E2E Cycle Time Reduction in Components & …...PC Team (Direct) Onsite TeamPC Team (Channel) PDR...

1

E2E Cycle Time Reduction in Components & Accessories Claims Supply Chain Operations and Analytics Hub. HP Computing & Printing India Pvt Ltd. Dec, 2018

1

© Copyright 2014 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. 2

About HP

Founded in 1939 by engineers Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard

HP INC is a Fortune 100 Company with 50000

employees spread across more than 100 Countries.

Who We are… What we do…

2

© Copyright 2014 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. 3

Acronyms and Definitions

Ackn / AKN= Acknowledgement

Asap = as soon as possible

BI = Business Intelligence (Reporting)

CAC = Component & Accessories Claims

e2e = end to end

EODB= Ease of Doing Business

FY = Fiscal Year

KV = consumer notebook product line

NCO – No Charge Order

PDR = Product Defect Report

POD = Proof of Delivery

PPS = Personal Printing Systems

RTM = Route to Market

SC = Supply Chain

SCOM = Supply Chain Order Management

SME = Subject Matter Expert

SCOAH – Supply Chain Operations & Analytics Hub

TAT = Turnaround time

TCE = Total Customer Experience

ww = world wide

E2E CAC Cycle time – i.e. Customer reported date to Claim closed date

2

Section 1.00:Project Background & Purpose

3

Item/Sub Item Content Slide No

1.00 & 1.01 Project Background & Purpose 4

1.01,1.02 & 1.03 Organizational Approach to Project Planning, Identification & Selection 5

1.04 Project Selection Specific 6

1.05 Project Goals and Benefits 7

1.06 Success Measures/Criteria Identified 8

3

1.00 &1.01 :Project Background & Purpose Organization Overview

Supply Chain Operations and Analytics Hub is the shared services organization within HP Inc. which manages multiple processes within the lead to order lifecycle. It is a ~930 member team, located in 2 cities within India and consists of Operations, Analytics, Robotics and Quality functions. LSS Culture is one of the key enabler for the organization multi year turn around strategy

SCOAH -2020 Turn Around Strategy

4

LSS Council @ SCOAH

1.01-1.03:Organizational Approach to Project Planning, Identification & Selection LSS ECO system : LSS Project Planning, Identification & Selection Process

Workshop on Business priorities

Customer experience survey

Business review & Discussion

Voice of internal workforce

S&D – SCOAH Priorities

Ops to deliver/influence

biz metrics

Defect free Ops to reduce

Customer impact

Simplify processes

using technology

Drive customer

loyalty based on quality and

trust

Invest in our people to

drive a culture of excellence

and innovation

Customer experience

Quality Awareness & Events

LSS Site council

LSS training

Accelerate Plans for profitable

GROWTH

Be excellent in the CORE

Deliver on milestones the for our FUTURE

Drive INNOVATION discipline

Reinvent Our Culture

HP FY18 Priorities

Discover the Opportunities aligned

With SCOAH priorities

Decide on the priority project based

on the criteria’s

Develop Create competency to

execute the project

Deploy Map resource & execute

project

Deliver Deliver the result

Business Impact

Operational Excellence

5

4

1.04: Project Selection Specific

Prioritization drivers with project needs

Partner / CSR / END Customer

PC Team (Direct) PC Team (Channel) PDR Team Site & FE Co-ordinator Engineering Team Financial Approver Factory Logistics Onsite Team

AS

- IS

8 Days 3 Days 19 Days

Project Alignment to Business Priorities

HP Computing Business customer experience is impacted due to missing components & accessories( e.g Power card, software pack, privacy screens etc) in the shipped orders. These missing accessories are handled as post shipment claims by CAC team. Key Issues: Longer Cycle time to process CAC Claims - 29 days Complex process due to multiple stakeholder involved Rejection of claims leads to physical return of HP Products Customer Loyalty, trust & relationship is impacted $ 433,000 USD was the claim payout b/w Q1FY16 to Q1 FY 17 HP spends in reverse logistic **Above images describe various stakeholders involved in the claim process which makes it complex and longer Cycle time.

Key points & Data for project Prioritization

29 Days

E2E TAT @ 90% FILL RATE Credit Payout due to Component & Accessories Issue

• • •

• • •

6

1.05 : Project Goals and Benefits Project Goals & Benefit alignment towards SCOAH Priorities

SCOAH Priorities

Reduce Customer

Impact

Deliver/ Influence

Biz Metrics

Improve Customer

Loyalty

Simplify Process & Invest in people

Cycle Time Reduction from 29 days to <=23 days impact biz metrics

Reduction in physical claim returns

Reduction of Claim Payout due to returns

Improve Customer experience by early delivery of Missing Components

Project Goals Aligned with Org Priorities

Simplified Component & Accessories Claim process

Project Benefits SCOAH Priorities

$ 419,860 Benefit realized due to reduced Claim Payout

Improved Customer/ Partner Experience

Improved Operational efficiency

7

5

1.06: Success Measures/Criteria Identified Success Measures/Criteria Approach

Triggers…

Voice of the Customer (VOC) Longer ETA for the component and Accessories.

Voice of (internal) Customer • Reduce CAC Rejection • Simplified E2E CAC process

Voice of Stakeholder Avoid physical return of goods and Credit payout from HP

Derived Project Success measures from Triggers

Primary Metric: Reduce E2E CAC Cycle time from 29 days to 23 days bef Feb’18 Source: Pandora & Spot fire report

Secondary Metric: Reduce CAC rejection by 25% from 7.26% to 5.6% bef Feb’18 Source: Pandora report

Jan'

17

Dec

'16

Nov'16

Oct'16

Sep'16

Aug'16

Jul '1

6

Jun'16

May'

16

Apr'16

Mar

'16

Feb'16

Jan'

16

Dec'

15

Nov'15

50

40

30

20

10

Month

Day

s _X=29.43

UCL=45.75

LCL=13.11

I Chart of E2E Cycle Time

Jan'

17

Dec'16

Nov'

16

Oct

'16

Sep'16

Aug'16

Jul'1

6

Jun'

16

May

'16

Apr'16

Mar'1

6

Feb'16

Jan'16

Dec'15

Nov'

15

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

MonthPr

opor

tion

_P=0.0726

UCL=0.1068

LCL=0.0383

1

P Chart of CAC Rejected

Tests are performed with unequal sample sizes.

Primary Metric measures the

project outcome

Secondary Metric Monitors the

consequences of the primary metric

* CAC Component & Accessories Claims 8

Section 2.00: Project Framework

9


2.00 Project Framework 10 2.00 Project Framework(contd) 11 2.01 Concise Project Statement 12 2.02 Type of Project 13 2.03 Scope Statement 14

2.04 & 2.05 Assumption & Expectation and Project Schedule/High-Level Plan 15 2.06 Budget(Financial Or Resources) 16 2.07 Risk Management 17

6

2.0: Project Framework Project Charter

PROJECT STATEMENT

The E2E Computing CAC Cycle time performance from Nov’15 to Jan’17 stands at 29.43 days (at 90% fill rate), which had resulted in the partner/end customer dissatisfaction and also overall 7.26% of rejection claims had occurred, which is also contributing for the Physical return of products. During the period Q1 FY16 – Q1 FY17 it has been observed $433 K value worth of Physical unit returned, which in turn ended up as a claim pay-out from HP. PROJECT TYPE

The project used a typical DMAIC process: Define, Measure, Analyze, Design, Improve & Control.

ASSUMPTIONS/EXPECTATIONS PROJECT SCOPE

Assumption : Customer/Partner satisfaction related to product availability will improve by reducing the cycle time of the components & Accessories Claims Expectations: • Project to be completed within the timeline and allocated budget • Reduction of 22% in the E2E cycle time (i.e. Meet 23 days of TAT

from 29.43 days @ 90% fill rate) by Feb’2018 • Reduce 25% of the CAC rejection ( i.e. Meet 5.6% of rejection from

the current performance of 7.26%) by Feb’2018

BUDGET (Financial and/or Resource Constraints) Refer the 2.06

Regions In Scope – EMEA Only

10

2.0: Project Framework (Contd..) Project Charter

PROJECT SCHEDULE

RISK MANAGEMENT

• Factory & Logistics commitment on timelines / Supplier standard transit time • On-site service commitment towards the redefined timeline • CSR’s/ Channel partner delays

11

7

2.01 Concise Project Statement

Problem Statement:

The Computing CAC E2E cycle time performance for FY’16 –Q1’17 stands at 29 days (i.e. @ 90% fill rate) and overall around 7.5% of CAC rejection had occurred, due to the multiple touch points or complexity within the process and also the long ETA.

Few of the CAC rejections resulted into claims payout of $433K in FY’16-Q1’17 (impacting the P&L)

Lack of E2E view resulting in the Partner/ end customer dissatisfaction (TCE impact)

Objective:

Improve the E2E CAC Cycle time ( Defined as Customer reported date to claim closed date) and to improve the Customer Experience

Physical Claims pay-out avoidance there by reducing the business impact & increasing the scope of CAC claims

Goal: o Reduce the E2E cycle time by 22 % i.e. Meet 23 days of TAT) o Reduce >50% of claims pay-out

Problem Statement

12

2.02 Type of Project

The project used a typical DMAIC process: Define, Measure, Analyze, Design, Improve & Control.

This Project mandates and poses the following challenges. Hence LSS DMAIC was adopted to improve the process. • Complexity involved in the project

• Advance tools like VA/NVA analysis were

in need to study the E2E process for improvement

• Multiple stakeholder involved . Hence LSS tools like Brainstorming, Cause and effect diagram was leveraged to get their view point and to identify the root cause.

• Statistical tools like hypothesis test, box plot, control chart were extensive leveraged during the project.

Need for LSS DMAIC Methodology

13

8

2.03 Scope Statement

15

The In-scope of this project is Component & Accessories claim process in Computing Business in EMEA Region which includes Distributors, Claim processing team, Hp stores, Retailers etc of Compute segment

In-scope The project is Out of Scope for Computing Business APJ & AMS regions and also Printing Business since the operational model is different.

Out of Scope

In-scope – CAC Computing Business(EMEA)

Project Scope

14

CSR Direct PC

Channel Partner (Distributors)

Channel Partner (Retailers)

HP stores TCE

Channel PC Team PEC WW Tool CAC Team Pandora Tool

Retail Entry

2.04 & 2.05 Assumption & Expectation and Project Schedule/High-Level Plan

Project Start Date 01-02-2017

Project End Date 28-02-2018

Project Miles Stones Assumption & Exceptions

Assumption : Customer/Partner satisfaction related to product availability will improve by reducing the cycle time of the components & Accessories Claims Expectations: • Project to be completed within the timeline

and allocated budget • Reduction of 22% in the E2E cycle time (i.e.

Meet 23 days of TAT from 29.43 days @ 90% fill rate) by Feb’2018

• Reduce 25% of the CAC rejection ( i.e. Meet 5.6% of rejection from the current performance of 7.26%) by Feb’2018

Assumptions and Expectations

15

9

2.06 Budget(Financial Or Resources) Project Cost & Benefit Calculations

16

2.07 Risk Management Risk Management by the project team

Brainstorming Session was conducted to determine the possible risk associated with the project. Individual members were as to identify the risk . The following risk was recorded during the session

S. No Risk associated with Project

1 Identification of appropriate stakeholder

2 Ontime onboarding of stakeholders

3 Not meeting the Project timeline

4 Resource constraint due to unforeseen situation.

Identification of Risk Risk Evaluation & Mitigation

• Ontime onboarding of stakeholders

• Identification of appropriate stakeholder

• Not meeting the Project timeline.

• Resource constraint due to unforeseen situation.

Po

ten

tial

Occ

urr

en

ce

Impact Low High

High

S. No Risk associated with Project Risk Mitigation

1 Identification of appropriate stakeholder

Metro Map and SIPOC tools were leveraged to identify the stakeholder list

2 Ontime onboarding of stakeholders

upfront alignment with senior leadership was done on the onboarding of stakeholders

3 Not meeting the Project timeline

Strong governance around adherence to project timeline was in place

4 Resource constraint due to unforeseen situation.

Back up resources were identified to support the project

17

10

Section 3.00: Project Stakeholders and the Project Team

18


3.00 Project Stakeholders and the Project team 19 3.01 Stakeholders and How Identified 20 3.02 Project Champion 21 3.03 Project Team Selection 22 3.04 Team Preparation 23 3.05 Team Routines 24

Project Team Members

3.0: Project Stakeholders and the Project team

Roles Name Core Team members

CAC SME Stephane Gateil-Barrier

Process Expert Nazli Aktas ( Indirect PC)

Regional Co-ordinators

Channel & CSR’s

CSS Team – Onsite David Ortega

Manager Victor Thomas D (CAC Team )

Direct PC - SME Andreea Nicoleta Birsan

Roles Stakeholders

Sponsor/Champion Ramesh Rajagopalan

Finance Rep Laviron Aude / Marina Kukanova

Mentor Bachu – LSS Black Belt

Business owners Pavel Pucholt / Stephane Gateil-Barrier/ Vinod Pillai

Others stakeholders

Santhosh(Indirect PC) EK Sasireka( PDR team, Rajesh R(Direct PC) & Manikandan R ( PC Team

Project Lead Saravanan. M

Project Team members details

19

11

3.01: Stakeholders and How Identified

SIPOC Tool was used to identify the Key stakeholders of this project

SCOAH Approach to Stakeholder Identification

20

3.02: Project Champion

Champion is responsible for the E2E process of SCOAH India Hub and holds the accountability of the project charter and its success

Director of India SCOAH was the sponsor for this project.

Key Actions Supported by Sponsor

Provided necessary Financial Support and Resources for successful completion of the project

Participated in Project Kick off and was part of all the Toll gate reviews of DMAIC. Upon the sponsors approval team was allowed to move to next phases

Supported the team during the Management of Change with partners and vendors as part of solution implementation

Provided the team with necessary guidance to channelize the focus of the project team, eliminated the road barriers during solution implementation stage

Project Champion Org , Roles and Responsibilities

India SCOAH Hub

EMEA Customer

Operations

EMEA Supply Chain

Order Management

APJ Customer

Operations

Master & Product Data Management

EMEA Customer

Ops

EMEA Supply

Chain Ops

Customer

Partner

21

12

3.03: Project Team Selection

The Project Team onboarded the Stakeholders based on the below RACI Analysis

RACI Chart

22

3.04: Team Preparation

Dedicated Discussion room for Project Discussions Team Meeting - Forming and Storming Stages Brainstorming on the project Goal

Weekly Core Meeting Stakeholder meeting on the project milestones -1 Stakeholder meeting on the project milestones -2

Planned Team Events

23

13

3.05: Team Routines Meeting Cadence

Quarterly Review

Steering committee

Meeting

Core Team Meeting

Meeting Cadence Frequency

Quarterly

Monthly

Weekly

Participant

All Key stakeholders, Champion, Project Lead , & Mentor

All Key stakeholders, Champion, Project Lead , Mentor & Core

team Members

Core team members, Project Lead & Mentor

High Level Agenda

• Review on the project status • Key action implemented and it’s outcome • Challenges & support required

• Project Progress status • Key milestone achieved • Support & Challenges • Next steps

• Project action status review • Planning of Next steps • Deciding the accountability on the actions • Review on the Key challenges & Support

Required

LSS Toll Gate Reviews

As and When the toll gate are completed

Champion, Core team members, Project Lead, Mentor &

Stakeholders

• Review of accomplished of the particular DMAIC Phase

• Evaluation of LSS tool and concept used. • Review the deliverable of the phase are met • Sign off of the tollgate/feedback etc.

24

Section 4.00: Project Overview

25


4.01 Project Overview & Project Approach 26 4.02 Tools used through out the Project 27 4.03 Tool Output at Different Stages of the Project - Define and Measure 28 4.03 Tool Output at Different Stages of the Project - Analyse and Improve 29 4.03 Tool Output at Different Stages of the Project - Control 30 4.04 How Team was prepared to use the Tools 31

4.05 & 4.06 Dealing with Project Risk and Encountering and Handling Resistance 32 4.07 Stakeholder involvement in the project 33

14

4.0 & 4.01: Project Overview & Project Approach

Type of Project: Lean Six Sigma Project Black Belt Project

Description of Project Approach: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve & Control

General SCOAH Approach on LSS DMAIC

26

4.02: Tools used through out the Project

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

SIPOC MSA Brainstorming Brainstorming on Solution

Control plan

Gannt Chart IMR Chart Process flow Analysis FMEA IMR Chart

CTQ Tree Normality chart VA NVA Analysis IMR Chart Balance score card

Process Capability Cause & effect diagram Box plot

Box Plot FMEA Hypothesis Test

Hypothesis test Scatter plot & Correlation Analysis IMR chart

Process flow Pareto chart Normality test

RACI Chart IMR Chart Process capability

Box Plot Analysis

List of Tools used in the project

27

15

4.03: Tool Output at Different Stages of the Project

Define Phase Measure Phase

Tools Tool Output Tool Tool Output

SIPOC • High level overview of the process • Identify the input & output of the

process • Figure out Scope & Stakeholder of the

project

IMR Chart • Stability of the process

Gannt Chart • To ensure the project team adhere to project timelines

Normality chart • Validate the assumption of Normality

CTQ Tree • CTQ i.e metric & Drivers of the project Process Capability • Baseline capability of the process

Box Plot • Variation & Central tendency of the process

Hypothesis test • Validate the target is significant enough to pursue

Process flow • Bottle necks in the process

RACI Chart • Key stakeholder determination

Tools Usage and the Outcome - Define & Measure Phase

28

Analyze Phase Improve Phase

Tools Tool Output Tool Tool Output

Brainstorming • All possible Pain areas Brainstorming on Solution

• Generation of Solution for the identified root cause

Process flow Analysis • Highlighted the bottlenecks that affect the flow of the process

FMEA • Validate the potential risk associated with Solution

• Prioritize the high impact solution

VA NVA Analysis • Identified the NVA in the process IMR Chart • Verified the stability of the improved process

Cause & effect diagram • Root causes were identified Box plot • Validated the improved process against the baseline

FMEA • Prioritization potential of root causes based on their impact

Hypothesis Test • Validate the improved process has met the project goal

Scatter plot & Correlation Analysis

• Statically validated whether the Root cause is having the impact on the output

Normality test • Determined whether improved process is stable

Pareto chart • Identified the top contributors that impacted the output

4.03: Tool Output at Different Stages of the Project(contd) Tools Usage and the Outcome - Analyze & Improve Phase

29

16

Control Phase

Tools Tool Output

Control plan

• Key parameter to be monitored • Monitoring frequency & Thresholds • Response plan if incase the key parameter is out of control

IMR Chart

• To monitor and sustain the improved result

Balance score card • Snap shot of the project

4.03: Tool Output at Different Stages of the Project(contd) Tools Usage and the Outcome - Control Phase

30

4.04: How Team was prepared to use the Tools

The team was provided with the LSS Belt training and has the hand on experience on the various tools used in this project using Minitab software

1 Lean Six sigma Training & evaluation(pass>70%) to develop the capability of tools and concepts

2 Hands on the advance statistical software - Minitab

3 Mentor support to the team

4 Validation and feedback during the toll gate reviews on the tool usuage

LSS Trainings and Support within SCOAH

31

17

4.05, 4.06: Dealing with Project Risk and Encountering and Handling Resistance

Brainstorming Session was conducted to determine the possible risk associated with the project. Individual members were as to identify the risk . The following risk was recorded during the session

Identification of Risk, Risk Evaluation & Mitigation

Approach to Dealing with Risk and Resistance Handling

Encountering and Resistance Handling

Monthly Governance

meeting

Periodic Check-in

Conversation

Stakeholder were assigned accountability and challenges were discussed during monthly governance call

During Storming stage of the project lead had a Check-in conversation with all the core team members

Key Inference: Stakeholder alignment was ensured during the kickoff meeting and business priorities was reiterated during every governance call and challenges were discussed transparently to ensure no resistance during the project course.

32

4.07: Stakeholder involvement in the project

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

Stakeholder was involved in the the project charter & Signoff

Stakeholders consensus on the Data collection plan was done

Summary of Analyze phase was discussed with stakeholder and consensus was obtained

Discussion with the stakeholder the solution identified and the potential risk associated with it was discussed

Stakeholder involved in the Validation on Control mechanism and the response plan for the key parameter to be sustained

Customer VOC and Stakeholder input was considered during Need statement in CTQ Exercise

As is process study and the RACI Chart was developed along with stakeholder and core team members

Implementation of solution and project benefits were signoff by stakeholder during this week

Consensus was obtained on the accomplishment of project goal and approval on the closure.

Consensus was obtain on the timeline – Gannt Chart

Project scoping exercise leveraging SIPOC stakeholder was involved.

Stakeholder Signoff was taken at each phase has a tollgate review completion. Over and above that below are other exercise were stakeholder were involved

Stakeholder involvement in the project

33

18

High-level flow

5.00 :Project Walkthrough

1 2 3

4 5 6

** This slide shows a glimpse of Data Driven approach please refer the subsequent slides for the detailed view

34

Section 5.01: Data-Driven Project Flow

35


5.01-01 Define Phase – Metro Map of EMEA Component & Accessories Claim Process 36

5.01-02 Define Phase –Critical to Quality Tree 37 5.01-03 Measure Phase – Data Collection Plan 38 5.01-04 Measure Phase – Justification of MSA Not applicable 39 5.01-05 Measure Phase – Primary Metric Process stability & Baseline 40 5.01-06 Measure Phase – Target Setting ( BOX Plot Analysis) & Target Validation ( 1 Sample T Test) 41 5.01-07 Measure Phase – Process Capability 42 5.01-08 Measure Phase – Secondary Metric Process stability & Baseline 43 5.01-09 Measure Phase – Secondary Metric Process Capability 44 5.01-10 Analyze Phase – Process Map Analysis 45 5.01-11 Analyze Phase – VA/NVA Analysis 46 5.01-12 Analyze Phase – Brainstorming Analysis 47 5.01-13 Analyze Phase – Cause & Effect Analysis 48 5.01-14 Analyze Phase – RCA Prioritization( Cause & Effect Prioritization Matrix) 49 5.01-15 Analyze Phase – Statistical Validation of X9 & X11 50 5.01-16 Analyze Phase –X1,X7,X8 & X10 - Scatter Plot and Correlation Analysis 51 5.01-17

Analyze Phase : X4 -> Further analysis of Input issue : Query to Task ratio 52 5.01-18 Analyze Phase: X2 : Regression – Factory ETA VS E2E CAC cycle time 53 5.01-19

Analyze Phase – X6: Correlation – Engineer part# confirmation TAT VS E2E CAC Cycle time 54 5.01-20 Analyze Phase :X5 – Regression - Onsite TAT VS E2E CAC Cycle time 55 5.01-21 Analyze Phase: X3 - Qualitative (Passive) Analysis 56 5.01-22 Analyze Phase – Summary of Statistically Validated X’s(Root cause) 57

19

5.01: Data Driven workflow 5.01-01: Define Phase – Metro Map of EMEA Component & Accessories Claim Process

36

5.01: Data Driven workflow(contd..)

5.01-02: Define Phase –Critical to Quality Tree

Primary Metric

Secondary Metric

Voice of Customer/Business Critical to Quality Statement Project Metrics

Efficient and Timely Processing

of the component &

Accessories Claims

• Reduce complexity in Claims

process

• Shorter lead time for

processing of claims

E2E CAC Cycle time ( in days) Goal: To reduce the E2E Cycle time from 29 days to 23 days i.e 22%.

Voice of Business Critical to Quality Statement Project Metrics

• Reduce CAC Rejections

• Avoid Physical return of

goods

• Reduce the Credit Payout

• Timely validation and process

of claims

• Quick delivery of missing

component and accessories

CAC Rejection % Goal: To reduce the CAC Rejection % by 25%.

37

20

5.01: Data Driven workflow(contd..)

5.01-03: Measure Phase – Data Collection Plan

Define the measure Source of the measure Timeframe Sampling / subgrouping plan

(all, days, weeks, month)

Method to measure, collect, and/or analyze data

What Where When Frequency / Instances How

E2E CAC Cycle time @

90% Fill rate

[Primary Metric]

Pandora tool

Base line: Nov’15 to Jan’17

Post improvement : 6 months for control phase and ongoing tracking as per control plan

Sampling Plan: All data.

Subgrouping Plan: Monthly

Pandora report

Excel spreadsheet

Minitab – Stability & Normality

% of total CAC rejected

[Secondary Metric]

Pandora tool





Pandora report

Excel spreadsheet


CAC rejection lead to claim payout

PEC WW &

Pandora tool





Spotfire

Excel spreadsheet


38

5.01: Data Driven workflow (contd..)

5.01-04: Measure Phase – Justification of MSA Not applicable

39

21


5.01-05: Measure Phase – Primary Metric Process stability & Baseline

Operational Definition of

Metric

No of days taken for the CAC claim processing (customer reported date till the closure) @ 90% Fill rate

Data Type Continuous

Time Frame Monthly – Nov’2015 to Jan’2017

Process Stability Statement

There is no any special causes observed, which indicates it’s a stable process

p= 0.415

Normality Check Null hypothesis is that the data are normally distributed. With a P-Value > 0.05, fail to reject the null hypothesis, and accept that the data are normal.

Data Transformation

None required

Jan'

17

Dec

'16

Nov'16

Oct'16

Sep'16

Aug'16

Jul '1

6

Jun'16

May'

16

Apr'16

Mar

'16

Feb'16

Jan'

16

Dec'

15

Nov'15

50

40

30

20

10

Month

Days _

X=29.43

UCL=45.75

LCL=13.11

I Chart of E2E Cycle Time

40


5.01-06: Measure Phase – Target Setting ( BOX Plot Analysis) & Target Validation ( 1 Sample T Test)

4035302520

X_

Ho

E2E Cycle Time

Boxplot of E2E Cycle Time(with Ho and 95% t-confidence interval for the mean)

P-Value < 0.05, the target has a significant difference with as-is process E2E cycle time performance

One-Sample T: E2E Cycle Time Test of μ = 23 vs > 23 Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95% CI T P E2E Cycle Time 15 29.43 5.87 1.52 (26.18, 32.68) 4.24 0.001

Test Ho

P>0.05 Ha

P<0.05

1t test

There is no significant difference between current E2E cycle time and the targeted E2E cycle time of 23 days @ 90% fill rate

There is significant difference between current E2E cycle time and the targeted E2E cycle time of 23 days @ 90% fill rate

Box Plot Analysis 1 Sample T Test

In the above Box plot analysis the mean is at 29 days and 50th Percentile i.e Median is closer to the mean. Since there are reference benchmark target for CAC process. Hence the Project team in consensus with stakeholder have chosen >75th percentile i.e 23 days(22% Reduction) as the target for the primary metric

Objective : To test the Target i.e 23 days is significantly higher than the baseline performance. H0: Mean = 23 days HA: Mean > 23 days

41

22


5.01-07: Measure Phase – Process Capability

Process Capability Statement

With Current 44.93% of task out of USL. The process is not capable of meeting the defined target. (With the current mean of 29.43 days, the process is not capable of meeting the goal of 23 days @ 90%

fill rate. Recent data was considered to determine the current process capability)

Dec’16 & Jan’17 only

42


5.01-08: Measure Phase – Secondary Metric Process stability & Baseline

Operational Definition of Metric

No of CAC rejected against the total number of CAC claims received for the respective month

Data Type Attribute

Time Frame Monthly – Nov’2015 to Jan’2017


Process is almost stable with one special cause and it’s due to the FE delay in responses.


Data Transformation

None required p= 0.468

Jan'17

Dec'16

Nov'

16

Oct

'16

Sep'16

Aug'16

Jul'1

6

Jun'16

May

'16

Apr'16

Mar'1

6

Feb'16

Jan'16

Dec'15

Nov'

15

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

Month

Pro

po

rtio

n

_P=0.0726

UCL=0.1068

LCL=0.0383

1

P Chart of CAC Rejected


Key note: 25% reduction in Secondary metric was unanimously decided by Sponsor and stakeholder. Hence target setting was not done for this metric 43

23


5.01-09: Measure Phase – Secondary Metric Process Capability

Process Capability Statement With the current rejection mean of 7.26% the process is not capable of meeting the target of 5.6%

44


5.01-10: Analyze Phase – Process Map Analysis

45

24


5.01-11: Analyze Phase – VA/NVA Analysis

46


5.01-12: Analyze Phase – Brainstorming Analysis

Complexity of multiple internal TAT within teams

Multiple touch points & repeated validation checks

within PC & CAC Teams

Lack of E2E knowledge gap & impact of $ credit payout

Updating & analyzing same information in different tools

take more time

Missing input waiting time from Customer/Partner end

Incomplete & missing details from CSR

Logistics delay in Customs Countries

Multiple queries/follow-up on same CAC request

iQor Long ETA Ageing claim approval delay

from SME Reduce Financial approval

waiting time

Improvement required in Engineering team response

time

No defined Onsite TAT & governance/escalation

matrix

Knowledge gap - varying knowledge levels within the

dependency teams

Rework caused due to incomplete CAC logging by

the CSR’s

Educating FE on BOM clarification

Delay in getting the CSR Manager approval

Supplier taking long time to delivery components at iQor

Lack of E2E Backlog Management

No visibility of CAC progress or status updates

Brain Storming sessions conducted with SMEs, TLs & Managers to identify reasons for the long E2E cycle time 47

25


5.01-13: Analyze Phase – Cause & Effect Analysis

Critical root causes

48


5.01-14: Analyze Phase – RCA Prioritization( Cause & Effect Prioritization Matrix)

49

26


5.01-15: Analyze Phase – Statistical Validation of X9 & X11

Prioritized X’s (Refer Slide 42)

50


5.01-16: Analyze Phase –X1,X7,X8 & X10 - Scatter Plot and Correlation Analysis


51

27


5.01-17: Analyze Phase : X4 -> Further analysis of Input issue : Query to Task ratio


Dec16Nov16Oct16Sep16Aug16July16

5.4

5.1

4.8

4.5

4.2

Months

Ra

tio

n _

X=4.871

UCL=5.459

LCL=4.283

Dec16Nov16Oct16Sep16Aug16July16

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Months

Ra

tio

n

__MR=0.2211

UCL=0.7223

LCL=0

I-MR Chart of Queries to Task ration

In EMEA CAC team for the last 6 months- July’16 to Dec’16, queries to order processed ratio stands at 4.8:1 ratio resulting in high manual efforts spent in follow-up, clarifications etc. Need to do further analysis to see what are the main factors contributing to the Queries/ Input issues.

Focus –

From the Pareto chart we have 3X’s which has high impact on number of queries.

- Part/BOM clarifications

- Missing inputs

- Contact info 94%

The above analysis statistically confirms that higher the queries in the top categories, higher has been the number of queries. The solutions will hence be driven around these root causes, to reduce the input issues to avoid significant waiting time/delay. 52


5.01-18: Analyze Phase: X2 : Regression – Factory ETA VS E2E CAC cycle time


53

28


5.01-19: Analyze Phase – X6: Correlation – Engineer part# confirmation TAT VS E2E CAC Cycle time


Part clarificationAsset Tag - Clarification

20

15

10

5

0

Data

3.523.26232

Boxplot of Asset Tag - Clarification, Part clarification

Inference: P<0.05 Positive correlation indicates that when Engineering TAT increases, it affects the E2E Cycle time.

The predominant confirmation sent for the Asset Tag & alternative part#, where it’s average TAT stands at 3.52 & 3.26

days.

Need to have solutions in place to reduce the dependency with Engineering team on this kind of issues

54


5.01-20: Analyze Phase :X5 – Regression - Onsite TAT VS E2E CAC Cycle time


Inference: P<0.05 Positive correlation indicates that when Onsite TAT increases total CAC cycle time increases.

Observations:

Strong correlations exists with the onsite support request from the iQor shipments & below are the findings from our brainstorming meetings.

• Lack on Onsite progress update visibility

• BES tickets – Ageing claims without update

• ITRC tool managed by the 3rd party team

• Proposal to have a defined governance with CRT Team

• BES Tickets on-hold – Due to the lack of information from CSR

like customer availability, alternative contact number details etc.

• Tool/Platform replacement for Onsite case logging

• How to avoid waiting time, between the technician and

end-customer for service.

55

29


5.01-21: Analyze Phase: X3 - Qualitative (Passive) Analysis


56


5.01-22: Analyze Phase – Summary of Statistically Validated X’s(Root cause)

57

30

Section 5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification

58


5.02 & 5.03 -01 FMEA Analysis for the Statistical validated X’s(X1,X3, X5, X4, X2,X7) 59 5.02 & 5.03 -02 FMEA Analysis for the Statistical validated X’s(X1,X3, X5, X4, X2,X7) with Revised RPN 60 5.02 & 5.03 -03 FMEA Analysis for the Statistical validated X’s(X6, X9, X12, X11, X8,X10) 61 5.02 & 5.03 -04 FMEA Analysis for the Statistical validated X’s(X6, X9, X12, X11, X8,X10) with Revised RPN 62 5.02 & 5.03 -05 Solution Implemented & Benefit Details 63 5.02 & 5.03 -06 Solution Implemented & Benefit Details 64 5.02 & 5.03 -07 Re-engineered E2E Process 65 5.02 & 5.03 -08 Multiple Input Complexity Reduction – Before & After 66 5.02 & 5.03 -09 Identifying & Reduction of NVA - Before & After 67 5.02 & 5.03 -10 Computing CAC – E2E Process Flow Before 68 5.02 & 5.03 -11 Computing CAC – E2E Process Flow After 69 5.02 & 5.03 -12 Improve Phase: Validation of Results -CSR Delay and Query Reduction 70 5.02 & 5.03 -13 Improve Phase: Validation of Results – Engineering Activity Hand over & Query Management 71 5.02 & 5.03 -14 Improve Phase: Validation of Results – iQor Factory - Improvement 72 5.02 & 5.03 -15 Improve Phase: Validation of Results – Onsite Support - Improvement 73 5.02 & 5.03 -16 Improve Phase: Validation of Results – TNT Shipments Customs Issue Improvement 74

5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification

Total RPN = 6730 with the top list of potential causes, impacting the E2E Cycle time

What is the step? (sub processes)

In what ways can the step go wrong?

What is the impact on the customer if the failure mode is not prevented or

corrected?

What is the Severity Rating for the Effect

from 1:10?

What causes the step to go wrong? (i.e., How could the

failure mode occur?)

What is the Occurrence Rating of the Cause from 1:10?

What are the existing controls that either prevent the failure

mode from occurring or detect it should it occur?

What is the Detection Rating of the Failure or Effect

from 1:10?

RPN = SEV * OCC * DET

Process step Potential failure mode Potential failure effects SEV Potential causes (from C&E

matrix) OCC Current process controls DET RPN

Performing Eligibility &

Submission of CAC Claim

Logged CAC with the unclean input given, wrong localization, incorrect quantity/CAC treatment, Ship date too old & $ hinder Value updation

Delay in processing of CAC shipment, lead to end customer dissatisfaction

and unable to use the original Shipment delivered before.

9 Handover b/w PC Channel,

Direct & CAC teams 9 No control in place 10 810

NCO creation for Customs regions

Fail to change the Incoterm field as DDP and also the HTS code in the

NCO file

Partner had been asked to pay some charges to collect the shipment, hence there is a refusal to do business with

HP & avoid to accept CAC claim

9 TNT NCO Shipment delay in

Customs Countries 8 No control in place 10 720

Logging Onsite ticket for technician Visit, based on the Partner/customer

request

Delay in logging the onsite tickets within the timely manner

Unable to use both the original & CAC shipment accessories, may lead to

return of goods back to HP 8

Long TAT or lack of governance model with the

Onsite Support team 8 No control in place 10 640

Mandatory inputs are not provided like alternative contact # & Serial

number from PC team end

Overlooking the ETA of component delivery and PDR+ component field

isn't checked

CAC Claim Validation and

Processing

Incorrect/missing customer address/contact details, business

justification reason & Part clarification provided

Answering for multiple queries from different teams and delay in

component delivery, unable to use the complete original shipment delivered

earlier

8 No clear input template to

submit a CAC 8 No control in place 10 640

Part ordering from iQor factory

Delay in sending the no charge order confirmation to iQor factory

Rejection of CAC claim, due to late shipment

9 Suppliers sending

components through Standard Shipments

7 No control in place 10 630

CAC claim entry in Pandora

Duplicate claim entry in Pandora tool & multiple no charge orders sent to factory for the same PDR

Delay in delivery of CAC shipment 7 CSR/Partner directly logging

incomplete PDR claims 8 No control in place 10 560

X1

X3

X5

X4

X2

X7

5.02 & 5.03 -01: FMEA Analysis for the Statistical validated X’s(X1,X3, X5, X4, X2,X7)

59

31

what is the severity

Rating for the Effect from 1:10

what causes the step to go wrong?(i.e.,

How could the Failure Mode May Occur)

what is the Occurrence

rating of the

Causefrom 1: 10

what is the Detection Rating of

the Failure or Effect

from 1:10?

RPN=SEV*OCC*DET

what are the Actions for reducing the Occurrence of the cause or for improving

Detection? You Should provide actions on all high

RPNs and on severity ratings 9 or 10

Who is responsible for

the recommended Action ?what date should it be completed

by?

what were the actions implemented? Include completion month\year(then recalculate resulting RPN)

what is the new

severity Rating for the Effect from 1:10

what is the New

Occurrence rating of

the Cause from 1: 10

what is the Detection

Rating t from 1:10?

RPN=SEV*OCC*DET

9 Handover b/w PC Channel, Direct &

CAC teams 9 10 810

Involving the PDR lead/agents directly to monitor the origin of PDR

request, in the respective tools (e.g 3W)

Rajesh (PDR Team lead)

Nov'17

Internal transition of PDR activities movement to the subpart of Physical claims hub (Bangalore)

E2E Process Re-Engineering are done and Simplified the CAC process complexity - July 31st 2017

9 3 5 135

9 TNT NCO Shipment delay in Customs

Countries 8 10 720

Setup monthly review inviting Custom regional experts & PDR

Process SME

Saravanan/Stephane Gateil-Barrier

Mar'18

Implemented the change in Commercial invoice & incoterm process, by setting up the governance

with EMEA L4 -Logistics Manager, Customs regional experts & PDR process SME - September 2017

9 4 4 144

8

Long TAT or lack of governance model

with the Onsite Support team

8 10 640 PDR monthly joint meeting with the

CRT/CS team + PDR SME

PDR Team Lead + David Ortega (CS

CRT) Nov'17

Onsite delay reason & Process gaps are shared with the CRT teams Organized a forum where the CRT support agent & all regional CSR's are

highlighting the deviation & scope within the process May 9th 2017

8 5 5 200

8 No clear input

template to submit a CAC

8 10 640

Involve CSR's & highlight any field change in template/process isn't

followed in the Monthly CSR Champs forum

Rajesh/ Ionut (Direct PC SME)

Oct'17

Created an automated PDR form with all mandatory fields Delivered training to the CSR's on the usage of template

July 10th 2017 8 3 4 96

9

Suppliers sending components

through Standard Shipments

7 10 630 Express shipments should be

continue monitored with the new SMS factory

Stephane Gateil-Barrier (EMR Team)

Feb'18

Through EMR L3/L4 & SME Support & approval, ODM/supplier shipments changed from Standard to Express.

Monitoring performed for 1 month and relevant communication are done - July 2017

9 1 10 90

7

CSR/Ops Specialist directly logging incomplete PDR

claims

8 10 560 Reviewing the PDR input request

process flow by the team lead on a daily basis

Saravanan & Team Lead

Oct'17

Delivered training & implication of unclean input, during the CSR's Champs forum

No more direct PDR entry, by CSR's into Pandora tool - June 2017 7 1 10 70

After the improvement actions have been implemented, the RPNs of all the actionable root causes have been significantly reduced

X1

X3

X5

X4

X2

X7

60

5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification(Contd..)

5.02 & 5.03 -02: FMEA Analysis for the Statistical validated X’s(X1,X3, X5, X4, X2,X7) with Revised RPN

5.02 & 5.03: Solution Validation & Solution Justification (Contd..)

5.02 & 5.03 -03: FMEA Analysis for the Statistical validated X’s(X6, X9, X12, X11, X8,X10)

What is the step? (sub processes)

In what ways can the step go wrong? What is the impact on the

customer if the failure mode is not prevented or corrected?

What is the Severity Rating for the Effect

from 1:10?

What causes the step to go wrong? (i.e., How could the failure mode occur?)

What is the Occurrence Rating of the Cause from 1:10?

What are the existing controls that either prevent the failure

mode from occurring or detect it should it

occur?

What is the Detection Rating of the Failure or

Effect from 1:10? RPN = SEV * OCC * DET

Process step Potential failure mode Potential failure effects SEV Potential causes (from C&E

matrix) OCC Current process controls DET RPN

Part reference or alternative PN identification

Incorrect details like wrong HP order & localaization, unclear problem

description, part # without checking the EOL etc

Delay in CAC shipment, partners are unable to use the original

shipment results in dissatisfaction

7 Delay in Part # confirmation

from Engineering team 8 No control in place 10 560

Query sent for CSR Manager approval

Not investigated the correct 'Error Owner' &

Delay in CAC shipment delivery, partner unable to use the

original shipment results in dissatisfaction

7

Multiple approvers waiting time (CSR Manager/OS &

PDR SME)

8 No control in place 10 560 delay in initiating the approval email

request to FE team

CAC Shipment through the iQor

Delay in sending the no charge order confirmation to iQor factory

Late shipment & dissatifiction with the HP service

6 iQor factory long ETA

8 No control in place 10 480 Based on CSR requirement again

changing the Part number in the existing NCO and requesting for the

Express shipment

Financial & Process SME approval

Incomplete/incorrect details like $ hinder value, business justification,

shipped/delivery date isn't provided in approval request Late shipment 7

Pre defined $ threshold cost approval process


Copying the different approvers, while sending the approval email

Part availability Check

Ordering for component, without checking the factory report of EOL

details on ordered part. Delay in CAC shipment delivery, partner unable to use the

original shipment results in dissatisfaction

6

No Built in stock model, parts need to be procured

after NCO created

6 No control in place 10 360 Based on the part description, directly requesting for availability to iQor instead of checking with the other

EMEA factories.

Processing of exception parts to

avoid potential 'RET'

Fail to check for the alternative PN, instead of the requested part # Delay in

sending the no charge order confirmation to factory

Delay in CAC shipment 7

CAC team failed to provide Proactive notification to the

factory


X6

X9

X12

X11

X8

X10 61

32


5.02 & 5.03 -04: FMEA Analysis for the Statistical validated X’s(X6, X9, X12, X11, X8,X10) with Revised RPN

what is the severity


what causes the step to go

wrong?(i.e., How could the Failure

Mode May Occur)

what is the Occurrence rating of the Cause from

1: 10

what is the Detection

Rating of the Failure or

Effect from 1:10?

RPN=SEV*OCC*DET

what are the Actions for reducing the Occurrence of the

cause or for improving Detection? You Should provide actions on all high RPNs and on

severity ratings 9 or 10

Who is responsible for

the recommended

Action ?what date should it be

completed by?

what were the actions implemented? Include completion month\year(then recalculate resulting RPN)

what is the new severity


what is the New

Occurrence rating of the Cause from

1: 10

what is the Detection Rating t

from 1:10?

RPN=SEV*OCC*DET

7

Delay in Part # confirmation

from Engineering

team

8 10 560

Engineering checks are currently done by the PDR team

immediately and initiated access to all the agents

Rajesh & Stephane March'18

Trained PDR team on the Part# checks and other activities performed by Stephane Lelong (Engineering team)

- October 2017 7 3 4 84

7

Multiple approvers

waiting time (CSR

Manager/OS & PDR SME)

8 10 560

Review and update approver's names list (based on the

approval matrix, whenever it's getting revised)

Saravanan Jan'18

Implemented Passive approval process for CSR Manager, OS & SME approval request - July 2017

7 3 5 105

6 iQor factory long

ETA 8 10 480

Follow-up through weekly consolidated report will be sent to factory on all the high ageing

PDR's & escalate to the EMR manger/SME (Wherever it's

required)

Stephane & Estelle (EMR

SME's) Nov'17

Shared the impact to the PDR E2E TAT, therby proposed reduction of factory long lead time from 12 -16 Weeks to 6-8

weeks - August 2017

6 5 5 150

7 Pre defined $ threshold cost

approval process 6 10 420

Periodically review and update approver's name list

Saravanan/Stephane Gateil-Barrier

Nov-17

Simplified approval matrix created, same day PDR cost approval by EMR L4 - June 2017

7 1 10 70

6

No Built in stock model, parts need to be

procured after NCO created

6 10 360

Continue dropping an email directly to the factory on the

immediate component requirement, during the pre-

validation stage itself

Saravanan & PDR team Jan'18

Implemented effective Pre-validation checks and component visibility to all the PDR agents

August 2017

6 3 5 90

7

CAC team failed to provide Proactive

notification to the factory

5 10 350

Created list of exception components PN, where the PDR

agents should review mandatorily for all cases

Saravanan & Team Feb'18

Created list of exception PDR components and trained the processing agents, to quickly fulfill the request

June - July 2017 7 3 5 105

X6

X9

X12

X11

X8

X10


62


5.02 & 5.03 -05: Solution Implemented & Benefit Details

Before After Benefits

Handover b/w PC Channel, Direct & CAC teams

Internal transitioned the CAC activities within the PC hub Incomplete CAC entry, Multiple Validation, duplicate checks are avoided (including the back & forth exchange of emails) Reduced significant waiting time, due to multiple dependency teams involvement and touch points

Cycle Time improvement, Improve quick validation

Suppliers sending components through Standard Shipments

• Through the help of EMR team management, there is a process change had been implemented where the Supplier delivery to iQor will be an express shipment • Proactive notification to the factory, during the claim validation stage itself • Created the list of exception PN’s data, which helps in effective follow-up with CSR’s/Partners

Factory TAT Improvement

TNT NCO Shipment delay in Customs Countries

• Initiated multiple discussion with Marian, Stephane, Monika and Thomas Sengel for the role clarity on the TNT NCO shipments getting stuck in the Customs regions • With all the approval, amended the current NCO into Commercial invoice only for the customs countries • Also briefed EMEA factories like Foxconn, LSS role in accepting such shipment request and the TNT should carry relevant papers from their end

Quick delivery of components, Improved TCE

No clear input template to submit a PDR

o Created an excel enabled PDR/CAC template with all the required fields and provided training to the CSR’s o Also piloted the automated form in few regions and it had become, now the template is mandatory without that CAC request can’t be submitted o Details like Clearing business justification, alternate contact#, SN, CSR manger approval, ageing reason are received as a clean input now.

Query/waiting time reduction and reduce rejection rate

Long TAT or lack of governance model with the Onsite Support team

• Initiated discussions with CRT team and did an onsite process deep dive between the teams • Onsite CRT support involvement in the CSR champions forum and established a better communication flow involving all of them • Robust governance in place, also the visibility on BES onsite ticket case id through the SharePoint

Onsite TAT & overall cycle time improvement, avoid CAC rejection

Delay in Part # confirmation from Engineering team

• The Part# clarification activity had been managed by the CAC team, where it takes some minutes and move the claim into the next queue • Avoided Non Value added steps like performing checks in Wizpart, MYPIM, SAP applications, instead directly work in the Pulsar tool • Eliminated multiple reminders/queries email exchanges and follow-up

Reduction in wait time and cycle time improvement

X1

X2

X3

X4

X5

X6

63

33


5.02 & 5.03 -06: Solution Implemented & Benefit Details

Before After Benefits

CSR/Partner directly logging incomplete PDR claims

• CSR’s directly logging CAC claim in the Pandora tool with unclean inputs, had been eliminated. • Effective validation checks are performed and the CAC team manages the claim entry till closure

100% Clean throughput & cycle time improvement

No Built in stock model, parts need to be procured after NCO created

• Created list of exception part numbers, using which the team performs the effective pre validation at the initial stage and provide confirmation to the factory early for procuring the component • Predominantly the Notebook keyboards, ABF,AB9,ABZ, LCD Panel/WLAN request can’t be forecasted, hence there is pre checks process implemented before sending the no charge order to factory team

Support factory ETA, thereby overall Cycle time improvement

Multiple approvers waiting time (CSR Manager/OS & PDR SME)

• It’s mandatory to provide the CSR manager approval, along with the PDR/CAC form • All the ageing claim and Channel Ops specialist approval for >20 units are passive now • There is no more waiting time for the different level of approval process

Cycle time improvement & reduce rejection %

CAC team failed to provide Proactive notification to the factory

• Trained CAC team on how to notify and proactive manage the communication between the factory team and the FE/Partner end • Regular Quality check in place to monitor the same within the process


Pre defined $ threshold cost approval process • The PDR cost approval had been simplified with clear business case and threshold process, now it’s getting approved directly by the EMR L4 manager & above. • Revised and updated approval matrix place and will be reviewed periodically


iQor long ETA

• Significant improvement in ETA from 12 weeks to 6 to 8 weeks, especially for of the few components, where there is no built in stock model • CAC process expert had helped in implementing the change within the iQor, to standardize and quicker delivery of components.


X7

X8

X9

X10

X11

X12

64


5.02 & 5.03 -07: Re-engineered E2E Process


PC Team (Direct) PC Team (Channel) PDR Team Site & FE Co-ordinator Engineering Team Financial Approver Factory Logistics Onsite Team

Bef

ore


Site & FE Co-ordinator Financial Approver Factory Logistics Onsite Team

Aft

er


PC HUB

PC Team (Direct & Channel) PDR Team / Engineering Team

23 Days

Key Callouts:

• Process Merger of CAC within PC hub (Significant Operational Waiting time reduction) • Approval Simplification • Process & knowledge gap fix in rejection leading to Payout • Factory long ETA Improvement • TNT NCO Shipments Improvement • Onsite governance & follow-up • Engineering activity – Wait time reduction • Multiple input Standardization


65

34


5.02 & 5.03 -08: Multiple Input Complexity Reduction – Before & After

66


5.02 & 5.03 -09: Identifying & Reduction of NVA - Before & After

Partners/CSR PC Team CAC Team PC Team Partner / Customer

Eligibility & reduced duplicate input validation checks performed by PC &

CAC Team

Creation of CAC claim in Pandora or claim move

into the next activity

Validation & BOM verification by CAC team

Raise unclean input queries like

missing/incorrect info to FE/PC by CAC team

Part # confirmation & Manual component

availability checks by la-scala or CAC team

Waiting time on Finance/SME approval &

create NCO send to factory

NCO reference & ETA confirmation provided

550

Average Volume/Month

CAC Process Efficiency VA Time (mins) NVA Time (mins) VA Time (mins) NVA Time (mins)

Analyze CAC eligibility criteria before submitting the claim 8 0 8 0

Basic input validation checks performed by PC team 5 6 5 3

Create new CAC task in Pandora tool or move into next activity 4 7 4 0

Validation checks and BOM verification by the CAC team 3 6 5 3

CAC team raise query on missing/incorrect info to FE & PC teams 4 6 4 1

Part # confirmation from Eng. Team & rechecking with PC team 6 7 8 0

Manual component availability check with factory teams by la-scala 5 0 5 0

Waiting for Finance/SME exception approval for ageing claim etc 8 9 8 2

Creation of NCO & communicate to Partner, CSR's & PC teams 6 7 7 3

Total Time (mins) 49 48 54 12 Total Lead Time (VA + NVA) mins 97 66

Process Efficiency (VA/Total Lead Time) mins 51% 82%

Reduced

NVA

Reduced

NVA

Reduced

NVA

Key Callouts

Reduction in NVA activities

Improved from 51% to 82%

Eliminated Multiple touch points

Waiting time reduction with dependency teams

16 Min

Before

After 4 Min 5 Min 8 Min 13 Min 13 Min 7 Min

19 Min 9 Min 10 Min 18 Min 20 Min 10 Min 11 Min

67

35


5.02 & 5.03 -10: Computing CAC – E2E Process Flow Before Computing CAC – Current Process f low

Cust

omer

/

Partn

erPh

ysica

l Cla

ims

CSR/

OSPD

R te

amBU

App

rova

l

Fact

ory/

LogC

oOn

site

Engi

neer

ing

Customer request to CSR

CAC Request

Eligibility

Check3W / PEC WW

Validation

Missing Info/

CSR Manager/OS

Approval

Clarification Information

CAC logged in Pandora

Validation of claims

Missing Info

Unclean inputComponent

Availability

Part #

ConfirmationPDR cost

>1K

NCO

Creation

Onsite

BU/ SME

Approval

Onsite Support

ITRC

<10

Units

BES

>10

Units

RejectNo

Logistics

Delivery

Check & provide

6:3 PN

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Ageing

Approval

Yes

Factory

Confirmation

Focus areas, impacting the E2E Cycle time • Hands off b/w multiple teams • Long ETA from factory end

• Multiple queries & waiting time with

CSR/FE teams • Engineering Team dependency

• Delay in TNT Shipments delivery

• Lack of Onsite governance & backlog

monitoring • Delay in BU/SME approval and different

level of approver’s list

68


5.02 & 5.03 -11: Computing CAC – E2E Process Flow After Computing CAC – Current Process f low

Cust

omer

/

Partn

erPh

ysica

l cla

ims

CSR/

OSCA

C HUB

BU

App

rova

l

Fact

ory/

LogC

oOn

site

Engi

neer

ing

Customer request to CSR

CAC Request

Eligibility

Check

3W / PEC WW

Clarification Information

Claim is moved

to La-scala

Missing Info

E2E ValidationComponent

Availability

Part #

ConfirmationPDR cost

>1K

NCO

Creation

Onsite

EMR Manager

Approval

Onsite Support

ITRC

<10

Units

BES

>10

Units

RejectYes

Logistics

Delivery

Part # Check in

Pulsar tool

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

NoNo

Yes

No

Factory

Confirmation

Eliminated

E2E Process Re-Engineering to improve Cycle time:

CAC+PDR Process Merger

CSR’s mandatory Input Template

ODM shipments changed from Standard to Express

Complete Engineering activity are managed by Ops

Established Robust governance & case id monitoring

Fixed TNT NCO Shipments for the Customs Countries

Cost approval directly from EMR Manager

CSR Manager/ OS & SME approval’s are Passive now

SCOAH Knowledge gap 69

36


5.02 & 5.03 -12: Improve Phase: Validation of Results -CSR Delay and Query Reduction

70


5.02 & 5.03 -13: Improve Phase: Validation of Results – Engineering Activity Hand over & Query Management

Key Callouts

Virtual training provided to CAC Team

Knowledge transfer done by Stephane Lelong

Part# clarification - Average waiting time of 3 days had been avoided

Reduced multiple reminders/queries email exchanges

Avoided Non Value added steps like performing checks in Wizpart, MYPIM, SAP applications

Only Asset tag ‘Sub PN/Template’ checks is currently dependent with Rene & team

AfterBefore

40

30

20

10

0

Co

un

t f

o Q

uerie

s

21.4

1.25

Engineering Queries raised month on month - Befor & After

71

37


5.02 & 5.03 -14: Improve Phase: Validation of Results – iQor Factory - Improvement

72


5.02 & 5.03 -15: Improve Phase: Validation of Results – Onsite Support - Improvement

73

38


5.02 & 5.03 -16: Improve Phase: Validation of Results – TNT Shipments Customs Issue Improvement

74

Section 5.04: Results

75


5.04-01 Results Achieved: Improved Process Stability of E2E Cycle time( Primary Metric) 76

5.04-02 Results Achieved: Process Capability of CAC E2E Cycle time ( primary Metric) Before and After 77

5.04-03 Results Achieved – Reduction of CAC Rejection %(Secondary Metric) Post Improvement 78

5.04-04 Results Achieved – Process Capability of CAC Rejection%(Secondary Metric) Before and After 79

5.04-05 Benefit Realized In dollars 80

39

5.04: Results 5.04-01: Results Achieved: Improved Process Stability of E2E Cycle time( Primary Metric)

• Improved Process Stability

Operational Definition of

Metric

No of days taken for the CAC claim processing (customer reported date till the closure) @ 90% Fill rate

Data Type Continuous

Time Frame Monthly – Sep’2017 to Feb’2018


There is no any special causes observed, which indicates it’s a stable process


Data Transformation

None required

Feb'18Jan'18Dec'17Nov'17Oct'17Sep'17

25.0

22.5

20.0

17.5

15.0

Month

Days

_X=21.17

UCL=25.95

LCL=16.38

I Chart of E2E cycle time - After

p= 0.708

Due to logistic issues in

Dec’17 & Early Jan’18. We

see bit upward. This

issue is sorted out now.

76

5.04: Results(Contd..)

5.04-02: Results Achieved: Process Capability of CAC E2E Cycle time ( primary Metric) Before and After

Key Inference

77% reduction in the task, which are out of USL. 77

40

5.04: Results (Contd..)

5.04-03: Results Achieved – Reduction of CAC Rejection %(Secondary Metric) Post Improvement

Operational Definition of Metric

No of CAC rejected against the total number of CAC claims received for the respective month

Data Type Attribute

Time Frame Monthly – Sep’2017 to Feb’2018


Process is almost stable with one special cause and it’s due to the low CAC rejection in Month of Feb’18. * Delay from the Asian factory confirmation, due to Chinese new year in Feb’18


Data Transformation

None required

Feb'18Jan'18Dec'17Nov'17Oct'17Sep'17

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

Month

Pro

po

rtio

n _P=0.04351

UCL=0.07415

LCL=0.012871

P Chart of CAC Rejected_After


78

5.04: Results (Contd..) 5.04-04: Results Achieved – Process Capability of CAC Rejection%(Secondary Metric) Before and After

Key Inference:

40% reduction in the overall Rejection rate. 79

41

5.04: Results (Contd..) 5.04-05: Benefit Realized In dollars

80

Section 5.05: Maintaining the Gains

81


5.05-01 Control Plan to Maintain the Improvements 82

5.05-02 Control Phase: Monitoring the CAC E2E Cycle time(primary metric) Using I Chart 83

5.05-03 Control Phase: Monitoring the CAC Rejection %(Secondary Metric) Using P Chart 84

42

5.05: Maintaining the Gains

83

EMEA Computing CAC Claims - Control Plan

Category Task/Action Control Plan Owner Start Date / Frequency Target / Expected Performance

Value Corrective

Action

Metric performance monitoring

Measure the number of days taken to fulfill a CAC from the Customer/Partner claimed till Closed

Check that the 90% of CAC’s are closed within 23 days are within specification

Saravanan M/ Rajesh(Backup)

January’2018

CAC’s Closed @ 90% fill rate within 23 days

Investigate root cause(s) for deviation

Monthly Define and implement corrective action(s)

Metric performance monitoring

Measure the number of Rejected PDR's, against the total PDR closed for the month

Check that the rejection rate of PDR's are within the defined specification

Saravanan M/ Rajesh(Backup)

January’2018 Number of CAC’s rejection %

<= 5.6% in comparison with the total CAC’s closed for the respective month


Monthly Define and implement corrective action(s)

PC & CAC Co-ordinators knowledge sharing

Sessions will be held to discuss on the process changes & other findings

Based on the results from the metrics detect the ¨main¨ contributor for the delay and provide the training

Rajesh & Bahampriyal (Backup)

Febrauary’2018

100% accuracy on the Input & Output of the PDR claim


Weekly Define and implement corrective action(s)

5.05-01: Control Plan to Maintain the Improvements

82

5.05: Maintaining the Gains (Contd..)

5.05-02: Control Phase: Monitoring the CAC E2E Cycle time(primary metric) Using I Chart

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: E2E CAC Cycle time Before & After Two-sample T for E2E cycle time Before vs E2E cycle time After N Mean StDev SE Mean E2E cycle time Before 15 29.43 5.87 1.5 E2E cycle time After 6 21.17 1.47 0.60 Difference = μ (E2E cycle time Before) - μ (E2E cycle time After) Estimate for difference: 8.26 95% CI for difference: (4.82, 11.70) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs >): T-Value = 5.07 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 17

Using 2-Sample T-Test on iQor TAT, with a null and alternative hypothesis of: H0: mean before = mean after HA: mean before > mean after gives a P-Value = 0.000, which is < 0.05. Therefore, at a 95% confidence level, we reject the null hypothesis and the improvement is confirmed statistically.

83

43

5.05: Maintaining the Gains (Contd..)

5.05-03: Control Phase: Monitoring the CAC Rejection %(Secondary Metric) Using P Chart

Test and CI for Two Proportions Sample X N Sample p 1 12 15 0.800000 2 0 6 0.000000 Difference = p (1) - p (2) Estimate for difference: 0.8 95% CI for difference: (0.597576, 1) Test for difference = 0 (Vs >0): Z = 7.75 P-Value = 0.000

Using a Two-Proportion Test, with a null and alternative hypothesis of: H0: proportion of CAC Rejected before< = proportion of CAC Rejected HA: proportion of CAC Rejected before > proportion of CAC Rejected After improvement gives a P-Value = 0.000 < 0.05. Therefore, at a 95% confidence level, we reject the null hypothesis and the improvement is confirmed statistically.

Delay from Asian factory ,due to

Chinese New year

84

Section 5.06: Project Communications

85


5.06-01 Executive summary of Improvement communicated to stakeholders 86

5.06-02 Snap Shot of Mails communication mails 87

44

5.06: Project Communications 5.06-01: Executive summary of Improvement communicated to stakeholders

86

Project Title: CAC -E2E Cycle time Improvement

Description: Identify and implement deliverables which will decrease the unclean lines.

Alignment to Strategic Objectives : $ claims return avoidance & TCE

Total Estimated Project Savings: Hard savings : $419K

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: E2E cycle time Before, E2E cycle time

After

N Mean StDev SE Mean

E2E cycle time Before 15 29.43 5.87 1.5

E2E cycle time After 6 21.17 1.47 0.60

Difference = μ (E2E cycle time Before) - μ (E2E cycle

time After)

Estimate for difference: 8.26

95% CI for difference: (4.82, 11.70)

T-Test of difference = 0 (vs ≠): T-Value = 5.07

P-Value = 0.000

Test and CI for Two Proportions

Sample X N Sample p

1 12 15 0.800000

2 0 6 0.000000

Difference = p (1) - p (2)

Estimate for difference: 0.8

95% CI for difference: (0.597576, 1)

Test for difference = 0 (vs ≠ 0): Z = 7.75

P-Value = 0.000

Using a Two-Proportion Test, with a null and

alternative hypothesis of:

H0: proportion of CAC Rejected before< =

proportion of CAC Rejected

HA: proportion of CAC Rejected before >

proportion of CAC Rejected After

improvement gives a P-Value = 0.000 < 0.05.

Therefore, at a 95% confidence level, we reject

the null hypothesis.

The improvement is confirmed statistically.

Using 2-Sample T-Test on E2E cycle time,

with a null and alternative hypothesis of:

H0: mean before = mean after

HA: mean before > mean after

gives a P-Value = 0.000, which is < 0.05.

Therefore, at a 95% confidence level, we

reject the null hypothesis. The improvement is

confirmed statistically.

5.06: Project Communications 5.06-02: Snap Shot of Mails communication mails

Recognition from L2 & L3 Leader’s- HP Supply Chain Project Closure & Certification Note to all Stakeholders

87

45

Date post:	20-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	7 times
Download:	0 times

E2E Cycle Time Reduction in Components & …...PC Team (Direct) Onsite TeamPC Team (Channel) PDR...

Documents