human errors reduction

8/13/2019 Human Errors Reduction

1/15


2/15

Copyright Xansa plc 2005 2

Project Theme

AgentQuery/day

Before After

Project

Benefits

CTQ

Define

Reducing Human Errors from the Name Section of the

Process from 100% to 50% by End of Q2 , 2007.

473 217

Process Flow

PHASE START ENDDefine 17- May-2007 25- May- 2007

Measure 28-May-2007 15-June-2007

Analyze 18-June-2007 6-July-2007

Improve 9- July-2007 27- July-2007

Control 30-July-2007 10-Aug-2007

start

A1

A2

A3

stop

A1-4 Weeks training to new joiners

A2- 3/4 Weeks of Ramp Up

A3-Agent starts doing 450 forms.

1. Pain Area: Score card2. Resource Optimization

Project Description


3/15


Measure

Count

Percent

AGENT NAME

Count 1919181715131211101037 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 632 5 5 4 22

Percent 8 7 7 6 5

31

5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3

27

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

25

1 1 1 1 1 1 5

Cum % 815

24

21273237424650545861

21

64677072747678808284

20

868789909192939595100

Othe

r

Jaspa

lSing

h

KapilB

hola

AmitKumarDey

SachinSe

hga

l

Rajen

derKrS

harma

AmarKuma

r

SunilRawa

t

PremaD

hyan

i

Shis

hpa

l

AmitKalra

PremaBish

t

NeenaRawa

t

Van

danaPo

khriya

l

TarunSing

h

Fara

hQuresh

i

Jaspa

lKau

r

San

dhyaKin

i

LalitMo

han

GauravWa

dhwa

Tajin

derPa

lSing

h

ShilpaGupta

VikasMeena

DeveshKr.C

hourasia

ShashiB

hushanKuma

r

Jamshe

dA

hma

d

NavjotKau

r

Surb

hiB

hutan

i

Su

dhirJosh

i

SanjeevKrS

harma

VikramS

harma

AmitKr.Senga

r

500

400

300

200

100

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Agentwise error pareto

Major Contributors % Errors % CumulativeAmit Kr. Sengar 37 17% 17%Vikram Sharma 32 15% 32%Sanjeev Sharma 31 14% 46%Sudhir Joshi 27 12% 59%Surbhi Bhutani 25 12% 70%Navjot Kaur 24 11% 81%Jamshed Ahmad 21 10% 91%Shashi Bhushan 20 9% 100%

217 100%

ANALYSIS

PHASE


4/15


Types of Errors % Errors % CumulativeName 139 34% 34%Phone-Email 50 28% 62%Rej Resend 66 14% 76%Address 76 12% 88%DOB 40 5% 93%Wrong Form No 26 5% 98%PAP_Non PAF_Foreign 13 1% 99%Wrong Status on Doc-Harbor 19 1% 100%

429 100%


5/15


Measure

Detailed process

flow

MailSource Prep

and Sort(Day 1)

2ndary sort & prep

/arrange forms inbatches of approx50 of same form

number(day 2)

Receive Forms at

Anacomp(day 2)

Courier toAnacomp

(Pick up day 1

arrive day 2)

Run batch numberspreadsheet

(day 2)

Add header withbatch number to

each batch(day 2)

Archive forms for 3

months(day 2)

Scan batches of50 into one of 50

queues accordingto Algorithm

(day 2)

Group into formtype

(day 3)

Find the hard copydocument

(day 3)

Check for re-scans

(day 3)

Run batch numberspreadsheet

(day 3)

Add header withbatch number to

each batch(day 3)

Archive forms for 3months(day 3)

Scan batches ofinto one of 50

queues accordingto Algorithm

(day 3)

Produce Reports

during the day(day 2 / day 3)

Re-index to Re-

scan(day 2 / day 3)

Operators viewforms on DH. Ifform acceptable

input to DCH,otherwise re-index

(day 2 / day 3)

Supervisors usereport to set up

work allocation foroperators

(day 2 / day 3)

Supervisor QAs all

resends(day 2 / day 3)

Check details onACOS using CCC

type I/F andcomplete if

possible(day 2 / day 3)

CCC pick up formover the internet

and try to

complete it(day 4)

If not possible re-index as Re-sendwith QA status =

yes(day 2 / day 3)

File from Anacomp which includes- Pick up date- Ingestion date into docHarbor

- No of forms scanned- Batch Number- Queue Number

File from Anacomp

A

A

Form OK input to

DCH and update/get next in DH(day 2 / day 3)

Form not OKResend

(day 2 / day 3)

Form not OKReject

(day 2 / day 3)

Supervisor QAs

5% of batch(day 2 / day 3)

Complete checks,correct mistakes

and update qualityinformation

(day 2 / day 3)

Supervisor QAs. If

a reject set QA =yes if a resend

check using ACOS

(day 2 / day 3)

Mark batch asQA=yes and

submit DCH input

to overnight batchrun

(day 2 / day 3)

DCH System

Report

DH Batch rangequeries

Produce Report inExcel

Compare reportsto reconcile DCH

work and DH work

Reconciliation

MailSource

Key

Anacomp Xansa CCC

ACOS II High Level Processes

Hard copy returns to CC

Hard copy returns to CCCRejects destroyed at end

of week

Prioritizing Process Output through Process flow

QA Time Loss =

Agent Time Loss =

Total Loss =

Loss of Productivity =


6/15


Measure

Data Collection Plan Error Causing Elements:

Rushing on Files

Knowledge Gaps

Lack of ConcentrationCascading Process not Fool Proof

New to the Process

Key Board Process

Transport Problem


7/15 Copyright Xansa plc 2005 7

Measure

Amit Kr. Sengar Surbhi BhutaniPart Trial1 Trial2 P1 Trial1 Trial2 P21 yes yes 1 yes yes 12 yes yes 1 yes yes 13 yes yes 1 yes yes 14 yes yes 1 yes yes 15 yes yes 1 yes yes 16 yes yes 1 no yes 07 yes yes 1 yes yes 18 yes yes 1 yes yes 19 no no 1 yes yes 110 no yes 0 yes yes 111 yes yes 1 yes yes 112 yes yes 1 yes yes 113 yes yes 1 yes yes 114 yes yes 1 yes yes 115 yes yes 1 yes yes 116 yes yes 1 yes yes 117 yes yes 1 yes yes 118 yes yes 1 yes yes 119 yes yes 1 yes yes 120 yes yes 1 yes yes 1

Navjot KaurTrial1 Trial2 P3yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1

Vikarm SharmaTrial1 Trial2 P10yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1no no 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1yes yes 1

Process Gage R & R with present status:



Measure

Process Gage R & R with present status :

Appraiser

Percent

VinaySunitaShwetaMohit

100

95

90

85

80

75

95.0% CI

Percent

Appraiser

Percent

VinaySunitaShwetaMohit

100

95

90

85

80

75

95.0% C I

Percent

Date of study:

Reported by:

Name of product:

Misc:

Assessment Agreement

Within Appraisers Appraiser vs Standard

Attribute Agreement Analysis for response

Within Appraisers


Appraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI

Mohit 20 19 95.00 (75.13, 99.87)

Shweta 20 19 95.00 (75.13, 99.87)

Sunita 20 19 95.00 (75.13, 99.87)

Vinay 20 20 100.00 (86.09, 100.00)

Each Appraiser vs Standard


Appraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI

Mohit 20 19 95.00 (75.13, 99.87)

Shweta 20 19 95.00 (75.13, 99.87)Sunita 20 19 95.00 (75.13, 99.87)

Vinay 20 20 100.00 (86.09, 100.00)

Between Appraisers


# Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI

20 18 90.00 (68.30, 98.77)

All Appraisers vs Standard


# Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI

20 18 90.00 (68.30, 98.77)

GR&R accepted after Refresher & Training



Analyze

Brainstorming for Queries in processLevel 1 Brainstorming

Sl.

No. 4M / 4P + 1E Brainstorm points1 Man/ People 1.1 Lack of Concentration

1.1.1 Listening to Music

1.1.2 Human Tendency

1.2 Lack of Concentration

1.2.1 Discipline on the Floor1.3 Higher Frequency of Error Observed Before or after Break1.4 Rushing on Files

2 Machine /process2.1 Key Board Problem

2.1.1 Hampers smooth Processing

2.1.2 Causes Irritation2.2 Unhygienic Food2.2.1 Mentally Upset2.3 Transport Problem

2.3.1 Rushing on Files2.4 Transport Problem

2.3.1 Wastage of Productive Time

2.3.2 Rushing on Files3 Material/Place 3.1 Unable to Analyse3.1.1 New to the Process

3.2 Unable to Analyse

3.2.1 Handwriting Problem

3.2.2 New to the Process4 Method / Procedure 4.1 Knowledge Gaps4.1.1 New to the Process

4.2 Knowledge Gaps

4.2.1 Not familiar with the county names4.3 Updates4.3.1. Cascading Process not fool Proof



Analyze

Cause & Effect deployment chart

Hypothesis development

Condition for alternate hypothesis :

1. Confidence on self

2. Non clarity of update & Process.

Rating of Importance to Customer ( 1 to 10)Productivity Target Quality Target

TotalNo 10 10

Customer Requirements A BNo Process Inputs1 Interpretation problem 1 4 502 Confidence on Self 9 9 1803 Experience 4 4 804 Skill 4 9 1305

Concentration

4

4

80

6 Non Clarity of update & Process 9 9 1807 Length of Email 1 4 508 Calculation Mistake 1 4 509 Judgment Mistake 0 9 9010 Shift Time 1 4 50



Analyze

Hypothesis Testing-1

Since P value is less than 0.05 thus alternate hypothesis accepted

1) Condition for alternate hypothesis :

- Test after Refresher

Hypothesis Testing -2


- Query Sheet

Sample X N Sample p

1 72 225 0.320000

2 55 235 0.234043

Difference = p (1) - p (2)

Estimate for difference: 0.0859574

95% CI for difference: (0.00443737, 0.167478)

Test for difference = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = 2.07 P-Value = 0.039

Test and CI for Two Proportions


Sample X N Sample p

1 55 235 0.234043

2 41 258 0.158915








Improve

Refresher Policy

Test After Refresher PolicyQuery Policy Control Charts

GR& R Policy

Analyze

Hypothesis Testing-3



- Monthly GR&R

( Not a vital few but selected after

Repeat GR&R Session)


Sample X N Sample p

1 60 258 0.2325582 36 258 0.139535





4W1H



Improve Updated Process Flow with Controls

Average queries reduced from 8 to 4 per person per day (50% reduction)

Average transactions increased (24 minutes saved pre person per day)= 3 (9% increase)

Savings

Work Flow After Project was done:

A1:4 Weeks training to new joinees.

A2- 1 Week of Ramp up.

A3-Refresher* session + test of identified policies will be conducted.

*Refresher to be updated every Month

A4-Two weeks of remaining Ramp.

A5-Agent starts doing 28 E-mails.**

** GR&R of appraiser Vs. standard - Every month

A6 - Queries of every person will be tracked on daily basis ( Template 1).

A7- If Suddenly agents start asking more queries, then A3 will be repeated.

>10% = Refresher same day

10 ~ 25% = Refresher +Test +GR&R

>25% = PIP

start

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

stop

A6

A7



Control

Based on Daily output only X Bar chart is designed for control of output


15/15 C i ht X l 2005 15

Replication

Sub Process Replication Action Responsibility

Date of

implementation

PWQ Hourly monitoring sheet forperformance visibility

Control on break time by

freezing hourly targets

Training program based on no of

queries asked

Process flow for Top 80%contributor work

Shameel 15-Sep-07CC2 Ajmal 15-Sep-07GA Shameel 15-Sep-07Pending Shoaib 15-Sep-07

Replication Control

Replication Control

Sub Process Replication control Responsibility Date ofimplementationPWQ

1. New process flow to be updated inWord standards

2. All check points to be added in ISO

documentation

Shameel 30-Sep-07CC2 Ajmal 30-Sep-07GA Shameel 30-Sep-07Pending Shaoib 30-Sep-07

Learning's From Acorn (CC1) process are to be replicated across sub

processes as per below plan

human errors reduction

Documents