manzana case assignment
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Manzana Case Assignment](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/54669ebbb4af9f01758b46c4/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Manzana Case AssignmentGuruprakash Thirumalaisamy (9310) Dinesh Tawker Venkatesan (0801)Praveenkumar Kanagaraj (5140) Jagadeesh Chidambaram Kumar (8143)
I. PROBLEM DEFINITION :
The Fruitvale branch of the Manzana Insurance Company is at the bottom of the list in the
performance figures on Property Insurance for the second quarter and its high turnaround time of
6 days resulting in the loss of policy renewals is playing a big part in it. Turnaround time is the
time it takes for the company to complete an Insurance policy and send the proposal to agents.
The reduction of turnaround time is very important as a high turnaround time will result in loss
of renewals, loss of agents and customers thereby loss of business. The renewal loss rate is 47%
and is very high when compared to that of Golden Gate Insurance Company’s 15%. As a result,
a lot of agents are suggesting Golden Gate’s Insurance to the customers. This has resulted in loss
of market shares to Golden Gate. This high turnaround time and high renewal loss rate seems to
be due to unbalanced work power as a staff member’s workload might be stretched to the limit in
one week and a week later he may be idle. This variation in the workload and also in the priority
of carrying out processes like RUN, RERUN, RAP and RAIN is resulting in high turnaround
time as one cannot follow a standard process flow. For example, most underwriters’ process
RUNs and RAPs first before working on RERUNs and RAINs eventhough Company policy was
to use a first-in-first-out (FIFO) system. This has resulted in high turnaround time for renewals
resulting loss of renewal policies. This turnaround time can be reduced by eliminating the
variations in the workload and priority in carrying out the processes. It would be prudent to use
RUN-1, RERUN-1, RAIN-2 and RAP-3, priority system in carrying out the processes as the
turnaround time reduces to less than 1 day (0.62 days). The appendices attached shows how this
priority system and uniform workload reduces the high turnaround time.
![Page 2: Manzana Case Assignment](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/54669ebbb4af9f01758b46c4/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
II. ANALYSIS :
The model was developed using Extend and was analysed. Based on the analysis the results were
tabulated and the important objective of reducing the TAT was achieved. Different scenarios
were envisaged and their utilization and TAT was recored.
The base case model returned a result of TAT as 5.78 days with a seed value of 3439339. The
bottleneck was the Underwriting process. In spite of using different queing principles, the TAT
was still above the required target of 1 day (competetior’s promise) so extra underwriting team
was added so that the TAT reduced to 0.90 for the optimal case.
The variation in the priority of carrying out processes and workload is the primary cause for the
high turnaround time which is shown by loss in renewal rate of policies and market shares.
Hence, turnaround time is the most important factor which has to be addressed in order to make
profit. The turnaround time can be reduced by eliminating the variations in the process priority.
After carrying out simulations, we suggest that the processes should be carried out in the
following priority rule order: RUN-1, RERUN-1, RAIN-2 and RAP-3. In addition to this one
worker each from Rating and Policy writing team are removed as they are overstaffed which can
be found from the appendix 2 and an extra Underwriting team is placed for territory three. This
speeds up the process and it results in the reduction of turnaround time to about 0.9 days. This
prioritization of processes and work force distribution is very important as it affects the
turnaround time considerably. For example, a FIFO priority system yields a turnaround time of 1
day. After considering various combinations of process prioritization, the above said
combination yields the lowest turnaround time. From the analysis it is revealed that the
bottleneck operation is the Underwriting process. Another interesting fact is that if the workers
2
![Page 3: Manzana Case Assignment](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/54669ebbb4af9f01758b46c4/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
are removed from Rating and Policy writing department and an extra Underwriting team is added
to the base case the turnaround time gets reduced from 6 days to about 1.4 days.
III. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS :
To decrease the Turn Around Time (TAT ~ 6 days) and to decrease the renewal loss rate (~47%), we
make the following recommendations to improve the present system.
1. The existing priority rule in which the policy is processed in the system should be changed to
decrease the total turnaround time (TAT) and reduce the Renewal loss rate. We have decided to
use the following priority rule RUN – 1, RERUN – 1, RAIN – 2, RAP – 3 which has decreased
the turnaround time to 0.90 days. Various other combinations of priority rule were simulated and
it was found that the best possible priority rule was the above said.
2. The work force distribution in the system should be balanced at different process to improve the
efficiency of operations at each process. We have decided to remove one manpower from Policy
writing process and one from Rating, train them in Underwriting process and dedicate them as a
new Underwriting team along with exisiting team in territory 3 to eliminate the backlog in the
process.
3. The renewal loss rate was a direct consequence of long TAT. The decrease in TAT will result in
drastic reduction of renewal loss rate, since all the proposals are processed within a day and final
policy/quote was sent to the agent.
4. The renewals lost(942) presented an oppurtunity of generating revenue worth $ 5,845(in
thousands of dollars), of which the agents commission amounted to $ 409(in thousands of
dollars),which means the company would have posted a profit of $5435(in thousands of dollars).
3
![Page 4: Manzana Case Assignment](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/54669ebbb4af9f01758b46c4/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
With no change in workforce
With Extra Underwriting Team
4
![Page 5: Manzana Case Assignment](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/54669ebbb4af9f01758b46c4/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Utilizations Base Case FIFO Optimal FIFO OptimalBase Case
1 Underwriting 1 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.49 0.49 0.492 Underwriting 2 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.883 Underwriting 3 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.754 Rating 5 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.975 Rating 4 0.86 0.94 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.886 Rating 6 0.90 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.917 Distribution 2 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.968 Distribution 1 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.979 Distribution 3 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
10 Rating 3 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.9411 Distribution 4 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.9312 Rating 7 0.95 0.87 0.93 0.88 0.94 0.9513 New Underwriting NA NA NA 0.51 0.51 0.5014 Rating 2 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.9715 Rating 1 0.96 0.93 0.87 0.94 0.88 0.9616 Writing 1 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.9217 Writing 2 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.8918 Writing 3 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.8519 Writing 4 0.79 0.78 0.79 0.79 0.80 0.79
TAT 5.78 4.07 3.38 0.97 0.90 1.32
units in Days Appendix 2
5