Project Name :- Reduce AHT

Project Owner :- Arun Maheshwari

Map the Project
----------------------------------------------------------------
-
Customer Comments CTQ

We are getting the same call

COO volume but unable to attend all Increased AHT
the calls.

Minimum Orders
We need to check the our
Unsatisfied Customer
executive call handling
VP
techniques because call
Increased Complaints
abandoned ratio is high.

On time Resolution
Operation We should minimize our
AHT
Manager executive AHT.
Unsatisfied Customer & Employee

D
Define
Project Charter
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Business Case: In Scope: Inbound & Outbound call
Naaptol is a growing industry in E-commerce
sector. We increase our business from 255 order to Out of Scope:
15 K orders per day. Other Departments other than Operation.
Now, we need to focus of handle maximum calls
with the help of existing manpower and increase .
our Customer & Employee satisfaction.

Team:-
Sponsor :- Hemant Bishnoi COO
Approver :- Hemant Bishnoi COO
Problem Statement:
Mentor :- Sourabh/ Amit VP/ SOM
Average call handling time is increase from 250 sec Black Belt :- Arun Maheshwari
to 450.65 sec in last three months. It will increase Member :- Nitin, Gunjan
Abandoned call ratio which is directly hamper
business as well as enhance customer dissatisfaction Target Dt End Dt Actual Dt End Dt
level..
Start Date 5/06/15

Define 15/06/15 22/06/15

Goal Statement:
To Reduce the Call handling time from 450.65 sec to Measure 23/06/15 28/06/15
250 sec by 15th August’15.
Analyze 29/06/15 07/07/15

Improve 08/07/15 21/07/15

D Control 22/07/14 15/08/15

Define
ARMI & Communication Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
- ARMI
Key
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
Stakeholders
Sponsor I,A I I I,A I,A
Approver I I I I I

Mentor A A,R A,R A,R A,R

Black Belt M M M M M
Member R R R R R
Communication Plan
Message Audience Media Who When
Project Status I,A, Mentor By Email Arun Weekly
Tollgate Report Mentor Email/ Meeting Arun As per Project Plan
Team Huddle, Brain
Activities Member Arun Weekly
Storming
When Populating the Stakeholder, consider the ARMI:
• A= Approver of team decisions
• R= Resource or subject matter expert (ad hoc)
• M= Member of team
• I= Interested Party who will need to be kept
informed
D
Define
COPIS
----------------------------------------------------------------
-
Customer Output Process Input Supplier

Greeting Customer
FTR/ Order
Rechurn Data

Probing for Query/

Emails
Complaint/ Order

T/F - Web Surfing

Customer Troubleshoot FTR / Details captured Call Facebook
Further Assistance Youtube

Closing Abandoned Data

T/F Supervisor
Cancellation
Tag the call as per scenario
Data

D
Define
 Call Received Process Flow
Greeting & Customer want Product details/ Summarized
to place Order probed address Details
Opening

Probing Queries regard Provide Dtls &

(Nature of Call) Prd / Services probe for order

Complaint reg
FTR / Order
prd/ services Yes
Customer Probe
Satisfaction Address

Customer No T/ F to Tech / No
Satisfaction Supervisor
Offer Call back

Yes
Yes No
Further FTR / Try to Escalated to
Assistance convince Backend

D Call Closed
Define
CTQ’s
----------------------------------------------------------------
-
AHT= Total Talk Time + Hold Time
+Call Closing Time/ Total accepted
calls in a month

Target = AHT of 250 sec

Reduce
Process CTQ
AHT

USL = 250 secs

LSL = NA

Defects – All AHT above 250 secs

D
Define
Mode of Collecting Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Performance
Specification Limit
Y Operational Definition Defect Definition Opportunity
Standard LSL USL

AHT=Total Talk Time + Hold

AHT Above 250 AHT of 250 sec/ Reduce AHT
AHT Time +Call Closing Time / NA 250 Secs
Secs month per call
Total call accepted in a month

If New when
Existing or New Plan Start data for
Y Data Type Database Container database would be
Database DCP
ready

AHT Continuous Excel Existing N/A Monthly AHT Data

M
Measure
Validate Measurement System Gage R&R
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gage R&R (ANOVA) for AHT %Contribut
Reported by : ion
Gage name: Tolerance: Source VarComp (VarComp)
Date of study : M isc:
Total GageR&R 4.3 0.1
100
Components of Variation AHT by Associate Name Repeatability 4.3 0.1
% Contribution
600
% Study Var
Reproduciability 0.0 0.0
P erc ent

50 400
Quality 0.0 0.0
0
200 Part-to-part 31727.9 99.0
Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Aman Komal Raman
Associate Name
Rohit Roshan
Total Variation 31732.2 100.0
R Chart by Operator
AHT by Operator
Gaurav Gunjan Jyoti Manvi Zeeshan
Sam ple Range

UCL=2.35 600
10
_
5 R=0.72
400
Study Var %Std Var
0
LCL=0
StdDev(S
Associate Name
200
Gaurav Gunjan Jyoti Manvi Zeeshan
Source D) (6 * SD) (%SV)
Xbar Chart by Operator
Operator Total GageR&R 2.072 12.43 1.16
Gaurav Gunjan Jyoti Manvi Zeeshan Associate Name * Operator Interaction Repeatability 2.072 12.43 1.16
Sam ple Mean

600 UCL=391.2
__ 600 Operator

400 X=389.8
Gaurav Reproduciability 0.000 0.00 0.00
A verage

Gunjan

200
LCL=388.5
400 Jyoti
Manvi
Quality 0.000 0.00 0.00
Zeeshan
200 Part-to-part 178.123 1068.74 99.99
Associate Name Aman Komal Raman Rohit
Associate Name
Roshan
Total Variation 178.135 1068.81 100.00
Number of Distinct Categories = 121

Gage R&R results denotes that data is good for further analysis.
Total Gage R&R is 4.3 i.e. less than Total Variation.
Total Gage R&R Std Var is 12.43 i.e. greater than 10% but less than 30% of
Process Tolerance.
M Number of Distinct Category is 121 i.e. greater than 4.
Measure
Current Capability – Process Sigma Level
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Defect
Number of Total Number of Defects per
Opportunities DPMO Sigma
Units Defects Opportunity
per units

1 545 214 0.39266055 392661 1.78

M
Measure
Current Capability – IMR Chart
-----------------------------------------------------------------

There is few outliers in the process

Test 1- Three points more than 3 Standard deviation from center line.
Test failed at points 277, 500 and 501.

A
Analyse
Normality
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Normality – P Value = < 0.05

Shape: Non Normal

Measure of Central
Tendency:
Data is non-normal so measure of
central tendency will be
Median=336s.

A
Analyse
Normality
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Target Data is non-normal

Current Mean

Normality – P-value
is less than 0.005.

Shape-Non-normal

Measure of Central-
Data is non-normal of
central tendency will
be Median-336.

Spread-
Stability Factor-Q1/Q3
164/639.5
=0.26

A
Analyse
Normality
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Clustering is exist
A Oscillation is in data
Analyse
 Statistically Significant X’s
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mood Median Test: AHT versus Team Leader
P Value is 0.508. It denotes that
Mood median test for AHT
Team Leader doesn’t have
Chi-Square = 3.30 DF = 4 P = 0.508 significant impact on AHT
Individual 95.0% CIs
Team Leader N<= N> Median Q3-Q1 ---------+---------+---------+-------
Binny 49 61 391 516 (--------*----------)
Jai 58 50 315 401 (----*-------)
Ravi 61 51 325 400 (------*---)
Shishir 48 55 369 544 (-----------*-------------)
Sunny 57 55 292 507 (-------*-------------)
---------+---------+---------+-------
300 400 500

Mood Median Test: AHT versus Process Complexity

Mood median test for AHT
P Value is 0.521. It denotes that
Chi-Square = 0.41 DF = 1 P = 0.521 Process Complexity doesn’t have
significant impact on AHT
Process Individual 95.0% CIs
Complexity N<= N> Median Q3-Q1 --+---------+---------+---------+----
L1 117 124 355 406 (---------------*------)
L2 156 148 319 524 (------------*---------------------)
--+---------+---------+---------+----
280 315 350 385

A
Analyse
 Statistically Significant X’s
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mood Median Test: AHT versus Trainer
Mood median test for AHT P Value is less than 0.05. It denotes
Chi-Square = 53.57 DF = 5 P = 0.000 that Trainer has significant impact
on AHT
Individual 95.0% CIs
Trainer N<= N> Median Q3-Q1 +---------+---------+---------+------
Amit 56 32 247 367 (--*-----)
Atul 56 20 194 247 (--*-)
Daniel 69 49 270 459 (---*----)
Rashid 21 43 535 517 (-------*------)
Ruby 42 91 494 454 (------*------)
Sonia 29 37 435 359 (--------*----)
+---------+---------+---------+------
150 300 450 600

Mood Median Test: AHT versus Shift

Mood median test for AHT
P Value is less than 0.05. It denotes
Chi-Square = 6.80 DF = 2 P = 0.033
that Shift has significant impact on
Individual 95.0% CIs
AHT
Shift N<= N> Median Q3-Q1 +---------+---------+---------+------
Evening 129 110 297 483 (------*-------)
Morning 81 72 298 440 (------*-----------)
Night 63 90 429 441 (-------*--------)
+---------+---------+---------
+------
A 240 320 400 480
Analyse
 Statistically Significant X’s
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mood Median Test: AHT versus Marital Status
Mood median test for AHT P Value is 0.822. It denotes that
Chi-Square = 0.05 DF = 1 P = 0.822 Marital status doesn’t have
significant impact on AHT
Marital Individual 95.0% CIs
Status N<= N> Median Q3-Q1 --------+---------+---------+--------
M 115 112 330 460 (----------*---------------------)
S 158 160 341 480 (----------*----------)
--------+---------+---------+--------
320 360 400

Mood Median Test: AHT versus Gender

Mood median test for AHT
Chi-Square = 0.02 DF = 1 P = 0.892 P Value is 0.892. It denotes that
Gender doesn’t have significant
Individual 95.0% CIs
impact on AHT
Gender N<= N> Median Q3-Q1 -----+---------+---------+---------+-
F 118 116 335 471 (------------*----------------)
M 155 156 344 485 (-------------------*--------------)
-----+---------+---------+---------+-
300 330 360 390

A
Analyse
 Statistically Significant X’s
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mood Median Test: AHT versus Location
Mood median test for AHT P Value is 0.180. It denotes that
Chi-Square = 1.80 DF = 1 P = 0.180 Location doesn’t have significant
impact on AHT
Individual 95.0% CIs
Location N<= N> Median Q3-Q1 -+---------+---------+---------+-----
C5 144 159 363 423 (--------*--------)
C6 129 113 299 522 (----------*---------------)
-+---------+---------+---------+-----
250 300 350 400

Mood Median Test: AHT versus Mode of Communication

Mood median test for AHT

P Value is 0.319. It denotes that
Chi-Square = 0.99 DF = 1 P = 0.319 Communication doesn’t have
significant impact on AHT
Mode of Individual 95.0% CIs
Communication N<= N> Median Q3-Q1 ---------+---------+---------+-------
E 146 157 366 466 (-----------------*--------------)
H 127 115 318 482 (-------*--------------)
---------+---------+---------+-------
320 360 400

A
Analyse
 Statistically Significant X’s
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------

Mood Median Test: AHT versus Age

Mood median test for AHT P Value is 0.961. It denotes that
Chi-Square = 4.28 DF = 11 P = 0.961 Age doesn’t have significant impact
on AHT
Individual 95.0% CIs
Age N<= N> Median Q3-Q1 ---+---------+---------+---------+---
22 23 32 484 489 (--------*--)
24 26 21 298 478 (---*------)
25 44 41 324 448 (----*-----)
26 31 33 363 309 (-----*---)
27 38 39 369 528 (-----*-------)
28 29 25 310 425 (----*---------)
30 12 11 297 670 (-------*-----------------------)
32 19 20 366 434 (------*-------)
33 12 11 310 540 (-------*---------------)
34 11 12 363 413 (----*---------)
36 22 17 285 442 (-----*------)
39 6 10 566 405 (-------------*----)
---+---------+---------+---------+---
200 400 600 800

A
Analyse
 Statistically Significant X’s
------------------------------------------------------------------

Mood Median Test: AHT versus Tenure

Mood median test for AHT
P Value is 0.938. It denotes that
Chi-Square = 3.56 DF = 9 P = 0.938 Tenure doesn’t have significant
impact on AHT
Individual 95.0% CIs
Tenure N<= N> Median Q3-Q1 ------+---------+---------+---------+
1 08 07 333 514 (----*--------------)
2 26 28 350 421 (---*-----)
3 43 43 351 510 (---*----)
4 58 60 350 413 (---*--)
5 53 57 364 498 (-----*---)
6 50 44 313 432 (-*---)
7 16 14 333 581 (-----*-----------)
8 13 0 9 288 684 (----*-------------------)
9 02 06 571 529 (-----------*----------)
10 04 04 319 513 (--------*--------------)
------+---------+---------+---------+
250 500 750 1000

A
Analyse
 Potential Causes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact

High Medium Low

Trainer Team Leader Location

Control

In Control Shift Gender Process

Complexity

Typing Speed

Out of Control System Latency Tenure Marital Status

A
Analyse
Summary of Statistical Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------
Measure Type Data Type P- Value Take Away
AHT Y Continue NA NA

Trainer X Discrete <0.05 Significant Impact

Shift X Discrete <0.05 Significant Impact

Marital Status X Discrete >0.05 No Significant Relationship

Gender X Discrete >0.05 No Significant Relationship

Location X Discrete >0.05 No Significant Relationship

Mode of
X Discrete >0.05 No Significant Relationship
Communication

Age X Continue >0.05 No Significant Relationship

Tenure X Continue >0.05 No Significant Relationship

Team Leader X Discrete >0.05 No Significant Relationship

Process Complexity X Discrete >0.05 No Significant Relationship

A
Analyse
 I
Improve
QFD

Shift
Trainer
VITAL X's

Deployment Matrix
CTQ Rating

5
5
skill mapping of Trainer

0
2

10
Confirm training content

5
0
1
Mode of Delivery of training/Calibration

0
3

15
Process Knowledge

2
2

20
communication skills

0
3

15
Pre & post training assessment score card
0
3

15
Training Shifts

5
0
1

Cross training of trainers at regular intervals.

0
2

10

Shift Rotation
5
3

40

Early Shift
5
1

31

Night Shift Alloowane

5
3

40

Refreshment
4
3

35

Completeness Matrix
105
135
------------------------------------------------------------------
FMEA
------------------------------------------------------------------

RPN (S*O*D) Risk Priority Number

RMS (Risk Management System)
Impact on EDR (End Desired

RTP (Risk Tretement Plan)

Occurrence (1-10)
Detection (10--1)
Severity (1-10)
Failure Modes

Responsibility
Action Items
VITAL X's

Result)
10
JD not defined Skill Mapping Failed 6 2 9 Reduce Find out an alternate job description profile Asst Manager
8
10 Manager
Skill mapping of Trainer Trainer unavailability Skill Mapping Delayed 2 6 9 Reduce Recurring scheduled activity by blocking calender
8 Training
Transfe Operation
Callibrator not available Skill Mapping Delayed 9 2 5 90 Responsibility transferred to operation manager
r Manager
Training
No training contents available Training Failed 10 2 3 60 Reduce Create and periodically review
Manager
14 Training
Confirm training content Different trainers using own contents Inconsistent Effectiveness 7 4 5 Reduce Calibrate material
0 Manager
12 Transfe Operations manager to ensure proactive and Operation
Training topics not updated by Ops Training delayed 5 5 5
5 r regular updates Manager
Mode of Delivery of
0
Traine training/Calibration
r Process knowledge test not mendatory for Impact on Trainer's process 50 Training
10 5 10 Reduce
the trainer knowledge 0 Process knowledge test on monthly basis Manager
Impact on Trainer's process 50 Training
10 5 10 Reduce
Scores not included in incentive plan knowledge 0 Scores to be part of incentive plan Manager
Impact on Trainer's process 50
10 5 10 Reduce Trainer process knowledge test scores to be shared Training
Scores are not reported to the client knowledge 0 with client Manager
50 Training
MTI Issue Impact on Training 10 5 10 0 Reduce Manager
communication skills
50 Training
Soft Skill Impact on Training 10 5 10 0 Reduce Arraged soft Skills training by SS Trainer Manager
Pre & post training assessment score
card
Training Shifts 35 Training
Shift Rotation Impact on Training 7 5 10 0 Reduce Trainers shift need to rotate Manager
Cross training of trainers at regular 35 Training
intervals. Trainers not updated with new ideas Impact on Training 7 5 10 0 Reduce Arrange workshop Manager
Shift Night Shift Allowance 32 Evening & night shift allowances need to offer
Allowance Performance Effected 8 5 8 0 Reduce employee HR Manager

I Microsoft Office
Excel Worksheet
Improve
Implement Solution with Time Line
------------------------------------------------------------------

I
Improve
 Pilot Results
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mood median test for AHT versus Trainer

Chi-Square = 7.50 DF = 5 P = 0.186 P Value is 0.186. It denotes that

Trainer doesn’t have significant
Individual 95.0% CIs impact on AHT
Trainer N<= N> Median Q3-Q1 -+---------+---------+---------+-----
Amit 41 47 239 199 (-----*------)
Atul 45 31 191 211 (--------*----------)
Daniel 58 60 238 235 (-----*------)
Rashid 34 30 231 258 (-------*--------------)
Ruby 57 76 269 252 (----------*-----)
Sonia 38 28 208 237 (------*----------)
-+---------+---------+---------+-----
150 200 250 300

Mood Median Test: AHT versus Shift P Value is 0.643. It denotes that
Shift doesn’t have significant
Mood median test for AHT impact on AHT
Chi-Square = 0.88 DF = 2 P = 0.643
Individual 95.0% CIs
Shift N<= N> Median Q3-Q1 +---------+---------+---------+------ Trainer Indicates
Evening 125 114 223.0 234.0 (--------*-----------) that they
Morning 73 80 238.0 216.5 (------------*--------------------) doesn’t
Night 75 78 241.0 220.5 (-------------*------------) have
+---------+---------+---------+------ significant
200 225 250 275 impact on
Shift AHT
C
Control
 Pilot Results
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre & Post Analysis of AHT

We can identify that there is a drop in UCL & MR

C also Mean is reduce from 406 to 235.1.
Control
Pilot Result
------------------------------------------------------------------

Mean – 235.o6 Secs

Median – 235 Secs

Normality – P-value is less

than 0.05.
Shape- Normal
Measure of Central Tendency-
Data is normal as both the Value
(Mean, Median) is approximate
identical.

Spread-
Stability Factor-Q1/Q3
124.5/350.5
=0.35

C
Control
Pilot Result
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre & Post Analysis of AHT

P value of Clustering(0.319), Mixtures(0.681), Trends(0.541),Oscillation(0.459) are all more than 0.05. It denotes that there
is no such observation exist.

Pre Improvement reference line is at 336 secs.

Post improvement reference line is at 235 secs.

C
Control
 Cost Benefit Analysis, Learning & Challenges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount increased in accounts by Reduced AHT

Calls taken by advisor(per day) 71(3600 sec/405.65 sec)*8hrs

Total Number of advisors 545
Calls taken capacity(per month) 10,06,070(545*71*26)
Calls taken capacity(per month after project) 17,36,135(545*122.52*26)
Excess call taking capacity(per month) 7,30,065(17,36,135 - 10,06,070)
Earlier per call charge(Rs 2 Per Minute) 13.52(120*8)/71
New call charge(Rs 2 per minute) 7.84(120*8)/122.52
Amount Saved(per month) Rs 98,70,479(23472545-13602066)

Learning & Challenges

1. Fixing knowledge gap between Trainers.

2. Maintenane/Sharing of update Tracker.
3. Setting new Shift plan for Team Leaders.

Identification of pain point

1. Not having a organized structure for defaulters

C
Control
Thank You