Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 44 views

    Digitizing Reports Using Six Sigma - Lipsa Patnaik - Neha Arora

    Uploaded by

    manojpuru
    This document summarizes a project to digitize report generation using Six Sigma methodology at Genpact for a client. The project aimed to reduce errors in generating standard, ad-hoc, and temporary standard reports for customers. Baseline data showed a defect rate of 4.6-6% over 4 months. The team analyzed the reports and found the largest sources of errors were incorrect/missing data, late/delayed reports, and formatting issues. They developed a scoring system to select reports for improvement and piloted a new data formatting tool called NOVA, which reduced formatting time by over 85% for one report. Control processes like validation checks were put in place before full implementation.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Digitizing Reports Using Six Sigma - Lipsa Patnaik - Neha Arora

    Uploaded by

    manojpuru
    44 views18 pages
    This document summarizes a project to digitize report generation using Six Sigma methodology at Genpact for a client. The project aimed to reduce errors in generating standard, ad-hoc, and temporary standard reports for customers. Baseline data showed a defect rate of 4.6-6% over 4 months. The team analyzed the reports and found the largest sources of errors were incorrect/missing data, late/delayed reports, and formatting issues. They developed a scoring system to select reports for improvement and piloted a new data formatting tool called NOVA, which reduced formatting time by over 85% for one report. Control processes like validation checks were put in place before full implementation.

    Original Description:

    Six Sigma

    Original Title

    Digitizing Reports Using Six Sigma_Lipsa Patnaik_Neha Arora

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a project to digitize report generation using Six Sigma methodology at Genpact for a client. The project aimed to reduce errors in generating standard, ad-hoc, and temporary standard reports for customers. Baseline data showed a defect rate of 4.6-6% over 4 months. The team analyzed the reports and found the largest sources of errors were incorrect/missing data, late/delayed reports, and formatting issues. They developed a scoring system to select reports for improvement and piloted a new data formatting tool called NOVA, which reduced formatting time by over 85% for one report. Control processes like validation checks were put in place before full implementation.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    44 views18 pages

    Digitizing Reports Using Six Sigma - Lipsa Patnaik - Neha Arora

    Uploaded by

    manojpuru
    This document summarizes a project to digitize report generation using Six Sigma methodology at Genpact for a client. The project aimed to reduce errors in generating standard, ad-hoc, and temporary standard reports for customers. Baseline data showed a defect rate of 4.6-6% over 4 months. The team analyzed the reports and found the largest sources of errors were incorrect/missing data, late/delayed reports, and formatting issues. They developed a scoring system to select reports for improvement and piloted a new data formatting tool called NOVA, which reduced formatting time by over 85% for one report. Control processes like validation checks were put in place before full implementation.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 18

    Digitizing Reports using Six Sigma

    Process Improvement & Six Sigma Submitted to: Prof. P. K. Bala

    Process Overview
    The project was conducted in Genpact for a clients process The Penske FP&A team is a support function for Penske. They carry out operational MIS for both the Penske Truck Leasing and Penske Logistics teams and their customers. The Indian team extends support to the US team by generating standard reports and Ad-hoc requests for field representatives and customers. There are 3 major categories of reports generated:
    Standard Reports Ad-hoc requests Temporary standard reports (TSR)

    The different types of reports generated are:


    Standard reports Billing Reports TSRs Ad-hoc reports District Sales Review reports Annual Customer Reviews

    Project Charter
    Project Scope - This established the parameters for the project.
    The start point of the process was the arrival of user request for reports and the end point was the delivery of report to the user. The charter also described areas outside of the team's scope, such as turnaround time when the report required data from other teams.

    Project Charter
    Business Case and Problem Statement
    Baseline data indicated a DPMO of 4.6 6 over 4 months Loss of customers Erroneous reports come back for rework leading to loss of productivity

    Goal Statement Reduce the errors to achieve 6 sigma level of quality Team Members The team included the Process owner, Quality Leader, Black belt quality consultant, 2 employees from the process Timeline - A timeline including frequency of meetings, dates and times was agreed upon at the team's first meeting and proved essential to keeping the project on track.

    Define
    The process was mapped to find the potential point of errors

    Potential Areas of failure

    Analyze
    On analysis of various reports the factors of error were found:
    Type of Report Time of the month It was found that maximum errors were in the first two weeks of the month. this is because the team delivers maximum number of reports then, hence there is more scope of errors. Type of Error Complexity of data involved Familiarity of reports - Lesser errors for known reports and formats Incorrect/less/ambiguous information from requestor Dependent on data from other departments

    Measure
    A Pareto Analysis of the type of errors and type of reports was done and the following was inferred
    80% of the errors occur due to Incorrect/Missing Data + Late/Delays + Formatting Errors 80% of the errors are caused due to STD & TSR, Billing, Adhocs,CR and TMS reports

    Improve
    A data formatting tool was looked at as the first step in the improvement process as 40% of the time was consumed in this and contributed majorly to errors A data formatting tool NOVA was identified which had been developed in house and was in use for another process in Genpact The scope of the tool had to be mapped to this process The tool was studied and the following analysis was done

    Scope of the tool in existing process


    Pain Areas in the Existing Process
    Over 40% of the time is spent in data formatting Lot of manual Effort involved in data formatting High human intervention Higher chances of errors Corruption of macros

    Benefits From NOVA


    Reduces formatting time to more than 85% Least manual effort Least human intervention. Everything done at the click of buttons. Minimizes chances of errors because of automation. Elimination of macros Continuous support ensured from development team (Support process to follow has been put in place)

    Pilot Report
    A pilot report was selected which took the analyst 70 min for data collection and analysis and 50 min to format. A total of 120min On using the tool, the formatting time reduced to 5 min and hence the total time to 75 min A total reduction of 93% formatting time

    Pilot Report
    Current State VSM:

    TMS Weekly Report:

    Purpose of the report: AR Report which gives a summary of the outstanding amounts for different districts

    Total Time saved ~ 4 hours /month

    Report Time : 120 mins

    Logs onto AS400 and Runs query

    Logs onto Access and runs 25 queries

    Open Last delivered report

    Refresh 2 files (detailed and summary) 50 mins

    70 mins Mail the detailed, summary and graph To recipients

    Perform control checks

    Future State VSM:

    Manipulate data in summary to make graph

    District changes to be incorporated

    Make necessary changes for currency Report Time : 75 mins

    Logs onto AS400 and Runs query

    Logs onto Access and runs 25 queries

    Open Last delivered report

    Refresh links on 8 tabs

    70 mins Mail the detailed, summary and graph To recipients Save output file Perform control checks Select Input File& process Input the currency rates Incorporate the District changes

    Log onto NOVA

    5 mins

    Selecting reports for improvement process


    Parameters for reports selection:
    Criticality of the report (User/Purpose/Time sensitive) Excel Formatting time Frequency of the report Control checks in place or not

    10 reports selected based on the above parameters

    Control
    An assessment scorecard was developed and only reports that scored above a set standard were selected were implementation An FMEA was conducted on the process post implementation was done A minimum of 10 historical inputs were taken for the UAT(user acceptance testing) Control checks were put in place A minimum of 3 error free parallel runs (on test as well as live environment ) were ensured before Go Live Post implementation scorecard also had to have an acceptable score Process owner sign off was taken Process monitored to ensure stability

    NOVA ASSESSMENT SCORECARD - Pre Development


    Parameters Frequency of report (Daily/Weekly/Monthly/Quarterly/Others) Criticality of report (High/Medium/Low) Excel formatting time (High/Medium Low) Control Checks in place Keystroke Documentation Available
    Score Tick whichever applicable Daily/Weekly Monthly Quarterly/Others 9 High 9 High 9 Yes 9 Yes 9 6 Medium 6 Medium 6 No 0 No 0 1 Low 1 Low 1

    NOVA Assessment Score 0 A score of 19 and above can go into NOVA. A lower score will require process owner signoff with reasons. Process Owner Name Deviation sign off Reason for deviation Date Documentation & Report provided to IT for coding

    NOVA

    - Post Development Production Signoff


    (Minimum 10 historical inputs) (Minimum 3 historical inputs)

    No. of Historical Inputs on which UAT was performed No. of error free parallel runs Any Issues that need to be highlighted All the above information is correct and report can be put into production using NOVA w.e.f

    Process owner signoff

    Report owner signoff

    NOVA team signoff

    Operational Definition of parameters mentioned in Nova Pre-development scorecard: Frequency of report: Daily Self explanatory Weekly Self explanatory Monthly Self explanatory Quarterly Self explanatory Criticality of the report High Subjective, use parameters like User/Purpose/Time sensitive Medium Subjective, use parameters like User/Purpose/Time sensitive Low Subjective, use parameters like User/Purpose/Time sensitive Excel Formatting time High Over 50 % time in excel manipulation and formatting Medium 30-50% time in excel manipulation and formatting Low Less than 30% time in excel manipulation and formatting Control checks in place Yes Self explanatory No Self explanatory. If No then process owner sign off required Keystroke Documentation available Yes Self explanatory No Self explanatory

    Points to note

    The above project only looks at one of the potential failure in the process i.e. Data formatting The other causes of errors were looked at separately

    Thank You !!
    Submitted by: Neha Arora Lipsa Patnaik

    You might also like