hd supply - gold winner (notes pages)

1

The Voice of the Customer (VOC) Project

Sheri G. EspinozaDirector, Customer Care

American Society for Quality (ASQ) World Conference on Quality and Improvement

May 18-20, 2009Minneapolis, MN

Kaye Stambaugh Vice President, Customer Care

Ayesha BasheerManager, Quality Leader

2

HD Supply FM BusinessWho are we?

• Phone/Fax/Internet/EDI Ordering

• Multi-site Call Center– 600+ seats in TX– 300 + seats in SD– 30+ seats in VA • 300 Dedicated Delivery Trucks

• 35+ Distribution Centers• 300 National and

Field Acct Managers

• B2B Wholesale Distributor of Maintenance products• Annual catalog features 18,000+ products

Leading supplier of maintenance, repair & operation s products

Formally, Home Depot Supply, HD Supply is the market leader in wholesale distribution of maintenance products to the multi-family customer segment. Distributing over 18K products to over 22K customers nationwide and also in Canada.

Key features of Our Business

Next-day delivery

One-stop shop for more than 18,000 products

In-stock guarantee

Dedicated fleet of delivery trucks

Extensive field sales and national account team

Product technical support and special orders

Fabrication and renovation services

Training programs

Customer advocate center

Online solutions

3

Over 3 decades grown from a multi-Million $ company to a multi-Billion $ company . . . Need to continue Customer/Personalized focus, but also ‘scale’ for operations

Why was there a need for a VOC?

Maintenance Warehouse

Single Owner

1971-1997

Competitive advantage - Personalized Customer ‘touch ’

Home Depot

Wholesale arm

Hughes Acquisition

2006

VOC

Oct 06

Launch

April 07

Implementation

Aug 2007 to Present

HD Supply FM

VOC

VOC – Integrated into Business

1997 -2007

$M

Private Equity Owners

$B

Rapid growth and change over years, left a void in the personalized touch aspect of the business. The business wanted to streamline the process of de cision making and drive back customer centricity. Therefore, a Voice of the Customer (VOC) project was born as a DESIGN project.

The project was developed using Six Sigma Methodology DMADV

Project Launched In Oct 2006

Project Verified/ Implemented Apr 2007

Since April 2007 VOC has supported business through Integration/ SAP releases or where customer feedback is captured.

4

Voice of the Customer (VOC) Team

VOC Customer Advocate Team Customer Feedback- Data capture Team

Teaming up for Success

VOC Captain Team Cross-functional Business Team

The story of the VOC project begins with 3 associates, that extends out to form of a cross-functional business team. The VOC Captain team is made up of six functional areas represented by 20 process owners, 30 VOC Captains, 9 Advocates and 600+ Customer Service Reps (CSRs) spread across 5 locations who touch 600 unique customers each month (via VOC Survey).

The VOC Captains are set in a cross functional matrix, they are Subject Matter Experts/problem solvers representing their respective business functional team. The binding force between these team members is being “Customer Focused”.

VOC’s – Customer Advocate Team – Represented by 8 associates is responsible for, data collection, customer issue resolution and root cause analysis. These associates are the ‘front line’ who talk to customers everyday about escalated issues, things we are doing well and also areas that the business can be doing better.

5

Project Selection & Purpose

Section 1

Define Measure Analyze Design Verify

In the first section, we will discuss the initiation of the Voice of the Customer project, the project methodology used and its relevant importance to the business.

6

Overall Methodology Used - DFSS/DMADV



Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) was used for the VOC Pr ojectDMADV is a data-driven quality strategy for designi ng products and processes, and it is an integral part of a Six Sigma Quality Initia tive. DMADV consists of five interconnected phases: Define, Measure, Analyze, De sign, and Verify 1

1 http://www.isixsigma.com/dictionary/DMADV-56.htm

For the VOC Project, the standardized Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) methodology was used. This is a 6sigma methodology that can be used for the development of products/services from the basis of customer requirements it uses several sequential tools for the development of robust products/services.

The DFSS methodology relies on a heavy focus on the Type 1: Customer Quality - The features that customers want.

It is also used when there is lack of existing process or the current process does not support measurement.

7

1A.a Types of Data and Quality Tools Used to Select the VOC Project and why they were used?

Data/Quality Tool

Provide Solutions to customer complaints

Identify active hot issues in the field

Assess financial impact of poor service

Analyze concessions given for service failures

Baseline Customer Satisfaction/Loyalty

Analyze customer satisfaction

Why it was usedHow it was Used

Select tools and data illustrate the lack of data depository…

Perfect Order Survey

Concession Reports

Anecdotal Data

Define Measure Analyze Design VerifyVerify

1A.a By conducting a SIPOC, deficiencies were identified. The analysis of the current state, existing reports and infrastructure provided insight on various input and output to customer experience. The existing data/quality tools were not adequate in determining customer loyalty and taking action on areas of improvement. Here are some examples:

Perfect Order Survey. Analyzing the quantitative data of Customer Satisfaction from Perfect Order survey provided answers to the question “was your last order perfect?” Yes or No. It did not have clear drill down data to answer questions if “No”. Why, where, when, what etc.

If the customer complained about a service or requested resolution it was handled by third tier Customer Service Rep. support. The information that was logged had several deficiencies. The Field Sales Reps. did not support the process and content had serious quality issues.

Generic reports were produced to disseminate the information limited to high level distribution and mostly it did not make its way to the process owner.

The Customer Concession report , which had 4000 data points, also confirmed a gap in driving actionable reporting and identifying proces s improvement opportunities. Although data points were collected, they were not organized in a fashion that would drive action from the report given. Therefore, the business had a Customer Concession report that was not used to drive action.

Anecdotal Data. The subjective/qualitative data – collected through interviews with process owners to either develop SIPOC and map out AS- IS process maps also showed majority of the projects were run without assessing the impact on the customer. As a result there were constant corrective actions. For example, a corrective action in Merchandising impacted the normal operations of sales team and the end result was customer was confused or

8

1A.b Reasons Why the Project was Selected…contd

Enhance customer loyalty and drive business $ savings

1. Customer Touch points and alignment to all organi zational departments

2. Enhance customer loyalty via Customer Experience from start to finish

3. Develop infrastructure/ framework to promote cont inuous improvement

and cost savings

4. Prioritize improvements from customer need/requir ements


1A.b. The data analysis confirmed lack of a holistic appr oach to drive continuous improvements. The Functional silos limited the focu s on customer centricity. The information gathered from customer touch points was either irrelevant or not in a ready to use form. There was a need for a cohesive force that would bind customer feedback to customer touch points of the business. This project would drive the Customer Centricity in making business decisions.

In the existing structure, the information gathered from customer touch points was either irrelevant or not in a ready to use form to drive continuous process improvement. Hence the leadership wanted a new appr oach that would instill the focus on “Customer Experience” and drive continuous process improvements . This project was selected to drive the change and fill t his gap.

1A.b. We concluded from the initial assessment that current structure of data collection and reporting was not adequate to support the needs/direction of a customer driven organization. The information that existed did not lead to action.

There was also a need for a cohesive force that wou ld bind customer feedback to customer touch points of the business. This project would drive the Customer Centricity in making business decisions. The data analysis confirmed lack of a holistic approach to drive continuous improvements. The Functional silos also limited the focus on customer centric approach.

Hence the leadership wanted a new approach that wou ld instill the focus on “Customer Experience” and drive continuous process i mprovements . This project was selected to drive the change and fill this gap.

9

1A.b Reasons Why the Project was Selected

Project Selection Criteria Used

VOC: Critical To Customer Loyalty

VOB: Voice of Business ($)

VOT: Voice of Team

Feasibility (Likelihood of Success)

Leverage (Positive Impact on other Processes)

5

5

4

A Score of 2500 is a product of a selection criter ia

5

5

2500 Score

Scoring guidelines (scale 1-5)


Each Selection criteria had a scale of 1-5, with defined description

• 1 being lowest • 5 being highest

1A.b. The project was identified as main platform to iden tify/ develop process that would capture customer experience and drive improve ment. The team developed the scoring guidelines and it was ranked as one of the highest scoring project . Use of project selection criteria helped in prioritization and allocation of the resources. The ratings were assigned by the Sponsors and key leaders.

Selection Criteria had a scale of 1-5

VOC – Top quartile Supports first level of Critical to Quality (CTQ) attribute

VOB – Project Implementation will results in hard $ savings Revenue Increases and Direct Expense reductions of >$40K

VOT – Project Implementation will results in soft $ savings (cost avoidance, revenue retention, Capacity etc)

Feasibility – Low risk of implementation

Leverage – Project will result in significant Positive Impact on other processes

Since the project score was high supporting a busin ess need and alignment to organizational goals, the VOC Project was selected for immediate execution.

10

1A.c Involvement of Potential Stakeholders in Project Selection

SIPOC analysis was used to identify Stakeholders. Based on the role, their participation was aligned with various phases of the project

Internal Stakeholders

External Stakeholders

Executive LeadersRole: Project Selection

Functional Leaders, Process Owners , SME

Process Analysis, Brainstorming, Process validation, Root cause analysis

Customer Facing Teams

Training, Pilot,

Validation & Testing

Vendor Customers

Validation, Training, Testing


Define Measure Analyze Design Validate

6 Sigma BeltsRole: Project Execution

1A.c. In this section an overview of stakeholder involvement in project selection and their association and contribution at the various phases of projects is presented.

The Six Sigma Methodology, ensures that Stakeholders are identified in the Define phase. As the team completed SIPOC Analysis, potential sta keholders were identified. They were grouped under two sections: Internal and Exter nal. As the roles and responsibilities were defined, they were later alig ned with respective phase of the project and managed through an active communication plan and tollgates.

Pre – Define and Define Phase: Executive leadership – President, Vice Presidents representing all functional areas were actively eng aged in the selection and definition of criteria & policy.

Executive leaders representing functional areas spe arheaded in spreading the message about the project in the their respective a reas. They served as ambassadors of change.

In the later phases of the project other stakeholder participation increased.

Measure/Analyze/ Design/ Verify phases – Process owners and SME were actively engaged for process analysis, brainstorming solution, Multi voting etc

Implement Phase – Customer Facing teams were trained on root cause analysis methodology


Customer – Selection criteria was established to identify potential candidates to be surveyed. Research Analyst were involved to determine the criteria, Statistically significant sample size, reporting design, regression methodology for CTC assessment

Vendor – Was trained on root cause methodology for conducting survey

11

1B.a. Affected Organizational Goals/Performance Measures and Strategies

Per

form

ance

Mea

sure

s

A strong linkage shows a higher purpose of the proj ect

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Goa

lsO

rgan

izat

iona

l S

trat

egie

sCustomer Process Financial

�Expand verticals

�Remain the market leader with multifamily customers

World - classCustomer Service


Operational ExcellenceOperational Excellence

Market Growth & Cost Savings


�Drive decision making based on customer feedback to increase customer loyalty

� Net Promoter Score (NPS) TM

>60%

� Customer Issue Index (CII) Score <25%

�Reduce Service Failure Defects

� Number of Process Improvement & Just Do It Improvement Activities Completed

� Increase Annualized cost savings $

Define Measure Analyze Design verify

1B.a. The project clearly aligns with Performance Measures and support our Company’s Goals and Strategies. The Customer, Process and Financial strategies are supported by the VOC Project.

HDS Goals/ Strategies are

•To provide World Class Customer Service

•To be Operationally Excellent

•To Increase Market Share while driving down costs

Our Customer Loyalty project directly supports the organization goals and strategies as each of the performance measures ties up to the company goals and strategies.

The project directly supports the organization goal s and strategies as each of the performance measures ties up to the company goals a nd strategies.

These performance measures were also used as baseli ne measurements to evaluate and validate the effectiveness and results of the p roject.

12

1B.b. Types of Impact the Project will have on each Goal/Performance Measure



Org

aniz

atio

nal

Goa

lsO

rgan

izat

iona

l S

trat

egie

sCustomer Process Financial




�Drive decision making

based on customer feedback to increase

customer loyalty

� Net Promoter Score (NPS) TM >60%



�Process Improvement & Just Do It Improvement Activities Completed

�Expand verticals

�Remain the market leader with multifamily customers

� Annualized cost savings $

Impact•Increase NPS TM

•Decrease CII

Impact•Reduce service failures

•Increase productivity

Impact•Hard & Soft $ Cost Savings

•Market/Service offering expansion

Impa

ct


1B.b. The project will impact each of the organizational goals.

For the Customer Strategy , an increase in the NPS and decrease in the CII will have a direct and significant impact to our ability to evaluate customer loyalty. The project will produce these customer loyalty scores so we can evaluate how ‘well’ or how ‘much we need to improve’ to capture ‘World Class Customer Service’.

For the Process Strategy , a reduction in service failures and an increase in productivity will directly impact our goal of operational excellence. The project will quantify improvement and productivity efficiencies/deficiencies so that we can best understand where to expend our improvement efforts and where we are excelling in operational execution.

For the Market Growth & Cost Savings strategy , a sales growth indicator and cost savings tracking will directly impact our ability to evaluate whether our efforts in gaining and retaining customer satisfaction/loyalty is actually ‘paying off’ in terms of bottom line and top line financial growth.

13

1B.c. Degree of impact on each goal, performance measure – Methodology … contd.


2*3 = 6 (High)3*3 = 9 (High)

3. High3. High

2*2 = 4 (Medium)2. Medium2. Medium

1*2 =2 (Low)1. Low1. Low

Degree of ImpactFeasibility Likelihood of Success

Effort of Change Management

1B.c The ranking of impact of each goal was evaluated by scoring the effort of change management and the feasibility or likelihood of success. Each area was scored by the project team and functional leaders and then combined to determine the degree of impact. A high score would mean that there would be a high influence on current state while a low score would be a minimal impact to the current state.

14

1B.c. Degree of impact on each goal, performance measure, and/or strategy and how was this determine d

Customer Process


Degree of ImpactScoreMarket Growth

Customer Loyalty will result in sales growth.

4Sales Growth

Degree of ImpactScoreOperational Excellence

Reduce Cost of Poor Quality9Reduce Service Failures

2

6

6

6

6

Score

Increased quality and productivity will result in savings

Hard & Soft $ Cost Savings

Capture more market shareMarket/Service offering expansion

Streamline operationsIncreased Productivity

Decreased customer complaints

Decrease Customer Issue Index (CII)

Increased Customer LoyaltyIncrease Net Promoter Score (NPS TM)

Degree of ImpactWorld Class Customer Service

Cus

tom

erP

roce

ssF

inan

cial

1B.c The degree of impact on the three main organization al strategieswas quantified based on the product of effort of ch ange management required in influencing/altering the current state and the feasibility (likelihood of success).

For example, as shown above, Operational Excellence had the highest score a product of high effort and higher rate success due to continued focus.

15

HD Supply - FM Customer

VOC/CAC

- Communication through VOC process of customer driven improvements

- Communication to Customers

Verification of Customer Resolution

Recurring IssuesCAC

HD Supply - FM Functional AreasVOC/CAC

CAC ReportsCommunicate cause to functional area

CAC Document Issue in Seibel –Services Tab

CAC

HD Supply - FM Customer

Solution for the customerAssignment of Concession

Responsibility

Resolve Customer Issue

Input to the Issue Resolution Options

THDS Functional Area

HD Supply - FM Functional Area

- Identification of cause- Determination of responsible functional area (ad-hoc informal call)

Determine Root/CauseOracle Order DataFunctional Team InputCustomer InputCAC Product/ Process

Knowledge

CSRsCustomersDistribution CentersSales/FARs

CreditAcct. Svcs

HD Supply - FM Functional Area

Documented CAC Submit forms of issue/inquiry

Assess Customer Issue

Oracle CAC FormsSeibel DataHughes Voice Mail

CAC Inbound CallsCAC Inbound EmailsFunctional Team Calls

CSRs

CustomersVendorsDistribution CentersSales/FARsCreditAcct. Svcs

CustomersOutputsProcessInputsSuppliers

1C.a Potential internal and external stakeholders a ndexplain how they were identified…contd

Inte

rnal

Sta

keho

lder

Ext

erna

l Sta

keho

lder


1C.a. In the Define Phase of the Project, a SIPOC (Supplier, Input, Process, Output Customer) was used to capture the high level process. Potential stakeholders (both internal and external) were identified during this exercise. You can notice them in the “Suppliers” and “Customers” columns.

After the SIPOC, detailed process mapping was performed from a partnership of process owners and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs).

16

1C.a Potential internal and external stakeholders and explain how they were identified


Internal Stakeholders


Functional Leaders, Process Owners, SME

Process Analysis, Brainstorming, Process validation, Root cause analysis,

Validation, Training, Testing


SIPOC analysis was used to identify Stakeholders. B ased on role, their participation was aligned with various phases of the project

Executive LeadersRole: Project Selection

6 Sigma BeltsRole: Project Execution


Training, Pilot,

Validation & Testing

Vendor Customers

1C.a. Stakeholder involvement in project selection and th eir association and contribution at the various phases of projects was based on their decision making authority and the role they play during various pha se of DMADV

Since this was a strategic project for the company there were three levels of Stakeholders involved at the different stages of the project life cycle.

Pre – Define and Define Phase: Executive leadership – President, Vice Presidents representing all functional areas were actively eng aged in the selection and definition of criteria & policy.

Executive leaders representing functional areas spe arheaded in spreading the message about the project in the their respective a reas. They served as ambassadors of change.

In the later phases of the project other stakeholder participation increased.

Measure/Analyze/ Design/ Verify phases – Process owners and SME were actively engaged for process analysis, brainstorming solution, Multi voting etc

Implement Phase – Customer Facing teams were trained on root cause analysis methodology


Customer – Selection criteria was established to identify potential candidates to be surveyed. Research Analyst were involved to determine the criteria, Statistically significant sample size, reporting design, regression methodology for CTC assessment

Vendor – Was trained on root cause methodology for conducting survey

17

1C.b. Types of Impact on Stakeholders and How these were determined

Customer Process


Type of ImpactDegreeExternal Stakeholders

Continue to execute outbound calling survey.

LowVendor

Participation in process Improvement activities

MediumSubject Matter Experts

Medium

High

High

Degree

Assume additional responsibility of capturing Customer Issues

Customer Facing Teams –Customer Service, Credit, Sales Support

Sponsor Projects and allocate resources, Responsible for timely resolution of customer issues

Functional Leaders; Process owners

Use quantitative VOC data to drive decisions

Executive Leaders

Type of ImpactInternal StakeholdersE

xecu

tives

F

unct

iona

l Le

ader

sP

roce

ss

Ow

ners

/ Tea

ms

Ven

dor

High – Project will significantly alter current stat e (3)Medium – Project will have moderate influence on cur rent state (2)Low – Project will have no/low impact to current sta te (1)

1C.b. The types of impact on the stakeholders were based on the projects influence on the current state. The impac t was determined by understanding what type of action would be required by the stakeholder after project implementation and whethe r this greatly differed from what they were doing in the current s tate.

Low – Project will have no/low impact to current state (1)

Medium – Project will have moderate influence on current state (2)

High – Project will significantly alter current state (3)

Executive Leaders, Functional Leaders and Process Owners had the highest degree of impact as what they would be doing after project implementation differed the most from what they were doing in the current state.

18

1C.c Degree of Impact on Stakeholders and How these were determined

Customer Process


Type of ImpactScoreExternal Stakeholders

Continue to execute outbound calling survey.

2Vendor

Participation in process Improvement activities

4Subject Matter Experts

4

9

9

Score

Assume additional responsibility of capturing Customer Issues

Customer Facing Teams –Customer Service, Credit, Sales Support

Sponsor Projects and allocate resources, Responsible for timely resolution of customer issues

Functional Leaders; Process owners

Use quantitative VOC data to drive decisions

Executive Leaders

Type of ImpactInternal StakeholdersE

xecu

tives

F

unct

iona

l Le

ader

sP

roce

ss O

wne

rs/

Tea

ms

Ven

dor

Based on the index of effort in Change Management and Feasibility

1C.c We used the same methodology stated in 1b. c to ass ess the degree of Impact on the stakeholders. The product of effort of change management required in influencing/altering the cur rent state and the feasibility (likelihood of success) comprised of th e impact scoring.

Estimated Impact

Change Management Factor

1. Low effort,

2. Medium

3. High effort

Feasibility (likelihood of success)

1. Low

2. Medium

3. High

19

Current Situation Analysis

Section 2


This Section 2, we will discuss the team’s evaluation of the current Customer satisfaction process and activities.

20

2A.a Describe the methods and tools used to identif y possible root causes/improvement activities

Method/ToolStakeholder Interviews

Assessment of current reporting

Lean 6σσσσ SIPOC Process Analysis

•Inconsistent data entry•Lack of quality data to take action•Lack of quantifiable data•Lack of capture of critical root cause analysis data•Lack of common data field definitions•Lack of reporting•Lack of trending or analysis•Lack of actions based on customer feedback•Root cause analysis not consistent in the HDS culture•Survey questionnaire does not provide adequate probes

Possible root causes/improvements

Team’s Analysis

Fishbone Diagrams

6 Sigma Belts, Process Owners, Subject Matter Exper ts (SMEs)Functional LeadersStakeholder Involvement

Process Drill Down

Gage R&R Study Repeatability & Reproducibility


2A.a In assessing the current Customer satisfaction process and activities, the team used various methods and tools to identify possible root causes/improvement activities. Among these were:

•Stakeholder Interviews- We chose a few of the Stakeholders to interview (Ranging from Functional Leaders to Subject Matter Experts). Feedback from these interviews indicated that that the current activities that were being used to understand customer satisfaction were not adequate.

•Assessment of Current Reporting- The team looked at the reports and data structure that was coming from the Perfect Order Survey and other customer reports and assessed the quality and integrity of the data that came from those reports. The assessment also evaluated whether the current reporting was actionable or even being used by the business.

•Lean 6sigma SIPOC Process Analysis- The team performed a high level SIPOC which outlined the Suppliers/Inputs/Process/Outputs/Customers of the current activities. This activity identified many gaps and deficiencies.

21

2A.b Describe the team’s analysis of data to identi fy possible root causes/improvement activities


Team’s Analysis

Fishbone Diagrams




6 Sigma Belts, Process Owners, Subject Matter Exper ts (SMEs)Functional LeadersStakeholder Involvement

Process Drill Down

Gage R&R StudyRepeatability & Reproducibility

•Inconsistent data entry

•Lack of quality data to take action

•Lack of quantifiable data

•Lack of capture of critical root cause analysis data

•Lack of common data field definitions

•Lack of reporting

•Lack of trending or analysis

•Lack of actions based on customer feedback

•Root cause analysis not consistent in the HDS culture

•Survey questionnaire does not provide adequate probes


2A.b The team used methods and tools and then also performed analysis of those methods/tools to identify possible root causes of deficiencies in the current activities and also outline root causes.

A Gage R&R Study was performed to understand the repeatability and reproducibility of the customer data being captured by Surveyors and Customer Service Representatives. This study identified that the data capture of customer feedback was NOT being done in a consistent or diligent way.

Process Drill Down- From the high level SIPOC, the team performed a drill down of the activities that were occurring in capturing, reporting and taking action on customer feedback. By analyzing the process steps, the team identified several root causes and areas for improvement.

Fishbone Diagrams- The team then developed and analyzed the gaps/deficiencies/rootcauses using fishbone diagrams. The fishbone structure outlined the results of the team’s assessments and organized them in functional areas.

These exercises resulted in a listing of possible r oot causes/improvements.

22

2A.c Describe how or if any stakeholders were invol ved in identifying the possible root causes/improvement opportunities

6sigma Belts, Process Owners, Subject Matter Expert s (SMEs)Functional LeadersStakeholder Involvement





Team’s Analysis

Fishbone Diagrams

Process Drill Down

Gage R&R Study Repeatability & Reproducibility •Inconsistent data entry

•Lack of quality data to take action•Lack of quantifiable data•Lack of capture of critical root cause analysis data•Lack of common data field definitions•Lack of reporting•Lack of trending or analysis•Lack of actions based on customer feedback•Root cause analysis not consistent in the HDS culture•Survey questionnaire does not provide adequate probes


2A.c Stakeholders were involved in identifying the possible root causes/improvement opportunities.

•Functional Leaders were instrumental in giving feedback of the current process and also recommending areas for improvement. These leaders were users of the data and were very vocal about what was ‘wrong’ with the current Customer data capture activities.

•6Sigma belts were essential in evaluating the quality and statistical measurement of the process and the customer satisfaction indexes.

•Process Owners and Subject Matter Experts gave tactical input of how the data was being captured and also what the current process was.

23

2A.c Describe how or if any stakeholders were invol ved in identifying the possible root causes/improvement opportunities


Performing data analysis, quality and statistical measurement and compiling results.

6Sigma Belts

No involvement at this stageCustomer

Process deficiencies, underlying causes, future sta te requirements , root cause no action

SubjectMatter Experts

Identifying customer issues, deficiencies in action time and quality of resolution, root cause of failures


No involvement at this stageVendor

Identifying the gaps in the current state that limi t proactive actions and allocation of resources

Functional leaders, Process owners

Identify deficiencies that are limiting executive d ecision in favor of customer needs

Executive leaders

Stakeholder InvolvementStakeholderIN

TE

RN

AL

EX

TE

RN

AL

2A.c Stakeholders were involved in identifying the possible root causes/improvement opportunities.

•Executive Leaders identified areas where they needed concise and quantitative customer information to validate and contribute to decision making.

•Functional Leaders were instrumental in giving feedback of the current process and also recommending areas for improvement. These leaders were users of the data and were very vocal about what was ‘wrong’ with the current Customer data capture activities.

•Process Owners and Subject Matter Experts gave tactical input of how the data was being captured and also what the current process was.

•6Sigma belts were essential in evaluating the quality and statistical measurement of the process and the customer satisfaction indexes.

•The customer and vendors did not have involvement at this stage of the project.

24

2B.a Describe the methods and tools used to identif y possible final causes/improvement activities

Method/Tool

Review and Evaluation

Possible root causes/improveme

nts

6Sigma Belts, Process OwnersFunctional LeadersStakeholder Involvement

Final root causes/improvement

Opportunities• Inconsistent data entry• Lack of capture of critical root cause analysis data•Lack of reporting•Lack of structure to support actions based on customer feedback

Team’s Analysis

• Can system support data capture?

• Can data entry Associates support entry?

• Does the training support data capture?

•Do we have the infrastructure to support

capturing and taking action on customer feedback?


A ‘process walk’ of data capture via data entry


2B.a After the potential root causes were identified the team did performed more activities to narrow the listing down and to identify “the Critical X’s” (six sigma term) or the final root causes.

•A process walk of data capture was conducted. A team member actually sat with a Customer Service Representative (Advocate) to experience how they were capturing customer data. A team member also listened to Surveyor calls to experience how they were capturing customer data.

•The team Reviewed and Evaluated the root causes aligning with the Gage R&R that was performed to really understand which root causes were the main drivers.

•The team continually performed the 5 Why’s when assessing the processes and steps of the current activities.

25

2B.b Describe the team’s analysis of data to select the finalroot causes/improvement activities

Final root causes/improvement

Opportunities

• Inconsistent data entry

• Lack of capture of critical root cause analysis data

•Lack of reporting

•Lack of structure to support actions based on customer feedback

Team’s Analysis

• Can system support data capture?

• Can data entry Associates support entry?

• Does the current training support data capture?

•Do we have the infrastructure to support

capturing and taking action on customer feedback?

Possible root causes/improveme

nts

6 Sigma Belts, Process OwnersFunctional LeadersStakeholder Involvement

Method/Tool

Review and Evaluation


A ‘process walk’ of data capture via data entry


2B.b The team then used the following questions to confirm the final root causes/improvement opportunities:

Can system support data capture?

Can data entry Associates support entry?

Does the current training support data capture?

Do we have the infrastructure to support capturing and taking action on customer feedback?

26

2B.c Identify the root causes/improvement opportuni ty (ies) and explain how the team validated the final rootcause( s)/Improvement opportunities

Final root causes/improvement Opportunities

• Inconsistent data entry

• Lack of capture of critical root

cause analysis data

• Lack of reporting

• Lack of structure to support

actions based on customer

feedback

Validation


• Gage R & R Study outcome

• Performance trend analysis and

incident summary reviews

• Interview feedback that current

reports are “not usable or

actionable”

• One on one interviews with Stakeholders

2B.c The team then validated the final root causes/improvement opportunities by taking the strongest methods/tools used to identify them and re-validate that these were indeed the key drivers for improvement.

The outcome of the Gage R&R revealed that there was very LOW data integrity in the data capture by Customer Service Representatives and Customer Advocates. Each associate was capturing information differently and interpreting customer feedback inco nsistently.

There was not a structured Root Cause Analysis that supported the business in customer data capture. Training did not exist for Customer Service Reps and Customer Advocates on how to deter mine the ‘root cause’ of customer feedback. This led to a lack of ca pture of critical root cause analysis data.

Interview feedback that current reporting was ‘not usable’ validated that reporting was a key opportunity for improvement. If the business could not use information from the customer, how could they take action? A concise and meaningful reporting was needed for Executives and functional leaders.

Taking action. Since reporting was not being used, action was not being taken. But beyond the reporting, a structure of process to support action needed to be created.

27

Solution Development

Section 3


Now that we have walked through the team’s activities to assess and analyze the Current Customer satisfaction process, in Section 3, we will discuss the activities the team performed to develop and design the new Customer Loyalty program solution.

28

3A.a Describe methods and tools to develop possible solutions/improvement actions

Financial Analysis�Cost Benefit Analysis�Pay Back period

Brainstorming - System Enhancement Eval.

�Can Siebel be enhanced?�Would Oracle be

impacted?

Customer Sat. Benchmarking

�What are other companies doing?

Talent Review�Do we have the resources skilled

and available to implement?�What ‘dependency’ risks are

involved with Outsourcing?

Methods & Tools

Potential Solutions

1. PURCHASE an IVR software to

detect customer feedback

2. OUTSOURCE Customer Loyalty

program

3. BUILD Internal Customer Loyalty

program

Industry Best

Practice

Evaluation

Cost

Assessm

ent

IT Assessm

ent

Outsource

Vs.

Insource

Potential Solutions

Team

Ana

lysi

s Team Analysis

Team

Ana

lysi

sTeam Analysis

Team Analysis


3A.a To develop the possible solutions to a Customer Loyalty program, the team performed various activities.

The team performed research in form of Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking . By reading academic articles/books and assessing various industry company customer programs, the team was able to better understand the approaches that others were taking to understand Customer Loyalty.

The team performed a System Enhancement Evaluation . Since unavoidably, system changes would need to be made to support better customer data capture, the team needed to evaluate the feasibility of making changes to Siebel and/or Oracle (current systems).

A Financial Analysis was imperative to understand the investment that would be needed along with return that would be associated.

A Talent Review was conducted to evaluate whether we currently had the appropriate resources with the skills to execute a Customer Loyalty solution.

29

3A.b Describe Team analysis of data to develop possible solutions/improvement actions

Industry Best

Practice

Evaluation

Cost

Assessm

ent

IT Assessm

ent

Outsource

Vs.

Insource

Potential Solutions

Team

Ana

lysi

s Team Analysis

Team

Ana

lysi

s

Team Analysis

Financial Analysis�Cost Benefit Analysis�Pay Back period

System Enhancement Eval.�Can Siebel be enhanced?�Would Oracle be impacted?

Customer Sat. Benchmarking�What are other companies

doing?

Talent Review�Do we have the resources

skilled and available to implement?

�What ‘dependency’ risks are involved with Outsourcing?

Potential Solutions

1. PURCHASE an IVR

software to detect customer

feedback

2. OUTSOURCE Customer

Loyalty program

3. BUILD Internal Customer

Loyalty program


Team Analysis

Outside knowledge + SME +Requirements = Potential Solutions

3A.b The team took time to perform further analysis based on the methods/tools used previously.

By evaluating customer measurement and industry best practice , the team chose ‘best in breed’ practices that could fit into our business goals and company culture.

The team worked with IT to understand the constraints or flexibility we had in terms of enhancing our current customer data capture systems.

The team analyzed the results of the Cost Benefit Analysis and the Payback period of implementing solutions.

Analyzing the resource capabilities and skill sets needed to implement potential solutions was conducted to evaluate with an Outsource or Insource model would fit the program needs.

30

3A.c Indicate criteria the team decided to use in selecting final solution(s)/improvement actions

1. Purchase an IVR software to detect

customer feedback

2. Outsource Customer Loyalty program

3. Build Internal Customer Loyalty/Process Improvement Program

Selection Criteria

� Internal capability to analyze Formal

Customer Survey

� Covers all Customer touch points

� No outsourcing dependency risk

� Strong Performance Analysis

� Internal capability to perform

process improvement

Possible Solution


3A.c The 3 possible solutions were either to PURCHASE, OUTSOURCE or BUILD a customer loyalty program.

The criteria the team used to select the final solu tion were based on our company’s ability and human resource capabiliti es to develop the program ‘in house’. We assessed our own capability t o perform a Customer Survey. We assessed if would could create an approach that would cover all customer touch points and then perform deepanalysis based on the data that came out of the sur vey. We also made an assessment of our Process Improvement capabiliti es. Did we have the talent ‘in house’ and on staff to be able to exe cute customer driven change to the organization based on survey and cust omer feedbackdata capture.

All of these selection criteria's proved to be favorable which is what drove the final solution: BUILD an Internal Customer Loyalty/Process Improvement Program.

31

3B.a Describe methods and tools to select final solutions/improvement actions

�Low Risk Solution

�Feasibility Assessment

�Critical To Quality (CTQ) evaluation

�Resource Mapping


Quality

Assurance Plan

Risk A

nalysis

IT, Capability,

Ease of Implem

enation

Determine

Team

FinalSolution

Team

Ana

lysi

s

Team Analysis

Team

Ana

lysi

sTeam Analysis

Team Analysis

3. BUILD Internal Customer

Loyalty/Process Improvement

program

3B.a To finalize solution, the team used a few methods and tools.

Critical to Quality (CTQ) Evaluation- The team reviewed the initial specifications to be sure there was a direct mapping to the final solution.

The team conducted a feasibility assessment to gage whether the final solution could actually be implemented from an IT and internal capability standpoint.

The team assessed the risk of having an external outsourcer conduct customer assessment. They do not know our business like we do, if they misinterpret customer feedback there is high risk to business decisions.

The team identified key resources that would work on the program. This revealed if the company actually had the skill set and resources available for the final solution.

32

3B.b Describe Team analysis of data to select final solutions/improvement actions

Team Analysis


Determine

Team

Team

Ana

lysi

s Team Analysis

Team

Ana

lysi

s

Team Analysis

Final Solution

Quality

Assurance Plan

Risk

Analysis

IT, Capability,

Ease of Implem

enation

Determine

Team

Low Risk

Failure Modes Error Analysis (FMEA)

System enhancements

Resource capability

Critical To Quality (CTQ) Evaluation

New Process Design meets Requirements

Proof of Concept

3. BUILD Internal

Customer

Loyalty/Process

Improvement program

3B.b The analysis the team performed analysis in form of a Quality Assurance plan, IT Capability and ease of implementation, a team vote and an actual determination of the team makeup. By evaluating these factors on each of the potential solutions, the final solution was selected as it ‘passed’each area.

Quality Assurance/CTQ Evaluation– New Process Design /Met Requirements. For final analysis, the team weighed and scored the final solution against specific requirements that were identified during the Define and Measure phases of the project. The team did this to ensure that weights and scores still pointed to the final solution. These requirements supported the new process design.

After a risk analysis , the team deemed that the final solution was low risk to implement.

IT performed an evaluation of what would be required to make the needed system enhancements and deemed that they could be done with moderate ease.

A resource and talent capability was conducted to determine if we had the resources ‘in house’ to execute the solution and it was determined that resources were available and could be aligned to support the project.

33

3B.c Involvement of stakeholders in selection of final solutions/improvement actions


Performed statistical validation and provided recommendations to the team.

6Sigma Belts

No direct involvement at this stageCustomer

Analysis of new process design, scoring of design against CTQ, modification of concept , multi voting process


Validation of proof of conceptCustomer Facing Teams

Communication of potential changes to customer survey

Vendor

Brainstorming and to be process analysis design, FMEA , check list validation, multi voting process


Tollgate review of Analyze phase, final say on solu tion combinations

Executive leaders

Stakeholder InvolvementStakeholderIN

TE

RN

AL

EX

TE

RN

AL

3B.c The following stakeholders were heavily involved in determining the final solution.

Executive Leadership- The team briefed the Executives on the pro’s and con’s of each potential solution along with the recommendation of the final solution. The Executives agreed with team recommendation to BUILD an Internal Customer Loyalty/Process Improvement Program

Functional Leaders and Subject Matter Experts were key participants in performing the methods/tools and partaking in the team analysis.

The 6sigma Belts led the execution of the methods/tools and performed all the quantitative analysis on the team.

The Customer Facing Teams (Customer Service Reps, Customer Advocates), who are on the ‘front line’ servicing and talking to customers validated the Proof of Concept that was executed.

The vendor provided feedback on how the survey was going.

34

3C.a Describe the final solution/improvement and explain how the team validated the final solution(s)/improv ement action(s)…contd

VOC Database

Customer Feedback Repository

VOC Outbound Survey

Voice of the Field (VOF)

Customer Care Dept.

VOC/CAC Captains

Cross functional teamIncoming Customer Calls

Drill Down Analysis

Review of Customer Issues

Critical To Customer Analysis

Hard/Soft $ Savings Assessment

Prioritization using ‘scoring’ method

Just Do Its (JDIs) Process Improvement Projects

3C.a This is an overview of our final solution . A central Data repository for customer feedback collected through multiple channels. Root cause methodology, developed using the Fishbone analysis. that points to cause of failure at process level. A periodic Regression analysis to determine what is most Critical to customer, preview and prioritization of issues. Selection of an appropriate track for execution

35

3C.a Describe the final solution/improvement and ex plain how the team validated the final solution(s)/improvement action(s)

Build Internal

Customer Loyalty/Process Improvement Program

(Voice of the Customer Program)

Team Validation

against Specification Requirements


� Quantifiable data

� Routine reporting

� Consistent root cause analysis

� Consistent data entry

� Better utilization of the VOC team resources

� Leadership directive for a common root cause analysis

approach

� VOC Team role and mission defined

� Input into the VOC: Critical to Customer Assessment

� High Level and Detailed reports

� Specific data analysis for key/critical areas

� Reports tailored for team requirements

� Data integrity and credibility

� Voice of the Customer data

3C.a The final solution was to Build an Internal Customer Loyalty/Process Improvement Program that we call The VOC Program--- The Voice of the Customer Program

The team used specification requirements that came from the Current Situation Analysis to validate that the program met all project and company needs.

36

3C.b Indicate the types of tangible and intangible benefits that are expected to be realized by implementing the team’s solution’s/improvement action(s)


Intangible Benefits Tangible Benefits

•Improved Customer Experience

•Foster company culture of continuous improvement

•Foster data-based decision making at the middle manager level

•Environment of ‘Customer First ’

•Increased Customer Loyalty via the Net-Promoter Score (NPSTM)

•Decrease in Customer Issue Index (CII) Score

•# of Process Improvement Projects/Activities completed

•Cost Savings $$

3C.b The new solution has many Intangible and Tangible Benefits to the business which are outlined as.

Intangible Benefits

•Improved Customer Experience

•Foster company culture of continuous improvement

•Foster data-based decision making at the middle manager level

•Environment of ‘Customer First’

Tangible Benefits

Increased Customer Loyalty via the Net-Promoter Score (NPSTM)

Decrease in Customer Issue Index (CII) Score

# of Process Improvement Projects/Activities completed

Cost Savings $$

37

3C.c Explain how the team used data to justify the implementation of the team’s solutions/improvement actions


Build Internal Customer Loyalty/PI Program (VOC

Program)

Proof of Concept � Cost Benefit Analysis

� Leverage internal talent, no

incremental cost.

� Customer Loyalty

� Operational Excellence

� Actionable reports

Pilot results concluded the Concept works

3C.c The team confirmed the concept and the financial be nefits were validated. The voice of the customers and Critical To Customer (CTC) assessment, indicated customers were not pleased when their call were transferred multiple times. An orange belt project was lead to test out all elements of the design. CSR were empowered to handle wide variety of issues and resolve them at first contact.

It set an example in the organization – Team approach in making improvements data collection, analysis, prioritization, execution and control.

38

Project Implementation and Results

Section 4


We now have a solution, To Build our own Customer Loyalty Program called the VOC Program, chosen and designed to best capture and take action on Customer feedback. In Section 4, we will discuss the steps the team took in implementing and rolling out the new VOC Program.

39

4A.a. Internal and External Stakeholder Involvement in implementation


Active engagement in testing and retesting of system, coding customer issues with new Root Cause Methodology


Performed statistical validation and provided recommendations to the team.

6Sigma Belts

No direct involvement at this stageCustomer

Developing the testing scripts, content for trainin g, system readiness


Training on new survey questionnaire and coding of customer issues

Vendor

Planning and development of Implementation plan, approving the resource engagement for training & testing


Toll gate review of Analyze phase, final say on solution combinations

Executive leaders

Stakeholder InvolvementStakeholder

INT

ER

NA

LE

XT

ER

NA

L

4A.a The following stakeholders were heavily involved in in the implementation of the project

Executive Leaders - The team briefed Executives on the implementation plan, and risk mitigation plan

Functional Leaders and Subject Matter experts were engaged in committing resources, time line of go –live, or preparing the content for training.

Vendor was involved to train their associates on using questionnaire and coding customer issues on new survey.

40

4A.b. How Various Types of Resistance were Identified and Addressed…. contd

Hmm… we don’t have time or resources?

“This is another Change activity. from the top”

“Defects of my process will be used against my team in a punitive form”

Data input into common repository. Will my teams increase handle time”

Stakeholder resistance analysis during Define and P rocess analysis

4A.b. Stakeholder resistance analysis was done during the define phase and prior to implementation. In this section few examples of resistance faced during launch and implementation is highlighted. Most of it came as normal resistance to change.

Consorted efforts to focus a positive message within the leadership meetings, design session, awareness session and trainings was most effective means of addressing resistance. At times one on one interviews helped in overcoming resistance. While in one situation we had to pilot a concept to collect data and share analytical results for buy -in .

41

4A.b. How Various Types of Resistance were Identified and Addressed

Shared results of FCR project on the impact of handle time over time

A training plan was developed for data entry

“Data input into common depository Will increase handle time”

Guidelines on usage of reports were communicated top , across and down the organization. Information usage limited to improvement action.

Review of performance metrics, design of actionable reports

“Defects of my process will be used against my team in a punitive form”

Established a defined time and established a representation of “Captain”

Initial working session participation was reluctant

“We don’t have time or resources”

Functional Leaders were used to spread positive message and its importance for organization

Initial meetings with Process owners who were not thrilled about impact to their process

“ This is another Change activity”

AddressedHow identifiedType

Timely resolution of resistance is critical for pro ject Success

INT

ER

NA

L S

TA

KE

HO

LDE

RS

4A.b. Stakeholder resistance analysis was done during the define phase and prior to implementation. In this section few examples of resistance faced during launch and implementation is highlighted. Most of it came as normal resistance to change.

Consorted efforts to focus a positive message within the leadership meetings, design session, awareness session and trainings was most effective means of addressing resistance. At times one on one interviews helped in overcoming resistance. While in one situation we had to pilot a concept to collect data and share analytical results for buy -in .

42

4A.c. How Stakeholder Buy-in was Ensured

Timely completion of milestones; application readiness for implementation and admin activities

Early participation in the design and modification of fields

SMESystem Admin

Strong participation in design and root cause analysis

Phased entry by Credit, custom reports SME (Finance)

On going communication with project team on design and report reviews

Establishments of guidelines for use of defects reports, involvement in defect mapping

Functional Leaders SME (Logistics)

Good participation at all phases. Commitment for data entry by CSR

Participation in all phase of Project, comprehensive training, Trail period after go -live

Process Owners & SME(Customer Care)

Design reviews, representation on CAC Captains

Early engagement from process mapping through design

Subject Matter Experts - SME (Merchandizing)

Strong participation is design, training, & mock reports

Involvement in Design, hosting a VOF pilot to captures field sales issues

Functional Leaders(Sales)

On time completion of training and status reports, pilot results

Lead Vendor training on new survey –partnership of process

Process owners(marketing)

Validated ByPlan to Ensure Buy-inStakeholder

Early Participation of stakeholders and timely resolution of concerns


4A.c. All stakeholders were involved early in the project and actively participated through the various phases. They provided feedback on the changes and helped in prioritization and selection of solution options.

They also become the advocates of the approach by being early adopter. The table provides a list how we ensured buy in.

For example Sales team was interested but was not certain that approach will address their issues. We ensured to run a pilot to capture their issues. When the pilot results were compared with the overall customer feedback, their interest and responsiveness continued through all phases.

Another feature that helped us to ensure stakeholder buy in was to establish guidelines & enforce its usage to promote discussion “on customer centricity” and circumvent figure pointing.

43

4B.a Plan Developed by team to implement solution

�CAC Team conducting root cause analysis and data entry

�Siebel data Testing and Validation

�Report Testing and Validation

�Sales Support team conducting root cause analysis and data entry

�VOT reviews report formats and defect definitions

�Other teams conducting RCA and data entry

�CAC Team practicing root cause analysis and data entry

�Siebel data modified

�Report development with real data feeds

�Sales Support team practicing root cause analysis and data entry

�VOT reviews report formats and defect definitions

�Other Teams train/practice

January Feb-March

�Develop training material and CAC Team Training

�Develop and test in Siebel

�Report development

�Develop Sales Support transition strategy

�VOT reporting strategy communication

Preparation Transition Testing & Validation

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

S

olut

ion

Pilo

t

April


4B.a A comprehensive Project Plan was developed and mana ged through the project life cycle of a Six Sigma project.

Project Plan provided detail activities through DMA DV milestone & Tollgate reviews.

The team identified and laid out three major waves f or implementation. In preparation mode VOC team developed the training Material, application modification, mock report design and training associates etc.

The “Preparation” Phase included the process flows, training documentation, report requirements, system change specifications and communication plans.

In the “Transition” Phase the training of teams was full force. Data entry teams were given additional time to understand and practice root cause analysis.

In the “Testing and Validation” wave, Mock reports were tested, QA on the test data was analyzed, Additional teams were trained on the Root Cause Analysis data capture approach.

44

4B.b. Procedure, System or Other Changes Made to Implement the Solution and Sustain the Results

• Siebel system modifications

• Defect Change process

• Quality Assurance PlanThe QA Program components include:

• VOC Issue Reporting Data Flow Module and Validation

• Data entry through Seibel• Data entry through Oracle – CAC Submit form• Data processing in Access – CAC Issue reporting

tool• Data Flow Validation

TYPE New Concession Type

RES CODE New Concession Item

Same Same

STATUS Modif ied Data Options

Def ine status of CAC Issue

Email #: New Content: Concession

Amount

Same

FAX #: New Content: Department Concession

Charged


4B.b Several System field changes and procedures were modified or developed to enable Root cause analysis methodology. To ensure the changes are controlled and QA is maintained change control strategy and QA plan was developed and implemented.

The Defect Change Process was designed to ensure continuity of RCA methodology and defect maintenance. As the business processes change, the defects would have to be changed or revised or retired. Therefore it needed a well defined change process with clear accountability. It answered questions like who, when where, how and what. To ensure the change process is followed with consistency simple tools were developed and provided to end users.

Quality Assurance Strategy focused on ensuring the integrity of the dataflow between systems an regular Quality Check of the data entry. CAC team was tasked with the regular QC check. QC log was randomly audited by VOC team to ensure the error rate was within the tolerance range.

A quarterly check of Measurement System Analysis was implemented due to high involvement of CSRs.

45

4B.c. Creation and Installation of a System for Measuring and Sustaining Results… contd

1. Customer Loyalty Measurement : Period/Quarterly/Yearly NPSTM and CII

2. Customer Feedback : Top 10 Customer Defects

3. Process Improvement/Just Do It (JDI)Project tracking

4. Hard/Soft $ Cost Savings


Customer Issue Index (CII)% of Customers Reporting > 1 issue

Net-Promoter Score* (NPS TM)%Promoters - %Detractors

1

ActiveComplete Identified

5

21

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

$2.7M

Net Savings YTD

$0 $0.5$1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5$3.0

Process Improvement Tracking

4B.c. The Measurement System Analysis (MSA) is made up of a few key performance measurements to understand results and sustain results. Among these measurement areas are the following:

•Net Promoter Score (NPS) and Customer Issue Index ( CII)- These are Customer Satisfaction/Loyalty indicators. The team monitors these scores periodically/quarterly and also yearly. There are thresholds set for these measurements and these are also reported with the company and lie on associate performance scorecards.

•Top 10 Customer Defects- Customer feedback is captured and service failure data capture is translated into process defects. These defects are tracked and reported to the functional/process owner for resolution and action. The VOC Team tracks to see if these defects are rising or falling and the affect on the customer and the business.

•Process Improvement/JDI Project Tracking- By looking at the defects and then translating those defects into action, a process improvement project is usually initiated. These projects/JDIs are tracked to understand the action that is being taken from customer feedback.

•Hard/Soft$ Cost Savings- Once the corrective action is taken a financial analysis is conducted to assess and understand whether there was a financial savings that resulted from the improvement. Many times there is an operational efficiency savings, “soft$ saving”that is realized from the improvement. Other times, there is a bottom line “hard $ saving”from the improvement. The VOC Team tracks this financial savings.

These 4 measurement system areas are used to quanti fy project sustainability, understand customer feedback and assess project res ults.

46

4B.c. Creation and Installation of a System for Measuring and Sustaining Results

1. Open Architecture and transparent process – Results on intranet

2. Common data source for driving improvements

3. Ranked Area of Focus


Net-Promoter Score* (NPS TM)%Promoters - %Detractors

1

Open Architecture, standardized & reliableinformation for business

4B.c Four new measures were created that would track customer loyalty scores and improvement activities.

The results are stored in an architecture that is open. The Data is standardized, reliable and consistently produced on a defined frequency.

47

4C.a. Types of Tangible and Intangible Results that were Realized… contd

5

21

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1

Cou

nt

Active

Complete

Identified� Net Promoter Score-NPS

TMincreased 6%

� Customer Issue Index (CII) decreased 4%

� 47% decrease in commonly occurring

customer defects

$2.7M

Net Savings 2008

$0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0

$ Cost Savings $

Process Improvement Activities Completed

Increased Customer Loyalty!! Year over Year average change


� VOC Captain team committed to continuous

improvement

� VOC data evaluation prior to decision making

Cultural Change(Intangible)

4C.a There were many tangible and intangible results realized from the VOC Project execution. Among these were:

Increasing our YoY NPS and Decreasing our Customer I ssue Index can be attributed to rigorous customer data analysis, cross-functional teaming and 6sigma/lean process improvement execution.

Cultural Change. Previously, the business relied on a ‘gut fee’ or anecdotal information to understand how customers perceived us as a business. Therefore, customer data analysis or evaluation was not conducted prior to making key business decisions. Due to the new project reporting and VOC Captain collaboration, customer data is used to drive actions and decision making.

Process Improvement. Per the chart above, process improvement activities have been completed and the process through the VOC Captains are ‘in action’. Prior to the project, process improvement activities were notbeing actively identified or executed.

Cost Savings . While not all improvement activities have a financial $ savings, many do impact our internal processing costs or result in a bottom line impact.

48

Year Over Year NPS TM & CII favorable trend

NPSTM increased an average of 6% from2007 to 2008 Define Measure Analyze Design Verify

4C.a. Types of Tangible and Intangible Results that were Realized

4C.a. As mentioned previously, the key indicators of Customer Loyalty became the NPS and CII scores. This graph depicts a direct tangible result of these scores from 2007 to 2008.

Tangible Results Realized . . . An example:

From 2007 to 2008 the NPS increased by 6% -- An increase in the NPS translates to STRONGER CUSTOMER LOYALTY!

From 2007 to 2008 the CII decreased by 4% -- A decrease in the CII translates to LESS CUSTOMER ISSUES/Defects– STRONGER SERVICE LEVELS!

49

4C.b. How Results Link with Organization Goals, Performance Measures and Strategies

Per

form

ance

M

easu

res



Org

aniz

atio

nal

Goa

lsO

rgan

izat

iona

l S

trat

egie

s Customer Process Financial


Market Growth &

Cost Savings

Market Growth &

Cost Savings

�Drive decision making based on customer

feedback to increase customer loyalty

� Net Promoter Score (NPS) TM >60%



�Process Improvement & Just Do It Improvement Activities Completed

�Expand verticals

�Remain the market leader with multifamily

customers

� Annualized cost savings $


RE

SU

LTS

�NPS TM increased 6%�CII decreased 4%

�21 Process Improvement Activities completed�47% decrease in commonly occurring customer defects

�$2.7M in cost savings

4c.b The project results directly supported organizations goals and strategies. The approach was well received. Within 1-2 months, it was leveraged to address all customer facing issues of acquisition.

Senior leaders regularly use these as Dashboard indicators to gauge customer loyalty

50

4C.c. How Results were shared with Stakeholders

Reports shared across the organization Define Measure Analyze Design Verify

Executive Leaders

NPSTM CII Monthly Dashboard

VOC Monthly Report


SME

Process Owners

Functional Leaders

WeeklyVOC Captains Meeting Minutes

Customized Defects Report

StakeholdersIn

tern

al S

take

hold

ers

4C.c Open architecture and availability of information for all stakeholders was one of the requirement of design. Associates are trained to extract this information from intranet for their use. VOC team also fulfill on demand requests via email.

The use of data in non punitive way helped in embracing the free flow of information.

51

Team Management and Project Presentation

Section 5

52

5A. How Team Members were Selected and Involved Throughout the Project

Extended Team through Project

VOCCore Team

PO

PO

POPO

PO

PO

FL

FL

FL

PT

PT

PT

PT

PT

PT

Lean Six Sigma, Program Management

Visionary, Decision Making authority

Process owners – Knowledge& resource control ,Operational Experts

Process Team - SME

Selection Criteria

Roles & Responsibilities

Selection Criteria based on skills for various roles was used in forming the team

5A.The core team members, with niche skills - Lean Six Sigma and Program Management were selected to lead this project. The core team developed and Managed Project Plan. Remaining cross functional team members were identified in the Define Phase through SIPOC and Stakeholder analysis. The members represented all functional area of the business. The Selection Criteria was developed considering the key desired features for team performance.•Ability to Multi task & Multi skill•Clear & effective communication•People skills •Creativity - think out of the box•Customer Focus

Roles and Responsibilities originated from Stakeholder Identification/analysis.VOC Core team tasked with Project design and execution/project management

Functional leaders – were early adopters of the concept. They were engaged in toll gate, requirement collections and solution selectionProcess owners – Knowledge Keepers and Resource owners, key players in mapping out As Is process, brainstorming, customer requirements for future state, committing resource for the project, Multivoting in selecting solution.Process Team members: Front line associates, process experts, SME, Key contribution in Process mapping, root cause analysis, brainstorming, Solution development. After the implementation these experts were referred as “CAPTAIN” . They were also key partners in ensuring the movement of project with in the timelineRole definition, alignment of key stakeholders and team members contributions with project phase and proactive notification on time commitment and timely communication were critical in managing a large cross functional team to effectively focus on the goal.

53

5B. How Team Members were prepared to work together effectively as team

Training on

Using Quality Tools

• SIPOC

•Affinity Diagrams

• FMEA

• Fishbone

Open Communication

• Facilitation• Meeting Minutes• Roles & Responsibilities• Team activitiesProject Team

Review of Action logProject Management

Overview of Lean Six Sigma Methodology - DMADV

Clear objective & judicious use of Training/Tools “Customer Focus”

5B. The core team was responsible to build and effectively lead the cross functional team. Team was briefed on the Project plan, goals and timeline and methodology. The Ground rules for participation, building consensus, roles and responsibilities were developed in partnership.

Team was given an overview of DMADV approach. Team members were trained on select quality tools like the use of Fishbone for Root Cause Analysis, Story boarding, affinity tree for solution design and multi voting etc. Principles of Project Management were also mixed in the training.

The team meetings were run in a structured fashion, use of meeting minutes and action log kept the members involved through the DMADV phases of the project. Design and effective use of communication plan was instrumental in keeping the process transparent. It kept members prepared and engaged in the process. Member participation directly or indirectly in the preparation and presentation of tollgate was another cohesive force.

A back up for each role was also identified in case of non availability of the primary. This helped the team move on the specified timeline.

At the start of each meeting beside stating the objective a reference was made to “customer” as a binding force for the team.

54

5C. How the Team managed performance to ensure it was effective as a team

Project Team

� Team Participation Roster

� Tollgate Presentation

� Timeline review assessment

� Active management of meeting

minutes and action log

�Open communication and frequent

review/enforcement of ground rules

� Kudos & Recognition for going above

and beyond

Key Performance Guidelines Meeting Minutes/ Action Log

Tollgate Reviews

Recognition

In Section 5C, we will give examples of how team managed it performance as effective team

The reinforcement of ground rules, commitment to succeed and timely recognition of associates for over and above efforts wereextensively used.

We used milestone completion/tollgates as the team performance metric . Passing of all Tollgates on time was an indicator of the team performance.

Team members had an opportunity to review all the Tollgate documentation prior to the event. They were also debriefed on the take away from tollgate. Some of the action items from tollgate were directly addressed by the extended team members.

Recognizing the efforts of team member for consistency, problem solving for going over and above was a motivating tool. It is recognized and celebrated across the organization.

55

We continue to drive improvements….

….with active participation from our “VOC Team”

hd supply - gold winner (notes pages)

Documents