introductory overview - the lab consulting...inefficient business processes and customer...
TRANSCRIPT
OVERVIEWINTRODUCTORY
Non-Technology Business Improvement:A Self-Funding Approach
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.161027A
A Misbelief Hides Valuable Improvements: “Our Business Is Unique”
Opportunity: Non-Technology Improvement® . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Describes The Lab’s Template Based Advantage® for implementing valuable, overlooked Non-Technology Improvements
Methodology: Self-Funding Business Improvement® . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Outlines The Lab’s two-phased, Self-Funding Business Improvement work plan for reducing Virtuous Waste®
The Activity Cube: How It Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Describes how The Lab’s Activity Cube calculates and reconciles four essential views of operations – and why that’s essential
Knowledge Work Industrialization® . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
Understand how two-thirds of knowledge workers’ activities can be “industrialized” to recover the business value lost to Virtuous Waste
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Non-Technology Improvement: Representative examples of analysis, insights and related improvement barriers
Table of Contents
“Uniqueness,” The Skyline Analogy
• Every city’s skyline is unique
• But buildings are comparable
• And most components are similar: doors, fixtures and more
Improvement Implications
• Every business is unique
• But operations are comparable
• And most improvements are similar: root causes, benefits and more
• 75% require no technology (page 10)
The Lab helps clients implement these similar, non-technology, business improvements.
Improvement Templates
The Lab’s database of improvement templates (pages 3 & 4) helps clients:
• Find more improvements
• Accelerate benefits
Describes The Lab’s Template-Based Advantage® for implementing valuable, overlooked Non-Technology Improvements
Opportunity
1
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.1610272
The Lab’s Unconventional Approach
Popular Improvement Methods
The most effective improvement methodologies require no technology:
• Six Sigma
• Lean Improvement
• Lean Six Sigma
• Kaizen Methods
• Total Quality Management
• Quality Function Deployment
• Voice of the Customer
• and others
The Lab’s templates and project approach incorporate the most valuable aspects of these methods.
Virtuous Waste
Corrective work activities widely mis-perceived as unavoidable, valuable effort (page 5).
Differences Reasons
Non-Technology Improvement®
Roughly 75% of business operations improvements:
• Require no new technology
• Are similar and repetitive
• Resemble a “long tail”
1
Template-Based Advantage®
The Lab’s templates take advantage of similarities:
• Find more improvements
• Achieve more benefits
• Accelerate results
2
Self-Funding Business Improvement® – Guaranteed
All businesses have similar, overlooked improvements:
Virtuous Waste3
Three Fundamental Differences vs. Conventional Management Consulting
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.1610273
The Lab’s Database of Improvement Templates
Improvement Templates
Organization-based:
Broadly applicable to many companies and industries.
Industry-specific:
Unique to particular business segments and industries.
The Lab Maintains Templates in Two Major Groups
– Finance Close/Reporting
– Accounts Payable
– Treasury Operations
– Cost Allocation
– Budgeting
– Payroll
– Fixed Assets
– Tax Accounting
• Finance
• Human Resources
• Marketing
• Information Technology
• Legal
• Compliance
• Internal Improvement
• Risk
• Training
• Field Sales & Support
• Customer Service
• Contact Centers
Supply Chain Operations
• Product Development
• Order Management
• Procurement
• Materials Management
• Production
• Distribution
• Quality Management
Support Groups General Line Groups
Organization-Based Templates Industry-Specific Templates
• Financial Services
• Telecommunications
• Business & Consumer Services
• Utilities
• Health Care
• Leisure & Hospitality
• Media Services
• Oil & Gas, Energy
• Technology & Communications
• Retail Sales
• Health Sciences
• Automotive & Transportation
• Chemical & Natural Resources
• Consumer Packaged Goods
• Industrial Products & Appliances
• Food Production & Processing
• Print & Mail
• Paper & Packaging
Services Supply Chain
– Insurance
– Banking
– Broker/Dealer
– Investment Management
– Mortgage Banking
– Consumer Finance
¡ Retail Branches
¡ Business Lines
¡ Back Office
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.1610274
Template Descriptions
Broadly Defined
The Lab defines “templates” broadly, from business process maps through implementation work plans.
The Lab’s Six Categories of Improvement Templates
Business Process Map Templates
The Lab maintains activity-level business process maps for thousands of organization-based and industry-specific processes.
Benchmarking Metrics/Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
The Lab has more than 10,000 quantitative measures (metrics) covering processes, operations and organizations.
Improvement Opportunities
The Lab documents and catalogs thousands of commonly recurring, activity-level operating improvements.
Capacity Models (Activity Cube)
Quantitatively link work activities to volumes, input and output to track productivity and forecast resource needs.
ACTIVITY
C U B E
Best Practices, or “Leading Practices”
Use The Lab’s Leading Practices to evaluate your operational capabilities. Go “out-of-industry” for valuable practices.
Implementation Work Plans
Standard “modules” define implementation tasks, time frames and milestones. Plans are configured for each client’s needs.
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.161027
Template-Based Advantage: Massive, Activity-Level Improvement
5
The Lab’s Tactics Identify Virtuous Waste Activities
Conventional Tactics Overlook Virtuous Waste Activities
Virtuous Waste Defined
Tangible waste is an obvious improvement opportunity and conventional methods target its reduction.
• Scrap
• Returned goods
• Idle time
But intangible waste is not obvious and conventional methods overlook it.
• Incorrect orders
• Customer over-service
• Sales downtime
The avoidable work activities that correct intangible waste are mis-perceived as “virtuous.”
• Saving revenue
• Serving customers
• Helping the sales force
The Lab’s term for these mis-perceived, avoidable work activities:
Virtuous Waste
The cost of this waste erodes 20% of earnings for the Fortune 500 (page 30).
Organization-based scope
• Select group(s)
– Business
– Organization
• Broadly analyze groups
– Business processes (end-to-end)
– Organization capacity (wall-to-wall)
Single-focus teams
Teams pursue only non-technology improvements
Micro-targeted
• Hundreds of small improvements
• Non-technology (all)
• Near term (<6 months)
Issue-based scope
• Select improvement issue(s)
– Generate improvement “long list”
– Focus on a few – most valuable
• Deeply analyze issues
– Root causes
– Implications
Multi-focus teams
Teams pursue all improvements: technology, strategic, non-technology
Macro-targeted
• A few major improvements
• Technology-driven (90%)
• Long term (>12 months)
Wall-to-Wall Process Mapping
Brainstorming & Flip Charts
The Lab’s Tactics: “Long Tail”Conventional Tactics: “Big Rocks”
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.1610276
Template-Based Advantage: Massive, Activity-Level Improvement
“Long Tail” Capability
The Lab’s template-based advantage makes it feasible to...
• Document
• Implement
...hundreds of activity-level improvements in months.
Activity ImprovementsAffect Each Job Position
The Challenge
Virtuous Waste activities are pervasive, but overlooked.
• Full impact is “invisible”
• Root causes: “unavoidable”
• Remediation is “heroic”
Organizational CapacityCumulative Impact
40%
The Reward
Virtuous Waste consumes 25-40% of organizational capacity.
• Operational rework
• Sales “downtime”
• Customer “over-service”
Recoup and RedeployCapacity Model Needed
The Solution
The Lab’s methods recoup wasted capacity in 6 months.
• Full positions
• No “fingers and toes”
• Clients redeploy employees
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.1610277
Frequently Asked Questions: Internal Teams
An Unusual Fact
Roughly two-thirds of The Lab’s new client relationships originate with internal improvement teams.
Conventional consultants compete with, or displace, internal teams.
The Lab’s improvement templates incorporate proven methodologies: Lean Six Sigma, Voice of the Customer, Benchmarking, Leading Practices, Business Process Mapping and others.
What methodologies does The Lab use?
Any & all that work.A
Q
A
Q Doesn’t The Lab find the same improvements?
No.
The Lab’s improvement templates identify 3-5x more Non-Technology Improvements than even the best internal teams.
Internal teams today face unprecedented demand for rapid results and increasingly valuable business benefits. The Lab helps internal teams achieve these capabilities.
Why would an internal team involve The Lab?
More improvements, benefits & speed.A
Q
A
Q Does The Lab replace internal teams?
Never.
Internal teams provide roughly two-thirds of our new client introductions. The Lab can transfer templates to internal teams to increase effectiveness.
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.1610278
Early-Stage Checkpoints Reduce “Launch Risk”
Self-Funding Guarantees Reduce “Performance Risk”
Fixed-Price ProposalsThe Lab’s proposals are based on our labor costs. The scope is collaboratively and frugally designed with clients.
Compatibility CheckpointDuring the first two weeks, clients may cancel the Phase I engagement for any reason and receive a full refund of fees.
Opportunity CheckpointIf The Lab discovers that a self-funding improvement opportunity is unavailable, we will provide a full refund by week number two.
WEEK #2
CH E C K P O I N
T
PROPOSAL
Phase I: Analysis & DesignThe Lab will deliver a set of “quick hit” Class I Improvements with financial benefits that exceed the Phase I fees and expenses. These can be implemented by client staff without The Lab.
Phase II: ImplementationIf an improvement program we implement fails to deliver savings at least equal to our fees in the first year, The Lab will continue working without charge until it does or refund the difference.
The Lab’s Philosophy: Eliminate Risk for Clients
Low Risk by Design
The Lab’s fixed-price proposals, checkpoints and self-funding, money-back guarantees reduce risk for clients.
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.1610279
Root Causes of Virtuous Waste
Typical Sources of Class I Improvement
Benefits Concentration
Inefficient business processes and customer over-service typically represent three-quarters of the Class I opportunity and benefit.
Inefficient Business Processes• Typically 25–40% of business process
work steps represent Virtuous Waste.
– Rework
– Over-service
• 75% of these tasks can be eliminated
– In six months
– Without technology
Under-Managed Capacity• Failure to document, quantify and manage
work tasks and organizational capacity.
– Inaccurate forecasts
– Staffed for peaks
Measurement Imbalance• Over-emphasized metrics:
– Volume
– Revenue
• Under-emphasized metrics:
– Productivity
– Quality
– Unit Cost
– Customers
Over-Served, Mis-Served Customers, Markets• Organizations squander costly efforts
on the wrong priorities:
– High priorities are under-served
– Low priorities are over-served
• Markets are similarly mis-served
55%
15%
10%
20%
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102710
Class I Improvement
The Lab’s term for non-technology reduction of the root causes of Virtuous Waste that erode value in multiple categories:
• Rework
• Sales downtime
• Service issues
– Over-service
– Under-service
– Mis-service
• Intervention
• Cycle time delay
• Errors
• Misperception
The Lab’s Terminology: “Class I” Means Non-Technology
Class I® Improvements Outnumber Class II® by a 3-to-1 Margin
Class I Means No Technological, Strategic or Regulatory Change
Technology
No
Yes
Class I
Class II
Product/Service
No
Yes
Business/
Distribution Strategy
No
Yes
Physical
Infrastructure
No
Yes
Regulatory
No
Yes
Class I Improvements
Technology neutral
Class II ImprovementsTechnology dependent
75%
25%
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.161027
Improvement Opportunities by Implementation Timeframe
Class I, Non-Technology Improvement: Near-Term
Rapid Results
Most improvements can begin implementation immediately.
Even large-scale implementation projects can be completed in 6 months.
Timeframe Complexity Technology
35% Immediate Low None (1–2 months)
43% Secondary Moderate None
(3–6 months)
22% Long Term Varies Minor, Major (6+ months)
35%
22%43%
Immediate ActionClass I
Long TermClass II
SecondaryClass I
11
MethodologyOutlines The Lab’s two-phased, Self-Funding Business
Improvement work plan for reducing Virtuous Waste®
12
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102713
Two-Phased, Self-Funding Approach to Implementation
Implementation: The Lab’s Core Business
The Lab’s teams work full time, on site, with client executives, managers and front-line employees to implement improvements and document results.
Indicates self-funding performance guarantee, Phase I and Phase II.
Indicates client decision point for Phase II Implementation Launch.
LEGEND
Identify improvements, develop a business case and a self-funding implementation work plan
Duration: 6 to 8 Weeks
Develop an improvement business case• Ledger-line-item financial detail
• Work-group-level operating detail
Draft an implementation work plan• Self-funding, non-technology
• Client-prioritized, multi-objective
• Immediate launch
Deliver supporting documentation• Process maps, “Current-State”
• Benchmarks, leading practices
• Detailed improvement opportunities
Implement improvements, achieve payback and sustain ongoing improvement
Duration: 4 to 6 Months
Launch Immediate Action improvements• Simple operations changes
• Lead time: 6-8 weeks
Install Non-Technology improvements• Complex process change
• Lead time: 3-6 months
• Capacity model development
Optimize Future State processes• Job position/skills realignment
• Management Operating Reports (MORs)
• Desk-level standards (Placemats)
Phase I: Analysis & Design Objectives Phase II: Implementation Objectives
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102714
Self-Funding Business Improvement: From “Start to Finish”…
Analysis & Design, Phase I
Phase I is the business equivalent of a wall-to-wall X-Ray or CT scan of operations.
Templates help document end-to-end business processes at an activity level of detail, creating an unprecedented, consensus-driven, fact-based view of improvement opportunities.
Combined with the ledger-line detail of the business case, the Phase I findings and documentation create an almost irresistible, organizational groundswell for action toward change.
Obtain commitment from an executive who can
ensure success. Identify the organizational scope.
Non-Disclosure AgreementThe Lab signs client NDAs without edits.
Process Map CoverageThe Lab’s templates map 80% of the organizational scope at the activity level.
Organization Charts – ExistingThe Lab reviews charts to identify a frugal analytical scope for Phase I.
Client Time Requirements (Page 16)The Rule of Thumb: No more than one hour per client employee each week.
Analysis Design WorkshopThe Lab meets with clients to jointly finalize Phase I scope.
Self-Funding Work Plan & Benefits CaseThe Lab’s non-technology implementation plans are typically complete and self-funded in 6 months.
Project Development Phase I: Analysis & Design – 6 to 8 Weeks
Project Sponsorship
S T E P 1
Detail the “frugal analytical footprint” to deliver the greatest benefit for the organizational scope.
Proposal Design
S T E P 2
Analyze and benchmark performance data, map
processes and document improvements.
Operations Analysis
S T E P 3
Document improvement benefits in a self-funding business case. Design
the implementation plan.
Benefits Case & Work Plan
S T E P 4
CONTRACT NDA
PROPOSAL IPROPOSAL II
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102715
…An Unconventional “Engineering/Construction” Approach
Implementation, Phase II
Phase II resembles a construction project more than a conventional management consulting engagement.
Operational “change orders” (PIRs) rapidly align hundreds of activities with customers’ top priorities and the most valuable sources of revenue. Lower-value tasks are eliminated or reduced.
Just like a construction project, progress is tangible and measurable daily.
Phase II: Implementation – Typically 6 months
Establish a “lather, rinse, repeat” cycle for installing
changes. Monitor and refine new processes.
Improvement Implementation
Model organizational capacity and reconcile to newly-standardized processes, work products and
required activities.
Capacity Reconciliation
Develop desk-level job instructions (“Placemats”)
to standardize work methods and document goals.
Desk-Level Standardization
Create concise visual management dashboards to measure performance
against goals.
Performance Tracking
S T E P 5 S T E P 8S T E P 7S T E P 6
Process Improvement Records (PIRs)Consolidate activity-level improvements into manageable groups with these operational “change orders.”
Redesign Jobs & OrganizationsStandardize and document job tasks and accountability. Redesign job positions & organizations as required.
Implementation CycleBegin installation of change with small groups of PIRs. Review, refine and continue this “lather, rinse, repeat” cycle.
Desk-Level Guides – PlacematsDefine easy-to-follow performance goals to ensure productivity and reduce variance.
Capacity Model – Activity Cube (Page 20)Use the Activity Cube to reconcile workload and staff needs. Generate goals & reports: productivity, quality and service.
Management Operating ReportsDesign simple area reports – typically 5-7 metrics – of operations performance: units, volumes, backlog, errors.
1
23
PLACEMAT
PIR
Indicates self-funding performance guarantee, Phase I and Phase II.
Indicates client decision point for Phase I & Phase II Launch.
LEGEND
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102716
1 Applicable for projects covering a total of 250–2,000 employees.
2 Process Map Fair—a group review of maps.
Week 2Week 1 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8
WO
RK
AC
TIV
ITIE
SC
LIEN
T TI
ME
20 1.0
20
20 1.0
20 20
10 2.0
24
12 2.0
24
12 2.0
16
8 2.0
16
8 2.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Description
LogisticsStartup
InterviewsData Analysis
Process MapsCurrent State
OtherAnalysis
ImprovementWork Plans
Business CaseFinancials
Final PresentationImplementation Plan
60
0.3200
MAP FAIR2
Client Staff Individuals
Client Staff Time(Hours per Individual)
Total Client Hours(per Week)
Week-by-Week Work Plan Detail1
Phase I Work Plan; Minimal Client Time Is Required
More Templates, Less Time
The Lab’s templates reduce the time required from clients to develop findings and documentation.
The Analysis and Design phase is designed to use the client’s time both frugally and effectively.
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102717
1 Applicable for projects covering a total of 250–2,000 employees.
Client Participation Tasks, Time Requirements1
Conduct Interviews, Existing Data Analysis
Finalize Implementation Plan
Week One Week Two Week Three Week Four Week Five Week Six Week Seven Week Eight
Map Business Processes, Develop Findings & Validate Improvements
Phase I: Client Activities – Description
Brief Access vs. Duration
In Phase I, client-participants contribute their time in brief increments, typically in sessions lasting less than 60 minutes.
Brief, informal access to clients is more valuable than lengthy periods of contributed time.
Internal Perception Interviews
• 45-60 minutes each
• Informal, confidential
• Semi–structured
Existing Data Assessment
• Prior analysis, reports
• Existing process maps
Process Map Development (3 steps)
1. First Draft – Two-hour session per map develops “skeleton” work flow (1-2 client staff)
2. Refine/Validate – Multiple, brief reviews add detail (15-30 minutes each review)
3. Map Fair – Group validation of maps and improvements
Benchmarks, Leading Practices & Customer Interviews
• Data gathering, observations
• Findings review and validation
Financial & Operational Benefits
• Financial validation
• Performance goals
• Timeline, Milestones
Implementation Planning
• Resource needs
• Sponsorship
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102718
Multiple Objectives — Six-Month “Break-Even” Point
Labor SavingsAchieve and sustain 20-30% labor savings
Revenue ProductivityIncrease uptime (selling tasks) for producers
Service ImprovementReduce customer over-service
Operational StandardizationLimit needless variation and rework
12-month paybackTypically 2-5x investment
Project break-evenThe Lab has ‘Self-Funded’
Maximumout-of-pocket
Implementation Month
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12
Improvement Objectives Projects “Self-Fund” by Month 6
Phase II Improvement Objectives & Self-Funding Payback
Typical Milestones
Each work plan is unique, but several characteristics are common to every implementation:
• Rapid completion (6 months or less)
• Rapid break-even (6 months or less)
• Substantial payback (2–5x by month 12)
The Activity CubeDescribes how The Lab’s Activity Cube calculates and reconciles
four essential views of operations – and why that’s essential
19
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102720
ACTIVITY CUBE
I
II III
IV
The Lab’s Activity Cube: How It Works
Why Reconciliation Matters
Unless organizational capacity is allocated and reconciled with work product volumes, business processes and work activities, benefits are:
• General, not specific
• Fragmented, “fingers and toes”
• Soft dollar, not hard dollar
• Not sustainable
“The Cube” Reconciles Four Views of Operations
I. Organization View: Provides the baseline of organization capacity – net available work time. It is compiled in the Activity Cube and generates three additional, reconciled “views” of capacity.
III. Work Product View:Work products are the output of business processes. These enable unit-based management of operational efficiency and effectiveness.
II. Business Process View:The Lab’s business process maps deliver activity-level detail of processes and organization capacity.
IV. Activity-Based View: The activities on the business process maps help calculate the resources devoted to business processes and work products. Activities average less than 15 minutes each. The Lab uses a directory of 20 universal work activities.
Links and reconciles operating work activities to business processes, work products and the organization (job position).
• Business Process • Work Product • Activity-Based
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102721
The Lab’s Process Maps Link Activities to Organization Capacity
End-to-End – Account Maintenance
Account Maintenance
1
2
3
4
5
New Account OpeningEnrollment of ServicesAccount MaintenanceStatements ProcessingClose/Restrict/Dormant Accounts
New Account Opening
Initiates Account Opening Request
Client 1.1
Verify if Existing Client by Client Information
Record
Account Opening Officer
1.3
Client Information Record Exists?
Validate Client Information
Account Opening Officer
1.6
Gives client “Personal Information New/
Existing” form
CAO 1.7
Does client have all required documents?
Leaves branch and retrieves documentation
Client 1.11
Reviews documents and IDs and determines
whether they’re sufficient
CAO 1.14
Are documents sufficient?
No
Return to branch with revised set of documents
Client 1.13
Photocopies ID’s and documents
CAO 1.17
Complete “Personal information New/
Existing” form for client
Client 1.19
Client can complete form prior to seeing the CAO
Yes Yes
No
Review form for completeness
CAO 1.21
Inform client that Account Manager will complete
account opening
CAO 1.22
Notify account manager that the client would like
to open an account
CAO 1.23
If an AM is busy, the client can wait up to an hour to open an account
Begins account opening process with client
AM 1.25
AM available?
Waits for AM to be available
Client 1.24
New client?
Create customer master
AM 1.27
Search for client’s account details
AM 1.26
Review and update customer master
AM 1.28
Customer Master
NameAddressOccupationID infoRisk Rating
Search for client’s name and check whether his or
her name is on the list
AM 1.29
AML System
Is client’s name on the list?
Confirms whether the person on the list is the
same person as the client
AM 1.30
Complete checklist to ensure all documents are
present
AM 1.31
Verify ID’s and client information is accurately
entered
OSO 1.33
Enter information from client’s application into
client’s account
AM 1.36
Write account number into an account card
AM 1.34
Order new debit card
AM 1.37
Client Pick Up and Activate Card
Client 1.39
No
Can a decision be made?
Forward client information to AMLFIU for further investigation
AM 1.32
AMLFIU investigates and makes decision Approved?
Inform client of final decision via phone
AM 1.35
Provide client with account number
AM 1.38
Yes
AML System
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Send Documents through Courier Bags
Branch 1.2
Review Documents
Agent 1.5
Documents in Good Order?
Send Documents Back to Branch
Agent 1.9
Enter Application on System
Agent 1.10
Correct/Send Documents
Branch 1.8
Verify and Authorize Account
Agent 1.12
Errors in Processing Contact Processor
Agent 1.15
Correct Error
Agent 1.16
No(99%)
Yes(1%)
Yes(<5%)
Clear Courier Bag
Agent 1.4
Perform AML Check
Agent 1.18
Archive File
Agent 1.20
In returning packages BAA verifies the information
No(>95%)
Enrollment of Services
Client wants to enroll in NetBank
Client 2.1
Completes forms at home
Client 2.3
Print forms at home?Client goes to local
branch
Client 2.2
Client meets with account officer
Lending Officer 2.4
Client provides KYC documents
Lending Officer 2.5
Client completes enrollment
Lending Officer 2.6
Branch forwards completed application to NetBank Administrator
Lending Officer 2.7
Home Computer
Yes
No
Review Documents
Agent 2.8
Documents in Good Order?
Send Documents Back to Branch
Agent 2.9
Enter Application on System
Agent 2.12
Correct/Send Documents
Branch 2.10
Verify and Authorize Enrollment
Agent 2.13
Errors in Processing Contact Processor
Agent 2.14
Correct Error
Agent 2.15
No(5-20%)
Yes(80-95%)
Yes(<5%)
For EC and DC are digital documents
Log Documents on File
Agent 2.11
Send Welcome Email to Client
Agent 2.16
No(>95%)
For SMS services client get a Text instead of email
Client receives account setup confirmation
Client 2.19
Receives successful activation email and confirms password
Client 2.22
NetBank
Client receives secure email
Client 2.17
Login with information from email
Client 2.18
Setup Personal Verification Questions
(PVQs)
Client 2.20
Accept User Agreement
Client 2.21
NetBankNetBank
Present pertinent Documents
Client 3.1
Confirm documents received are in good
order
CSR 3.4
Photocopy documents/identification
CSR 3.5
Execute Amendment of Account
CSR 3.6
Process financial transaction
CSR 3.39
T24
Generate agreement forms/deal slips, user
signs
CSR 3.7
Commit transaction
CSR 3.8
Amend account on additional services
CSR 3.11
Generate Forms
CSR 3.12
Sign Forms
Client 3.13
Destroy old ATM cards
CSR 3.14
Submit forms for replacement services
CSR 3.15
Commit Record
Manager 3.16
T24 T24T24
1. Amend Account
Retrieve CIF and verify signing authority
CSR 3.17
Access close account version
CSR 3.18
Input particulars to close account
CSR 3.19
T24 T24
Is account balance zero?
Generate deal slip, client signs
CSR 3.21
Process debit/credit to account
CSR 3.20
T24
Yes
No Commit Transaction
CSR 3.22
Back end processing
Is joint holder a new client?
Accept pertinent documents from client
(2 IDs required)
CSR 3.29
Accept only 1 form of ID from each client
CSR 3.31
Access amend account Menu
CSR 3.32
T24
Amend account details, append joint holder info
CSR 3.33
T24
Generate agreement
Generate agreement
CSR 3.34
T24
Generate agreement
Commit transaction
CSR 3.35
T24
Create new customer record for joint holder
CSR 3.30
Yes
No
Reactivate account
(Non financial)
CSR 3.38
Does the client have a financial transaction?
No
Yes
Generate deal slip/form, client signs
CSR 3.40
Generate agreemt
Commit transaction
CSR 3.41
T24 T24 T24
Does Client know account number?
Perform Customer Search Function and Verify Identification
CSR 3.2
ID Verified? No
Verify ID and retrieve account information
CSR 3.3
T24
T24
No
Yes
Yes
Capture/Scan Signature
CSR 3.9
Manager Authorizes transaction
MCC/AMCC 3.10
Additional Services Include:Credit CardsRoytrinATM CardsEtc.
T24T24
Retrieve CIF and verify signing authority
CSR 3.24
Review Documents
CSR 3.25
Customer Approves and Signs transaction
CSR 3.26
Commit Transaction
CSR 3.27
Authorization by Manager
MCC 3.28
Authorization by Manager
MCC 3.36
Update CIF if applicable
CSR 3.37
Approve and authorize in T24
MCC 3.23
T24
Authorization by Manager
MCC 3.42
T24 T24
T24
Required documentation varies if permanent or temporary address change
Existing Client?
New Account Opening
Client completes enrollment form
Customer 2.24
Customer wants to open an investment account
Client 2.23
Client meets with branch staff
CSR/Lending Ofc/FP
2.25
Staff reviews enrollment form
CSR/Lending Ofc/FP
2.26
Is the enrollment form accurate?
Staff reviews and scans KYC information
CSR/Lending Ofc/FP
2.27
Client determine how they want to fund the
investment
CSR/Lending Ofc/FP
2.28
Authorizes an account transfer
CSR/Lending Ofc/FP
2.30
Funds account with cash
CSR/Lending Ofc/FP
2.29
Submits form to Roytrin
CSR/Lending Ofc/FP
2.31
Yes
No
No
Yes
Statements Processing
Receive Request from Front Office
Special Ops
5.14
Account Closure?
No
Yes
Submit Request to Special Operations
Front Office
5.13
Acknowledge Receipt of Request
Special Ops
5.15
Close Pershing Customer Account
Special Ops
5.16
Pershing/NetX360
Edit & Pend Close in NetX360
Special Ops
5.17
Pershing/NetX360
Verify Transaction
Special Ops
5.18
Pershing/NetX360
Close TTCD Customer Account
Special Ops
5.19
TTCD-Depend
Prepare Letter & Supporting Documents
Special Ops
5.20
TTCD-Depend
Verify Transaction
Special Ops
5.21
TTCD-Depend
Sign & Forward to TTCD
Special Ops
5.22
TTCD-Depend
Receive and Verify Letter/Documents on
Depend
TTCD 5.26
TTCD-Depend
Account Restriction?
No
YesAcknowledge Receipt of
Request
Special Ops
5.23
Restrict Customer Account
Special Ops
5.24
Approve Restriction
Front Office
5.25
NBOS
Update Dormant Account List from Front Office
Special Ops
5.27
Review and Update Dormant Account List
Special Ops
5.28
Determine Type of Account
Special Ops
5.29
1. Pershing2. TTCD 2. TTCD
1. Pershing
Edit Account
Special Ops
5.30
Verify Edits from Processing Agent
Special Ops
5.31
Pershing/NetX360
Pershing/NetX360
Prepare Letter and Supporting Document
Special Ops
5.32
Forward for Signing to Supporting Officer
Special Ops
5.33
Sign & Forward Documentation to TTCD
Special Ops
5.34
Verify & Update Documents on Depend
TTCD 5.35
TTCD-Depend
Update Package for Client
Special Ops
5.36
Forward Package to Client
Special Ops
5.37
File Documentation
Special Ops
5.38
Send Request through mailbox
Branch 3.43
Receive and Review Documents
Agent 3.45
Documents in Good Order?
Process Request
Agent 3.47
Send Documents Back to Branch/Client
Agent 3.46
Correct/Send Documents
Branch 3.44
No(5-20%)
Yes(80-95%)
Client can also send a secure mail through their Netbank account
Verify Request
Agent 3.48
Processing in Good Order?
Roll Back to Processor
Agent 3.49
File Request
Agent 3.51
Correct Request
Agent 3.50
No
Yes
Account MaintenanceAlternate ChannelsOn Branch
Investment
Print Statements
Data Output 4.1
Get Statements from Data Output
Agent 4.2
Send Processed Statements to Mail Room
Agent 4.4
Drop Statements on Processing Machine
Agent 4.3
Sort Mail According to Region
Agent 4.5
Create Posting Form
Agent 4.6
Arrange Boxes for Pick Up (Postal Office)
Agent 4.7
Close/Restrict/Dormant Accounts
Create case for client to be demarketed
CFR 5.1
Review CFR minutes to verify demarket decision
AML Officer
5.2
GCM
Global Case Manager
Email in-market compliance team to liase with branches to confirm
client’s products & services
AML Officer
5.3
GCM
Response received? Prepare exit letter
AML Officer
5.4
Send to in-market team
AML Officer
5.5
Mail to client
Branch 5.7
Did client close account?
Notify branch to close client’s account
LCO 5.11
Close account and mail client funds via draft
Branch 5.12
Notify branch to mail letter to client
LCO 5.6
Is mail returned?Contact client via email,
phone or alternate address
Branch 5.8
Yes
No
Update case
LCO 5.10
Notify client that account must be closed
Branch 5.9
No
Action evaluated on case by case basis. Account could be closed or restricted
If account is restricted and client does not take action after a number of days, account will be closed
Yes
Outlook Yes
Was client successfully
reached?
Has a “few days” elapsed?
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Research overdrawn account information
ARM 3.59
Initiate T24 query of all accounts with overdrawn
excess
CSR 3.52
Receive daily overdrawn and past due reports and
sign in agreement
ARM 3.57
T24
T24
Initiate T24 query of all delinquent loans
CSR 3.53
T24
Export data into Excel
CSR 3.54
Excel T24
Filter data to include only relative information and
sort by RM
CSR 3.55
Excel
Data filters exclude <0ANG Excess and Insurance Products
Print out reports for each RM
CSR 3.56
Excel
Begin Item Level Review Process
ARM 3.58
Determine resolution path
ARM 3.62
Double Bookings, Credit Card Payments and Payment utility payments can be reversed by RCBShould a transaction
be reversed?
Reach out to appropriate group to reverse
transaction
ARM 3.60
T24
Perform Account to Account Transfer
CSR 3.63
Deposit Currency into Account
CSR 3.64
Reverse Clearing Cheque
Cur TSC 3.65
No
Yes
1. Account Transfer
3. Reverse Clearing
2. Deposit Currency
Submit TAR for temporary modification
CSR 3.66
4. Temp. Modification
Document resolution steps, status of excesses
and review with supervisor
CSR 3.67
Follow-up with next day reporting to ensure
resolution of excess.
CSR 3.68
Contact Customer via Phone
ARM 3.61
Facilities can be called every two days, overall withdrawn is generally once a week.
Dollar value greater than X will be transferred to collecions.
Business Banking Account Excess
Demarket ClientClose/Dormant
Client Front Office
Back Office
Back Office
Front Office
Client
Transaction Bank/Teller ATM Netbank ROLG ROLB SMS Tellerphone
Interim Statements
‐ Receive immediate hard copy‐ Fee varies by market
N/A
Immediate and Free‐ Not real‐time, potentially detailed transaction updates‐ Does not include name or address on the statement for record verification.
‐ Immediate and Free‐ Real‐time but is unreliable
‐ Immediate and Free‐ Real‐time but is unreliable
N/A N/A
Balances
‐ Immediate real time balance‐ Free
‐ Customer needs ATM card‐ Real time
‐ Immediate and Free‐ Not real‐time, potentially detailed transaction updates
‐ Immediate and Free‐ Real‐time but is unreliable
‐ Immediate and Free‐ Real‐time but is unreliable
‐ Immediate and Free‐ Real‐time but SMS is unreliable
‐ Immediate and FreeReal‐time
Alternate Channel Options
1. Account Transfer2. Deposit Currency3. Reverse Clearing
4. Temp. Modification
1. Amend Account2. Close Account
3. Change Address4. Add Joint Holder5. Activate Account
2. Close Account
3. Change Address
4. Add Joint Holder
5. Activate Account
T24 T24
1. Enroll NetBank2. Investment Account
3. Account Maintenance
1. Enroll in NetBank
2. Investment Account
Alternate Channels
3. Account MaintenancePersonal & Business (Except TT)
Business TT
End of Day
Initiate Excess Resolution Process
StatementsPrepared
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: NIGO
Customer Satisfaction
Daily:NIGO: Wrong Data
Netbank: Credit Card balances are not up to date and can have a 2 day lag in reporting decreasing customer confidence in Netbank and RBC tracking capabilities.I.063
St Lucia: 3.3 – 3.41 AM / SAM completeSt Lucia: 3.3 CSR gathers info and forwards to CAO or AM to completeGrenada: Maintenance requests performed by AM
St Lucia: Lend Off / AM do this to add joint holder
St Lucia: Lend Off / AM do this
St Lucia: Lend Off / AM do this to add joint holderAntigua: AM / SAM performs
St Lucia: Generally client completes form with A/C officerSt Maarten: Completed by BSO 1.19 – 1.21Curacao: AM SAM fills out info directly into T24 client does not complete a form
St Lucia: Done by A/C officerAruba: CSRCuracao: Whoever opens the account makes copies not necessarily the CAO
St Lucia: Done by A/C officerCuracao: Activity usually performed by SAM/ AM
St Lucia: Done by A/C officerSt Kitts: Appointments required to open accounts
St Kitts: Performed by AM / SAM / MCCSt Maarten: Performed by CAO
St Kitts: New account file passed to BSO for post audit
St Kitts: Risk rate client -Medium & High risk forms are sent to Compliance Mailbox for investigation and / or approval
St Kitts: Performed by AML officer; TT to update case
St Kitts: Performed by CCO (Country Compliance Officer)
St Kitts: via registered mailTT: Dormant accounts done by service delivery
St Kitts: Performed by CCO (Country Compliance Officer)
St Kitts: Close account and retain draft and letter on file
Grenada: ROL/G set up occurs at branch
Grenada: Add joint holder – account must be closed and reopened
Grenada: RIBS excess report auto-generatedAntigua: ARM not CSR
Grenada: Demarketing client comes from 1) high risk/unusual pattern 2) suspicious activity report (could be filled out by CSR) 3) adverse reports/press (e.g. name of drug dealer on news matches with a RBC client)
Grenada: Opportunity to cross sell products such as ROL/G and ATM cards
Grenada: Explain process to client 1) Expect email from ROL suport team 2) Provide client with manual and walk through steps to access ROL
St Maarten: Done by CSR not tellers
Grenada: Agree
Antigua: Post review process occursAruba: ATM is ready to pick up after 4 working days
Antigua: Full report sent to Market Head by ARM each morning – not filtered
Antigua: ARM not CSRAruba: ARM / RMCuracao: TAR is submitted by the RM- Business Banking
Antigua: Proof Clerk not Cur TSCAruba: Reversing Clearing cheques done by Transfer teamCuracao: No TAR for Personal Banking
Antigua: Zero tolerance for excesses – excesses not allowedAruba: CSR /ARM / RMCuracao: Documenting the Excess is performed by the RM and discussed with the Team Lead
St Maarten: 2.4 to 2.7 CSR performsTT: Also CSR or CAOCuracao: Activity usually performed by CSR Complex- Completing of Netbank application
St Maarten: BSO authorizes accountTT: No deal slip needed to be generated while balance is zeroCuracao: Request for changes on account also received via Call Centre and performed by the TSC
St Maarten: BSO authorizes account
St Maarten: BSO authorizes accountAruba: Aruba BB authorized by MSS (Manager Sales Support)
St Maarten: BSO authorizes account
St Maarten: Completed by AOO 1.25 – 1.29
TT: Some requests are made via contact center over the phone. The request are then send to RBCC-TT-TSC letter request generic mailbox. Satisfied request are sent to branch for collections
TT: Branch employees can confirm whether statement for a specific period was made out, they can also verify what statements where generated on account
TT: Once corrected should go back to verification agent for recheck
TT: T24 doesn't show signatures, not entered on accountAruba: Amend account and change address done by Ops SupportCuracao: Scanning of signature for main branch and Business Banking is done at TSC
TT: Amend the CIF to be able to access closure and A/CCuracao: Close account is done by Service delivery for Business Banking clients
TT: Agent -Business Representative Retail
TT: No longer applicable, client get package CAO, client completes and delivers package, CAO verifies, CSR opens at EODTT: Drop off system now in place for account opening, these are no longer done by S/AMAruba: Accounts opened by appointment only, not walk-in; AM join appointment to cross-sell NetBank, POS, ATM, Night Deposit, Lending opps)
TT: TSC only verifies accounts, changes are made and authorized by branch
TT: A/C (TSC) does not enter application on system
TT: CAO no longer account opening officer
BAH: Credit card statements are printed by IT and forwarded to SDCuracao: Travel Card statement generated and processed in TSC this is done monthly
BAH: Statements are manually sorted as there is no OMR
BAH: In-house courier will deliver to local post office. Cayman and TCI sent via FedEx
BAH: N/A to SD CaymanAruba: Role clarification as 5.13 - CSR performs account close for inactive or at Client request
BAH: N/A to SD Cayman
BAH: N/A; E2E is branch.
BAH: Royal Online process differs for business bankingAruba: Alternate Channels Enrollment Services; currently no ability for Clients to print forms at homeCuracao: Client needs to fill this in at the bank no opportunity to do this at home
Aruba: CSR Complex
Aruba: Manager reviews all documents; Docs are scanned and sent to electronic banking via email. Client is advised 3 days turn around to open
Aruba: All is done manually on paper
Aruba: Screening Clients from other banks done by Ops Support
Aruba: "Investment" Process; N/A
Aruba: CSR's also review overdrawn list for non-borrowing Clients
Aruba: ARM or RM 3.56 – 3.61
Aruba: Admin & control of documents done by Ops Support; Currently CSR is closing inactive and dormant accounts on T24. Ops dept. is involved to receive/file documents
Curacao: Business Banking non lending performs the input of new accounts
Curacao: Business Banking non lending sends EED/ AMC requests to Caribbean when required for account opening
Curacao: This only if scoring proves to be a high risk client
Curacao: Before account is opened it has to be reviewed / controlled by the BSO team and then authorized
Curacao: Document management signing authority updates performed by TSC for Business Banking
Curacao: TSC Load activated dormant accounts, report, and review forms received from the front office if all documents are in place 3.37 – 3.41
Curacao: ARM can also perform
Curacao: Depending on client to be exited / demarketed legal department is engaged to review exit letter then on to Compliance
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
15 MinsProcessing Delay
Daily:Reducible: Complexity
Account maintenance requests (e.g., address changes) are received by tellers, who then leave their desks to find an account manager to complete the request. The need for an account manager adds as much as 15 minutes to the transaction.I.001
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Incomplete
Twice a MonthRisk
Monthly:2Incomplete: No Audit
Penalties for branches that fail to adhere to compliance are low. Branches therefore have little incentive to integrate new compliance procedures into their operations and can undermine the company's AML efforts.I.015
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Processing Delay
Daily:Reducible: Complexity
Account maintenance activities require submission templates for each type of account changed. Changing just the last name on an account can require 7 account changes and 7 separate supervisor signatures and authorizations in T24.I.035
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Eliminable
Low customer satisfaction
Eliminable: Over Work
NetBank access can be reset only by contacting sales personnel at the branch. The limitation ties up sales personnel in non-sales activities and simultaneously decreases customer satisfaction.I.144
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Processing Delay
Weekly:Reducible: Frequency
ROLB does not allow for remote ID validation. All password reset/account lockout requests must therefore be performed manually.
II.231
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Not Arrive
Customer Satisfaction
Monthly:Not Arrive: Lost in Transit
SMS services uses local phone providers. Network issues among these providers cause text messages to be delayed or never delivered.
II.200
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Not Pass Review
Customer Satisfaction
Weekly:Not Pass Review: Internal Error
About 15% of customers who have an account switched to another type are incorrectly processed. These processing errors can cause service fees to be misapplied to the account and thereby reduce client satisfaction.II.056
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
60%Unbalanced Workload
Daily:Reducible: Frequency
NetBank passwords cannot be retrieved unless all 5 security questions are answered correctly. The complexity contributes to NetBank administrative activities, which account for more than 60% of inbound calls in the Curacao contact centre.
II.062
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
1 HourProcessing Delay
Weekly:Reducible: Frequency
Account amendment changes must be applied individually to each product that a customer has. A simple name change can require as many as 5 change forms and extend processing times by as much as 1 hour.I.065
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Eliminable
Processing Delay
Weekly:Eliminable: Parallel
Processing
Account maintenance actions require duplicate approvals: one of the hard copy form and a subsequent authorization step within T24. This duplication adds unnecessary, low-value work and extends cycle times.I.066
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Processing Delay
Weekly:Reducible: Frequency
T24 does not enable the use of an ATM card to search for a customer's account. Because of this limitation, customers must maintain two documents that could be consolidated into one.II.067
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
QuarterlyLow productivity
Quarterly:Eliminable: Over Work
The process to add signatories to a personal account requires the account to be closed and re-opened. This inability simply to update the information adds 1 hour of processing time.II.436
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Eliminable
Low productivity
Daily:Eliminable: Over
Work
The zero tolerance policy includes documentation and resolution of accounts with $.01 overdrafts. ARMs estimate that 50% of their daily activities are related to excess reporting and resolution activities.I.264
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: No Process Plan
Rework
Monthly:No Process Plan: No Plan
The NetBank process for third-party transfers does not allow for upfront validation of the receiving account. Poor validation procedures contribute to failed transfers and wires that require significant manual intervention to be corrected. I.248
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Customer Satisfaction
Daily:Reducible: Frequency
NetBank does not allow for remote ID validation. All password reset requests must therefore be performed manually.
II.166
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Customer Satisfaction
Daily:Reducible: Complexity
ROLB cannot make international payments or transfers. This limitation forces customers to use other means to complete these transactions and thereby reduces satisfaction levels.II.171
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Customer Satisfaction
Monthly:Reducible: Frequency
NetBank, ROLB and ROLG do not allow interbank transfers. This limitation inconveniences customers and hinders more widespread adoption of them as alternate channels.I.239
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Not Routine
Customer Satisfaction
Weekly:Not Routine: Scope
Error
ROLB access can be reset only by contacting sales personnel at the branch. The limitation ties up sales personnel in non-sales activities and simultaneously decreases customer satisfaction.I.230
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Missed revenue opportunity
Daily:Reducible: Complexity
NetBank Bill Pay only allows payments to authorized billers. This limitation prevents customers from using the service to pay more of their bills and thereby decreases satisfaction levels.I.173
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Processing Delay
Daily:Reducible: Complexity
All non-T24 transactions are keyed manually. Manual entry dramatically increases the opportunity for data errors and requires an excessive amount of time to perform.II.175
Mode:
Effect:
Cause:
No standard procedure is in place to ensure that ATMs do not run out of receipt paper. Customers become uncomfortable and less likely to use this alternate channel when they do not receive a record of their transaction.I.224
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
DailyLow productivity
Daily:Eliminable: Over Work
Royal Online balances do not show pending items, steps or holds. The lack of such information needlessly increases inbound branch traffic for basic inquiries.II.437
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: No instructions
MonthlyKnowledge gap
Monthly:No Instructions: Not
Available
No documented process is in place to write-off overdrawn inactive accounts or to transfer them to the collections team. Loans are therefore written off based on personal discretion and do not appear on any tracking reports.I.434
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Below Plan
30 MinsProcessing Delay
Daily:Below Plan: No
Metrics
Reports on accounts without a signature on file are not available to branch employees. Limited distribution of the reports hinders maintenance of account signatures, and the lack of a signature on file can add more than 30 minutes to a transaction.
I.050
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Not Arrive
Processing Delay
Not Arrive: Unsent
Letters are sent to clients whose accounts are about to be demarketed, but they are not initially contacted directly by phone. Poor notification can extend the demarketing process and present additional risk to the bank.I.016
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Eliminable
Customer Satisfaction
Monthly:Eliminable: Over
Work
Royal Online accounts that are dormant for 3 months or longer are closed. To reactivate the account the client must visit a branch, an inconvenience that discourages clients from using this service.I.179
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: No Instructions
Customer Satisfaction
Monthly:No Instructions: Out
of Date
Clients are not notified when their documents on file are about to expire; they find out only when they arrive and meet with a relationship manager. Poor notification forces clients to retrieve updated documents and make a repeat visit to the branch.I.189
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: NIGO
30 MinsProcessing Delay
Daily:NIGO: Wrong Data
Account holds are unreliable and ignored for some accounts. Some customer service representatives spend as much as 1 hour searching for the account officer in T24 or reaching out by phone, email or office communicator for inquiries.I.074
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: No instructions
MonthlyKnowledge gap
Monthly:No Instructions: Not
Available
The process to close zero-balance accounts incorrectly closes accounts that should not be processed. The lack of standardized thresholds in the process generates 2 hours of rework to handle accounts that were erroneously closed.I.435
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Missed revenue opportunity
Monthly:Reducible: Frequency
ROLB lacks a mobile banking app. The limitation hinders customer adoption of ROLB as an alternate channel.
II.234
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Eliminable
Unbalanced Workload
Daily:Eliminable: Over Work
Customer service representatives (CSRs) have experienced poor SMS service functionality and are therefore reluctant to recommend the service to customers. This reticence reduces the use of SMS service and increases inbound CSR transaction volume.
II.046
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Customer Satisfaction
Monthly:Reducible: Variance
NetBank has a variety of offerings across the Caribbean. The inconsistency in the products complicates establishment of a uniform strategy or market.I.238
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: No Process Plan
Missed revenue opportunity
Quarterly:No Process Plan: No
Plan
Despite providing a client with an RBC asset, no report covers use or customer profitability. This limitation prevents more thorough understanding of how the asset is performing or predicting its maintenance cycle.I.245
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Processing Delay
Daily:Reducible: Frequency
Alternate channels are a focus for Trinidad, but no signs or marketing campaign materials are visible in the branches. Lack of such material hinders any effort to draw the customer to the alternate channels.I.289
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Customer Satisfaction
Monthly:Reducible: Complexity
NetBank requires as much as 2 weeks to set up an account. The extended cycle time increases both the barrier of entry for clients to use alternate channels and branch volume.I.073
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: NIGO
2 hoursRework
Daily:40% of VolumeNIGO: Wrong Data
40% of all incoming Royal Online applications have errors (e.g., incorrect account numbers or country). Poor inbound data quality forces those applications to be sent back and requires 2 hours of rework per day.I.083
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Customer Satisfaction
Weekly:Reducible: Variance
Cycle times in the front office to correct applications vary from the same day to weeks. This wide variation in cycle times severely reduces client satisfaction.I.095
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: No Process Plan
Processing Delay
Quarterly:Reducible: Duration
Marketing and the back office exhibit poor communication during client enrollment campaigns. The lack of adequate coordination can extend processing time 100% beyond the service level agreement.I.102
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
1 HourProcessing Delay
Daily:1Reducible: Complexity
During conversion of the T24 file for NetBank into the Excel spreadsheet, the beneficiary information does not fully populate. Looking up this information and manually entering it to complete the transaction costs processors about 1 hour per day.II.119
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Eliminable
Low customer satisfaction
Eliminable: Over Work
Customers can enroll in NetBank only in the branch. The limitation forces them either to schedule an appointment or wait for an available customer service representative, both of which tend to decrease satisfaction levels.I.143
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Processing Delay
Monthly:Reducible: Complexity
The client enrolment process for online services in The Bahamas is self-authorized by the processor, but for Trinidad the verification officer authorizes. The additional step in Trinidad increases enrollment times.I.194
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Processing Delay
Monthly:Reducible: Frequency
During the online enrolment process in The Bahamas, clients are asked to select services, rather than being automatically enrolled in all. This step causes the majority of errors that occur during the online enrollment process. I.199
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Missed revenue opportunity
Daily:Reducible: Frequency
Despite a strategy to increase migration to the ATM channel, the bank has added or increased fees for all transaction types. The higher fees have hindered channel adoption and customers' willingness to test them.I.221
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Eliminable
Rework
Daily:Eliminable: Error
Correct
46% of Curacao call centre tickets are related to NetBank inquiries. Low performance and high levels of errors increase the inbound volume of claims and extend SLAs.I.254
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Eliminable
Extended Cycle time
Eliminable: Error Correct
The CBRT Resolution officer has a standard SLA of 2 days to solve issues, but SLAs for escalations range from 5 to 45 days. The lack of a standard SLA for escalations leaves customers uncertain of the status and severely reduces satisfaction.
I.154
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Not Processable
Processing Delay
Daily:Not Processable:
Capacity Issue
New accounts cannot be completely created during a single client visit. Extensive forms, input into T24 and additional system processing steps force the customer to return another day to complete the process.I.043
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
DailyRework
Daily:No Instructions: Lack
of Detail
Document requirements are unclear by jurisdiction and type of account (lending or business) for account maintenance. The lack of clear standards causes customers not to have required documents and therefore generates additional meetings.
I.428
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: NIGO
1 HourProcessing Delay
Daily:NIGO: Missing Data
New accounts in small Curacao branches are frequently filed without signatures uploaded into T24. More than 200 accounts lack a signing authority on record, which can extend customer transactions by 1 hour.I.049
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: NIGO
DailyRework
Daily:15 MinutesNIGO: Missing Data
Customer master information is not updated consistently. The outdated information is found during other transactions and increases that transaction time by 15 minutes or more as a result of correcting the information.I.430
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: NIGO
1 Hour Per ApplicationRework
Daily:90% of VolumeNIGO: Wrong Data
Documentation for 90% of new accounts is not in good order. Correcting the documentation requires ~60 minutes of rework per application.I.086
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
1 HourProcessing Delay
Daily:Reducible: Duration
Clients must wait for an available account manager to open an account. Depending on the account manager's availability, clients can wait as long as 1 hour to complete the process.I.181
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Below Plan
Missed SLAs
Monthly:Below Plan: No
Metrics
Business Service Support Compliance may take as long as 3 weeks to verify an account opening request. No clear SLA, however, has been established, and the long wait times frustrate clients, who do not know what to expect.I.192
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Eliminable
Direct monetary impact to client
Eliminable: Over Work
The CBRT Leasing officer must balance several spreadsheets weekly related to principle payments, interest payments and rates for vehicles. This manual process requires 8-10 hours of work per week.II.153
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Rework
Daily:5% of VolumeReducible: Variance
5% of all signature cards came from an unauthorized person or used an incorrect authorization format. These cards must be returned, thereby creating rework during review.I.085
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
DailyLow productivity
Daily:20 minutesEliminable: Over
Work
The fields on four alternate channel enrollment forms currently in use are 80% identical. The duplication increases processing times, and the complexity limits adoption of alternate channels.I.431
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
DailyLow productivity
Daily:1 hourEliminable: Over
Work
The new account opening process requires client interaction with 3 employees. The cumbersome process adds as much as 1 hour to the overall account opening process.I.432
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Eliminable
Rework
Weekly:Eliminable: Error
Correct
Sales personnel are required to follow up on failed transactions. This responsibility diverts their time and attention away from more valuable sales activities.I.249
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Rework
Monthly:Reducible: Frequency
14% of Business Banking account balances are in excess and require time-intensive follow-up activities to bring current. This manual process diverts time and attention from more valuable activities.I.252
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Processing Delay
Daily:Reducible: Variance
Some CAOs do not have printers located nearby. Customers are left unattended and new customers are not triaged for several minutes while documentation is printed and retrieved.II.068
Mode:
Effect:
Cause:
Account opening procedures are inconsistent across regions. Responsibilities vary and activities can be owned by an account opening officer, a customer service representative or an AM, depending on region.I.561
Mode:
Effect:
Cause:
The signature upload process is inconsistent across regions. Some regions complete signature uploads while the customer is waiting, but others rely on back office support to complete signature uploads.I.566
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: NIGO
Customer Satisfaction
Daily:NIGO: Missing Data
Client signature is required for account opening, but many signatures have been lost or not uploaded by RBC. This loss of required security data submitted by customers severely undermines customer confidence in RBC to maintain secure information.
I.271
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: NIGO
Processing Delay
Daily:15 MinutesNIGO
Up to 4% of the signature cards are rejected because of incorrect information (e.g., account number or client name). Incorrect information adds at least 15 minutes of rework after the cards are sent back.I.103
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Not Processable
1-3 daysProcessing Delay
Weekly:Not Processable:
Operator Skill
Personal Banking supports account opening for Barbados business banking, but staff are not fully trained in business requirements. Misunderstood applications as a result of inadequate training generate rework and extend cycle time by 1-3 days.
I.306
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: NIGO
DailyRework
Daily:NIGO: Incomplete
The process to upload a signature for an account is disconnected from the account creation process and completed by another department. The fragmented process leaves ~5% of accounts without a signature on file.I.425
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: NIGO
DailyRework
Daily:NIGO: Missing Data
Account opening application documents are complex, multiple-page documents. The complexity generates errors, and as many as 90% of applications require rework.I.426
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
DailyLow productivity
Daily:1-2 HoursEliminable: Over
Work
ARMs and RMs are burdened by as much as 2 hours of administrative work daily. The excessive administrative work, which could be shifted to a centralized team, reduces the time available to accommodate ad hoc sales appointments.I.427
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Plan Not Followed
30 minsProcessing Delay
Daily:Plan Not Followed:
Backlog
An estimated two-years' backlog of paperwork has not been scanned for signatures. The excessive backlog results in accounts that lack a signature on file, which adds more than 30 minutes to simple transaction processing.I.270
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: NIGO
Increase Inbound Volume
Monthly:NIGO: Missing Data
Interim statements produced by NetBank lack names or addresses, which are often needed by the client for verification purposes. Missing information in alternate channel interim statements increases inbound client volume for interim statements.I.060
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Unbalanced Workload
Quarterly:Reducible: Frequency
Customers complain that they have not received quarterly statements in the mail. As a result they request interim statements in the branches, thereby increasing branch volume.I.071
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Missed revenue opportunity
Quarterly:Reducible: Frequency
Branch employees cannot verify whether a quarterly statement was sent to a customer. The inability to verify these statements causes RBC to waive fees for interim statement requests.I.070
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: No Process Plan
Missed revenue opportunity
Quarterly:No Process Plan: No
Plan
RBC Merchant Services provides company assets to customers to process credit card payments. They do so, however, without a background or credit check to determine customer trustworthiness and thereby put RBC assets at risk.I.244
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Rework
Monthly:Reducible: Frequency
At the end of the month as much as 44% of Business Banking accounts have excess balances in amounts less than 25 currency units. No grace period is applied, and personnel must contact each account for resolution.I.253
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Customer Satisfaction
Monthly:1Reducible: Frequency
T24 loses the capability to print interim statements about one day per month. The T24 functionality problems prevent branches from serving customers and force customers to repeat branch visits.II.072
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: NIGO
Customer Satisfaction
Monthly:NIGO: Wrong Data
Alternate channel balances are unreliable and lack sufficient information to serve clients needs (e.g., the ability to see accurate information; use of the statements to verify ID). The limitations prevent increased use of alternate channels.II.069
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: NIGO
Customer Satisfaction
Daily:NIGO: Wrong Data
Credit Card balances are not up to date and can have a 2-day lag in reporting. The delay undermines customer confidence in both NetBank and RBC tracking capabilities.II.063
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: NIGO
Processing Delay
Daily:NIGO: Incomplete
Signatures are not vigilantly maintained. Missing signature transactions therefore recur for the same account even after laborious search methods.I.047
Mode:
Effect:
Cause: Reducible
Customer Satisfaction
Daily:Reducible: Frequency
When a signature is not on file, AMs/MCCs contact the customer by phone to confirm a transaction in lieu of verifying a signature. This unapproved procedure increases the risk of fraudulent transactions.I.272
1.001LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.332LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.338LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.339LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.367LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.366LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.380LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.390LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.509LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.517LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.320LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.328LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.346LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.506LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.341LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.351LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.396LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.412LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.417LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.418LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.422LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.505LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.507LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.508LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.424LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
1.424LP
Prioritize errors on documentation so that customers/branches are only contacted in the event that the error requires customer/branch signature/additional information in one request.
ChevronFRONT OFFICE
CORP. CLIENT
BACK OFFICE
The Lab’s Activity-Level Process Maps Organization Capacity: Activity-Level
Activity n
Clear Courier Bag
ASA 1.3
Activity 1
Initiate Request to Open Account
Corporate Client 1.1
Activity 3
Clear Courier Bag
ASA 1.3
Activity 2
Verify existing client status; check client information record
Account Opening
Rep.1.3
SwimlaneC. The Lab’s Universal
Work Activities1. Receive: Electronic File2. Receive: Email3. Receive: Phone Call4. Receive: Physical Copy5. Review: Prepare6. Review: Preview7. Review: Validate8. Review: Decide9. Review: Terminate10. Perform: Update11. Perform: Correct12. Perform: Create13. Perform: Enter14. Perform: Move15. Attend: Meeting16. Attend: Communication17. Send: Electronic File18. Send: Email19. Send: Phone Call20. Send: Physical Copy
1,200 Employees (Needed)
B. Organization Capacity: Virtuous Waste Activity1
No Benefit AvailableReducible ErrorsExcess CapacityInconsistent ProceduresNon-Standard WorkReducible Inbound VolumeBuilt-In Rework
364 Employees 23% Virtuous Waste Activity
A. Organization Capacity: Net DeductionsPaid Time Off (PTO)LunchBreaksTrainingMeetingsEOD ActivitiesOffline (Various)
1,757 Employees (Total) 193 Employees (Deduct)
1,564 Employees (Net)
1,757 Total Employees
REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE
Note: 1 Identifies only the Virtuous Waste targeted for removal by the client-designed work plan. See page 5 for more on Virtuous Waste.
Activities from Process Maps
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102722
I. Organization View
The Activity Cube’s 4-Way Match Reconciles Organization Capacity
Processes Employees
1. Sales – Contact Center 291
2. Sales – Channel 1 262
3. Sales – Channel 2 243
4. Product Fulfillment 229
• Core Products 140
• Other Products 89
5. Payments Processing 124
6. Other Processing 51
Total Capacity by Process: 1,200 Employees
Organization: 1,757 Total Employees
Total Net Capacity by Organization Chart: 1,564 Employees1 Needed Capacity (See Views II, III and IV): 1,200 Employees
23% Capacity (Virtuous Waste Activity): 364 Employees2
ACTIVITY CUBE
I
II III
IV
IV. Activity-Based 20 Total Universal Work Activities
Receive Freq FTEs
1. Electronic File 123 39
2. Email Message 30 23
3. Phone Call 23 57
4. Physical Copy 103 149
Review Freq FTEs
5. Prepare 15 42
6. Preview 42 26
7. Validate 42 26
8. Decide 83 68
9. Terminate 96 52
Perform Freq FTEs
10. Update 20 47
11. Correct 34 46
12. Create 76 93
13. Enter 67 80
14. Move 69 97
Attend Freq FTEs
15. Meeting 120 74
16. Communication 89 23
Send Freq FTEs
17. Electronic File 102 11
18. Email Message 105 63
19. Phone Call 122 45
20. Physical Copy 289 139
Total Capacity by Activities: 1,200 Employees
1. Product A 91K 267
2. Product B 71K 108
3. Product C 68K 100
4. Product D 0.7K 99
5. Product E 1.0K 61
6. Product F 17K 57
7. Statement Batch 366K 56
(116 Total Work Products)
Total Capacity by Work Product: 1,200 Employees
Products Volume Employees
REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE3. Operations • 51 Employees
• Core . . . . . . . . . . 42• Claims. . . . . . . . . . 9• Other
1. Sales & Distribution • 937 Employees• Channel 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 790• Channel 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
2. Service • 576 Employees• Client Service . . 442• Contact Center. . 134
. . .. . .. . .
. . .
. . .
Note: 1 Net of capacity deductions for Paid Time Off (PTO), Training, etc.2 Identifies only the Virtuous Waste (page 5) targeted for removal by the client-designed work plan.
III. Work Product View II. Business Process View
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102723
Marketing Effectiveness
Operating Reports: By Process, Organization & Work Product
Management Dashboard• Campaign ROI
– Campaigns– Events
• Overall positions– Market share– Brand awareness
Marketing Operations Performance
Operations Dashboard• Tracks volume and:
– Productivity– Unit cost– Service– Quality
• Compares actual performance to targets
Area: OverallLocation: OverallManager: Overall
Week Starting Date: 1-Feb-16
Data Filters
*Max of seven consecutive days can be selected at a time.
Overall (unit of measure) Sum/Avg Required Target Difference from Target Required Trend Current Trend Trend Compliance % Change from Last
Period Previous Average Selected Dates Average Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
VOLUME 1-Feb-16 2-Feb-16 3-Feb-16 4-Feb-16 5-Feb-16 6-Feb-16 7-Feb-161 Offered Calls (calls) Sum 30456 33% -1% 40,956 40,415 70,471 61,446 50,531 46,100 42,996 7,336 4,0262 Handled Calls (calls) Sum 30372 32% -1% 40,777 40,241 70,211 61,169 50,315 45,884 42,789 7,312 4,0083 Handled Calls (Inbound) (calls) Sum 23127 38% -2% 32,367 31,828 55,489 48,988 40,057 35,842 33,385 5,889 3,1494 Transferred Calls (calls) Sum 1798 214% -5% 5,928 5,653 10,499 8,965 7,085 6,274 5,833 629 2855 Handled Calls (Outbound) (calls) Sum 3785 61% -2% 6,202 6,087 11,165 8,687 7,245 7,138 6,783 992 6016 Handled Calls (Internal) (calls) Sum 486 100% -5% 1,019 970 1,853 1,525 1,249 1,101 957 79 267 Handled Calls (Unknown) (calls) Sum 559 143% 14% 1,188 1,355 1,704 1,969 1,764 1,803 1,664 352 2328 Abandoned Calls (calls) Sum 56 210% -3% 179 174 260 277 216 216 207 24 189 Total Handle Time (hours) Sum 2730.0 103% -3% 5,715.0 5,533.9 10,371.7 8,685.1 6,857.4 6,075.2 5,687.5 703.5 357.310 Total Handle Time (Inbound) (hours) Sum 2455.1 103% -3% 5,127.8 4,973.7 9,157.9 7,779.9 6,235.4 5,482.3 5,131.1 683.3 345.911 Total Engagement Time (hours) Sum 1531.0 96% -3% 3,107.7 2,999.0 5,286.4 4,619.9 3,790.9 3,381.7 3,158.8 496.5 258.812 Total Hold Time (hours) Sum 464.8 125% -2% 1,063.2 1,046.6 2,069 1,655 1,271 1,128 1,068 92 4213 Total Wrap Time (hours) Sum 459.4 102% -3% 956.9 928.1 1,802 1,505 1,174 972 904 95 4514 Total Handle Time (Outbound) (hours) Sum 600.0 -29% -4% 448.3 428.6 915.2 633.8 489.4 481.3 451.1 18.6 10.9
PRODUCTIVITY15 Occupancy Rate (percentage) Average 85% -11% -6% 80% 75% 92 % 83 % 72 % 67 % 65 % 52 % 35 %16 Shrinkage (percentage) Average 15% -100% 0% 0%17 Sign In Percentage (percentage) Average 100% -5% -1% 96% 95% 95 % 94 % 96 % 96 % 96 % 96 % 98 %18 Handled Calls per CSR (calls / CSR) Sum 8.8 157% -1% 22.9 22.6 44.7 39.9 32.9 30.2 29.8 28.7 18.219 Handled Calls per CSR (Inbound) (calls / CSR) Sum 7.12 154% -2% 18.4 18.1 35.9 33.0 27.9 25.1 24.6 25.6 15.820 Handled Calls per CSR (Outbound) (calls / CSR) Sum 1.674 107% -2% 3.5 3.5 7.4 6.1 5.2 5.2 5.2 4.2 3.321 Handled Calls per Scheduled Hour (calls / h) Average 7.2 -21% -5% 6.0 5.7 6.4 6.0 5.5 5.2 5.1 5.2 3.922 Handled Calls per Scheduled Hour (Inbound) (calls / h) Average 5.48 -18% -6% 4.7 4.5 5.1 4.8 4.4 4.1 4.0 4.2 3.023 Handled Calls per Scheduled Hour (Outbound) (calls / h) Average 1.34 -36% -6% 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.624 Average Handle Time (AHT) (seconds / call) Average 388.3 27% -2% 505 495 532 511 491 477 479 346 32125 Average Handle Time (AHT Inbound) (seconds / call) Average 459 23% -1% 570 563 594 572 560 551 553 418 39526 Average Engagement Time (seconds / call) Average 286 19% -2% 346 339 343 340 341 340 341 303 29627 Average Hold Time (seconds / call) Average 87 36% 0% 118 118 134 122 114 113 115 56 4828 Average Wrap Time (seconds / call) Average 86 22% -1% 106 105 117 111 105 98 97 58 5229 Average Handle Time (AHT Outbound) (seconds / call) Average 155 64% -3% 260 253 295 263 243 243 239 68 65
CUSTOMER SERVICE30 Abandoned Calls Rate (percentage) Average 2% -74% 0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.6 % 0.6 % 0.4 % 0.6 %
QUALITY31 Transfer Rate (percentage) Average 9% 91% -3% 18% 18% 19 % 18 % 18 % 18 % 17 % 11 % 9 %32 Average Agent Score (percentage) Average 92% -1% 0% 91% 91% 91 % 92 % 92 % 90 % 91 % 91 % 95 %33 Schedule Adherence (percentage) Average 91% -2% -1% 90% 90% 89 % 89 % 90 % 90 % 90 % 93 % 95 %
Call Center Management Dashboard
Metric Selected DatesTarget Trend Selected Dates vs. Previous Averages
Daily View
Dates
2/1/2016
2/2/2016
2/3/2016
2/4/2016
2/5/2016
2/6/2016
2/7/2016
Call Type
Inbound
Internal
Outbound
Unknown
Call Center
_Rhq
Corona
Fulton
Lowry
CSR Location
Home
Office
Team
Abigail Pulido
Adrian Hutt
Andrea Lopez
Annette Bronson
Antoine Jacobs
April Hale
Brando Campos
Ops Manager
Alice Holmes
Cindy Rupert
Dylan Deshazier
Heather Avila
Kathleen Stone
Keith Dineen
Kenneth Bailey
Employee Name
Aaja Austin
Aarika Scott
Aaron Cayabyab
Aaron Hairston
Abdisamad Hussein
Abraham Leon-Alvarez
Abril Howard
Operations Dashboard
BManagement Dashboard
Chief Marketing OfficerEnterprise Marketing • Employees: 707
Vice Pres. of CommunicationsEmployees: 245
Campaigns, Development & Mgmt
Targeted Marketing
Real Time Marketing
Creative Services
Media Strategy Effectiveness• Overall• By Area
Operations• By Area• By Employee
For each area, detail as indicated Business Marketing Planning
Employees: 85
Personal Markets
Marketing Operations
Retail/Wholesale
Strategy Initiatives
AB
Global Brand/Customer ExpEmployees: 183
Sponsorship Support
Customer Experience
Innovation Trends
Environment & Community
Corporate Brands
AB
Enterprise Customer DataEmployees: 194
Analytic Services
Targeting & Measurement
Enterprise Customer Info
Enterprise Advanced Initiatives
AB
Management Dashboard
Area: OverallLocation: OverallManager: Overall
Week Starting Date: 1-Feb-16
Data Filters
*Max of seven consecutive days can be selected at a time.
Overall (unit of measure) Sum/Avg Required Target Difference from Target Required Trend Current Trend Trend Compliance % Change from Last
Period Previous Average Selected Dates Average Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
VOLUME 1-Feb-16 2-Feb-16 3-Feb-16 4-Feb-16 5-Feb-16 6-Feb-16 7-Feb-161 Offered Calls (calls) Sum 30456 33% -1% 40,956 40,415 70,471 61,446 50,531 46,100 42,996 7,336 4,0262 Handled Calls (calls) Sum 30372 32% -1% 40,777 40,241 70,211 61,169 50,315 45,884 42,789 7,312 4,0083 Handled Calls (Inbound) (calls) Sum 23127 38% -2% 32,367 31,828 55,489 48,988 40,057 35,842 33,385 5,889 3,1494 Transferred Calls (calls) Sum 1798 214% -5% 5,928 5,653 10,499 8,965 7,085 6,274 5,833 629 2855 Handled Calls (Outbound) (calls) Sum 3785 61% -2% 6,202 6,087 11,165 8,687 7,245 7,138 6,783 992 6016 Handled Calls (Internal) (calls) Sum 486 100% -5% 1,019 970 1,853 1,525 1,249 1,101 957 79 267 Handled Calls (Unknown) (calls) Sum 559 143% 14% 1,188 1,355 1,704 1,969 1,764 1,803 1,664 352 2328 Abandoned Calls (calls) Sum 56 210% -3% 179 174 260 277 216 216 207 24 189 Total Handle Time (hours) Sum 2730.0 103% -3% 5,715.0 5,533.9 10,371.7 8,685.1 6,857.4 6,075.2 5,687.5 703.5 357.310 Total Handle Time (Inbound) (hours) Sum 2455.1 103% -3% 5,127.8 4,973.7 9,157.9 7,779.9 6,235.4 5,482.3 5,131.1 683.3 345.911 Total Engagement Time (hours) Sum 1531.0 96% -3% 3,107.7 2,999.0 5,286.4 4,619.9 3,790.9 3,381.7 3,158.8 496.5 258.812 Total Hold Time (hours) Sum 464.8 125% -2% 1,063.2 1,046.6 2,069 1,655 1,271 1,128 1,068 92 4213 Total Wrap Time (hours) Sum 459.4 102% -3% 956.9 928.1 1,802 1,505 1,174 972 904 95 4514 Total Handle Time (Outbound) (hours) Sum 600.0 -29% -4% 448.3 428.6 915.2 633.8 489.4 481.3 451.1 18.6 10.9
PRODUCTIVITY15 Occupancy Rate (percentage) Average 85% -11% -6% 80% 75% 92 % 83 % 72 % 67 % 65 % 52 % 35 %16 Shrinkage (percentage) Average 15% -100% 0% 0%17 Sign In Percentage (percentage) Average 100% -5% -1% 96% 95% 95 % 94 % 96 % 96 % 96 % 96 % 98 %18 Handled Calls per CSR (calls / CSR) Sum 8.8 157% -1% 22.9 22.6 44.7 39.9 32.9 30.2 29.8 28.7 18.219 Handled Calls per CSR (Inbound) (calls / CSR) Sum 7.12 154% -2% 18.4 18.1 35.9 33.0 27.9 25.1 24.6 25.6 15.820 Handled Calls per CSR (Outbound) (calls / CSR) Sum 1.674 107% -2% 3.5 3.5 7.4 6.1 5.2 5.2 5.2 4.2 3.321 Handled Calls per Scheduled Hour (calls / h) Average 7.2 -21% -5% 6.0 5.7 6.4 6.0 5.5 5.2 5.1 5.2 3.922 Handled Calls per Scheduled Hour (Inbound) (calls / h) Average 5.48 -18% -6% 4.7 4.5 5.1 4.8 4.4 4.1 4.0 4.2 3.023 Handled Calls per Scheduled Hour (Outbound) (calls / h) Average 1.34 -36% -6% 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.624 Average Handle Time (AHT) (seconds / call) Average 388.3 27% -2% 505 495 532 511 491 477 479 346 32125 Average Handle Time (AHT Inbound) (seconds / call) Average 459 23% -1% 570 563 594 572 560 551 553 418 39526 Average Engagement Time (seconds / call) Average 286 19% -2% 346 339 343 340 341 340 341 303 29627 Average Hold Time (seconds / call) Average 87 36% 0% 118 118 134 122 114 113 115 56 4828 Average Wrap Time (seconds / call) Average 86 22% -1% 106 105 117 111 105 98 97 58 5229 Average Handle Time (AHT Outbound) (seconds / call) Average 155 64% -3% 260 253 295 263 243 243 239 68 65
CUSTOMER SERVICE30 Abandoned Calls Rate (percentage) Average 2% -74% 0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.6 % 0.6 % 0.4 % 0.6 %
QUALITY31 Transfer Rate (percentage) Average 9% 91% -3% 18% 18% 19 % 18 % 18 % 18 % 17 % 11 % 9 %32 Average Agent Score (percentage) Average 92% -1% 0% 91% 91% 91 % 92 % 92 % 90 % 91 % 91 % 95 %33 Schedule Adherence (percentage) Average 91% -2% -1% 90% 90% 89 % 89 % 90 % 90 % 90 % 93 % 95 %
Call Center Management Dashboard
Metric Selected DatesTarget Trend Selected Dates vs. Previous Averages
Daily View
Dates
2/1/2016
2/2/2016
2/3/2016
2/4/2016
2/5/2016
2/6/2016
2/7/2016
Call Type
Inbound
Internal
Outbound
Unknown
Call Center
_Rhq
Corona
Fulton
Lowry
CSR Location
Home
Office
Team
Abigail Pulido
Adrian Hutt
Andrea Lopez
Annette Bronson
Antoine Jacobs
April Hale
Brando Campos
Ops Manager
Alice Holmes
Cindy Rupert
Dylan Deshazier
Heather Avila
Kathleen Stone
Keith Dineen
Kenneth Bailey
Employee Name
Aaja Austin
Aarika Scott
Aaron Cayabyab
Aaron Hairston
Abdisamad Hussein
Abraham Leon-Alvarez
Abril Howard
Operations Dashboard
B
A
A
REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102724
The Activity Cube Generates Capacity & Management Reports
Organization View (Net Capacity)
Work Product
View (Volumes)
Business Process View (Activity Workflows)
Activity View (Observed, Validated Times)
Placemats (Job Guides – Standardization)
• Serves as “dashboard”• Defines job-level detail• Sets expectations (metrics)• Reports against metrics
6 of 6Spring 20XX | po.E2E.ImpApproach.FSO1.Insurance | © Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc.
3. Work Products and Business Metrics
Work Products
• LifeApplications
• DisabilityProducts
• AnnuityProducts
• Broker/DealerInvestments
Business Metric Target
Volume (Agent productivity)
• 2.5to4.0Lifepoliciesissuedpermonth
Quality - % In Good Order:
• AgencyBaseline:20%withtargetat80%
• UWBaseline:73%withtargetat90%
Daily Staffing
Analyst Productivity
• 7-8applicationsperFTEperday
Unit Cost
• 35%reductionbasedonNOGOreductiontarget
Service - Cycle Time
• Reduce4-5daysofcycletimeforNOGOapplications
1. Overview: New Business Processing Key Activities by Participant
7. New Lean Visual Management Tools
Agents/Assistants
• Prospect• Contact• SelectProduct
– FactFind– Illustration– Quote(UWorXRAE)
• Selectcorrectform(s)• Complete/submitform• Follow-up
– AttendingPhysicianStatement(APS)and/orparamed
– NOGOs– Other(Payment,etc.)
New Business Analyst (NBA)
• Reviewsandscrubsapps– Quickfix– Agent-clientcontact
• Enterstrackinginto“mill”• Dataentersorscans/sends
apptooffshoredataentry• Postentryscrub• Sendstomgt.forreview• Trackmilldatatoclosecase
– Requirements(APS,etc.)– Bottlenecks(NOGO,etc.)– Notifications(Issued,etc.)
Agency Management
• Performssuitabilityreview– Clientneeds– Package– Accuracy
• Setsservicestandards• ProvidesreportstoAgents
– Issued-Not-Paid– Pending– NOGOs– Cycletime
• Trainsacrossgroupsonprocess
Underwriting/Shared Service
• ReviewforIGOanduploadsapplication
• Performlevel2analysisanddetailede-review
• Sendpersonalhistoryresults• RequestAPSifrequired• Follow-uponfinancial,
interview,examresults• NotifyNBAonNOGOs• Decide(ifdeclined,review
re-insuranceoption)• Issueordeclineandnotify
2. Average Agency Organization
New Business Support Agency staff Sales
Ops Manager
(1)
NewBusinessManager
(1)
NewBusiness Analyst
(5-7)
Agent Managers
(8)
Agents/ Producers
(120)
Personal Assistants
(60)
4. New Application Processing
Ag
en
cy
Pa
ram
ed
ica
l V
en
do
r
Off
sho
re
Gro
up
(I
nd
ia)
Un
de
rwri
tin
gS
ha
red
S
erv
ice
s
Agent Agency NBA
• Receiveapplications• PerformLifeapplicationScrubbing/processing
• IsApplicationNOGO?
Offshore Group (India)
• DataCollection• Review/ErrorReporting;IsitNOGO?
Underwriting
• ApplicationReview• IssueorDeclinePolicy• OrderandReviewAPS(ifnecessary)
Shared Services
• DistributionofPolicy to Agent
• Addresspayment• Reviewfor1035
Agency NBA
• Askedtocheckparamed?
Paramedical Vendor
• VendorSetsAppointment
• ParamedicalProcessing
Agency NBA
• ReviewSuitabilityandcheckifsuitable
Agency NBA
• Scandocuments• SubmitscantoOffshoreGroup
Agency NBA
• Check“Mill”for- Outstandingrequirements
- Decisionrequired- Issued-NotPaid
• Sendnotifications
Agency NBA (ACP)/Agent
• Collectadditionalpost-IssuerequirementsfromAgent/Client
No
Yes
YesYes
No No No Yes
Yes
Yes
No
5. Case Management Leading Practice Installation
Application Processing• Trainagentsandassts.oneFormsand
SmartOfficepre-population• RequireXRAEtoautomaterisk
assessment• Educateagentsandstaffonleading
practice illustration tools• SupportAPSresolutiontoissuecase
quickly• Expediteparamedschedulingandfollow-
up• UseNOGOpreventioninstructionplacemat• Remove“false”NOGOsthatcreaterework
The“Mill”TrackerandReportingTools• Rolloutstandardmillwithrequiredand
optionalfields• Createmillusageroutinestoreduce
NOGOsandcasecycletimes• CreateanddistributestandardIssued-Not-
PaidandPendingreports
Work Level Management and Performance Improvement Tools• Alignagentstoacross-trainedanalyst,with
aback-up• Consolidateactivitiestoonepositionto
reducerework• Segmentagentsbyperformancefor
targetedsupportlevel• IntroduceCapacityModel-work
forecastingtool• LinkMilltodailyhuddletohelpevenout
theworkamongstaff• Implementquarterlysurveytomeasure
satisfactionlevels
Agency-UnderwriterNotificationRoutines• NBAfollowupwithUWtoissue,whenno
outstandingrequirements• NBAfollowupwithagentonobtainingbank
draftdata,postissue• NBAfollowupwithagentonUWdecline
Capacity
Model
6. Standardized Agent Feedback - MOR Routine
NBAforwardsIssued-Not-PaidandPendingReportsfromUnderwritingtoSalesManagerwhomeetswithSalesAgent
NBAcompletesNOGOandcycletimeintracker.NBA/OperationsmanagersforwardreportstoSalesManager,whoreviewswithAgent
NBA, Sales Manager
NBA, NBA Manager, Sales Manager
Weekly
Monthly to Quarterly
Activty Accountable Frequency
Standard “Mill” Tracker
Case Manager Case Status Agent Name 1 GDC Split 1[Dollars]
Customer Name[Last Name, First Name]
Underwriter Name[Last Name, First Name] Case # Policy Origination Application Received
with Funds
Face Amount[Input Check or Transfer
for Annuity]Annual Premium
Line of Business[List "Other" in General
Comments]
Policy Type[List "Other" in General
Comments]
Policy Duration [Years - primarily for Term]
Date of Client Signature
Date Received in Agency
Date Released to Underwriting Date Case Issued IGO / NOGO General Comments
[Free Form Text]
Eileen Figueroa Agency Pending Simon, Daniel 557.00$ Soulouque, Pierre Smith 214026133 MetLife Initial Draft 100,000$ 893$ Annuity Term 15 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Courrejolles, Ivan 3,711.00$ Lopez, Lilian Smith 214025343 MetLife Check 500,000$ 3,286$ Annuity Whole 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGO add'l GLT20Jackie Litchmore Agency Pending Higgins, Glenrick 252.00$ Lawrence, Roan Smith 214026209 MetLife Initial Draft 500,000$ 442$ Annuity Term 20 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Higgins, Glenrick 165.00$ Lawrence, Jamar Smith 214026213 MetLife Initial Draft 25,000$ 282$ Life Whole 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGODaniela Rivera Agency Pending Share Brennan, Amy 184.00$ Lorenzo, Alberto Smith 214026241 MetLife None 500,000$ 204$ Life Term 10 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Cabrera, Ariel 1,625.00$ ZAMPIERI, ALDO Smith 214026250 MetLife Check 500,000$ 1,273$ Life Term 15 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGODaniela Rivera Agency Pending Palmer, Ted 1,985.00$ Perez, Phil Smith 214026514 MetLife None 1,000,000$ 3,009$ Broker Dealer Term 20 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOEileen Figueroa Agency Pending Price, Christopher 33,106.00$ Gomez, Ricardo Smith 214026776 MetLife None 5,004,000$ 32,370$ Broker Dealer MFFS 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGO add'l GLT20Ismaetha Emile Agency Pending Zhang, Janet Lu 1,443.00$ Sooknanan, Chris Smith 214026793 MetLife Initial Draft 1,000,000$ 1,443$ Broker Dealer Term 30 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGOEileen Figueroa Agency Pending Simon, Daniel 557.00$ Soulouque, Pierre Smith 214026133 MetLife Initial Draft 100,000$ 893$ Annuity Term 15 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Courrejolles, Ivan 3,711.00$ Lopez, Lilian Smith 214025343 MetLife Check 500,000$ 3,286$ Annuity Whole 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGO add'l GLT20Jackie Litchmore Agency Pending Higgins, Glenrick 252.00$ Lawrence, Roan Smith 214026209 MetLife Initial Draft 500,000$ 442$ Annuity Term 20 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Higgins, Glenrick 165.00$ Lawrence, Jamar Smith 214026213 MetLife Initial Draft 25,000$ 282$ Life Whole 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGODaniela Rivera Agency Pending Share Brennan, Amy 184.00$ Lorenzo, Alberto Smith 214026241 MetLife None 500,000$ 204$ Life Term 10 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Cabrera, Ariel 1,625.00$ ZAMPIERI, ALDO Smith 214026250 MetLife Check 500,000$ 1,273$ Life Term 15 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGODaniela Rivera Agency Pending Palmer, Ted 1,985.00$ Perez, Phil Smith 214026514 MetLife None 1,000,000$ 3,009$ Broker Dealer Term 20 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOEileen Figueroa Agency Pending Price, Christopher 33,106.00$ Gomez, Ricardo Smith 214026776 MetLife None 5,004,000$ 32,370$ Broker Dealer MFFS 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGO add'l GLT20Ismaetha Emile Agency Pending Zhang, Janet Lu 1,443.00$ Sooknanan, Chris Smith 214026793 MetLife Initial Draft 1,000,000$ 1,443$ Broker Dealer Term 30 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGOEileen Figueroa Agency Pending Simon, Daniel 557.00$ Soulouque, Pierre Smith 214026133 MetLife Initial Draft 100,000$ 893$ Annuity Term 15 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Courrejolles, Ivan 3,711.00$ Lopez, Lilian Smith 214025343 MetLife Check 500,000$ 3,286$ Annuity Whole 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGO add'l GLT20Jackie Litchmore Agency Pending Higgins, Glenrick 252.00$ Lawrence, Roan Smith 214026209 MetLife Initial Draft 500,000$ 442$ Annuity Term 20 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Higgins, Glenrick 165.00$ Lawrence, Jamar Smith 214026213 MetLife Initial Draft 25,000$ 282$ Life Whole 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGODaniela Rivera Agency Pending Share Brennan, Amy 184.00$ Lorenzo, Alberto Smith 214026241 MetLife None 500,000$ 204$ Life Term 10 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Cabrera, Ariel 1,625.00$ ZAMPIERI, ALDO Smith 214026250 MetLife Check 500,000$ 1,273$ Life Term 15 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGODaniela Rivera Agency Pending Palmer, Ted 1,985.00$ Perez, Phil Smith 214026514 MetLife None 1,000,000$ 3,009$ Broker Dealer Term 20 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOEileen Figueroa Agency Pending Price, Christopher 33,106.00$ Gomez, Ricardo Smith 214026776 MetLife None 5,004,000$ 32,370$ Broker Dealer MFFS 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGO add'l GLT20Ismaetha Emile Agency Pending Zhang, Janet Lu 1,443.00$ Sooknanan, Chris Smith 214026793 MetLife Initial Draft 1,000,000$ 1,443$ Broker Dealer Term 30 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGO
• ExpeditesCasetoIssue
NOGO and Cycle Time MOR
• Providesfeedbackonerroranddelayrootcauses
Service Level Surveys
• AssessesservicelevelattainmentusingQualtrax
• ReviewNOGOplacemat• Submitapplication• ReviewParamedplacemattocheckifParamedisrequired?
Detailed Instruction Sheets
• Providesbasicinstructionstosimplifyprocess
March 26, 2014© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc.es.sgo1.13.32.09.Placemat.14032620 of 28
Placemat H-1: NOGO Prevention Guide for Standard Life Application
Page 1 Page 3 Page 4Policy Number
Application for Life InsuranceCompany (Check the appropriate ONE.) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company General American Life Insurance CompanyNew England Life Insurance Company MetLife Investors USA Insurance CompanyMetLife Investors Insurance CompanyThe Company indicated in this section is referred to as "the Company".
For Additional Insureds please complete the Additional Insureds Supplement form.First Name Middle Name Last Name
Permanent Address City State Zip
Country of Legal Residence Date of Birth E-Mail Address
Primary Phone Number Alternate Phone Number Preferred Time to Call From To Sex
Place of Birth Social Security or Tax ID Number Earned Annual Income Net Worth
U.S. Driver's License If not licensed, please indicate other form of ID: Passport Government Issued Photo ID Issuer of ID ID Number Issue Date (if any) Expiration Date (if any)
Name of Employer Employer City State Zip Position/Duties
NON U.S. CITIZENS ONLY - Country of Citizenship Green Card/Visa Type Expiration Date
Country of Permanent Residence ID Number Years in the U.S.
Complete ONLY if the Owner is NOT the Proposed Insured.OWNER - TRUST / BUSINESS ENTITY - Name of Entity Tax ID Number Trustee / Owner State
Trust Business Entity Charity Qualified Pension Plan Complete the appropriate required form(s).OWNER - OTHER INDIVIDUAL First Name Middle Name Last Name
Permanent Address City State Zip
Country of Legal Residence Citizenship Social Security or Tax ID Number Date of Birth Phone Number
E-Mail Address Earned Annual Income Net Worth Relationship to Proposed Insured
Please indicate form of ID: U.S. Driver's License Passport Government Issued Photo IDIssuer of ID ID Number Issue Date (if any) Expiration Date (if any)
Check if ownership should revert to Insured upon Owner and Contingent Owner’s deaths.
ENB-7-07-MA
SECTION II - About the Owner
SECTION I - About the Proposed Insured
AMPM PMAM FemaleMale
1 of 7 (07/07) eF
Does the Proposed Insured or Owner have any existing or applied for life insurance or annuities with this or any other company? Proposed Insured Yes NoOwner Yes NoIf YES, please provide details of any existing or applied for Life Insurance on the Proposed Insured only.
Company Amount of Insurance Year of Issue StatusExisting Applied ForApplied ForExistingExisting Applied ForExisting Applied ForIn connection with this application, has there been, or will there be with this or any other company any: surrender transaction; loan; withdrawal; lapse; reduction or redirection of premium/consideration; or change transaction (except conversions) involving an annuity or other life insurance? If YES, complete Replacement Questionnaire AND any other state required replacement forms or 1035 exchange forms.Yes No
If Proposed Insured is financially dependent on another individual, indicate individual providing support:Spouse Child Parent OtherAmount of insurance on individual providing support. Existing Insurance Insurance Applied ForIf Proposed Insured is a minor, are all siblings equally insured? Yes NoIf NO, please provide details:
PREMIUM PAYORProposed Insured Owner (If NOT the Proposed Insured.) Other (Complete the box below.)
Other Premium Payor Name Social Security or Tax ID Number Relationship to Proposed Insured or Owner
Reason this Person is the Payor
Permanent Address City State Zip
PAYMENT MODE (Check the appropriate ONE.) Billing Mode: Annual Semi-Annual QuarterlyMonthly Draft per Debit Authorization (See next page.)Monthly Draft per Existing Electronic Payment Number
Special Account: Government Allotment Salary Deduction List Bill If Special Account, provide Employer Group Number (EGN) or List Bill Number
INITIAL PAYMENT Method of Collection:Amount Collected with Application Initial Premium by Electronic Funds Transfer (Must be at least a monthly amount.)Check (Must be at least 1/12 of an annual premium.)SOURCE OF CURRENT AND FUTURE PAYMENTS (Check ALL that apply.)Earned Income Savings LoansUse of Values in another Life Insurance/Annuity Contract Other
ENB-7-07-MA
Mutual Fund/Brokerage Account Money Market FundCertificate of Deposit
SECTION V - About Existing or Applied for Insurance
SECTION VI - About Payment Information
3 of 7 (07/07) eF
DEBIT AUTHORIZATION Available only if the bank account holder is the Owner and/or Proposed Insured. All others please complete the Electronic Payment (EP) Account Agreement form.The undersigned (“I”) hereby authorize the Company with whom I am completing this application to initiate debit entries through Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to the deposit account designated below, at the Financial Institution named below, using the Automated Clearing House. I authorize: 1. Monthly recurring debits; AND 2. Debits made from time to time, as I authorize. This authorization is to remain in full force and effect until the Company has received written notification from me of its termination at such time and in such manner as to afford the Company and the Financial Institution a reasonable opportunity to act on it.Monthly Debit Date: Issue Date of the PolicyDebit Date on the of each monthBank Account Type: Checking Savings
Bank Routing Number Bank Account Number
Name of Financial Institution
Note: Please attach a voided check or deposit slip to Section IX - Additional Information.We cannot establish banking services from starter checks, cash management, brokerage, or mutual fund checks. We cannot establish banking services from foreign banks UNLESS the check is being paid in U.S. Dollars through a U.S. correspondent bank (the U.S. correspondent bank name must be on the check).
Use Section IX - Additional Information if necessary.1. Within the past three years has the Proposed Insured flown in a plane other than as a passenger on a commercial airline or does he or she have plans for such activity within the next year? Yes No If YES, please complete a separate Aviation Risk Supplement form for the Proposed Insured.2. Within the past three years has the Proposed Insured participated in or does he or she plan to participate in any of the following? Yes No Underwater sports - SCUBA diving, skin diving, or similar activities Racing sports - motorcycle, auto, motor boat or similar activities Sky sports - skydiving, hang gliding, parachuting, ballooning or similar activities Rock or mountain climbing or similar activities Bungee jumping or similar activities If YES, please complete a separate Avocation Risk Supplement form for the Proposed Insured.3. Has the Proposed Insured traveled or resided outside the U.S. or Canada within the past two years; or does he or she plan to travel or reside outside the U.S or Canada within the next two years? NOTE: That a "YES" answer may result in higher rates or in a denial of coverage. If YES, please provide details.
Yes No
Past Future Duration (weeks) Cities and Countries Purpose
4. Has the Proposed Insured EVER used tobacco or nicotine products in any form (e.g., cigars, cigarettes, cigarillos, pipes, chewing tobacco, nicotine patches, or nicotine gum)? If YES, please provide details. Yes No
Product(s) Frequency / Amount Date Last Used
ENB-7-07-MA
SECTION VII - General Risk Questions
4 of 7 (07/07) eF
• CountryofResidence-MetLifeneedsthecountryandnotcounty.
• Preferredtimetocallshouldbefilledin(e.g.,4:00pmEST–8:00pmEST).
• PlaceofBirth–HomeOfficeneedsState.
• NameofEmployer-Ifnotemployedoutsidethehome,fillinchild,student,homemaker,retiredforthe“Positions/Duties”slot.
• Zipcodeforemployer.
• Earnedincomeandnetworth–Mustbeincludedforbothinsuredandownerifapplicable.
Page 2For additional Beneficiaries, use Section IX - Additional Information.Check here if the Owner is the Primary Beneficiary. For Primary or Contingent Beneficiaries who are NOT the Owner, complete the table below.
Beneficiary Type Name (First, Middle, Last) Date of Birth Relationship to Proposed Insured Social Security Number (Optional) Percentage of Proceeds (if not equal)PrimaryPrimaryContingentPrimaryContingentCheck here to include all living and future natural or adopted children of the Proposed Insured as Contingent Beneficiaries. (Name all living children above.) If a Custodian is acting on behalf of a minor Beneficiary listed above, please use Co-Owner/Contingent Owner and UTMA Designations Supplement form. Federal law states that if someone with special needs has assets over $2,000, they may lose eligibility for government benefits. Check the desired coverage(s).
Universal Life Variable Life Product Name
Face Amount*
Riders and Details
Coverage Continuation (UL only) Disability Waiver:Specified PremiumMonthly Deduction (VUL only)Death Benefit OptionDefinition of Life Insurance:Guideline Premium TestCash Value Accumulation TestPlanned PremiumYear 1Years 2 toYears to (UL only)
Whole LifeProduct Name
Face Amount*
Riders and Details
Disability WaiverDividend Options:Paid-Up AdditionsOther, please specify:
Automatic Premium Loan Requested
Term LifeProduct Name
Face Amount*
Riders and Details
Disability Waiver:Convertible Non-Convertible
For a full list of riders and options, please consult with your Producer. Note: Some riders may require supplement forms to be completed. For Variable Life products, please complete the Variable Life Supplement form. * If Face Amount is equal to or exceeds $1,000,000, please complete the Personal Financial Information form.
ADDITIONAL OPTIONSOne Time (Single) Payment Amount 1035 Exchange Amount Requested Policy Date Save Age
POLICY OPTIONSAlternate Policy: Product, Face Amount and DetailsAdditional Policy: Product, Face Amount and DetailsGroup Conversion Only Group Conversion Alternative } Please complete the Group Conversion Supplement form for either choice.
ENB-7-07-MA
SECTION IV - About Proposed Coverage
SECTION III - About the Beneficiary / Beneficiaries
2 of 7 (07/07) eF
• PlanofInsurance–ForTermplans,specifynumberofyears,10,15,20,30.
• PlanofInsurance–EVUL,HomeOfficeneedsdeathbenefitoption,definitionoflifeinsurance,plannedpremium(modalpremium).
• PlanofInsurance–GAUL,needsdeathbenefitoption,definitionoflifeinsurance,plannedpremium(annualamount),#ofyearspayableandsubsequentpremiumamount.
• Ifgroupconversionorgroupconversionalternative,markappropriateboxandfilloutGroupConversionSupplement.
• SectionV,existingorappliedforinsurance-confirmbothinsuredandownerboxesaremarked.
• Provideamountofinsuranceandyearofissue,markboxforexistingorappliedfor.
• Iftheproposedinsuredisfinanciallydependentonanotherindividual,filloutthegraybox(homemaker,child,etc.).
• SectionVI–Markboxforpremiumpayer.
• SectionVI–Ifchoosinginitialpremiumbyelectronicfunds,youmustfillin“amountcollectedwithapplication.”
• Iftheapplicanthasanexistingorpreviouspolicythatneedstobeexchangedorreplaced,verifytheappropriateboxischeckedandreplacementquestionnaireisfilledout.
• DebitAuthorization–Markboxforeitherissuedateorspecifydebitdatefordraft,checkboxforeithercheckingorsavings.HomeOfficeneedsavoidcheck(willnotacceptdepositslip).
• DebitAuthorization-Ifaccountholderisotherthantheinsuredorowner,aseparateEPformmustbecompletedandsignedbytheaccountholder.
• SectionVII-Ensurecustomerunderstandsquestions,andanswerstheriskquestionscorrectly.Ifanyanswersare“Yes”,donotforgettofillouttheaviationandavocationsupplementaryforms.
Note: Utilized for Case Management Initiative #9
Issued-Not-Paid Report
Offer Made Data Provided: 21-‐MarIssued Not Paid Data Provided: 21-‐Mar
Office ARIZONA FIN ASSOC
Agent Count Premium $ Avg of Days Since Issue/Offer Outstanding Reqs Insured Name Underwriter Rating ClassDAVID TELLES
ISSUED -‐ NOT PAID 1 $24,659 9 0214017902 1 $24,659 9 0 HOFFPAUIR, EDGAR KATHY GARCIA ELITE/PREF PLUS
OFFER MADE 2 $6,028 8 6214023267 1 $4,269 2 3 WILLIAM CHILDERS KASIE FREAUF -‐214023200 1 $1,759 13 3 MAGDALENA CHILDERS KASIE FREAUF -‐
AARON KHAFIOFFER MADE 1 $21,376 1 3
214018545 1 $21,376 1 3 MEIR GUL KATHY GARCIA -‐
PAUL MCGHIEISSUED -‐ NOT PAID 1 $10,699 4 0
214017919 1 $10,699 4 0 REYNOLDS, PATRICK KATHY GARCIA RATED
THOMAS BROOKSOFFER MADE 2 $8,933 11 8
214019299 1 $6,904 9 5 ROBERT KINGSBURY MARSHA FOX -‐214019307 1 $2,029 13 3 TRACEY KINGSBURY MARSHA FOX -‐
JOHN JACOBSOFFER MADE 1 $8,839 17 3
213230102 1 $8,839 17 3 PAUL GUESS MICHAEL BAUCOM -‐
ROBERT SHULTSISSUED -‐ NOT PAID 2 $2,981 15 0
214011079 1 $2,578 23 0 MEALEY, TEDDY CHRISTINA HENDERSON RATED214022414 1 $403 7 0 SHIPLEY, BARBARA KASIE FREAUF STANDARD
OFFER MADE 4 $5,515 3 9214020497 1 $2,364 6 2 EUTIMIO SCHAMBER JENNIFER HALSO -‐214019962 1 $2,145 3 3 THOMAS CONRAD KATHY GARCIA -‐214029168 1 $514 2 2 CASHAE DAVIS JACKIE LAI -‐214029158 1 $493 1 2 JAMAL COOPER JACKIE LAI -‐
HOWARD RUBINISSUED -‐ NOT PAID 1 $2,400 28 0
214014406 1 $2,400 28 0 RIDGES, BRADLEY KASIE FREAUF STANDARDOFFER MADE 5 $5,795 6 13
214027094 1 $2,765 3 5 MACARIO GALVAN CHRISTINA HENDERSON -‐214027095 1 $1,249 7 2 JACLYN GALVAN CHRISTINA HENDERSON -‐214029152 1 $672 6 2 HUNTER LIKINS KATHY GARCIA -‐214029160 1 $566 6 2 JERA LIKINS KATHY GARCIA -‐214029154 1 $543 6 2 KAYA LIKINS KATHY GARCIA -‐
ALFRED MATT JR.OFFER MADE 4 $7,520 14 8
214018624 1 $2,207 23 2 KEN BEVINS JACKIE LAI -‐214018647 1 $2,114 15 2 RICHARD MATTHEWS KATHY GARCIA -‐214027904 1 $1,639 3 2 MARIN FILIP JACKIE LAI -‐214018671 1 $1,560 13 2 LU ANN MATTHEWS KATHY GARCIA -‐
JENNIE LAMISSUED -‐ NOT PAID 1 $759 3 0
214021925 1 $759 3 0 NGUYEN, BICHTHUY JACKIE LAI STANDARDOFFER MADE 4 $6,471 13 13
214007995 1 $4,968 1 4 LAN NGUYEN CHRISTINA HENDERSON -‐214012595 1 $784 2 3 DIEM-‐TRANG TRAN MARSHA FOX -‐214012591 1 $607 36 3 TOAN NGUYEN MARSHA FOX -‐214019977 1 $112 13 3 TONY TRAN JENNIFER HALSO -‐
RYAN GREEN
Outstanding Applications: Offer Made & Issued Not Paid
• ExpeditesIssuedCasestoPay
Capacity Model-MOR
Area: New Business Analysts 3/28/14
Loc Los Angeles 3/10/14
Mgr The Lab
Emp 12
Dates Jan 2014 - Dec 2014
ACT. NO. ACTIVITY UNIT OF MEASURE FREQUENCY VOLUME DAILY
VOLUME KVI TIME [mins]
STD HOURS
% OF STD HOURS ACTIVITY COMMENT
1. Annuities application processing and scrubbing Application Monthly 50 2.37 1.Yes 5.50 0.22 1%
2. Annuity: Reading/responding to case message Case Message Monthly 499 23.74 Non-KVI 1 1.77 0.70 4%
3. Annuity: Live communication with Agent/ UW [Proprietary] Call/ Discussion Monthly 25 1.19 Non-KVI 1 2.58 0.05 0%
4. Annuity: NOGO research Item Monthly 46 2.21 Non-KVI 1 3.22 0.12 1%
5. Annuity: NOGO related communication Item Monthly 46 2.21 Non-KVI 1 1.97 0.07 0%
6. Annuity: Notify agent on cases paid/ placed Application Monthly 50 2.37 Non-KVI 1 1.00 0.04 0%
7. Annuity: Submit and Coordinate Suitability Review Application Monthly 40 1.90 Non-KVI 1 3.90 0.12 1%
8. Annuity -‐ Check logging onto AOC -‐ Inbound Checks Monthly 5 0.24 Non-KVI 1 2.57 0.01 0%
9. Faxing/Imaging pages back into the case if missing Application Monthly 7 0.33 Non-KVI 1 17.50 0.10 1%
10. Annuity -‐ Processing of AOC -‐ Inbound Checks Monthly 200 9.52 Non-KVI 1 12.50 1.98 12%
11. Life Application -‐ processing and scrubbing Application Monthly 185 8.83 2.Yes 10.37 1.53 9%
12. Life Application: Reading/ responding to case message Case Message Monthly 2782 132.48 Non-KVI 2 1.73 3.83 23%
13. Life Application: Live communication with Agent/ UW [Proprietary] Call/ Discussion Monthly 185 8.83 Non-KVI 2 2.58 0.38 2%
14. Order Paramedical Item Monthly 93 4.42 Non-KVI 2 2.28 0.17 1%
15. Paramedical Follow-‐up Call/ Discussion Monthly 185 8.83 Non-KVI 2 2.45 0.36 2%
16. APS Follow-‐up Call/ Discussion Monthly 121 5.74 Non-KVI 2 5.70 0.55 3%
17. Preliminary Applications Application Monthly 9 0.44 Non-KVI 2 2.00 0.01 0%
18. Life: Case Scanning and Submission Application Monthly 278 13.25 Non-KVI 2 5.25 1.16 7%
19. Life: Check item in scan and image bin Application Monthly 278 13.25 Non-KVI 2 2.57 0.57 3%
20. Life: Check if issued cases are paid Application Monthly 0 0.00 Non-KVI 2 0.33 - 0%
21. Life: NOGO research Item Monthly 93 4.42 Non-KVI 2 3.22 0.24 1%
22. Life: NOGO related communication Item Monthly 93 4.42 Non-KVI 2 1.97 0.14 1%
23. Life: GOSC red/green edit resolution Item Monthly 93 4.42 Non-KVI 2 1.00 0.07 0%
24. Life: Mill Data Input and Application Tracking Item Monthly 185 8.83 Non-KVI 2 1.78 0.26 2%
25. Life: Print and file cases paid/ placed Application Monthly 185 8.83 Non-KVI 2 1.00 0.15 1%
26. Life Suitability Review Application Monthly 185 8.83 Non-KVI 2 3.90 0.57 3%
27. Life check scanning and depositing -‐ Inbound Checks Monthly 176 8.39 Non-KVI 2 2.57 0.36 2%
28. Disability Application processing and scrubbing Application Monthly 2 0.11 3.Yes 20.00 0.04 0%
29. DI: Data Collection Case Message Monthly 2 0.11 Non-KVI 3 10.00 0.02 0%
30. DI: Reading/ responding to case message Call/ Discussion Monthly 34 1.61 Non-KVI 3 1.73 0.05 0%
31. DI: Live communication with Agent/ UW [Proprietary] Call/ Discussion Monthly 2 0.11 Non-KVI 3 2.58 0.00 0%
32. DI: NOGO research Item Monthly 0 0.01 Non-KVI 3 1.00 0.00 0%
33. DI: NOGO related communication Item Monthly 0 0.00 Non-KVI 3 1.97 - 0%
34. DI: Suitability review Application Monthly 2 0.11 Non-KVI 3 3.90 0.01 0%
35. DI: Pring and file cases paid/ placed Application Monthly 2 0.11 Non-KVI 3 1.00 0.00 0%
36. DI: Check scanning and depositing Checks Monthly 1 0.03 Non-KVI 3 2.57 0.00 0%
37. Brokerage Application Processing and Scrubbing Application Monthly 57 2.74 4.Yes 3.50 0.16 1%
38. B-‐D Nogo Research Item Monthly 29 1.37 Non-KVI 4 1.00 0.02 0%
39. BD: Reading/ responding to case message Case Message Monthly 287 13.68 Non-KVI 4 1.73 0.40 2%
40. BD: Live communication with Agent/ UW [Proprietary] Call/ Discussion Monthly 115 5.47 Non-KVI 4 2.58 0.24 1%
41. Brokerage NOGO communication Call/ Discussion Monthly 29 1.37 Non-KVI 4 1.07 0.02 0%
42. Brokerage Suitability Review Application Monthly 57 2.74 Non-KVI 4 1.78 0.08 0%
43. Brokerage -‐ check scanning and depositing -‐ Inbound Checks Monthly 57 2.74 Non-KVI 4 2.57 0.12 1%
44. B-D: Log sheet tracking and reporting Application Monthly 57 2.74 Non-KVI 4 5.00 0.23 1%
45. Third Party Application Processing and scrubbing Application Monthly 30 1.41 5.Yes 5.45 0.13 1%
46. Third Party NOGO Research Item Monthly 15 0.70 Non-KVI 5 3.22 0.04 0%
47. Third Party NOGO Communication Item Monthly 15 0.70 Non-KVI 5 1.97 0.02 0%
48. Third Party Application Submission Application Monthly 30 1.41 Non-KVI 5 5.25 0.12 1%
49. Third Party B-‐D and VA Suitability Review Application Monthly 30 1.41 Non-KVI 5 3.90 0.09 1%
50. Term Conversions [Data Collection] Application Monthly 10 0.48 6.Yes 10.00 0.08 0%
51. Policy Change [Data entry] Application Monthly 10 0.48 7.Yes 10.00 0.08 0%
52. Generation of eLeads Application Daily 2 2.00 8.Yes 15.00 0.50 3%
53. Research of eLead polciies Application Daily 4 4.00 Non-KVI 8 10.00 0.67 4%
16.9
2.4
KVI 1: Annuities application processing and scrubbing 3.4
86.3
8.8
KVI 2: Life Application - processing and scrubbing 10.3
70.3
0.1
KVI 3: Disability Application processing and scrubbing 0.1
64.2
2.7
KVI 4: Brokerage Application Processing and Scrubbing 1.3
27.7
1.4
KVI 5: Third Party Application Processing and scrubbing 0.4
17.2
0.5
KVI 6: Term Conversions [Data Collection] 0.1
10.0
0.5
KVI 7: Policy Change [Data entry] 0.1
10.0
2.0
KVI 8: Generation of eLeads 1.2
35.0
Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 4: Brokerage Application Processing and Scrubbing
Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 2: Life Application - processing and scrubbing
Daily Hours Required by KVI 3
Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 5: Third Party Application Processing and scrubbing
Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 7: Policy Change [Data entry]
Daily Hours Required by KVI 6Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 6: Term Conversions [Data
Collection]
Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 3: Disability Application processing and scrubbing
Daily Hours Required by KVI 4Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 4: Brokerage Application
Processing and Scrubbing
Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 6: Term Conversions [Data Collection]
Daily Hours Required by KVI 5Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 5: Third Party Application
Processing and scrubbing
ACTIVITY LIST - New Business Analysts
Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 2: Life Application - processing and scrubbing
Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 3: Disability Application processing and scrubbing
Daily Hours Required by KVI 1
Revised Date:
Date Compiled:
Compiled By:
Total Daily Hours RequiredDaily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 1: Annuities application processing and
scrubbing
Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 1: Annuities application processing and scrubbing
Daily Hours Required by KVI 2
Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 8: Generation of eLeads
Daily Hours Required by KVI 7
Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 7: Policy Change [Data entry]
Daily Hours Required by KVI 8
Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 8: Generation of eLeads
• Providesagencystaffforecastingtool
• FactFindingandCaseDesign
•Use XRAE for risk, price estimate
3 of 39March 25, 2014
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc.
es.sgo1.13.32.09.Bridge.Agency.140325
Reporting Provides Visibility on an Individual Level, Showing Variance between Agents
NOGO Rates Vary between Agency Sales Directors (ASD), Ranging from 33% to 60%
New Business Life Application Tracking Shows High Level Root Cause Error Areas Driving NOGOs
Life Application NOGO Rate by Agents Reporting to Robert Piscatelli(Feb. 3 - Mar. 21, 2014)
Bridge Financial Life Application NOGO Error Detail(Feb. 3 - Mar. 21, 2014)
Bridge Financial Life Application Tracker Raw Data(Feb. 3 - Mar. 21, 2014)
Life Application NOGO Rate by ASD(Feb. 3 - Mar. 21, 2014)
Bridge Financial: MetLife Proprietary Life Application Tracking
Raw Data Tracker Allows for Simple Filtering by Agency Sales Director and Specific Agent to Identify Detail behind NOGOs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Piscatelli, Robert No Manager Kliss, Elena Begun, Robert
Num
ber
of A
pp
licat
ions
ASD
2133%
4267%
1739%
2761%
2760%
1840%
3251%
63 44 4563
3149%
NOGO
IGO
0
3
6
9
12
15
Fiore,Braken A
Francis Jr.,Robert Eros
Stuart,Diane
Howe,Philip
Banks,Keith
Vitale,Peter
Viglione,Francis
Rafferty,Thomas
Alberico,Matthew J
Perinelli,Michael J
Rozzi,Matthew
Num
ber
of A
pp
licat
ions
Agent
750%
327%
873%
120%
480%
3100% 2
100%
480% 1
20%1
100%1
100%1
100%1
100%1
100%
750%
11 5 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 114
NOGO
IGO
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Err
or C
ount
Application Section/Location
Total = 96 Errors
27
20
17
14
6
4 43 1
28%
21%
18%
15%
6%
4% 4%3% 1%
SupplementalForms
Section V:About Existingor Applied for
Insurance
Section IV:About Proposed
Coverage
Section I:About Proposed
Insured
Section III:About the
Beneficiary
Section VI: Payment
Information
Section VII: General Risk Questions
Section VIII: PersonalPhysician
Section II:About the
Owner
Note: Part of Brooklyn office tracking files missing from last two weeks of data
Source: New Business Life Application tracker
Note: Part of Brooklyn office tracking files missing from last two weeks of data
Source: New Business Life Application tracker
Note: Part of Brooklyn office tracking files missing from last two weeks of data
Source: New Business Life Application tracker
PlacematAgency Support Group
Agent
ClientCo
6 of 6Spring 20XX | po.E2E.ImpApproach.FSO1.Insurance | © Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc.
3. Work Products and Business Metrics
Work Products
• LifeApplications
• DisabilityProducts
• AnnuityProducts
• Broker/DealerInvestments
Business Metric Target
Volume (Agent productivity)
• 2.5to4.0Lifepoliciesissuedpermonth
Quality - % In Good Order:
• AgencyBaseline:20%withtargetat80%
• UWBaseline:73%withtargetat90%
Daily Staffing
Analyst Productivity
• 7-8applicationsperFTEperday
Unit Cost
• 35%reductionbasedonNOGOreductiontarget
Service - Cycle Time
• Reduce4-5daysofcycletimeforNOGOapplications
1. Overview: New Business Processing Key Activities by Participant
7. New Lean Visual Management Tools
Agents/Assistants
• Prospect• Contact• SelectProduct
– FactFind– Illustration– Quote(UWorXRAE)
• Selectcorrectform(s)• Complete/submitform• Follow-up
– AttendingPhysicianStatement(APS)and/orparamed
– NOGOs– Other(Payment,etc.)
New Business Analyst (NBA)
• Reviewsandscrubsapps– Quickfix– Agent-clientcontact
• Enterstrackinginto“mill”• Dataentersorscans/sends
apptooffshoredataentry• Postentryscrub• Sendstomgt.forreview• Trackmilldatatoclosecase
– Requirements(APS,etc.)– Bottlenecks(NOGO,etc.)– Notifications(Issued,etc.)
Agency Management
• Performssuitabilityreview– Clientneeds– Package– Accuracy
• Setsservicestandards• ProvidesreportstoAgents
– Issued-Not-Paid– Pending– NOGOs– Cycletime
• Trainsacrossgroupsonprocess
Underwriting/Shared Service
• ReviewforIGOanduploadsapplication
• Performlevel2analysisanddetailede-review
• Sendpersonalhistoryresults• RequestAPSifrequired• Follow-uponfinancial,
interview,examresults• NotifyNBAonNOGOs• Decide(ifdeclined,review
re-insuranceoption)• Issueordeclineandnotify
2. Average Agency Organization
New Business Support Agency staff Sales
Ops Manager
(1)
NewBusinessManager
(1)
NewBusiness Analyst
(5-7)
Agent Managers
(8)
Agents/ Producers
(120)
Personal Assistants
(60)
4. New Application Processing
Ag
en
cy
Pa
ram
ed
ica
l V
en
do
r
Off
sho
re
Gro
up
(I
nd
ia)
Un
de
rwri
tin
gS
ha
red
S
erv
ice
s
Agent Agency NBA
• Receiveapplications• PerformLifeapplicationScrubbing/processing
• IsApplicationNOGO?
Offshore Group (India)
• DataCollection• Review/ErrorReporting;IsitNOGO?
Underwriting
• ApplicationReview• IssueorDeclinePolicy• OrderandReviewAPS(ifnecessary)
Shared Services
• DistributionofPolicy to Agent
• Addresspayment• Reviewfor1035
Agency NBA
• Askedtocheckparamed?
Paramedical Vendor
• VendorSetsAppointment
• ParamedicalProcessing
Agency NBA
• ReviewSuitabilityandcheckifsuitable
Agency NBA
• Scandocuments• SubmitscantoOffshoreGroup
Agency NBA
• Check“Mill”for- Outstandingrequirements
- Decisionrequired- Issued-NotPaid
• Sendnotifications
Agency NBA (ACP)/Agent
• Collectadditionalpost-IssuerequirementsfromAgent/Client
No
Yes
YesYes
No No No Yes
Yes
Yes
No
5. Case Management Leading Practice Installation
Application Processing• Trainagentsandassts.oneFormsand
SmartOfficepre-population• RequireXRAEtoautomaterisk
assessment• Educateagentsandstaffonleading
practice illustration tools• SupportAPSresolutiontoissuecase
quickly• Expediteparamedschedulingandfollow-
up• UseNOGOpreventioninstructionplacemat• Remove“false”NOGOsthatcreaterework
The“Mill”TrackerandReportingTools• Rolloutstandardmillwithrequiredand
optionalfields• Createmillusageroutinestoreduce
NOGOsandcasecycletimes• CreateanddistributestandardIssued-Not-
PaidandPendingreports
Work Level Management and Performance Improvement Tools• Alignagentstoacross-trainedanalyst,with
aback-up• Consolidateactivitiestoonepositionto
reducerework• Segmentagentsbyperformancefor
targetedsupportlevel• IntroduceCapacityModel-work
forecastingtool• LinkMilltodailyhuddletohelpevenout
theworkamongstaff• Implementquarterlysurveytomeasure
satisfactionlevels
Agency-UnderwriterNotificationRoutines• NBAfollowupwithUWtoissue,whenno
outstandingrequirements• NBAfollowupwithagentonobtainingbank
draftdata,postissue• NBAfollowupwithagentonUWdecline
Capacity
Model
6. Standardized Agent Feedback - MOR Routine
NBAforwardsIssued-Not-PaidandPendingReportsfromUnderwritingtoSalesManagerwhomeetswithSalesAgent
NBAcompletesNOGOandcycletimeintracker.NBA/OperationsmanagersforwardreportstoSalesManager,whoreviewswithAgent
NBA, Sales Manager
NBA, NBA Manager, Sales Manager
Weekly
Monthly to Quarterly
Activty Accountable Frequency
Standard “Mill” Tracker
Case Manager Case Status Agent Name 1 GDC Split 1[Dollars]
Customer Name[Last Name, First Name]
Underwriter Name[Last Name, First Name] Case # Policy Origination Application Received
with Funds
Face Amount[Input Check or Transfer
for Annuity]Annual Premium
Line of Business[List "Other" in General
Comments]
Policy Type[List "Other" in General
Comments]
Policy Duration [Years - primarily for Term]
Date of Client Signature
Date Received in Agency
Date Released to Underwriting Date Case Issued IGO / NOGO General Comments
[Free Form Text]
Eileen Figueroa Agency Pending Simon, Daniel 557.00$ Soulouque, Pierre Smith 214026133 MetLife Initial Draft 100,000$ 893$ Annuity Term 15 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Courrejolles, Ivan 3,711.00$ Lopez, Lilian Smith 214025343 MetLife Check 500,000$ 3,286$ Annuity Whole 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGO add'l GLT20Jackie Litchmore Agency Pending Higgins, Glenrick 252.00$ Lawrence, Roan Smith 214026209 MetLife Initial Draft 500,000$ 442$ Annuity Term 20 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Higgins, Glenrick 165.00$ Lawrence, Jamar Smith 214026213 MetLife Initial Draft 25,000$ 282$ Life Whole 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGODaniela Rivera Agency Pending Share Brennan, Amy 184.00$ Lorenzo, Alberto Smith 214026241 MetLife None 500,000$ 204$ Life Term 10 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Cabrera, Ariel 1,625.00$ ZAMPIERI, ALDO Smith 214026250 MetLife Check 500,000$ 1,273$ Life Term 15 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGODaniela Rivera Agency Pending Palmer, Ted 1,985.00$ Perez, Phil Smith 214026514 MetLife None 1,000,000$ 3,009$ Broker Dealer Term 20 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOEileen Figueroa Agency Pending Price, Christopher 33,106.00$ Gomez, Ricardo Smith 214026776 MetLife None 5,004,000$ 32,370$ Broker Dealer MFFS 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGO add'l GLT20Ismaetha Emile Agency Pending Zhang, Janet Lu 1,443.00$ Sooknanan, Chris Smith 214026793 MetLife Initial Draft 1,000,000$ 1,443$ Broker Dealer Term 30 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGOEileen Figueroa Agency Pending Simon, Daniel 557.00$ Soulouque, Pierre Smith 214026133 MetLife Initial Draft 100,000$ 893$ Annuity Term 15 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Courrejolles, Ivan 3,711.00$ Lopez, Lilian Smith 214025343 MetLife Check 500,000$ 3,286$ Annuity Whole 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGO add'l GLT20Jackie Litchmore Agency Pending Higgins, Glenrick 252.00$ Lawrence, Roan Smith 214026209 MetLife Initial Draft 500,000$ 442$ Annuity Term 20 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Higgins, Glenrick 165.00$ Lawrence, Jamar Smith 214026213 MetLife Initial Draft 25,000$ 282$ Life Whole 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGODaniela Rivera Agency Pending Share Brennan, Amy 184.00$ Lorenzo, Alberto Smith 214026241 MetLife None 500,000$ 204$ Life Term 10 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Cabrera, Ariel 1,625.00$ ZAMPIERI, ALDO Smith 214026250 MetLife Check 500,000$ 1,273$ Life Term 15 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGODaniela Rivera Agency Pending Palmer, Ted 1,985.00$ Perez, Phil Smith 214026514 MetLife None 1,000,000$ 3,009$ Broker Dealer Term 20 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOEileen Figueroa Agency Pending Price, Christopher 33,106.00$ Gomez, Ricardo Smith 214026776 MetLife None 5,004,000$ 32,370$ Broker Dealer MFFS 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGO add'l GLT20Ismaetha Emile Agency Pending Zhang, Janet Lu 1,443.00$ Sooknanan, Chris Smith 214026793 MetLife Initial Draft 1,000,000$ 1,443$ Broker Dealer Term 30 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGOEileen Figueroa Agency Pending Simon, Daniel 557.00$ Soulouque, Pierre Smith 214026133 MetLife Initial Draft 100,000$ 893$ Annuity Term 15 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Courrejolles, Ivan 3,711.00$ Lopez, Lilian Smith 214025343 MetLife Check 500,000$ 3,286$ Annuity Whole 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGO add'l GLT20Jackie Litchmore Agency Pending Higgins, Glenrick 252.00$ Lawrence, Roan Smith 214026209 MetLife Initial Draft 500,000$ 442$ Annuity Term 20 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Higgins, Glenrick 165.00$ Lawrence, Jamar Smith 214026213 MetLife Initial Draft 25,000$ 282$ Life Whole 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGODaniela Rivera Agency Pending Share Brennan, Amy 184.00$ Lorenzo, Alberto Smith 214026241 MetLife None 500,000$ 204$ Life Term 10 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOJackie Litchmore Agency Pending Cabrera, Ariel 1,625.00$ ZAMPIERI, ALDO Smith 214026250 MetLife Check 500,000$ 1,273$ Life Term 15 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGODaniela Rivera Agency Pending Palmer, Ted 1,985.00$ Perez, Phil Smith 214026514 MetLife None 1,000,000$ 3,009$ Broker Dealer Term 20 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGOEileen Figueroa Agency Pending Price, Christopher 33,106.00$ Gomez, Ricardo Smith 214026776 MetLife None 5,004,000$ 32,370$ Broker Dealer MFFS 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 NOGO add'l GLT20Ismaetha Emile Agency Pending Zhang, Janet Lu 1,443.00$ Sooknanan, Chris Smith 214026793 MetLife Initial Draft 1,000,000$ 1,443$ Broker Dealer Term 30 02/06/14 02/08/14 02/09/14 02/20/14 IGO
• ExpeditesCasetoIssue
NOGO and Cycle Time MOR
• Providesfeedbackonerroranddelayrootcauses
Service Level Surveys
• AssessesservicelevelattainmentusingQualtrax
• ReviewNOGOplacemat• Submitapplication• ReviewParamedplacemattocheckifParamedisrequired?
Detailed Instruction Sheets
• Providesbasicinstructionstosimplifyprocess
March 26, 2014© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc.
es.sgo1.13.32.09.Placemat.14032620 of 28
Placemat H-1: NOGO Prevention Guide for Standard Life Application
Page 1 Page 3 Page 4Policy Number
Application for Life InsuranceCompany (Check the appropriate ONE.) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company General American Life Insurance Company
New England Life Insurance Company MetLife Investors USA Insurance CompanyMetLife Investors Insurance Company
The Company indicated in this section is referred to as "the Company".
For Additional Insureds please complete the Additional Insureds Supplement form.
First Name Middle Name Last Name
Permanent Address City State Zip
Country of Legal Residence Date of Birth E-Mail Address
Primary Phone Number Alternate Phone Number Preferred Time to Call From To Sex
Place of Birth Social Security or Tax ID Number Earned Annual Income Net Worth
U.S. Driver's License If not licensed, please indicate other form of ID: Passport Government Issued Photo ID
Issuer of ID ID Number Issue Date (if any) Expiration Date (if any)
Name of Employer Employer City State Zip Position/Duties
NON U.S. CITIZENS ONLY - Country of Citizenship Green Card/Visa Type Expiration Date
Country of Permanent Residence ID Number Years in the U.S.
Complete ONLY if the Owner is NOT the Proposed Insured.
OWNER - TRUST / BUSINESS ENTITY - Name of Entity Tax ID Number Trustee / Owner State
Trust Business Entity Charity Qualified Pension Plan Complete the appropriate required form(s).OWNER - OTHER INDIVIDUAL First Name Middle Name Last Name
Permanent Address City State Zip
Country of Legal Residence Citizenship Social Security or Tax ID Number Date of Birth Phone Number
E-Mail Address Earned Annual Income Net Worth Relationship to Proposed Insured
Please indicate form of ID: U.S. Driver's License Passport Government Issued Photo ID
Issuer of ID ID Number Issue Date (if any) Expiration Date (if any)
Check if ownership should revert to Insured upon Owner and Contingent Owner’s deaths.
ENB-7-07-MA
SECTION II - About the Owner
SECTION I - About the Proposed Insured
AM
PM PM
AM
Female
Male
1 of 7
(07/07) eF
Does the Proposed Insured or Owner have any existing or applied for life insurance or annuities with this or any other company? Proposed Insured Yes No
Owner Yes NoIf YES, please provide details of any existing or applied for Life Insurance on the Proposed Insured only.
Company Amount of Insurance Year of Issue Status
Existing Applied For
Applied ForExisting
Existing Applied For
Existing Applied For
In connection with this application, has there been, or will there be with this or any other company any: surrender transaction; loan; withdrawal; lapse; reduction or redirection of premium/consideration; or change transaction (except conversions) involving an annuity or other life insurance?
If YES, complete Replacement Questionnaire AND any other state required replacement forms or 1035 exchange forms.
Yes No
If Proposed Insured is financially dependent on another individual, indicate individual providing support:
Spouse Child Parent Other
Amount of insurance on individual providing support. Existing Insurance Insurance Applied For
If Proposed Insured is a minor, are all siblings equally insured? Yes No
If NO, please provide details:
PREMIUM PAYORProposed Insured Owner (If NOT the Proposed Insured.) Other (Complete the box below.)
Other Premium Payor Name Social Security or Tax ID Number Relationship to Proposed Insured or Owner
Reason this Person is the Payor
Permanent Address City State Zip
PAYMENT MODE (Check the appropriate ONE.)
Billing Mode: Annual Semi-Annual QuarterlyMonthly Draft per Debit Authorization (See next page.)Monthly Draft per Existing Electronic Payment Number
Special Account: Government Allotment Salary Deduction List Bill
If Special Account, provide Employer Group Number (EGN) or List Bill Number
INITIAL PAYMENT Method of Collection:Amount Collected with Application Initial Premium by Electronic Funds Transfer (Must be at least a monthly amount.)
Check (Must be at least 1/12 of an annual premium.)
SOURCE OF CURRENT AND FUTURE PAYMENTS (Check ALL that apply.)
Earned Income Savings Loans
Use of Values in another Life Insurance/Annuity Contract Other
ENB-7-07-MA
Mutual Fund/Brokerage Account Money Market Fund
Certificate of Deposit
SECTION V - About Existing or Applied for Insurance
SECTION VI - About Payment Information
3 of 7
(07/07) eF
DEBIT AUTHORIZATION Available only if the bank account holder is the Owner and/or Proposed Insured. All others please complete the Electronic Payment (EP) Account Agreement form.
The undersigned (“I”) hereby authorize the Company with whom I am completing this application to initiate debit entries through Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to the deposit account designated below, at the Financial Institution named below, using the Automated Clearing House. I authorize: 1. Monthly recurring debits; AND 2. Debits made from time to time, as I authorize. This authorization is to remain in full force and effect until the Company has received written notification from me of its termination at such time and in such manner as to afford the Company and the Financial Institution a reasonable opportunity to act on it.Monthly Debit Date: Issue Date of the Policy
Debit Date on the of each month
Bank Account Type: Checking Savings
Bank Routing Number Bank Account Number
Name of Financial Institution
Note: Please attach a voided check or deposit slip to Section IX - Additional Information.
We cannot establish banking services from starter checks, cash management, brokerage, or mutual fund checks. We cannot establish banking services from foreign banks UNLESS the check is being paid in U.S. Dollars through a U.S. correspondent bank (the U.S. correspondent bank name must be on the check).
Use Section IX - Additional Information if necessary.
1. Within the past three years has the Proposed Insured flown in a plane other than as a passenger on a commercial airline or does he or she have plans for such activity within the next year? Yes No
If YES, please complete a separate Aviation Risk Supplement form for the Proposed Insured.
2. Within the past three years has the Proposed Insured participated in or does he or she plan to participate in any of the following? Yes No
Underwater sports - SCUBA diving, skin diving, or similar activities Racing sports - motorcycle, auto, motor boat or similar activities Sky sports - skydiving, hang gliding, parachuting, ballooning or similar activities Rock or mountain climbing or similar activities Bungee jumping or similar activities
If YES, please complete a separate Avocation Risk Supplement form for the Proposed Insured.
3. Has the Proposed Insured traveled or resided outside the U.S. or Canada within the past two years; or does he or she plan to travel or reside outside the U.S or Canada within the next two years?
NOTE: That a "YES" answer may result in higher rates or in a denial of coverage. If YES, please provide details.
Yes No
Past Future Duration (weeks) Cities and Countries Purpose
4. Has the Proposed Insured EVER used tobacco or nicotine products in any form (e.g., cigars, cigarettes, cigarillos, pipes, chewing tobacco, nicotine patches, or nicotine gum)? If YES, please provide details. Yes No
Product(s) Frequency / Amount Date Last Used
ENB-7-07-MA
SECTION VII - General Risk Questions
4 of 7
(07/07) eF
• CountryofResidence-MetLifeneedsthecountryandnotcounty.
• Preferredtimetocallshouldbefilledin(e.g.,4:00pmEST–8:00pmEST).
• PlaceofBirth–HomeOfficeneedsState.
• NameofEmployer-Ifnotemployedoutsidethehome,fillinchild,student,homemaker,retiredforthe“Positions/Duties”slot.
• Zipcodeforemployer.
• Earnedincomeandnetworth–Mustbeincludedforbothinsuredandownerifapplicable.
Page 2For additional Beneficiaries, use Section IX - Additional Information.
Check here if the Owner is the Primary Beneficiary. For Primary or Contingent Beneficiaries who are NOT the Owner, complete the table below.
Beneficiary Type Name (First, Middle, Last) Date of Birth Relationship to Proposed Insured
Social Security Number (Optional)
Percentage of Proceeds (if not equal)
Primary
Primary
ContingentPrimary
Contingent
Check here to include all living and future natural or adopted children of the Proposed Insured as Contingent Beneficiaries. (Name all living children above.)
If a Custodian is acting on behalf of a minor Beneficiary listed above, please use Co-Owner/Contingent Owner and UTMA Designations Supplement form. Federal law states that if someone with special needs has assets over $2,000, they may lose eligibility for government benefits.
Check the desired coverage(s).
Universal Life Variable Life
Product Name
Face Amount*
Riders and Details
Coverage Continuation (UL only)
Disability Waiver:Specified PremiumMonthly Deduction (VUL only)
Death Benefit Option
Definition of Life Insurance:Guideline Premium TestCash Value Accumulation Test
Planned PremiumYear 1
Years 2 to
Years to (UL only)
Whole Life
Product Name
Face Amount*
Riders and Details
Disability WaiverDividend Options:
Paid-Up AdditionsOther, please specify:
Automatic Premium Loan Requested
Term Life
Product Name
Face Amount*
Riders and Details
Disability Waiver:
Convertible Non-Convertible
For a full list of riders and options, please consult with your Producer. Note: Some riders may require supplement forms to be completed.
For Variable Life products, please complete the Variable Life Supplement form. * If Face Amount is equal to or exceeds $1,000,000, please complete the Personal
Financial Information form.
ADDITIONAL OPTIONSOne Time (Single) Payment Amount 1035 Exchange Amount Requested Policy Date Save Age
POLICY OPTIONSAlternate Policy: Product, Face Amount and Details
Additional Policy: Product, Face Amount and Details
Group Conversion Only
Group Conversion Alternative } Please complete the Group Conversion Supplement form for either choice.
ENB-7-07-MA
SECTION IV - About Proposed Coverage
SECTION III - About the Beneficiary / Beneficiaries
2 of 7
(07/07) eF
• PlanofInsurance–ForTermplans,specifynumberofyears,10,15,20,30.
• PlanofInsurance–EVUL,HomeOfficeneedsdeathbenefitoption,definitionoflifeinsurance,plannedpremium(modalpremium).
• PlanofInsurance–GAUL,needsdeathbenefitoption,definitionoflifeinsurance,plannedpremium(annualamount),#ofyearspayableandsubsequentpremiumamount.
• Ifgroupconversionorgroupconversionalternative,markappropriateboxandfilloutGroupConversionSupplement.
• SectionV,existingorappliedforinsurance-confirmbothinsuredandownerboxesaremarked.
• Provideamountofinsuranceandyearofissue,markboxforexistingorappliedfor.
• Iftheproposedinsuredisfinanciallydependentonanotherindividual,filloutthegraybox(homemaker,child,etc.).
• SectionVI–Markboxforpremiumpayer.
• SectionVI–Ifchoosinginitialpremiumbyelectronicfunds,youmustfillin“amountcollectedwithapplication.”
• Iftheapplicanthasanexistingorpreviouspolicythatneedstobeexchangedorreplaced,verifytheappropriateboxischeckedandreplacementquestionnaireisfilledout.
• DebitAuthorization–Markboxforeitherissuedateorspecifydebitdatefordraft,checkboxforeithercheckingorsavings.HomeOfficeneedsavoidcheck(willnotacceptdepositslip).
• DebitAuthorization-Ifaccountholderisotherthantheinsuredorowner,aseparateEPformmustbecompletedandsignedbytheaccountholder.
• SectionVII-Ensurecustomerunderstandsquestions,andanswerstheriskquestionscorrectly.Ifanyanswersare“Yes”,donotforgettofillouttheaviationandavocationsupplementaryforms.
Note: Utilized for Case Management Initiative #9
Issued-Not-Paid Report
Offer Made Data Provided: 21-‐MarIssued Not Paid Data Provided: 21-‐Mar
Office ARIZONA FIN ASSOC
Agent Count Premium $ Avg of Days Since Issue/Offer Outstanding Reqs Insured Name Underwriter Rating ClassDAVID TELLES
ISSUED -‐ NOT PAID 1 $24,659 9 0214017902 1 $24,659 9 0 HOFFPAUIR, EDGAR KATHY GARCIA ELITE/PREF PLUS
OFFER MADE 2 $6,028 8 6214023267 1 $4,269 2 3 WILLIAM CHILDERS KASIE FREAUF -‐214023200 1 $1,759 13 3 MAGDALENA CHILDERS KASIE FREAUF -‐
AARON KHAFIOFFER MADE 1 $21,376 1 3
214018545 1 $21,376 1 3 MEIR GUL KATHY GARCIA -‐
PAUL MCGHIEISSUED -‐ NOT PAID 1 $10,699 4 0
214017919 1 $10,699 4 0 REYNOLDS, PATRICK KATHY GARCIA RATED
THOMAS BROOKSOFFER MADE 2 $8,933 11 8
214019299 1 $6,904 9 5 ROBERT KINGSBURY MARSHA FOX -‐214019307 1 $2,029 13 3 TRACEY KINGSBURY MARSHA FOX -‐
JOHN JACOBSOFFER MADE 1 $8,839 17 3
213230102 1 $8,839 17 3 PAUL GUESS MICHAEL BAUCOM -‐
ROBERT SHULTSISSUED -‐ NOT PAID 2 $2,981 15 0
214011079 1 $2,578 23 0 MEALEY, TEDDY CHRISTINA HENDERSON RATED214022414 1 $403 7 0 SHIPLEY, BARBARA KASIE FREAUF STANDARD
OFFER MADE 4 $5,515 3 9214020497 1 $2,364 6 2 EUTIMIO SCHAMBER JENNIFER HALSO -‐214019962 1 $2,145 3 3 THOMAS CONRAD KATHY GARCIA -‐214029168 1 $514 2 2 CASHAE DAVIS JACKIE LAI -‐214029158 1 $493 1 2 JAMAL COOPER JACKIE LAI -‐
HOWARD RUBINISSUED -‐ NOT PAID 1 $2,400 28 0
214014406 1 $2,400 28 0 RIDGES, BRADLEY KASIE FREAUF STANDARDOFFER MADE 5 $5,795 6 13
214027094 1 $2,765 3 5 MACARIO GALVAN CHRISTINA HENDERSON -‐214027095 1 $1,249 7 2 JACLYN GALVAN CHRISTINA HENDERSON -‐214029152 1 $672 6 2 HUNTER LIKINS KATHY GARCIA -‐214029160 1 $566 6 2 JERA LIKINS KATHY GARCIA -‐214029154 1 $543 6 2 KAYA LIKINS KATHY GARCIA -‐
ALFRED MATT JR.OFFER MADE 4 $7,520 14 8
214018624 1 $2,207 23 2 KEN BEVINS JACKIE LAI -‐214018647 1 $2,114 15 2 RICHARD MATTHEWS KATHY GARCIA -‐214027904 1 $1,639 3 2 MARIN FILIP JACKIE LAI -‐214018671 1 $1,560 13 2 LU ANN MATTHEWS KATHY GARCIA -‐
JENNIE LAMISSUED -‐ NOT PAID 1 $759 3 0
214021925 1 $759 3 0 NGUYEN, BICHTHUY JACKIE LAI STANDARDOFFER MADE 4 $6,471 13 13
214007995 1 $4,968 1 4 LAN NGUYEN CHRISTINA HENDERSON -‐214012595 1 $784 2 3 DIEM-‐TRANG TRAN MARSHA FOX -‐214012591 1 $607 36 3 TOAN NGUYEN MARSHA FOX -‐214019977 1 $112 13 3 TONY TRAN JENNIFER HALSO -‐
RYAN GREEN
Outstanding Applications: Offer Made & Issued Not Paid
• ExpeditesIssuedCasestoPay
Capacity Model-MOR
Area: New Business Analysts3/28/14
Loc Los Angeles 3/10/14
Mgr The Lab
Emp 12
Dates Jan 2014 - Dec 2014
ACT. NO. ACTIVITY UNIT OF MEASURE FREQUENCY VOLUME DAILY
VOLUME KVI TIME [mins]
STD HOURS
% OF STD HOURS ACTIVITY COMMENT
1. Annuities application processing and scrubbing Application Monthly 50 2.37 1.Yes 5.50 0.22 1%
2. Annuity: Reading/responding to case message Case Message Monthly 499 23.74 Non-KVI 1 1.77 0.70 4%
3. Annuity: Live communication with Agent/ UW [Proprietary] Call/ Discussion Monthly 25 1.19 Non-KVI 1 2.58 0.05 0%
4. Annuity: NOGO research Item Monthly 46 2.21 Non-KVI 1 3.22 0.12 1%
5. Annuity: NOGO related communication Item Monthly 46 2.21 Non-KVI 1 1.97 0.07 0%
6. Annuity: Notify agent on cases paid/ placed Application Monthly 50 2.37 Non-KVI 1 1.00 0.04 0%
7. Annuity: Submit and Coordinate Suitability Review Application Monthly 40 1.90 Non-KVI 1 3.90 0.12 1%
8. Annuity -‐ Check logging onto AOC -‐ Inbound Checks Monthly 5 0.24 Non-KVI 1 2.57 0.01 0%
9. Faxing/Imaging pages back into the case if missing Application Monthly 7 0.33 Non-KVI 1 17.50 0.10 1%
10. Annuity -‐ Processing of AOC -‐ Inbound Checks Monthly 200 9.52 Non-KVI 1 12.50 1.98 12%
11. Life Application -‐ processing and scrubbing Application Monthly 185 8.83 2.Yes 10.37 1.53 9%
12. Life Application: Reading/ responding to case message Case Message Monthly 2782 132.48 Non-KVI 2 1.73 3.83 23%
13. Life Application: Live communication with Agent/ UW [Proprietary] Call/ Discussion Monthly 185 8.83 Non-KVI 2 2.58 0.38 2%
14. Order Paramedical Item Monthly 93 4.42 Non-KVI 2 2.28 0.17 1%
15. Paramedical Follow-‐up Call/ Discussion Monthly 185 8.83 Non-KVI 2 2.45 0.36 2%
16. APS Follow-‐up Call/ Discussion Monthly 121 5.74 Non-KVI 2 5.70 0.55 3%
17. Preliminary Applications Application Monthly 9 0.44 Non-KVI 2 2.00 0.01 0%
18. Life: Case Scanning and Submission Application Monthly 278 13.25 Non-KVI 2 5.25 1.16 7%
19. Life: Check item in scan and image bin Application Monthly 278 13.25 Non-KVI 2 2.57 0.57 3%
20. Life: Check if issued cases are paid Application Monthly 0 0.00 Non-KVI 2 0.33 - 0%
21. Life: NOGO research Item Monthly 93 4.42 Non-KVI 2 3.22 0.24 1%
22. Life: NOGO related communication Item Monthly 93 4.42 Non-KVI 2 1.97 0.14 1%
23. Life: GOSC red/green edit resolution Item Monthly 93 4.42 Non-KVI 2 1.00 0.07 0%
24. Life: Mill Data Input and Application Tracking Item Monthly 185 8.83 Non-KVI 2 1.78 0.26 2%
25. Life: Print and file cases paid/ placed Application Monthly 185 8.83 Non-KVI 2 1.00 0.15 1%
26. Life Suitability Review Application Monthly 185 8.83 Non-KVI 2 3.90 0.57 3%
27. Life check scanning and depositing -‐ Inbound Checks Monthly 176 8.39 Non-KVI 2 2.57 0.36 2%
28. Disability Application processing and scrubbing Application Monthly 2 0.11 3.Yes 20.00 0.04 0%
29. DI: Data Collection Case Message Monthly 2 0.11 Non-KVI 3 10.00 0.02 0%
30. DI: Reading/ responding to case message Call/ Discussion Monthly 34 1.61 Non-KVI 3 1.73 0.05 0%
31. DI: Live communication with Agent/ UW [Proprietary]Call/ Discussion Monthly 2 0.11 Non-KVI 3 2.58 0.00 0%
32. DI: NOGO researchItem Monthly 0 0.01 Non-KVI 3 1.00 0.00 0%
33. DI: NOGO related communication Item Monthly 0 0.00 Non-KVI 3 1.97 - 0%
34. DI: Suitability review Application Monthly 2 0.11 Non-KVI 3 3.90 0.01 0%
35. DI: Pring and file cases paid/ placed Application Monthly 2 0.11 Non-KVI 3 1.00 0.00 0%
36. DI: Check scanning and depositing Checks Monthly 1 0.03 Non-KVI 3 2.57 0.00 0%
37. Brokerage Application Processing and Scrubbing Application Monthly 57 2.74 4.Yes 3.50 0.16 1%
38. B-‐D Nogo Research Item Monthly 29 1.37 Non-KVI 4 1.00 0.02 0%
39. BD: Reading/ responding to case message Case Message Monthly 287 13.68 Non-KVI 4 1.73 0.40 2%
40. BD: Live communication with Agent/ UW [Proprietary]Call/ Discussion Monthly 115 5.47 Non-KVI 4 2.58 0.24 1%
41. Brokerage NOGO communication Call/ Discussion Monthly 29 1.37 Non-KVI 4 1.07 0.02 0%
42. Brokerage Suitability Review Application Monthly 57 2.74 Non-KVI 4 1.78 0.08 0%
43. Brokerage -‐ check scanning and depositing -‐ Inbound Checks Monthly 57 2.74 Non-KVI 4 2.57 0.12 1%
44. B-D: Log sheet tracking and reportingApplication Monthly 57 2.74 Non-KVI 4 5.00 0.23 1%
45. Third Party Application Processing and scrubbing Application Monthly 30 1.41 5.Yes 5.45 0.13 1%
46. Third Party NOGO Research Item Monthly 15 0.70 Non-KVI 5 3.22 0.04 0%
47. Third Party NOGO Communication Item Monthly 15 0.70 Non-KVI 5 1.97 0.02 0%
48. Third Party Application Submission Application Monthly 30 1.41 Non-KVI 5 5.25 0.12 1%
49. Third Party B-‐D and VA Suitability Review Application Monthly 30 1.41 Non-KVI 5 3.90 0.09 1%
50. Term Conversions [Data Collection] Application Monthly 10 0.48 6.Yes 10.00 0.08 0%
51. Policy Change [Data entry] Application Monthly 10 0.48 7.Yes 10.00 0.08 0%
52. Generation of eLeads Application Daily 2 2.00 8.Yes 15.00 0.50 3%
53. Research of eLead polciies Application Daily 4 4.00 Non-KVI 8 10.00 0.67 4%
16.9
2.4
KVI 1: Annuities application processing and scrubbing 3.4
86.3
8.8
KVI 2: Life Application - processing and scrubbing 10.3
70.3
0.1
KVI 3: Disability Application processing and scrubbing 0.1
64.2
2.7
KVI 4: Brokerage Application Processing and Scrubbing 1.3
27.7
1.4
KVI 5: Third Party Application Processing and scrubbing 0.4
17.2
0.5
KVI 6: Term Conversions [Data Collection] 0.1
10.0
0.5
KVI 7: Policy Change [Data entry] 0.1
10.0
2.0
KVI 8: Generation of eLeads 1.2
35.0
Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 4: Brokerage Application Processing and Scrubbing
Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 2: Life Application - processing and scrubbing
Daily Hours Required by KVI 3
Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 5: Third Party Application Processing and scrubbing
Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 7: Policy Change [Data entry]
Daily Hours Required by KVI 6Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 6: Term Conversions [Data
Collection]
Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 3: Disability Application processing and scrubbing
Daily Hours Required by KVI 4Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 4: Brokerage Application
Processing and Scrubbing
Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 6: Term Conversions [Data Collection]
Daily Hours Required by KVI 5Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 5: Third Party Application
Processing and scrubbing
ACTIVITY LIST - New Business Analysts
Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 2: Life Application - processing and scrubbing
Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 3: Disability Application processing and scrubbing
Daily Hours Required by KVI 1
Revised Date:
Date Compiled:
Compiled By:
Total Daily Hours RequiredDaily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 1: Annuities application processing and
scrubbing
Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 1: Annuities application processing and scrubbing
Daily Hours Required by KVI 2
Daily Volume of KVI 1: KVI 8: Generation of eLeads
Daily Hours Required by KVI 7
Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 7: Policy Change [Data entry]
Daily Hours Required by KVI 8
Composite Time per (1) KVI 1: KVI 8: Generation of eLeads
• Providesagencystaffforecastingtool
• FactFindingandCaseDesign
•Use XRAE for risk, price estimate
3 of 39March 25, 2014
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc.
es.sgo1.13.32.09.Bridge.Agency.140325
Reporting Provides Visibility on an Individual Level, Showing Variance between Agents
NOGO Rates Vary between Agency Sales Directors (ASD), Ranging from 33% to 60%
New Business Life Application Tracking Shows High Level Root Cause Error Areas Driving NOGOs
Life Application NOGO Rate by Agents Reporting to Robert Piscatelli(Feb. 3 - Mar. 21, 2014)
Bridge Financial Life Application NOGO Error Detail(Feb. 3 - Mar. 21, 2014)
Bridge Financial Life Application Tracker Raw Data(Feb. 3 - Mar. 21, 2014)
Life Application NOGO Rate by ASD(Feb. 3 - Mar. 21, 2014)
Bridge Financial: MetLife Proprietary Life Application Tracking
Raw Data Tracker Allows for Simple Filtering by Agency Sales Director and Specific Agent to Identify Detail behind NOGOs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Piscatelli, Robert No Manager Kliss, Elena Begun, Robert
Num
ber
of A
pp
licat
ions
ASD
2133%
4267%
1739%
2761%
2760%
1840%
3251%
63 44 4563
3149%
NOGO
IGO
0
3
6
9
12
15
Fiore,Braken A
Francis Jr.,Robert Eros
Stuart,Diane
Howe,Philip
Banks,Keith
Vitale,Peter
Viglione,Francis
Rafferty,Thomas
Alberico,Matthew J
Perinelli,Michael J
Rozzi,Matthew
Num
ber
of A
pp
licat
ions
Agent
750%
327%
873%
120%
480%
3100% 2
100%
480% 1
20%1
100%1
100%1
100%1
100%1
100%
750%
11 5 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 114
NOGO
IGO
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Err
or C
ount
Application Section/Location
Total = 96 Errors
27
20
17
14
6
4 43 1
28%
21%
18%
15%
6%
4% 4%3% 1%
SupplementalForms
Section V:About Existingor Applied for
Insurance
Section IV:About Proposed
Coverage
Section I:About Proposed
Insured
Section III:About the
Beneficiary
Section VI: Payment
Information
Section VII: General Risk Questions
Section VIII: PersonalPhysician
Section II:About the
Owner
Note: Part of Brooklyn office tracking files missing from last two weeks of data
Source: New Business Life Application tracker
Note: Part of Brooklyn office tracking files missing from last two weeks of data
Source: New Business Life Application tracker
Note: Part of Brooklyn office tracking files missing from last two weeks of data
Source: New Business Life Application tracker
PlacematAgency Support Group
Agent
ClientCo
Capacity Utilization Reports
• Provides volume forecasts– Hourly– Daily– Weekly
• Calculates staffing needs• Sets productivity targets
Capacity Model
Management Operating Reports (MORs)
• Tracks volume and:– Productivity– Unit Cost– Service– Quality
• Compares actual to targets
Area: OverallLocation: OverallManager: Overall
Week Starting Date: 1-Feb-16
Data Filters
*Max of seven consecutive days can be selected at a time.
Overall (unit of measure) Sum/Avg Required Target Difference from Target Required Trend Current Trend Trend Compliance % Change from Last
Period Previous Average Selected Dates Average Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
VOLUME 1-Feb-16 2-Feb-16 3-Feb-16 4-Feb-16 5-Feb-16 6-Feb-16 7-Feb-161 Offered Calls (calls) Sum 30456 33% -1% 40,956 40,415 70,471 61,446 50,531 46,100 42,996 7,336 4,0262 Handled Calls (calls) Sum 30372 32% -1% 40,777 40,241 70,211 61,169 50,315 45,884 42,789 7,312 4,0083 Handled Calls (Inbound) (calls) Sum 23127 38% -2% 32,367 31,828 55,489 48,988 40,057 35,842 33,385 5,889 3,1494 Transferred Calls (calls) Sum 1798 214% -5% 5,928 5,653 10,499 8,965 7,085 6,274 5,833 629 2855 Handled Calls (Outbound) (calls) Sum 3785 61% -2% 6,202 6,087 11,165 8,687 7,245 7,138 6,783 992 6016 Handled Calls (Internal) (calls) Sum 486 100% -5% 1,019 970 1,853 1,525 1,249 1,101 957 79 267 Handled Calls (Unknown) (calls) Sum 559 143% 14% 1,188 1,355 1,704 1,969 1,764 1,803 1,664 352 2328 Abandoned Calls (calls) Sum 56 210% -3% 179 174 260 277 216 216 207 24 189 Total Handle Time (hours) Sum 2730.0 103% -3% 5,715.0 5,533.9 10,371.7 8,685.1 6,857.4 6,075.2 5,687.5 703.5 357.310 Total Handle Time (Inbound) (hours) Sum 2455.1 103% -3% 5,127.8 4,973.7 9,157.9 7,779.9 6,235.4 5,482.3 5,131.1 683.3 345.911 Total Engagement Time (hours) Sum 1531.0 96% -3% 3,107.7 2,999.0 5,286.4 4,619.9 3,790.9 3,381.7 3,158.8 496.5 258.812 Total Hold Time (hours) Sum 464.8 125% -2% 1,063.2 1,046.6 2,069 1,655 1,271 1,128 1,068 92 4213 Total Wrap Time (hours) Sum 459.4 102% -3% 956.9 928.1 1,802 1,505 1,174 972 904 95 4514 Total Handle Time (Outbound) (hours) Sum 600.0 -29% -4% 448.3 428.6 915.2 633.8 489.4 481.3 451.1 18.6 10.9
PRODUCTIVITY15 Occupancy Rate (percentage) Average 85% -11% -6% 80% 75% 92 % 83 % 72 % 67 % 65 % 52 % 35 %16 Shrinkage (percentage) Average 15% -100% 0% 0%17 Sign In Percentage (percentage) Average 100% -5% -1% 96% 95% 95 % 94 % 96 % 96 % 96 % 96 % 98 %18 Handled Calls per CSR (calls / CSR) Sum 8.8 157% -1% 22.9 22.6 44.7 39.9 32.9 30.2 29.8 28.7 18.219 Handled Calls per CSR (Inbound) (calls / CSR) Sum 7.12 154% -2% 18.4 18.1 35.9 33.0 27.9 25.1 24.6 25.6 15.820 Handled Calls per CSR (Outbound) (calls / CSR) Sum 1.674 107% -2% 3.5 3.5 7.4 6.1 5.2 5.2 5.2 4.2 3.321 Handled Calls per Scheduled Hour (calls / h) Average 7.2 -21% -5% 6.0 5.7 6.4 6.0 5.5 5.2 5.1 5.2 3.922 Handled Calls per Scheduled Hour (Inbound) (calls / h) Average 5.48 -18% -6% 4.7 4.5 5.1 4.8 4.4 4.1 4.0 4.2 3.023 Handled Calls per Scheduled Hour (Outbound) (calls / h) Average 1.34 -36% -6% 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.624 Average Handle Time (AHT) (seconds / call) Average 388.3 27% -2% 505 495 532 511 491 477 479 346 32125 Average Handle Time (AHT Inbound) (seconds / call) Average 459 23% -1% 570 563 594 572 560 551 553 418 39526 Average Engagement Time (seconds / call) Average 286 19% -2% 346 339 343 340 341 340 341 303 29627 Average Hold Time (seconds / call) Average 87 36% 0% 118 118 134 122 114 113 115 56 4828 Average Wrap Time (seconds / call) Average 86 22% -1% 106 105 117 111 105 98 97 58 5229 Average Handle Time (AHT Outbound) (seconds / call) Average 155 64% -3% 260 253 295 263 243 243 239 68 65
CUSTOMER SERVICE30 Abandoned Calls Rate (percentage) Average 2% -74% 0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.6 % 0.6 % 0.4 % 0.6 %
QUALITY31 Transfer Rate (percentage) Average 9% 91% -3% 18% 18% 19 % 18 % 18 % 18 % 17 % 11 % 9 %32 Average Agent Score (percentage) Average 92% -1% 0% 91% 91% 91 % 92 % 92 % 90 % 91 % 91 % 95 %33 Schedule Adherence (percentage) Average 91% -2% -1% 90% 90% 89 % 89 % 90 % 90 % 90 % 93 % 95 %
Call Center Management Dashboard
Metric Selected DatesTarget Trend Selected Dates vs. Previous Averages
Daily View
Dates
2/1/2016
2/2/2016
2/3/2016
2/4/2016
2/5/2016
2/6/2016
2/7/2016
Call Type
Inbound
Internal
Outbound
Unknown
Call Center
_Rhq
Corona
Fulton
Lowry
CSR Location
Home
Office
Team
Abigail Pulido
Adrian Hutt
Andrea Lopez
Annette Bronson
Antoine Jacobs
April Hale
Brando Campos
Ops Manager
Alice Holmes
Cindy Rupert
Dylan Deshazier
Heather Avila
Kathleen Stone
Keith Dineen
Kenneth Bailey
Employee Name
Aaja Austin
Aarika Scott
Aaron Cayabyab
Aaron Hairston
Abdisamad Hussein
Abraham Leon-Alvarez
Abril Howard
Management Dashboard
ACTIVITY CUBE
I
III
IV
II
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102725
Knowledge Work Factories
Enterprise Level
The Cube “Industrializes” Knowledge Work across the Enterprise
Knowledge Work: Squandered Assets
The business practices and methods – the activities – of knowledge workers represent a form of intangible asset called “competencies.” These knowledge work assets are:
• Highly valuable
• Inconsistent
• Under-productive
The Lab’s Activity Cube increases the consistency and productivity of these assets by enabling application of conventional “shop floor” standardization methods.
The Lab’s Term: “Industrialization of Knowledge Work” (page 26)
Finance
Mfg. Plant Manager
Plant Ops Manager
Production 100Intake Finishing
300
Scheduling
COO Research & Development
Knowledge Work Factories
Manual Labor Plant Equipment Waste, Scrap
Conventional Shop Floor Standardization
Industrial Engineering
Quality Management
Marketing Sales Force
Production 200
Field Sales & Support
Quote-to-Cash
Customer Service
Procure-to-Pay
Contact Centers
Master Data Management
Materials Management
Distribution
Supply Chain Operations
“Upstairs Factories”Plant & Business Level
Knowledge Work
Conventional FactoryPlant Floor Level
Direct Labor
CEO
Business Level
Knowledge WorkIndustrialization®
Understand how two-thirds of knowledge workers’ activities can be “industrialized” to recover the business value lost to Virtuous Waste
26
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102727
Perception: Non-Routine WorkCommon perception holds that Knowledge Workers “solve non-routine problems… that require creative thinking.1”
Reality: Repetitious WorkHowever, observations show that two-thirds of Knowledge Workers’ tasks are mundane and repetitious 2,3 – ideal for “industrialization.”
Penalty: Virtuous WasteWithout industrialization, knowledge workers spend 25-40% of their time on avoidable activity – Virtuous Waste. (page 5)
Knowledge Work Tasks2,3
33%non-routine
67%similar,repetitive
Most Knowledge Work Activities (67%) Can Be “Industrialized”
Knowledge Work: Intangible Assets
Knowledge work activities (or competencies) are valuable, overlooked and under-productive assets. This under-productivity erodes 20% of earnings3 (page 30).
Industrialization can recoup these lost earnings.
“Knowledge Work Industrialization”
The Lab’s term for the centralized design and management of work activities to achieve:
• Simplification
• Standardization
• Design for automation
“Our group’s work is unique.”
1 W. Reinhardt, B. Schmidt, P. Sloep and H. Drachsler, “Knowledge Worker Roles and Actions—Results of Two Empirical Studies,” Knowledge and Process Management, 18 (2011): pp 150–174.
2 Ian Brinkley, et al., Knowledge Workers and Knowledge Work (London: The Work Foundation, 2009), p 52.
3 The Lab’s analysis & experience.
“My job is so different every day.”
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102728
Intangible Assets: Dominant Value, Under-Productive Spending
Intangible Assets Now Dominate S&P Market Value
Business Spending on Intangible Assets: Under-Productive
Intangible Assets: High Spend, Low Return
U.S. business spends heavily on its intangible assets (or, intangible capital) – more than any other economy. Historically, this spending increased productivity.3
Labor productivity growth remains slow.
Knowledge workers have grown to represent the majority of employees in advanced economies like the U.S.
S&P Market Value1
1975 vs. 2015U.S. Five Year Cumulative Gains2,3,4
Y.E. 2010
19750%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2015
Intangible Assets
Tangible Assets
Intangible Assets
Tangible Assets
40%
16%
12%
8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Intangible Asset Growth
S&P 500 Total Return
GDP Growth (Nominal)
Labor Productivity
Growth
1 Annual Study of Intangible Market Value, 2015, Ocean Tomo, LLC.
2 K.A. Hassett, R.J. Shapiro, “What Ideas Are Worth: The Value of Intellectual Capital and Intangible Assets in the American Economy,” Sonecon, White Paper, 2011.
3 C. Corrado, J. Haskel, C. Jona-Lasinio, M. Iommi, “Intangible Capital in Advanced Economies: Measurement Methods and Comparative Results,” Institute for the Study of Labor, July 2012.
4 The Lab’s analysis.
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102729
Knowledge Work “Competencies”: The Majority of Intangible Assets
Intangible Assets by Category: U.S. Publicly Traded Companies1 Intellectual Property: The Misinterpretation
Most executives believe that patents, trademarks, copyrights and goodwill represent the entirety of intangible assets.
But knowledge work activities comprise over 70%.
Knowledge Work: The “Expense Stigma”
Accounting rules require that valuable knowledge work competencies be recorded as expenses.
Managers view expenses as targets for reduction, not as “assets” needing investment for productivity improvement – industrialization.
That’s why knowledge work organizations are routinely starved for productivity management and investment.
$10.6TCompetencies
2 Types2
$3.9TIntellectual Property• Patents
• Trademarks
• Copyrights73%
27%
1 K.A. Hassett, R.J. Shapiro, Ibid.2 C. Corrado, et al., Ibid.
Legend
Assets on the Balance Sheet
Expenses on the Income Statement
General Competencies• Databases
• Information
• R&D
Firm-Specific Competencies• Knowledge
• Practices of:– Managers– Workers
1 2
(U.S. Total = $14.5 Trillion, 2010)
Knowledge Work Competencies (Activities)
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102730
Under-Productive Intangible Assets = Costly Virtuous Waste
Virtuous Waste Reduction: No Technology Needed
• Virtuous Waste costs are “paid” from earnings already generated by the business.
• Reductions in Virtuous Waste costs drop straight to the bottom line – as earnings.
• 75% of Virtuous Waste costs can be eliminated without technology (page 10).
• Improvements that reduce Virtuous Waste can be implemented in six months or less.
1 Excludes service workers (e.g. food, retail, hospitality)
2 Based on The Lab’s experience, analysis and benchmarks
3 $60K annual compensation & benefits4 Based on Fortune 500 P/E of 16;
Source: Fortune Magazine
Measurement Imbalance
Customer Over-Service
55% (1.65M)
20% (0.60M)
15% (0.45M)
10% (0.30M)
Business Process Inefficiency
Under-Managed Capacity
Knowledge Work, Virtuous Waste & The Fortune 500
Virtuous Waste Is Concentrated in Knowledge Work Business Processes
(3 million employees = 100%)
Virtuous Waste Squanders $3 Trillion in Shareholder Value
• 10 million1,2 total knowledge workers are employed in the Fortune 500
• 30 percent of their work activities are avoidable Virtuous Waste
• 3 million3 full-time equivalent workers perform avoidable Virtuous Waste activities
• $180 billion3 is spent on compensation to these Virtuous Waste workers
• 20% of earnings are diverted to this Virtuous Waste compensation
• $3 trillion4 in value to shareholders is lost to Virtuous Waste
More than double the combined market value of Apple, Microsoft and Google was lost to Virtuous Waste in the Fortune 500 during 2015.
2 Virtuous Waste Lost Value
AppendixNon-Technology Improvement: Representative examples
of analysis, insights and related improvement barriers
31
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102732
Typical Mismatch of Perceptions: Management vs. Customers
Customer Value Model: Compares Perceptions
Contact Center Example
The Lab’s Customer Value Model (CVM) identifies errors of perception, which produce customer “over-service” or “mis-service.”
Inbound Call Issue
Recent retirees called the ClientCo Contact Center and asked, “When will I receive my first pension check?”
Executives mis-perceived the root cause that generated these retirees’ inbound calls.
“Sooner!”
Customer Needs
Prompt first payment
General information
Courteous service
One-stop shopping
Admin. quality
2.
1.
3.
4.
5.
Management Perceptions
“Sooner!”
ClientCo’s Internal Improvement Team
• ClientCo: “ Retirees want their first check sooner.”
• Purchased a technology upgrade – Cost: $2.7 million– Lead time: 26 months
• The upgrade reduced check issue cycle time by two-thirds.
The Lab’s Customer Value Model (CVM)
• Customer: “ Nobody told me when to expect the first check.”
• ClientCo: “ Retirees never listen. The info is in their pocket folder.”
• Pocket folder – user-unfriendly:
– More than one-inch thick
– 60 loose-leaf pages
• The Lab’s non-technology solution: – Placed Post-it® note on pocket folder – Eliminated 60% of “1st check” inquiries “When?”
Customer Needs
Investment security
Admin. quality
Personalized service
General information
Accessibility
2.
1.
3.
4.
5.
Customer Perceptions
“When?”
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102733
Executive Misbeliefs
During interviews, ClientCo senior executives identified their perceptions of the top 5 purchase-related customer needs.
Result: Mis-perceived needs, priorities and satisfaction scores (%).
Improvement Strategy
Executives directed ClientCo’s marketing group to develop a new strategic plan to increase ad revenue, targeting what ClientCo mis-perceives to be their customers’ top three needs.
Market-Level Example (Part I of II): Executive Misperceptions
LEGEND
Indicates a mis-match between management and customer perception.
Indicates a match between management and customer perception.
Indicates a “blind spot” based on ClientCo internal perception of customer needs.
Indicates a “purchase need” targeted as a “high priority” by ClientCo strategy.
Customer Value Model Analysis
ClientCo Perceptions Senior Executives’ Misbeliefs
3 “New” Priorities Already Over-Served
Customer Perceptions “True” Purchase Needs, Priorities
* Management perception of customers’ satisfaction
Customer Needs & Priorities
Quality (of print) . . . . 83%*
Cost/Price . . . . . . . . . 65%
Timeliness . . . . . . . . . N/A
ROI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80%
Customer Service . . . . 74%
2.
1.
3.
4.
5.
Amount of response advertising receives . . . . . . . . 63%
Quality (of advertising operations) . . . . . . . . . . 82%
Amount spent vs. response received (ROI) . . . . 53%
Efficiency in delivering demographic targets . . . . . . 86%
Ability to choose ad position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51%
ClientCo’s Response New, Misdirected Sales Strategy
6. Easy to do business with . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88%
7. Rep’s ability to act as a partner to my business . . . . 93%
11. Portfolio of products & multimedia packages . . . . 110%
New Sales Strategy:
Increasing Ad Sales
1
4
5
A
B
ClientCo’s executive view is poorly aligned with its customers’ purchase priorities...
ClientCo created a “new” strategy for improvement. But it only “doubles down” on 3 existing mis-perceptions (next page).
... and its customers’ perceptions of satisfaction levels (%).
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102734
LEGEND
Indicates a mis-match between management and customer perception.
Indicates a match between management and customer perception.
Indicates a “blind spot” based on ClientCo internal perception of customer needs.
Indicates a high-priority “purchase attribute” targeted by ClientCo strategy.
Market-Level Example (Part II of II): Mis-Perceived Market Segments
Customer Perceptions of ClientCo Performance Levels:
Under-Served (-15% or more)
Approximate parity/ minor shortfall (0 – 15%)
Over-Served (+5% or more)
Customers’ Purchase Criteria
1 Amount of response advertising receives
2. Quality of advertising environment
3. Amount spent vs. response received (ROI)
4 Efficiency in delivering demographic targets
5 Ability to choose ad position
6. Easy to do business with
7. Rep’s ability to act as a partner to my business
8. Ability to target by geography
9. Sheer size of overall audience reached
10. Lowest out-of-pocket cost
11. Portfolio of products & multimedia packages
Clie
ntCo
Und
er-S
erve
sCl
ient
Co O
ver-
Serv
es
-37% -51% -37% -35% -26% -37% -47% -18% -44% -46% -30%
-18% -50% 12% 15% 7% +11% -17% -45% 6% +19% -32%
-47% 4% -51% -59% -21% -33% -64% -74% -57% -52% -46%
14% -33% 0% 13% 26% +25% -31% 6% 1% -23% -27%
-49% -32% -51% -64% -37% -67% -58% -54% 12% -63% -53%
12% +33% -50% +5% +7% -19% 10% -36% +1% 4% 13%
7% -28% 8% 7% +7% 2% +8% -31% 1% 0% 4%
4% +100% -35% 14% 13% -51% 9% +20% +20% +6% 10%
+9% 4% -36% -25% 0% +13% +33% +11% 9% 8% N/A
-73% -34% -100% -67% -78% -77% -66% -60% -88% -76% -80%
+10% -63% +22% +6% +36% +300% -37% -37% -37% +99% +16%
ClientCo – Marketplace “Sweet Spot”Top 5 Market Segments; Top 5 Market Criteria
1Dept. Stores
2
Wireless
3Real
Estate
4
Banks
6
Travel
7
Jewelry
8National
Auto
9
Fashion
10Home
Furnishings
5
Discounters
SegmentAverage(1-10)
Customer Value Model Analysis (Cont.)
1
4
5
To succeed, ClientCo must redirect efforts to these under-served customer priorities
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102735
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Decision Point: Yes/No
Never sentWrong locationLost in transit
Delayed
Wrong dataExcess dataMissing dataIncomplete
Over serviceScope error
ReworkOver work
Error correctParallel processing
FrequencyDuration
SizeComplexityVariance
Underinvestment
Capacity issue
Out of dateNot availableIncomplete
Lack of detail
Operator skillBacklog
Capacity issue
No planBacklog
Capacity issue
Operator skillBacklog
Capacity issue
No metricsOperator skill
BacklogCapacity issue
No auditOperator skill
BacklogCapacity issue
Internal errorLow quality
Operator skillBacklog
Capacity issue
Not Sent
TransitArrive Good
Order
Not Arrive NIGO
Routine
Not Routine
Non-Eliminable
Eliminable
Non-Reducible
Reducible
Meet orExceed Plan
Below Plan
Complete
Incomplete
Instructions
NoInstructions
RelevantInstructions
IrrelevantInstructions
Processable
NotProcessable
ProcessPlan
No ProcessPlan
PlanFollowed
Plan NotFollowed
PassReview
Not PassReview
Transit
INBOUND
35%of Improvements
OUTBOUND
10%of Improvements
“IN SHOP”
The KnowledgeWork Factory
55%of Improvements
ReceiveTransit TransitPerform the Work & Optimize ProcessesEvaluate, Eliminate & Redesign the Work
YES
NO
YES
NO
Causes: Top Four(page 37)
The Lab’s Periodic Table of Business Improvements...
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.16102736
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Decision Point: Yes/No
Never sentWrong locationLost in transit
Delayed
Wrong dataExcess dataMissing dataIncomplete
Over serviceScope error
ReworkOver work
Error correctParallel processing
FrequencyDuration
SizeComplexityVariance
Underinvestment
Capacity issue
Out of dateNot availableIncomplete
Lack of detail
Operator skillBacklog
Capacity issue
No planBacklog
Capacity issue
Operator skillBacklog
Capacity issue
No metricsOperator skill
BacklogCapacity issue
No auditOperator skill
BacklogCapacity issue
Internal errorLow quality
Operator skillBacklog
Capacity issue
Not Sent
TransitArrive Good
Order
Not Arrive NIGO
Routine
Not Routine
Non-Eliminable
Eliminable
Non-Reducible
Reducible
Meet orExceed Plan
Below Plan
Complete
Incomplete
Instructions
NoInstructions
RelevantInstructions
IrrelevantInstructions
Processable
NotProcessable
ProcessPlan
No ProcessPlan
PlanFollowed
Plan NotFollowed
PassReview
Not PassReview
Transit
INBOUND
35%of Improvements
OUTBOUND
10%of Improvements
“IN SHOP”
The KnowledgeWork Factory
55%of Improvements
ReceiveTransit TransitPerform the Work & Optimize ProcessesEvaluate, Eliminate & Redesign the Work
YES
NO
YES
NO
Causes: Top Four(page 37)
...Helps Target Predictable Causes & Effects
© Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc. • All Rights Reserved IO.161027
Improvement Documentation, Root Causes & Effects
A Typical Improvement: DocumentationMethodology: Failure Mode & Effects Analysis (FMEA)
Root Causes & EffectsAverages for All Improvements (Knowledge Work)
I.270
Half of import fees for Accounts Payablegroups have errors; 70% have exceptionsthat require research and resubmission.Poor documentation and errors causerework that consumes 35% of staff time.
Mode:
Effect:
Cause:
NIGOa: Wrong Data
a NIGO = Not in Good Order
50% wrong data70% exception review
4-5 days;35% of staff time
ProcessingDelay
Mandatory fields not identified/enforcedAmbiguous requirements for certain fields
2
CauseThe root cause of the failure
EffectThe adverse consequence of the failure
a. Direct effect of the failureon the work flow
b. Frequency and severityof the effect
2
1
1
95%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
All Others
Non-Routine
No Instructions
No Process Plan
Not in Good OrderNIGO
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
All Others
Reduced Throughput
Poor Customer Service
Unbalanced Work
Processing Delay
Rework 32%
21%
18%
12%
12%
5%
25%
10%
25%
20%
20% 90%
1 Causes: Top FourTotal = 100%
2 Effects: Top FiveTotal = 100%
“Class I” meansNon-Technology
(page 10)
ImprovementNumber
37
This content may not be copied, distributed, republished, uploaded, posted or transmitted in any way without the prior written consent of Lab Consulting Partnership, Inc.