gb presentation

Fixed For The First TimeFFTFT

GB Project

Cherdchai ImtubMay 16th, 2011

1

CONFIDENTIAL Division, Author, MMMM dd, yyyy, Reference

Problem Definition Tree

2

SaleEngineer/Call Centre

Price to repair Expensive

Work Shop

System not stable

Sale SupportNew Installation

Time to fix system

Paid Repair/WRR/CTR

Quality of system fixRepeated service for

1 Call

F&AAdministrator

VOC: Customers are not satisfied with service for Healthcare

Basis of Split

Section part to improve

Job type

Problem Statement: Customers are not satisfied with the quality of system fix for Paid Repair/WRR/CTR service, especially unhappy with the high repeating rate of the jobs.

Type of improvement

Reason for Elimination

Relevant to Job Scope

Relevant to Job Scope

Biggest issue

URF/CT/GXR/US MRI PMCCInvivo

&Respironic

Type of Product Scope


SIPOC

3

• Engineer• Call centre to

identify the repeat call

• Survey Form

• End user• Engineer field

service • Commercial Sale

feedback• Delivery part

-Job service already done-FSE complete job with out the repeat job-system work correctly in all function

• End User• CS servive• Sale• Hospital

Starting…1. Call centre Pickup the phone call

from the customer2. Assign job to engineer3. The engineer call to customer and

prepare the solution for the job, spare part , special tools , time available

4. Fixed the system or need support5. Call centre waiting for the engineer

close job and confirm repeat job or not

6.Call centre keep a record if repeat job7.Close call

Ending…

Inputs Process

Suppliers Customers

Outputs

Project : Fixed For The First Time

CONFIDENTIAL Division, Author, MMMM dd, yyyy, Reference 4

D phase summary – Project Charter (Reduce Repeated Service Job)

Business CaseWith the intense competition, customers are more demanding and services plays a more important role to help retaining customers and encourage repeated purchases.

Repeated service jobs implies a negative sign on quality of service which may disappoint customers and also hit the profitability of our business.

Problem StatementFinancialFrom Jan to August, there are average 16.5 repeated job every month. This is amounting to 132 jobs as at August 2009.

Engineers liquidation : Bht2030 per hour.Average service hours for repeated job 4 hours.Cost per Repeated job : 4 x Bht2030 = Bht8120Travelling + Accommodation + Meal = Bht3600/jobTotal project Benefit of 132 repeat job= Bth1,547,040

Secondary ImpactCustomer perceived us as unprofessional, poor quality in product and customer service. Unhealthy reputation in the healthcare market.

Goal statementReduce the repeatedly job 50 % of the Repeated job.Primary Metric Goal less than or equal = 5.13 %Secondary Metric : Maintain MTTR the time taken for each job at an average of 4 hours per job .

ScopeAll corrective maintenance call - all modalities except Magnetic Resonance)

Only Thailand


Y-Metric Graph - Previous results on % of repeated jobs

The average of primary metric is 10.27%

The Primary metric goal is 5.13%


Attribute Agreement Analysis for 3 Measurements

Between Appraisers

Assessment Agreement

# Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI 32 23 71.88 (53.25, 86.25)

# Matched: All appraisers' assessments is acceptable.

3 AppraisersResult Between Appraisers 71.88 %To improve the MSA Result we have to agree, document and train the responsible people a standard way of data collection.

MSA Results


Conclusion : PPM at 96774 indicates a poor capability of the current process in achieving the target

Process Stability & Capability Analysis


The Control Chart for Attribute data

Conclusion : The process is not stable but in control.


Stakeholder Analysis

9


AS-IS Process Map

10

Time

Customer

Call Centre

Engineer Eng Talk To Customer

Engineer Go to Hosp

Y

N

BVA

NVA

Check theRepeat job

Site Repair

VA

Close Job

Customer Close

BVA

VA

10 Min 15 Min 60Min 120 Min

BVA NVANVA

BVA

20 Min

Quick win:The Engineer must be spend more time to talk with customer to Identify cause of the problemFollowing the guild line for fault finding

Customer Call


Measure Phase Summary

• MSA is acceptable and could be improved further• Process Capability & Stability need to be improved

11


Idenify Root Causes


Hypothesis Test Samples Results ConclusionHo: no difference between PH

FSEs & ASP FSEsHa: difference between PH FSEs

& ASP FSEs

2-proportion tests US, BV, CV ,CT,GXR

Sample X N Sample p We can reject Ho, There is difference among all FSEs

1 19 674 0.0281902 106 1950 0.054359P-Value = 0.001

Ho: no difference among all FSEsHa: difference among FSEs

Chi-square tests

BV Chi-Square Test: Nipon, Sakda, Phurinut Chi-Sq = 0.415, DF = 2, P-Value = 0.812

We can not reject Ho, There is no difference among all FSEs

US

Chi-Square Test: Kanit, Apirod, Wichai Chi-Sq = 2.378, DF = 2, P-Value = 0.305

We can not reject Ho, There is no difference among all FSEs

GXR

Chi-Square Test: Jakkrit, Komson, Pratchaya, Chaisak Chi-Sq = 15.231, DF = 3, P-Value = 0.002

We can reject Ho, There is difference among all FSEs Better Performance reportNo. 1st is Jakkrit, No.2nd is Pratchaya and ChaisakNo. 3rd is Komson

2-proportion tests CV

Test and CI for Two Proportions Sample X N Sample p1 2 134 0.0149252 9 53 0.169811P-Value = 0.002

We can reject Ho, There is difference among all FSEsEkapob doing better than Sangboonsong & Kaveethep

Ho: no difference among modalitiesHa: difference among modalities Chi-square test CV, US, BV, CT, GXR

Chi-Square Test: US, BV, CT, CV, GXR Chi-Sq = 24.487, DF = 4, P-Value = 0.000

We can reject Ho , There is difference among all modalities.Better Performance report No. 1st is BV,No. 2nd is CT,No. 3rd is GXRNo. 4th is US,No. 5th is CV


Performance conclusion

Why 1 Why 2 Why 3 Why 4

There is difference between PH FSEs & ASP

FSEs

PH FSEs are more knowledgeable

PH FSE attended more training

PH FSEs more authority to access intranet to learn than ASP FSEs

Limitation from the service agreement of ASP distributor knowledge/skills related

PH FSEs make correct diagnosis in the first time

PH FSEs have better equipmpent for diagnosis such as KNOVA

PH invests more in the diagnosis equipment knowledge/skills related

CV: Ekabop performs better than Kaveethap

Ekapob have more training than Kaveethep. knowledge/skills related

Ekapob can consult directly to regional support.

Ekapob is modality leader more responsibility than Kaveethep

There is difference among different

modalities

Big system need more time to learn than Small system

System with more Options usually imply more complicated solutions

Each option needs testing validation and communication with Technical Support knowledge/communications related customer communication related

Customers have more repeated problems for CV,GXR products than BV products

Custtomers understand BV systems better than CV,GXR

Customers have proper training on BV systems, than CV,GXR customer communication related

BV have tools to facilitate customer learning but not CV ,GXR (CD Demonstration )

4 whys lead to root causes synchronizing with the main structure root cause


Root Cause : Engineer : Lack of skill & Knowledge >>>>> AEngineer : Communication >>>>>>BCustomer : Communication >>>>> C

Solutions Selected:Preparation in advanceData collectionShare KnowledgeTraining

A Phase Conclusion


Solution brainstorm

Root cause

Solution

Communicate with the customer

Engineer Lack of skill Engineer Lack of Communication

CC Lack of skill/communication

Preparation in advance x x

Data collection x x

Share knowledge x x x

Technical & Communication

Trainingx x x


Potential

Solution

Easy to implement(1-10)

High Impact Project(1-10)

Total Priority

Preparation in advance 7 5 35

Data collection 9 6 54

Share knowledge 4 8 32

Training 2 10 20

Tracking History recorded 4 2 8

Expert Team support 2 2 4

Solution assessment chart

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

7,5

9,6

4,8

2,10

4,2

2,2

Preparation in advance

Data collection

Share knowledge

Training

Easy to implement

High impact project

Tracking history recorded

Expert Team Support


CASE CLOSED

Call centerHotline:026143559 Preparation

in advance Data collection

Observing standby case

Process Flow Overview

ConclusionKeep recorded

Cross reference with the Service Manual

Share KnowledgeCS Meeting in the office

Solved SolutionReport


19

New Process Mapping

Time

Customer

Call Centre

Engineer

Customer Call

Eng Talk To Custom

er

Engineer Go to Hosp

Y

N

Check theRepeat job

Site Repair

Close Job

Customer Close

Keep record & dispatch

Observing Stand by

cases

Customer Interview

Check list

10 Min 10 Min 60Min 10 Min 120 Min 30 Min

Quick Win : are additional process in this project.

Preparation in advanceDispatched job from call center >> customer call get more information >> check with reference manual fault-finding get solution to solve problem deliverables: completed service preparation checklist

Data collection>> Finding right person key customer >> customer interview instruction >> Identify cause possibility problem deliverables: completed customer interview checklist

Share Knowledge>> Summary Report record fixed solution>> Cross reference with Service Manual>> Meeting discussion deliverables: summary record after meeting and knowledge sharing


Solution


September October November

Owner Action Support Solution Task WK

3WK

4WK

1WK2

WK3

WK4

WK1

WK2

WK3

WK4


• get an agreement with stakeholders on solution Project Leader, Team member ,FSE

Project sponsor

• agree on roles and responsibilities

• design the process in details Project Leader, Sponsor • tools development

• training the detailed process & tools Project Leader, Team member ,FSE

• Feedback and revise process Project Leader, FSE

Data collection

÷ get an agreement with stakeholders on solution Project Leader, Team member ,FSE

Project sponsor

÷ agree on roles and responsibilities

÷ design the process in details Project Leader, Sponsor ÷ tools development

÷ training the detailed process & tools Project Leader, Team member ,FSE

÷ Feedback and revise process Project Leader , FSE

Share Knowledge

• get an agreement with stakeholders on solution Project Leader, Team member ,FSE

Project sponsor

• agree on roles and responsibilities

• design the process in details Project Leader, Sponsor • tools development

• training the detailed process & tools Project Leader, Team member ,FSE

• Feedback and revise process Project Leader , FSE

Training

> Training on site

Project Leader, Sponsor

F&A Controller & Management team

> Evaluation of the FSE assessed to identify training courses

> Electronics -training online Project Leader, Sponsor ,FSE

> training registration & training records by AOP Project Leader, Sponsor

Design implementation plan & communicate to organization


solution Failure Mode Failure Effect Remedy Severity Occurrence Detection RPN


• Customers are responding poorly • Customer is not satisfied• Soft skill training how to handle customer 5 3 6 90

• Customer fails to cooperate in answering a question. • Slow response time • Learning from historical

record 5 3 6 90

• Engineer take the time to prepare information for too long • consult with Senior

Data collection

• Customer Feedback unaccepted Customer unaccepted

• Soft skill training how to handle customer

5 2 6 60

• Customer fails to cooperate in answering a question.

• Customer waiting for a long time system will work properly

6 3 6 108

• Engineer takes a long time before starting the repair

Share knowledge • The participants declined a meeting

4 5 3 60

• Engineers are bored in meetings • Not achieve to improve engineer • Policy enforcement

Training

• not enough engineer during training period

• Plan engineer support 4 3 3 36• Assign tasks to people who do not trained for that modality

• Fixed system with wrong CM solution

• The remaining engineer have to work hard.

• more consume time to fixed system

1-10 scale the lower, the more favorable

FMEA


• Solutions planned and implemented• FMEA completed & risk mitigation in place

I Phase Conclusion


Y-Metric Graph results after project started

After Project SolutionsCurrently metric 6.87%

Before Project SolutionsThe average of my primary metric is 10.27%

The Primary metric goal is 5.13%


Process Stability Prior and New process

25


Process Stability & Capability Analysis ( New process)

Conclusion : The PPM of the new process improved to 70229. Compare with the prior PPM of 96774, the capability improved!


The Control Chart for Attribute data

Prior Process New Process

Performance has improved from 10.27% to 6.87 3.4% reduction!

UCL=29.18%Х = 10.27%

UCL=13.47%Х = 6.87% above the target 5.13%


Hypothesis testing : Does Engineer action following solution affect Y?

• Ho: no difference of repeat jobs before and after solution implementation• Ha: there’s difference of repeat jobs before and after solution implementation.

• Test and CI for Two Proportions

• Sample X N Sample p• 1 132 1364 0.096774• 2 46 655 0.070229

• Difference = p (1) - p (2)• Estimate for difference: 0.0265452• 95% CI for difference: (0.00146280, 0.0516276)• Test for difference = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = 2.07 P-Value = 0.038

28

P-Value<0.05,so Ho rejected. i.e. there is difference of repeated jobs before and later new process implemented.


Process Control Plan

29

Name of process:

Repeat job control

Prepared By:

Nipon Prasartkhetkarn

Page: 1 of 1

Document #: 1

Customer: Approved By:

Cherdchai Imtub

Revsion Date:

Location: Thailand Approved By: Supercedes:

Area: HC Service

Process step Risk of non-compliance

Control Measures Corrective measures Escalation

Channel for non-

complianceWho How How Often Complete service preparation checklist

FSE not completing the checklist

Call Taker

Screen checklist before dispatching job to FSE in Polaris

Per case n/a CS Manager

Complete customer interview checklist

FSE not completing the checklist

Call Taker

check and review completion of checklist

review in the first week of every fiscal month

Follow up with FSEs and escalation if Delay by 1 week or More

CS Manager

Complete Share Knowledge Report

FSE not completing the Report

Call Taker

Check and Review completion of Report

Review in the first week of every fiscal month

Follow up with FSEs and escalation if Delay by 1 week or More

CS Manager


Process Owner review data with GB Team and modality leader

Repeat monthly communicate with team

Modality Leader Follow up with process owner

Review process Finding Solution Implement new process Feedback Result

Business Analyst collect data weekly

Is the average higher than X=5.13%

No

Yes

Performance control plan


The team can set the target performance as primary metric goal 5.13 % then review performance by this form

Efficiency Report form By Modality and person

Engineer Name:…………………………………………………….

Modality :…………………………………………………….

Primary Metric of Performance report :…………………………………………………….

Data Collection :

Date Primary metricweek 1 week 2 week 3 week 4


Forecasted /Projected Financial benefit

Primary Metric Goal less than or equal = 5.13 %

12 month total jobs in scope = 2620jobs Old process 10.27% = 262 (repeat job) New Process 6.87% = 179 (repeat job)

Forecasted /Projected Financial benefit for of 6.87%= 83 Jobs (83x(8120+3600)) = 972,760 THB.

This Project can’t achieve the target 100% ( 5.13% primary metric)Compare in percentage of primary metric target 5.13%

This project 6.87% = 66% of primary metric


Order Count ETTR(Days) Response(Days) MTTR(Days) Other(Days) MTTR(Hour)AvgJan-09 31 12.4593 4.6806 0.1458 7.6328

1.7503

Feb-09 83 16.2501 4.4361 0.2824 11.5316Mar-09 71 10.4728 5.8269 0.235 4.4108Apr-09 49 9.6492 4.3442 0.2041 5.101

May-09 33 3.6934 3.3295 0.2219 0.142Jun-09 50 5.2762 4.3156 0.2254 0.7352Jul-09 46 2.9047 2.099 0.2486 0.5571

Aug-09 51 3.3124 2.732 0.1871 0.39340.2187875

Oct-10 75 7.8154 6.427 0.2656 1.12282.0296Nov-10 121 17.4631 14.6909 0.2005 2.5716

Dec-10 110 11.7384 11.2122 0.295 0.23120.2537

MTTR

Data GCS Dashboard

>15.96% (16.76 min)

New solution that increase MTTR 15.96%( 16.76 min)


Conclusions

• Primary metric (% of repeated jobs) reduced from an average of 10.27% to 6.87%

• Process Capability improved with DPMO changed from 96774 to 70229

• Process Stability improved with the average moving range of primary metric reduced from 7.11% to 2.48%

New process is more predictable and more stability metric to target.

34

gb presentation

Documents