process documentation, identify break-points and
business rules, pre-print on cards)
5
Results• Client Understanding
• Two types of customer were identified, each with a distinct set of needs (relating to overdrafts loans):
› The ambitious entrepreneur with a focus on growing his business
› The struggling business owner with a cashflow issue, focusing on keeping his business going
• The overall Successful Customer Outcome: “Keeping your business going and growing”
• Internal customers acknowledged: Business Manager, Credit and Collections, but focus was maintained on aligning to the primary, external (paying) customer.
• To-Be Design
• Based on the two most prominent collateral types:
› Property
› Insurance policies
• Action Plans
• Short-term quick wins as well as longer term strategic actions:
› 7 quick wins
› 4 medium / longer-term initiatives
› 7 Initiatives already underway
• All actions evaluated for following benefits:
› Customer experience improvement
› Cost saving
› Potential revenue generating opportunities
• MOT’s :
• Down from 40 to 30 for the more complex design (property as collateral)
6
Challenges and Learning• CEMMethod® as opposed to the traditional DMAIC or similar approaches
• Emphasising the difference in approaches
› CEMMethod® is much faster, since it focuses on getting to a list of improvements, as opposed to over-analysing existing detail and documenting what would soon be “the way we used to do things” (planned six workshops, covered all the necessary work in four workshops)
› CEMMethod® is participative
• Pro’s and con’s of using the actual process documentation instead of creating the as-is map in the workshop
› Very internally focused – no customer on the map
› Not reflective of timeline
› Separate functions as opposed to a sequence of events to achieve an outcome
› No guarantee that what is documented is actually done in that way
• Getting the right people in the room for the workshops – motivating for a representative from “upstream” and “downstream”
• Trusting the process – discomfort about whether this approach is going to get the expected results
• Overcoming the internal focus and belief that operations areas exist only to service internal clients
• Scoping and topic selection for workshops
• Trying to fit what seemed like 18, non-sequential, internally focused processes (as per the documentation) into the time available for the workshops
• Focus areas emerged as we started brainstorming the most common customer interactions in the actual workshops
• Resistance to team participation
• Overcoming the hesitance to “taking people off the line” and risk loss of processing time
• Realising that all participants were able to add value, by contributing insights as well as solutions
• Re-invigorating the team – team building, motivation, empowerment, owning and driving improvements