DMAIC

Project Name : CSAT Improvement

Project Owner : Sapna Gangwar

1 10/10/20
 Project Progress Overview Overview

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

Tollgates:
Planned April/08/2014 April/28/2014 May/20/2014 July/07/2014 July/28/2014

Completed April/08/2014 April/28/2014 May/20/2014 July/10/2014 July/28/2014

M1. CTQ Characteristics&
Steps: D1. Map Project
D2. Approve Project Standards
M2. Measurement System
Analysis
M3. Data Collection
Key Deliverables:
• List of Customer(s) and • QFD / CTQ Tree
Project CTQs • Operational definition,
• Team Charter Specification limits,
• High Level Process Map target, defect definition
(COPIS) for Project Y(s)
• CAP Plan (Optional) • Data Collection Plan
• Preliminary CBA, if • Measurement System
applicable Analysis
A1. Baseline Process
A2. Performance
Objective
A3. Identify Drivers of
Variation
• Baseline of Current
Process Performance
• Normality Test
• Statistical Goal
Statement for Project
• List of Statistically
Significant Xs
I1. Screen for Vital Xs C1. MSA on Xs
I2. Screen for vital Xs C2. Improved Process Capability
I3. Define Improved C3. Establish Control Plan
Process
• List of Vital Few Xs • MSA Results on Xs
• Transfer Function(s) • Post Improvement
• Optimal Settings for Capability
Xs • Statistical Confirmation
• Confirmation of Improvements
Runs/Results • Process Control Plan
• Tolerances on Vital • Process Owner Signoff
Few Xs • Final CBA, if applicable

Tools:  Survey  Data Collection Plan  Basic Statistics  DOE  Continuous Gauge R&R
 Focus Groups  Continuous Gage R&R  Histogram  Pugh Matrix  Discrete Gauge R&R
 Interviews  Attribute Gage R&R  Dot Plots  New Process Mapping  Control Charts
 ARMI, Stakeholder  Sample Size Calculator  Box and Whisker Plots  FMEA on new process  Hypothesis Testing
Analysis  Other ______________  Run Charts  Process Modeling /  CAP Plan
 In/Out of Frame  Normality Testing Simulation  Control Plan
 Threat vs. Opportunity  Continuous/Discrete Zst, Zlt  Other ______________  Other ______________
Matrix  Benchmarking
 Other ______________  Detailed Process Mapping
 Moments of Truth
 Nature of Work
 Flow of Work
 Fishbone
 Hypothesis Testing
 Regression Analysis
 Other ______________

2 10/10/20
 Define

1. Map the Project

2. Project Charter
3. Terms and Acronyms Used
4. ARMI & Communication Plan
5. COPIS
6. Process Map

3 10/10/20
 Map the Project Define

Key Output Characteristics

Customer Sample Comments
Important to Customer (CTQ's)

Alicia Timwood The monthly C-SAT target for the LOB-TechSupport is 80% and the process has CTQ: Improve C-SAT

Sr. V.P. not been meeting this target for almost 6 months. Subscription renewals have Dependent CTQ: Subscription

ABC Pvt. Ltd. reduced from 98% to 18%. Renewals

Gaurav Rana We have had to bear 52% loss in revenue over Q3 (July, 2013-September, Revenue

Head of Technologies 2013) because of the penalties incurred, due to C-SAT not meeting target & loss CTQ: Improve C-SAT

XYZ in profit due to reduced Subscription Renewals. Dependent CTQ: Subscription

Renewals

Robin Tandon The call backs have increased by 12%. The process’s scope of support is being Reduce Number of Call Back

Sr. Manager Operations adhered. Review Process’s Scope of Support

XYZ

Customer Verbatim I wouldn’t renew subscription this time, would switch to a good tech-support Efficient Tech Support

(Region 1 & Region 2) provider.

I want my machine working now, not when 2nd Line TechSupport would call

back.
4 10/10/20
 Project Charter Define

Business Case: In Scope:

XYZ is a leading cost effective technical solutions provider to
businesses across the globe, operating from Delhi & NCR.
ABC Pvt. Ltd. collaborates with XYZ for providing technical support
(TechSupport) to its customers.
Over the last six months XYZ has not been able to meet the C-
SAT targets for ‘TechSupport’ defined by ABC Pvt. Ltd. and has
had to bear penalties for the same, in form of loss in revenue.
XYZ– Process: Inbound Services – LOB: TechSupport – Improve
C-SAT to ensure continuous Subscription Renewals and to
Reduce Loss of Revenue.
Out of Scope:
TechLane – Process: Inbound Services – All other LOBs:
Collections, Lead Generation and Billing.

High Level Project Plan

.
Target Date Actual Date
Start Date March 24, 2014 March 24, 2014
Problem Statement: Define April 8, 2014 April 8, 2014
On the basis of the C-SAT survey response data for the last three
Measure April 28, 2014 April 28, 2014
months i.e. from Aug 1, 2013 – Oct 31, 2013, it has been identified
that the C-SAT is at 26.484% as against target of 80%. Analyze May 20, 2014 May 20, 2014

Improve July 7, 2014 July 10, 2014

If the target as defined for C-SAT ≥ 80%, is not met, the loss in
revenue may rise from 480K US$ to 2880K US$ over the next 6 Control July 28, 2014 July 28, 2014
months and ABC Pvt. Ltd. may take business back from XYZ in the
next 6 months as per SLA.

Goal Statement:
To improve C-SAT for the LOB beyond 36%, by the end of July,
2014.

5 10/10/20
 Terms and Acronyms Used Define
Definitions:

Indicators Definition

C-SAT Customer Satisfaction

SLA Service Level Agreement

TSO Technical Support Officer (Frontline)

2nd Line TS/O 2nd Level - Technical Support /Officer

M.O.M. Minutes of Meeting

LOB Line of Business

CBA Cost Benefit Analysis

Cust Id Customer Id

TL/QA Team Leader/Quality Auditor

DSAT Dissatisfaction

FCR First Call Resolution

VOF Voice of the Floor

KB Knowledge Database

6 10/10/20
 ARMI Define

Key Stakeholders Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

Stakeholder & Sponsor : Gaurav Rana, Head of Technologies I I I I I

Process Champion : Robin Tandon, Sr. Manager Operations A M I M I&A
Master Black Belt : Sunil Kumar, Six Sigma SME I I I&M I&M I
Black Belt (Captain) : Sapna Gangwar, Six Sigma Trainee M&R M&R M&R M&R M&R
Green Belt : Tanuja Verma, Six Sigma Trained M M&R M&R M M
Resources : Rishi Gupta, Manager MIS R R R R R
Other Interested Parties: Manager HR & Training, Manager Quality,
Manager IT I M I

When Populating the Stakeholder, consider the ARMI:

• A= Approver of team decisions
• R= Resource or subject matter expert (ad hoc)
• M= Member of team
• I= Interested Party who will need to be kept informed

7 10/10/20
 Communication Plan Define

Message Audience Media Who When

Key Stakeholders,
Project Charter Meeting & Email (M.O.M.) Project Captain Start date
Team Members
Interested Parties, Project Captain/Agreed
Project Progress Emails Twice a week
Team Members Nominee
Official Reviews & Emails
Tollgate Reviews Approvers Project Captain End of each phase
(M.O.M.)
All Client Services, Key Emails, Trainings, Project Captain/Agreed
Process Changes As and when discovered
Stakeholders, Interested Parties Posters etc. Nominee
Key Stakeholders, Interested
CBA Meeting & Email (M.O.M.) Project Captain Pre - & Post - Project
Parties

8 10/10/20
RASIC Define

9 10/10/20
RASIC Define

10 10/10/20
 COPIS Define
1. WHO are your 2. WHAT does the 3. What STEPS are 4. What is 5. Who
primary customer Included in the Process provided to PROVIDES
customers? receive? (Think today? (high level) START the the input?
(From Step A) of their CTQ’s) process?
Customer Output Process Input Supplier
(Who) (Nouns) (Verbs) (Nouns) (Who)

Customer Resolved Technical Customer calls toll Toll Free No. XYZ
registered with Issues (Software) free no. & Dialler &
ABC Pvt. Ltd. ABC Pvt. Ltd.

Subscriptions Customer Id &

Call answered?
CRM
Assisted
Management Details verified? Knowledge Base
of Hardware Issues Emulator
&
Call is probed Remote Access Tool

Issue
Resolved?

Case
Documentation
completed

Call Ends
11 10/10/20
 Process Map: TechSupport Define
Registered Customer is
Start provided with Customer
Id & Toll-Free No.
CRM sends survey link to Customer, after 24 hours for each interaction.

Issue is confirmed & probed

Call connected to Customer Dials Toll
Seek Customer’s
IVR Free No.
permission
Yes Is remote
access
Customer chooses Call abandoned
required?
option 2 for after long wait Permission
in queue Frequency of
TechSupport granted?
Updation
No
Yes
Escalation TSO refers to emulators
Call gets routed Update Call
Matrix and/or knowledge database
to queue Driver &
No Modification and guides customer
Case Status

No Time slots confirmed No

Is the call Is the issue
for call back by 2nd
answered? resolved?
Line TSO
Caller’s Name
Yes End
documented & Yes
asked to call back
TSO takes Cust Id Complete Case
& accesses details Long Data Raise Call back
No Documentation & Update
Verification request in CRM
On CRM
D Process
Call Driver
Is the
Yes
verification
CRM Incident
Details Verified: complete?
Ownership Choose correct Case status.
A/c holder’s name B Provide reference id to
Password on a/c
C customer
Registered
No
Is the email address
verification and/or Contact
End
complete? No. Is
confirmed

Yes A
12 10/10/20
 Process Map: TechSupport Define
Call Drop
Call Abandoned

If reported by
If the Call Drops at If the Call Drops at Customer
STAGE: A Or B STAGE: C Or D

TSO updates VOF &

TSO updates CRM & TSO updates VOF &
escalates incident to IT
escalates incident to escalates incident to IT
TL

TL logs Call back request in End

CRM & assigns to queue for End
2nd Line TS

End

13 10/10/20
 Measure

1. Data Collection Plan

2. Measurement System Analysis
3. Process Capability

14 10/10/20
 Data Collection Plan Measure

Y Operational Defect Performance Specification Opportunity

Definition Definition Standard Limit

C-SAT Count of survey responses C-SAT Score < ≥ 80% LSL=80% Monthly – All C-SAT surveys for which we have
with C-SAT score ≥ 80% 80% received a response.
upon count of total survey
responses.

Mode of collecting Data

If New
Existing
Decimal Data Base when data Plan start
Data or New
Y Formula Unit to be Container base date for DCP
Type database
Used would be
ready.
C-SAT (Count of survey responses with Discrete % 3 MS Excel Existing NA 01-08-2013
score ≥ 80% / Count of total survey Spreadsheet – 31-10-
responses) *100 Shared Drive 2013

Equipment Equipment Any

Operator
Used for Calibration Responsibility Training
Information
measurement Information need

MS Excel MS Excel Project Captain No MIS Team

Spreadsheet Spreadsheet
Formulae Formulae

C-SAT C-SAT
Response Response
Reader Reader
15 10/10/20
 Measurement System Analysis Measure

• Random samples chosen from the data and were cross-checked with scores assigned by the
Manager MIS (Standard), for two MIS Team Members (Appraiser).
• Mutual agreement between Appraisers is at 0.95249 & that between Appraisers and Standard is
0.96437.
• Conclusion: Measurement System is excellent.

16 10/10/20
 DPMO Measure

Category Value

Defective Samples 161

(August 1, 2013 – October 31, 2013)
Total Opportunities 219
(August 1, 2013 – October 31, 2013)
DPO 0.735159817
(Defect Per Opportunity = Defective Samples/Total Opportunities)
DPMO 735159.817
(Defect Per Million Opportunity = DPO * 106)

• The Process Z value (Sigma Level) is at -0.6285, which is very poor.

Data for Measure

17 10/10/20
 Process Status Measure

• The overall CSAT is at 26%, which is less than the target of 80%.
• The plot depicts that the percentage defective is highest for the month of October, as 100% of
the data has CSAT score of <80%, as a result CSAT is at 0%.
• The percentage defective is least for the month of August & CSAT is at 55%.

Baselining
• The improvement in CSAT would be identified by
increase in the CI beyond 0.328503 or 32.8503%.

18 10/10/20
 Analyse

1. DCP for Potential Xs

2. Identify Potential Xs
3. DCP for Potential Xs
4. Basic Analysis for Project Y
5. Checking for Impact of ...... on Y
6. Hypothesis Summary
7. MSA results of Impacting Factors

19 10/10/20
 Identify Potential Xs – from Customer’s Verbatim Analyse
Customer's Verbatim/Reason for CSAT being → No Yes
Had to wait for call back 70
Dissatisfied with Data Verification 32 9
Called more than once to get connected to a representative 27
No call back received 24
Representative asked to contact 3rd party vendor 13
Reference no. not provided 12
Representative placed call on hold for long 11 2
Call dropped while talking to a representative 8
Representative was unprofessional 6
IVR didn't respond to option chosen 2
Call back received as was committed 22
Call got connected in less than 30 seconds 10
Issue resolved on the same call 31
Total Count 205 74

Analysis of Customer’s Verbatim

Reason for Dissatisfaction Count

Cust had to wait for call back 94
Cust had to call back 65
Unhappy with Data Verification 33
Verbatim Analysis
Referred to 3rd Party 13
Reference Id not provided 5
Long Hold 4
Unprofessional Representative 2
Total Count 216

20 10/10/20
Identify Potential Xs Analyse

Data for Analyse

21 10/10/20
 DCP for Potential Xs Analyse
Outlining the Data Collection Steps for Xs
Potential Cause Type of Data Collection Test to be Used Visualization
Method plot Used
Insufficient Discrete - CSAT Data (Aug-Nov) Chi Square (Cross Pareto Chart
Experience Categorical Tabulation)
Lack of Tenure Discrete - CSAT Data (Aug-Nov) Chi Square (Cross Pareto Chart
Categorical Tabulation)
Over/Under Qualified Discrete – CSAT Data (Aug-Nov) Chi Square (Cross Bar Graph
Categorical Tabulation)
Age Continuous CSAT Data (Aug-Nov) Binary Logistic Regression Bar Graph

Gender Discrete – CSAT Data (Aug-Nov) Chi Square (Cross Bar Graph
Categorical Tabulation)
Marital Status Discrete – CSAT Data (Aug-Nov) Chi Square (Cross Pareto Chart
Categorical Tabulation)
Lack of Process Discrete – Process Knowledge Chi Square (Cross Bar Graph
Knowledge Categorical Scores(Aug-Nov) Tabulation)
Quality Scoring Discrete – CSAT Data (Aug-Nov) Chi Square (Cross Bar Graph
Categorical Tabulation)
Long Hold Continuous CSAT Data (Aug-Nov) Binary Logistic Regression Boxplot

Login Hours Continuous CSAT Data (Aug-Nov) Binary Logistic Regression Boxplot

Average Ringing Time Continuous CSAT Data (Aug-Nov) Binary Logistic Regression Boxplot & Pareto
(IVR) Chart
Shift Discrete – CSAT Data (Aug-Nov) Chi Square (Cross Pareto Chart
Categorical Tabulation)
Team Leader Discrete – CSAT Data (Aug-Nov) Chi Square (Cross Bar Graph
22 10/10/20
 DCP for Potential Xs Analyse
Outlining the Data Collection Steps for Xs
Potential Cause Type of Data Collection Test to be Used Visualization
Method plot Used
FCR Discrete – Categorical CSAT Data Analysis Chi Square (Cross Tabulation) Bar Graph

Delay in Quality Discrete – Categorical CSAT Data (Aug-Nov) Chi Square (Cross Tabulation) Pareto Chart
Feedback
Escalation Matrix Discrete – Categorical CSAT Data Analysis Chi Square (Cross Tabulation) Bar Graph

Scope of Support Discrete – Categorical CSAT Data Analysis Chi Square (Cross Tabulation) Pareto Chart

Data Verification Discrete – Categorical CSAT Data Analysis Chi Square (Cross Tabulation) Pareto Chart

Escalation of Issue Discrete – Categorical CSAT Data Analysis Chi Square (Cross Tabulation) Bar Graph
(by VOF or CRM)
Escalation Handling (by Discrete – Categorical CSAT Data Analysis Chi Square (Cross Tabulation) Pareto Chart
TL or IT)
Navigation Skills Discrete – Categorical CSAT Data Analysis Chi Square (Cross Tabulation) Pareto Chart

Comprehension of KB Discrete – Categorical Survey Chi Square (Cross Tabulation) Bar Graph
& Emulator
IT Issues (Present) Discrete – Categorical CSAT Data Analysis Chi Square (Cross Tabulation) Bar Graph

IT Issues (Resolution) Discrete – Categorical CSAT Data Analysis Chi Square (Cross Tabulation) Bar Graph

Subscription Renewals Discrete – Categorical CSAT Data (Aug-Nov) Chi Square (Cross Tabulation) Bar Graph

23 10/10/20
 Basic Analysis of Project Y - CSAT Analyse

CSAT by ≥80 Or Not or CSAT (Yes Or No), (Aug-Nov, 2013)

CSAT CSAT
% Category
≥80% Yes

<80% No

• The graph depicts the count falling in the target range for CSAT as Yes (≥80%) and
falling out of target range i.e. No (<80%), for the period from August 2013 – November 2013.
• The overall CSAT is at 26.5%.

24 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Experience (Years) on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship
Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations: P-Value <0.05, Null Hypothesis Rejected.

Count of CSAT ‘No’ is highest for the Experience: 0-1 Year.
Count of CSAT ‘Yes’ is lowest for the Experience: 0-1 Year.

Inference : Experience has an impact on CSAT being Yes or

No.
25 10/10/20
 Checking for Impact of Tenure (Years) on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.
Count of CSAT ‘No’ is highest for the Tenure: 0-1 Year.
Count of CSAT ‘Yes’ is near highest for the Tenure: 0-1 Year.

Inference : Tenure does not have an impact on CSAT being Yes or

No.
26 10/10/20
 Checking for Impact of Qualification on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship
Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
Proportion of No is highest for Qualification: Postgraduate.
The variation in Proportions for CSAT Yes & CSAT No is highest
for Qualification: Postgraduate. P-Value <0.05, Null Hypothesis Rejected.

Inference : Qualification has an impact on CSAT being Yes or No.

27 10/10/20
 Checking for Impact of Age (Years) on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
Proportion of No is highest, 92% for Age: 33.
The variation in Proportions for CSAT Yes & CSAT No is
highest for Age: 33.
Proportion of No is 2nd
nd highest, 87% for Age: 25.
P-Value <0.05, Null Hypothesis Rejected.

Inference : Age has an impact on CSAT being Yes or

No.
28 10/10/20
 Checking for Impact of Gender on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Row Value Gender

F Female
Observations:
Proportion of CSAT No is comparable for both Male & M Male
Female.
P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.

Inference : Gender does not have an impact on CSAT being Yes or

No.
29 10/10/20
 Checking for Impact of Marital Status on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Row Value Gender

Observations: M Married
Count of CSAT No is highest for Marital Status: U. U Unmarried
Count of CSAT Yes is lowest for Marital Status: U.

P-Value <0.05, Null Hypothesis Rejected.

Inference : Marital Status has an impact on CSAT being Yes or No.

30 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Process Knowledge on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
Proportion of CSAT No is comparable for all the
categories under Process Knowledge.

P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.

Inference : Process Knowledge does not have an impact on CSAT being Yes or
No.

31 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Quality Scoring on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
Proportion of CSAT No is comparable for all the
categories under Quality Score.
P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.

Inference : Quality Scoring does not have an impact on CSAT being Yes or No.

32 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Hold Time (Minutes) on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.
CSAT No and Yes have similar median values for
Hold Time and similar variability.

Inference : Hold Time does not have an impact on CSAT being Yes or
No.
33 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Hold Time (Minutes) on CSAT Analyse
On the basis of Customer’s Verbatim
Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.

Observations:
CSAT No is higher for Long Hold – No than Long
Hold – Yes.

Inference : Hold Time does not have an impact on CSAT being Yes or
No.

34 10/10/20
 Checking for Impact of Login Hour on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.
CSAT No and Yes have similar median values for
Login Hour and similar variability.

Inference : Login Hour does not have an impact on CSAT being Yes or
No.
35 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Average Ringing Time on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
CSAT Yes has higher variability than CSAT No.
CSAT has been No for Avg. Ringing Time under 69 P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.
seconds.
CSAT has been Yes for Avg. Ringing Time above 69
seconds.

Inference : Average Ringing Time on IVR does not have an impact on

CSAT being Yes or No.
36 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Average Ringing Time on CSAT Analyse

Observations:
CSAT No is higher than CSAT Yes for Avg. Ringing Time (Sec) = 1.
CSAT Yes is high for Avg. Ringing Time (Sec) = 120.

37 10/10/20
 Checking for Impact of Shift on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship
Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.

Observations:
Count of CSAT Yes is the same for the Shifts: Evening &
Night.
Count of CSAT No is comparable for the Shifts: Evening &
Night.

Inference : Shift does not have an impact on CSAT being Yes or No.

38 10/10/20
 Checking for Impact of Team Leader on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
Proportion of CSAT No & CSAT Yes is comparable
for all the Team Leaders.

P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.

Inference : Team Leader does not have an impact on CSAT being Yes or No.

39 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Quality Auditor on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.
Count of CSAT No & CSAT Yes is comparable for
all the Quality Auditors.

Inference : Quality Auditor does not have an impact on CSAT being Yes or
No.
40 10/10/20
 Checking for Impact of FCR on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
Proportion of CSAT No is highest when FCR is No.
Proportion of CSAT Yes is lowest when FCR is No. P-Value <0.05, Null Hypothesis Rejected.

Inference : FCR has an impact on CSAT being Yes or

No.

41 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Quality Feedback on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Data Interpretation
Feedback Provided Row Value
Within TAT Yes

Observations: Outside of TAT No

Count of CSAT Yes & No is high for Feedback
Provided within TAT.
Count of CSAT Yes & No is almost the same for P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.
Feedback Provided outside of TAT.

Inference : Delay in ‘Quality Feedback’ does not have an impact on CSAT being Yes or
No.
42 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Escalation Matrix on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
Proportion of CSAT No is highest for Escalation Data Interpretation
Matrix Yes. Escalation Matrix Row Value
Required Yes
Escalation Matrix required for:
- issues which are out of scope of support for TSO. Not Required No
- cases where customer denies remote access.
- cases where call drops. P-Value <0.05, Null Hypothesis Rejected.
- cases where customer reports about call being abandoned.

Inference : Escalation Matrix has an impact on CSAT being Yes or No.

43 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Scope of Support on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations: P-Value <0.05, Null Hypothesis Rejected.

Count of CSAT No is highest for Scope of Support:
Out of Scope.

Inference : Scope of Support has an impact on CSAT being Yes or

No.

44 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Data Verification on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations: P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.

Count of CSAT No is low for Dissatisfied with Data
Verification in comparison to Satisfied with Data
Verification.

Inference : Data Verification does not have an impact on CSAT being Yes or
No.
45 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Delay in Escalation on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations: P-Value <0.05, Null Hypothesis Rejected.

Proportion of CSAT No is 100% for Delay in
Escalation Yes.
Proportion of CSAT Yes is high for Delay in Escalation
NA.

Inference : Delay in Escalation has an impact on CSAT being Yes or No.

46 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Delay in Handling Escalation on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.

Observations:
Count of CSAT No is high for Delay in Handling
Escalation No.
Count of CSAT No is low for Delay in Handling
Escalation Yes.

Inference : Delay in Handling Escalation does not have an impact on CSAT being Yes or No.

47 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Navigation Skills on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations: P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.

Proportion of CSAT Yes & CSAT No is comparable
for Navigation Skill Good & Navigation Skill Poor.

Inference : Navigation Skills do not have an impact on CSAT being Yes or No.

48 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Comprehension-KB & Emulator on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations: P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.

Proportion of CSAT Yes & CSAT No is comparable
for Comprehension Easy & Comprehension Difficult.

Inference : Comprehension of KB & Emulator doesn’t have an impact on

CSAT being Yes or No.

49 10/10/20
 Checking for Impact of IT Issues on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
Proportion of CSAT No is comparable for IT Issues P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.
(Present) Yes & IT Issues (Present) No.

Inference : Presence of IT Issues does not have an impact on CSAT being Yes or No.

50 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of IT Issues (Resolution) on CSAT Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Data Interpretation
Resolution Row Value
Observations:
Proportion of CSAT No is comparable for IT Issues Required & within TAT Yes
(Resolution) Yes & IT Issues (Resolution) NA. Not Required NA

P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.

Inference : Resolution of IT Issues does not have an impact on CSAT being Yes or
No.
51 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of CSAT on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations: P-Value <0.05, Null Hypothesis Rejected.

Subscription Renewed No is 97% for CSAT No.
Subscription Renewed Yes is 59% for CSAT Yes.

Inference : CSAT has an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or No, thus
Subscription Renewal is a Dependent CTQ & Improvement in CSAT shall improve
Subscription Renewals.
52 10/10/20
Basic Analysis of Project Y – Subscription Renewals Analyse

• The graph depicts the decreasing percentage of Subscription Renewals.

• The overall Subscription Renewals% is at 18.3%.

53 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Experience on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
Count of Subscription Renewed No is highest for P-Value <0.05, Null Hypothesis Rejected.
Experience 0 to 1.

Inference : Experience has an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or No.

54 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Tenure on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
Proportion of Subscription Renewals Yes & No are P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.
comparable for Tenure 0 to 1, 2 to 3 & 3+ years.

Inference : Tenure does not have an impact on Subscription Renewal being

Yes or No.

55 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Qualification on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
Proportion of Subscription Renewals Yes & No are
comparable for Qualification – Undergraduate, P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.
Graduate & Postgraduate.

Inference : Qualification does not have an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or No.

56 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Age on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
Subscription Renewed Yes has higher variability than
Subscription Renewed No. P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.
Subscription Renewed Yes & No have same median values.

Inference : Age does not have an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or No.

57 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Gender on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Row Value Gender

F Female
M Male
Observations:
Proportion of Subscription Renewals Yes & No are P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted .
comparable for Gender Male & Female.

Inference : Gender does not have an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or
No.

58 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Marital Status on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Row Value Gender

M Married
U Unmarried
Observations:
Proportion of Subscription Renewals Yes & No are
comparable for Marital Status Married & Unmarried. P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.

Inference : Marital Status does not have an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or No.

59 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Process Knowledge on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
Count of Subscription Renewals No is highest for Process P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.
Knowledge –Excellent.
Count of Subscription Renewals Yes is highest for Process
Knowledge –Excellent.

Inference : Process Knowledge does not have an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or No.

60 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Quality Score on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations: P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.

Count of Subscription Renewals No is highest for Quality
Score – Excellent.
Count of Subscription Renewals Yes is highest for Quality
Score – Excellent.

Inference : Quality Score doesn’t have an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or No.

61 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Hold Time on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
Subscription Renewed Yes & Subscription Renewed No P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.
have similar variability.
Subscription Renewed Yes & No have similar median
values.

Inference : Hold Time does not have an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or
No.
62 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Login Hour on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.
Subscription Renewed Yes & Subscription Renewed No
have similar variability.
Subscription Renewed Yes & No have similar median
values.

Inference : Login Hour does not have an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or No.

63 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Average Ringing Time on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
The distribution of Subscription Renewal Yes is positively skewed. P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.
Subscription Renewal has been No for Average Ringing Time less
than 69 seconds.
Subscription Renewal has been Yes for Average Ringing Time
more than 69 seconds.

Inference : Average Ringing Time on IVR (Sec) does not have an impact on Subscription Renewal
being Yes or No.
64 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Average Ringing Time on Subscription Renewal Analyse

Observations:
Subscription Renewal Yes is the highest for Average IVR Ringing Time 120 seconds.
Subscription Renewal No is the lowest for Average Ringing Time 92, 94, 104 & 180, seconds.

65 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Shift on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.

Observations:
Count of Subscription Renewal Yes & No are comparable for
Shifts Evening & Night.

Inference : Shift does not have an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or No.

66 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Team Leader on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations: P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.

Count of Subscription Renewal Yes & No are comparable for all the
Team Leaders.

Inference : Team Leader does not have an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or
No. 67 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Quality Auditor on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
Count of Subscription Renewal Yes & No are comparable for all P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.
the Quality Auditors.

Inference : Quality Auditor does not have an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or No.

68 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of FCR on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations: P-Value <0.05, Null Hypothesis Rejected.

Count of Subscription Renewal No is high for FCR No.

Inference : FCR has an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or No.

69 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Quality Feedback on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Data Interpretation
Feedback Provided Row Value
Within TAT Yes

Observations: Outside of TAT No

Proportion of Subscription Renewal Yes and No are
comparable for Feedback Provided Yes and No. P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted .

Inference : Quality Feedback does not have an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or No.

70 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Escalation Matrix on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Data Interpretation
Escalation Matrix Row Value
Observations:
Proportion of Subscription Renewal No is the highest Required Yes
for Escalation Matrix Yes. Not Required No

P-Value <0.05, Null Hypothesis Rejected.

Inference : Escalation Matrix has an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or No.

71 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Scope of Support on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
Count of Subscription Renewals No is the highest for P-Value <0.05, Null Hypothesis Rejected.
Scope of Support Outscope.

Inference : Scope of Support has an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or No.

72 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Data Verification on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
Proportion of Subscription Renewal No is 100% for P-Value <0.05, Null Hypothesis Rejected.
Verbatim Data Verification Dissatisfied.
Proportion of Subscription Renewal No is less for
Verbatim Data Verification Satisfied.

Inference : Verbatim Data Verification has an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or
No.

73 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Delay in Escalation on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
Proportion of Subscription Renewal No is 100% for
Delay in Escalation Yes. P-Value <0.05, Null Hypothesis Rejected .

Inference : Delay in Escalation has an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or No.

74 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Delay in Escalation on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Calculating P-Value
Cross Tabulation & Chi Square:

Hence, outlined from the screen-shot pasted below, was omitted.

Using Chi Square distribution table:

Chi-Square value obtained is higher than 5.99,
hence p-value for Chi-Square = 47.914 & DF = 2,
is < 0.05 thus the Null Hypothesis is Rejected.

75 10/10/20
 Checking for Impact of on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
Count of Subscription Renewal No is high for Delay in P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.
Handling Escalation No.

Inference : Delay in Handling Escalation does not have an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes
or No.

76 10/10/20
 Checking for Impact of on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations: P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.

Count of Subscription Renewed No is high for Navigation
Skills Good.

Inference : Navigation Skill does not have an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or No.

77 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Comprehension-KB & Emulator on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations:
P-Value >0.05, Null Hypothesis Accepted.
Proportion of Subscription Renewal Yes & No is
comparable for Comprehension Easy & Difficult.

Inference : Comprehension KB & Emulator does not have an impact on Subscription Renewal being
Yes or No.

78 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of IT Issues on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Observations: P-Value <0.05, Null Hypothesis Rejected.

Count of Subscription Renewed Yes is least for IT
Issues Present Yes.
Count of Subscription Renewed No is high for IT
Issues Present No.

Inference : IT Issues (Present) have an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or No.

79 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of IT Issues (Resolution) on Subscription Renewal Analyse
Statistical Interpretation of relationship

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Data Interpretation
Resolution Row Value
Required & within TAT Yes

Observations: Not Required NA

Count of Subscription Renewed Yes is least for IT
Issues Resolution Yes. P-Value <0.05, Null Hypothesis Rejected.
Count of Subscription Renewed No is high for IT
Issues Resolution NA.

Inference : IT Issues (Resolution) has an impact on Subscription Renewal being Yes or No.

80 10/10/20
 Analyse

Sl. No. Factor Details Impact on CSAT & Subscription Renewal

1. Knowledge Base Reviewed & Updated every 24 Hrs Can’t be determined

2. Emulator Reviewed & Updated every 24 Hrs Can’t be determined

3. Quality Audit Sample Random Sampling Can’t be determined

4. Training Manual CSAT not included Can’t be determined

5. Trainee Assessment Conducted by Client Can’t be determined

6. Voice of Floor Reviewed every 24 Hrs Can’t be determined

81 10/10/20
 Hypothesis Summary Analyse
Summary of ‘CSAT’ Impacting Factors

Sl. No. Factor P Value Graphical Tool Used Inference Next Steps

1. Experience 0.010 Pareto Chart Impacts CSAT Improve Phase

2. Tenure 0.616 Pareto Chart Doesn’t Impact CSAT None Required

3. Qualification 0.004 Bar Graph Impacts CSAT Improve Phase

4. Age 0.015 Bar Graph Impacts CSAT Improve Phase

5. Gender 0.372 Bar Graph Doesn’t Impact CSAT None Required

6. Marital Status 0.005 Pareto Chart Impacts CSAT Improve Phase

7. Process Knowledge 0.204 Bar Graph Doesn’t Impact CSAT None Required

8. Quality Scoring 0.622 Bar Graph Doesn’t Impact CSAT None Required

9. Hold Time 0.356 Boxplot Doesn’t Impact CSAT None Required

10. Login Hour 0.824 Boxplot Doesn’t Impact CSAT None Required

11. Average Ringing Time on IVR 0.524 Boxplot & Pareto Chart Doesn’t Impact CSAT None Required

12. Shift 0.801 Pareto Chart Doesn’t Impact CSAT None Required

13. Team Leader 0.294 Bar Graph Doesn’t Impact CSAT None Required

14. Quality Auditor 0.620 Pareto Chart Doesn’t Impact CSAT None Required

82 10/10/20
 Hypothesis Summary Analyse
Summary of ‘CSAT’ Impacting Factors

Sl. No. Factor P Value Graphical Tool Used Inference Next Steps

15. FCR 0.000 Bar Graph Impacts CSAT Improve Phase

16. Quality Feedback 0.239 Pareto Chart Doesn’t Impact CSAT None Required

17. Escalation Matrix 0.000 Bar Graph Impacts CSAT Improve Phase

18. Scope of Support 0.000 Pareto Chart Impacts CSAT Improve Phase

19. Data Verification 0.465 Pareto Chart Doesn’t Impact CSAT None Required

20. Delay in Escalation (VOF/CRM) 0.000 Bar Graph Impacts CSAT Improve Phase

Delay in Handling Escalation

21. 0.186 Pareto Chart Doesn’t Impact CSAT None Required
(TL/IT/2nd Line TSO)

22. Navigation Skills 0.244 Bar Graph Doesn’t Impact CSAT None Required

23 Comprehension of KB & Emulator 0.382 Bar Graph Doesn’t Impact CSAT None Required

24 IT Issues (Present) 0.465 Bar Graph Doesn’t Impact CSAT None Required

25 IT Issues (Resolution) 0.465 Bar Graph Doesn’t Impact CSAT None Required

26 Subscription Renewal 0.000 Bar Graph Impacted by CSAT Improve Phase

83 10/10/20
 Hypothesis Summary Analyse
Summary of ‘Subscription Renewals’ Impacting Factors

Sl. No. Factor P Value Graphical Tool Used Inference Next Steps

1. Experience 0.038 Pareto Chart Impacts Subscription Renewals Improve Phase

2. Tenure 0.330 Bar Graph Doesn’t impact Subscription Renewals None Required

3. Qualification 0.284 Bar Graph Doesn’t impact Subscription Renewals None Required

4. Age 0.127 Boxplot Doesn’t impact Subscription Renewals None Required

5. Gender 0.277 Bar Graph Doesn’t impact Subscription Renewals None Required

6. Marital Status 0.117 Bar Graph Doesn’t impact Subscription Renewals None Required

7. Process Knowledge 0.171 Pareto Chart Doesn’t impact Subscription Renewals None Required

8. Quality Scoring 0.496 Pareto Chart Doesn’t impact Subscription Renewals None Required

9. Hold Time 0.161 Boxplot Doesn’t impact Subscription Renewals None Required

10. Login Hour 0.380 Boxplot Doesn’t impact Subscription Renewals None Required

Average Ringing Time on

11. 0.890 Boxplot & Pareto Chart Doesn’t impact Subscription Renewals None Required
IVR

12. Shift 0.965 Pareto Chart Doesn’t impact Subscription Renewals None Required

13. Team Leader 0.181 Pareto Chart Doesn’t impact Subscription Renewals None Required

14. Quality Auditor 0.289 Pareto Chart Doesn’t impact Subscription Renewals None Required

84 10/10/20
 Hypothesis Summary Analyse
Summary of ‘Subscription Renewals’ Impacting Factors
Graphical Tool
Sl. No. Factor P Value Inference Next Steps
Used

15. FCR 0.000 Pareto Chart Impacts Subscription Renewals Improve Phase

Doesn’t impact Subscription

16. Quality Feedback 0.549 Bar Graph None Required
Renewals

17. Escalation Matrix 0.000 Bar Graph Impacts Subscription Renewals Improve Phase

18. Scope of Support 0.000 Pareto Chart Impacts Subscription Renewals Improve Phase

19. Data Verification 0.000 Bar Graph Impacts Subscription Renewals Improve Phase

Delay in Escalation
20. 0.000 Bar Graph Impacts Subscription Renewals Improve Phase
(VOF/CRM)
Delay in Handling Escalation Doesn’t impact Subscription
21. 0.459 Pareto Chart None Required
(TL/IT/2nd Line TSO) Renewals
Doesn’t impact Subscription
22. Navigation Skills 0.188 Pareto Chart None Required
Renewals
Comprehension of KB & Doesn’t impact Subscription
23 0.276 Bar Graph None Required
Emulator Renewals

24 IT Issues (Present) 0.000 Pareto Chart Impacts Subscription Renewals Improve Phase

25 IT Issues (Resolution) 0.000 Pareto Chart Impacts Subscription Renewals Improve Phase

85 10/10/20
 Hypothesis Summary Analyse
Summary of ‘CSAT’ & ‘Subscription Renewals Impacting Factors

Sl. No. Factors Impacting CSAT P Value Sl. No. Factors Impacting Subscription Renewals P Value

1. Experience 0.010 1. Experience 0.038

3. Qualification 0.004 15 FCR 0.000

4. Age 0.015 17 Escalation Matrix 0.000

6. Marital Status 0.005 18 Scope of Support 0.000

15. FCR 0.000 19 Data Verification 0.000

17. Escalation Matrix 0.000 20 Delay in Escalation (VOF/CRM) 0.000

18. Scope of Support 0.000 24 IT Issues (Present) 0.000

20. Delay in Escalation (VOF/CRM) 0.000 25 IT Issues (Resolution) 0.000

Factors Impacting both CSAT & Subscription Renewals

Experience
Common FCR
Impacting Factors
Escalation Matrix

Scope of Support

Delay in Escalation (VOF/CRM)

86 10/10/20
 MSA of Common Impacting Factors Analyse

MSA not performed for factors for which the data was provided by HR -
• Experience
• Qualification
• Age
• Marital Status

MSA – FCR
• Agreement within appraisers & appraisers vs. standard is
100%.
• Measurement system is excellent.

87 10/10/20
MSA of Common Impacting Factors Analyse

MSA – Escalation Matrix

• Agreement within appraisers & appraisers vs. standard is
100%.
• Measurement system is excellent.

MSA – Scope of Support

• Agreement between appraisers & appraisers vs. standard
is 100%.
• Measurement system is excellent.

88 10/10/20
MSA of Common Impacting Factors Analyse

MSA – Delay in Escalation (VOF/CRM)

• Agreement within appraisers & appraisers vs. standard is 100%.
• Measurement system is excellent.

89 10/10/20
MSA of Subscription Renewals Impacting Factors Analyse

MSA – Data Verification

• Agreement within appraisers & appraisers vs.
standard is 100%.
• Measurement system is excellent.

MSA – IT Issues (Present)

• Agreement within appraisers & appraisers vs.
standard is 100%.
• Measurement system is excellent.

90 10/10/20
MSA of Subscription Renewals Impacting Factors Analyse

MSA – IT Issues (resolution)

• Agreement between appraiser Tanuja vs. standard is 96.43%.
• Standard’s inputs helped appraiser understand data interpretation.
• Measurement system is excellent.

91 10/10/20
 MSA Results of Impacting Factors Analyse
Checking the Validity of the data of the impacting factors
Sl.
Factor MSA Method Used Result RCA for Problems Next Steps
No.
Proceed to Improve
1 Experience NA NA NA
Phase
Proceed to Improve
3 Qualification NA NA NA
Phase
Proceed to Improve
4 Age NA NA NA
Phase
Proceed to Improve
6 Marital Status NA NA NA
Phase
Proceed to Improve
15 FCR AAA Agreement 100% NA Phase

Proceed to Improve
17 Escalation Matrix AAA Agreement 100% NA Phase

Proceed to Improve
18 Scope of Support AAA Agreement 100% NA Phase

Proceed to Improve
19 Data Verification AAA Agreement 100% NA
Phase
Proceed to Improve
Delay in Escalation
20 AAA Agreement 100% NA Phase
(VOF/CRM)

Proceed to Improve
24 IT Issues (Present) AAA Agreement 100% NA
Phase
Error in data interpretation by
Agreement Proceed to Improve
25 IT Issues (Resolution) AAA member.
96.43% Phase
Standard’s inputs sought. 92 10/10/20
 Improve

1. Screening of the Impacting Factors

2. Action Plan for Improving the Factors
3. Basic Analysis of Improved Y
4. Pre–Post Analysis of Project Y
5. Pre-Post Analysis of Factor
6. Improve Summary – Take Aways

93 10/10/20
 Screening of the Impacting Factors Improve
Prioritize the Impacting Factors
Sl. Factor
Cause of Impact on Y Findings
No. (X)
TSOs with work Experience of more than 1 year, have higher % of CSAT Yes &
1 Experience Lack of Experience (0-1 Year)
Subscription Renewals Yes.
Level of Qualification
2 Qualification Undergraduate & Graduate TSOs have higher % of CSAT Yes.
-Postgraduate

3 Age Age Group - 33 Years TSOs in Age groups other than 33 Years of age, have higher % of CSAT Yes.

4 Marital Status Unmarried Married TSOs have higher % of CSAT Yes.

5 FCR FCR - No Cases with FCR Yes have higher % of CSAT Yes & Subscription Renewals Yes.

Requirement of Escalation Cases for which Escalation Matrix wasn’t required, had higher % of CSAT Yes &
6 Escalation Matrix
Matrix - Yes Subscription Renewals Yes.
Cases for which the Scope of Support was In-scope, had higher % of CSAT Yes &
7 Scope of Support Out of Scope
Subscription Renewals Yes.
Dissatisfied with Data Cases where customers were Satisfied with Data Verification, had higher % of
8 Data Verification
Verification Subscription Renewals Yes.
Delay in Escalation Cases for which Delay in Escalation was No/NA, had higher % of CSAT Yes &
9 Delay in Escalation - Yes
(VOF/CRM) Subscription Renewals Yes.
Cases for which IT Issues (Present) was No, had higher % of Subscription Renewals
10 IT Issues (Present) IT Issues (Present) - Yes
Yes.
IT Issues Cases for which Resolution of IT Issues wasn’t required, had higher % of Subscription
11 IT Issues (Resolution) - Yes
(Resolution) Renewals Yes.

94 10/10/20
 Action Plan for Improving the Factors Improve

S. No. Pain Area Improvement Idea Implementation Owner Start Date End Date Duration
New Job Description for New Hires - Experience
Manager HR & Training 15-05-2014 17-05-2014 2
Criterion to be updated
1 Experience Refresher Trainings for TSOs Manager HR & Training 15-05-2014 25-05-2014 10

Seating Realignment for Best Practices Sharing Team Leaders/Process Champion 15-05-2014 17-05-2014 2
New Job Description for New Hires - Qualification
Manager HR & Training 15-05-2014 17-05-2014 2
Criterion to be updated
2 Qualification Extra responsibility sharing Team Leaders/Process Champion 15-05-2014 15-06-2014 31

Preference in IJP to Best/Consistent Performer Manager HR & Training/Head of Technologies 15-05-2014 15-06-2014 31
New Job Description for New Hires - Age Criterion
Manager HR & Training 15-05-2014 17-05-2014 2
to be updated
3 Age Extra responsibility sharing Team Leaders/Process Champion 15-05-2014 15-06-2014 31

Preference in IJP to Best/Consistent Performer Manager HR & Training/Head of Technologies 15-05-2014 15-06-2014 31

Extra responsibility sharing Team Leaders/Process Champion 15-05-2014 15-06-2014 31

4 Marital Status
Aligning Best Performer as Part-time Trainer Manager HR & Training 15-05-2014 15-06-2014 31
Modification of Escalation Matrix - Remote Access
Process Champion/Head of Technologies 15-05-2014 21-05-2014 6
request stage
Refresher Trainings for TSOs Manager HR & Training 15-05-2014 25-05-2014 10
5 FCR
Assessments for adherence to changes Manager Quality 15-05-2014 12-06-2014 28

R&R for Best Performer Process Champion/Head of Technologies 15-05-2014 15-06-2014 31

Modification of Escalation Matrix - Remote Access
Process Champion/Head of Technologies 15-05-2014 21-05-2014 6
request stage
Scope of Support widened to reduce escalation to
Process Champion/Head of Technologies 15-05-2014 20-05-2014 5
2nd Line TS
6 Escalation Matrix
Modification of Escalation Matrix - Call Drop at
Process Champion/Head of Technologies 15-05-2014 20-05-2014 5
Stage A or B (Immediate Call Back)
Assessments for adherence to changes Manager Quality 15-05-2014 12-06-2014 28
95 10/10/20
 Action Plan for Improving the Factors Improve

S. No. Pain Area Improvement Idea Implementation Owner Start Date End Date Duration

Scope of Support widened to reduce escalation to

Process Champion/Head of Technologies 15-05-2014 20-05-2014 5
2nd Line TS
7 Scope of Support Modification of Escalation Matrix - Remote Access Process Champion/Head of Technologies 15-05-2014 21-05-2014 6
request stage
Assessments for adherence to changes Manager Quality 15-05-2014 12-06-2014 28

Modify Data Verification Steps Process Champion/Head of Technologies 15-05-2014 17-05-2014 2

8 Data Verification Cheat Sheets for each work station Manager HR & Training 15-05-2014 17-05-2014 2

Refresher Trainings for TSOs Manager HR & Training 15-05-2014 17-05-2014 2

Modification of Escalation Matrix - Call Drop at
Process Champion/Head of Technologies 15-05-2014 20-05-2014 5
Stage A or B (Immediate Call Back)
9 Delay in Escalation Assessments for adherence to changes Manager Quality 15-05-2014 12-06-2014 28
Incentive Plan to include Incentive Deduction for
Head of Technologies 15-05-2014 17-05-2014 2
Repeat Defaulters
Quality of Hardware & Software – To be checked at
Team Leaders/Technology Team 15-05-2014 15-06-2014 31
Beginning of each shift
10 IT Issues (Present)
User Login Credentials - Individual
Team Leaders/Technology Team 15-05-2014 17-05-2014 2
assigned
Quality of Hardware & Software – To be checked at
Team Leaders/Technology Team 15-05-2014 15-06-2014 31
IT Issues Beginning of each shift
11
(Resolution)
Inventory to be updated periodically Technology Team 15-05-2014 17-05-2014 2

QFD

96 10/10/20
 Failure Mode Effect Analysis Improve

For detailed FMEA FMEA

97 10/10/20
 Improved Process Map: TechSupport Define
Registered Customer is
Start provided with Customer
Id & Toll-Free No.
CRM sends survey link to Customer, after 24 hours for each interaction.

Issue is confirmed & probed

Call connected to Customer Dials Toll
Seek Customer’s
IVR Free No.
permission
Yes Is remote
New Queue for
access
Customer chooses Priority Customers
required?
option 2 for Request for Call Permission
TechSupport Back. TAT 1 Hr. granted?
(Lesser Calls Yes
Matrix No
Abandoned) Modified
No TSO refers to emulators
Call gets routed
and/or knowledge database
to queue
TSO seeks permission and guides customer
for escalation to TL/SME

No Yes
Is the call Is the issue
Permission
answered? TL/SME, refers to resolved?
granted? No
emulators and/or
Yes Update Call No knowledge
End database and Yes
Driver &
TSO takes Cust Id Case Status guides customer Complete Case
& accesses details Time slots confirmed
Documentation &
On CRM for call back by 2nd
Update Call Driver
Line TSO
Caller’s Name
documented &
Details Verified: asked to call back
Choose correct
A/c holder’s name
Raise Call back Case status.
& Password on a/c No Steps
OR B Reduced
request in CRM Provide reference id
Is the to customer
Registered email
address, Contact verification
CRM Incident
No. & Caller’s complete?
status - Open Cust requested to
Name share feedback, by
To increase End
Yes accessing Survey
response rate
A Link
98 10/10/20
 Improved Process Map: TechSupport Define
Call Drop
Call Abandoned

If Call Drops If Call Drops If reported by Priority Customer

at STAGE at STAGE Customer Chooses IVR Option
to Request Call Back
A B
Call Back logged in
TSO updates CRM & TSO updates VOF & TSO updates VOF &
system assigned to
escalates incident to escalates incident to IT escalates incident to IT
TSO in Call Back queue
TL
for Call Back within 1
Hr.

Escalations raised
TL assigns escalation to TSO tallied with Time of End
End
in Call Back queue for Call – To reduce
immediate Call Back. Delay in End
Escalation

End New Queue for

Priority Customers –
Request Call Back.
TAT 1 Hr.

Text in Blue refers to Changes made in process at various

steps.

99 10/10/20
 Basic Analysis of Improved Y Improve

Improved CSAT Improved Subscription Renewals

Inference: CSAT% has increased from 27% Inference: Subscription Renewals% has increased
(Pre-Improve) to 71% (Post-Improve). from 18% (Pre-Improve) to 91% (Post-Improve).

Data for Improve

100 10/10/20
 Basic Analysis of Improved Y Improve

Increase in CSAT % has contributed to increase in Subscription Renewals.

Pre- Hypothesis Result Post-

P-value>0.05,
Null Hypothesis
Accepted

Graphical Depiction

Post-Improve, Proportion of Subscription Renewals Yes has increased in case of CSAT Yes &
No. 101 10/10/20
 DPMO Improve
Pre-
Category Value

Defective Samples 161

(August 1, 2013 – October 31, 2013)
Total Opportunities 219
(August 1, 2013 – October 31, 2013)
DPO 0.735159817
(Defect Per Opportunity = Defective Samples/Total Opportunities)
DPMO 735159.817
(Defect Per Million Opportunity = DPO * 106)
Post-
Category Value

Defective Samples 41
(June, 2014 – July, 2014)
Total Opportunities 140
(June, 2014 – July, 2014)
DPO 0.2928571
(Defect Per Opportunity = Defective Samples/Total Opportunities)
DPMO 292857.1
(Defect Per Million Opportunity = DPO * 106)

• The Process Z value (Sigma Level – Long Term) is at 0.5451 (Post Improve), and has improved from Z Value
(Sigma Level – Long Term) -0.6285 (Pre-Improve).
102 10/10/20
 Pre-Post Analysis of Project Y - CSAT Improve
Statistical Validation of Impact
Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Pre-Improve Confidence Interval

Post-Improve Confidence Interval

Inference : CSAT% has increased from 26.5% to 70.7%, which is greater than
36% (as stated in the Goal Statement). 103 10/10/20
Pre-Post Analysis of Project Y – Subscription Renewals Improve
Statistical Validation of Impact
Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Pre-Improve Confidence Interval

Post-Improve Confidence Interval

Inference : Subscription Renewals% has increased from 18.3% to 91.4%.

104 10/10/20
 Pre-Post Analysis of Factor - Experience Improve
Hypothesis Result
Statistical Validation of Impact
Pre- Post-

P-value>0.05,
Null Hypothesis
Accepted

Graphical Depiction

Decrease

Increase

Inference : Post-Improve – Experience doesn’t significantly impact CSAT.

105 10/10/20
 Pre-Post Analysis of Factor - Qualification Improve
Hypothesis Result
Statistical Validation of Impact
Pre- Post-

P-value>0.05,
Null Hypothesis
Accepted

Graphical Depiction

Decrease

Increase

Inference : Post-Improve – Qualification doesn’t significantly impact CSAT.

106 10/10/20
 Pre-Post Analysis of Factor - Age Improve
Hypothesis Result
Statistical Validation of Impact
Pre- Post-

P-value>0.05,
Null Hypothesis
Accepted

Graphical Depiction

No Outliers
Similar Variability
Different Variability

Inference : Post-Improve –Age doesn’t significantly impact CSAT. 107 10/10/20

Pre-Post Analysis of Factor – Marital Status Improve
Hypothesis Result
Statistical Validation of Impact
Pre- Post-

P-value>0.05,
Null Hypothesis
Accepted

Graphical Depiction

Decrease

Increase

Inference : Post-Improve – Marital Status doesn’t significantly impact CSAT.

108 10/10/20
 Pre-Post Analysis of Factor - FCR Improve
Hypothesis Result
Statistical Validation of Impact
Pre- Post-

P-value>0.05,
Null Hypothesis
Accepted

Graphical Depiction

Decrease

Increase

Inference : Post-Improve – FCR doesn’t significantly impact CSAT.

109 10/10/20
Pre-Post Analysis of Factor – Escalation Matrix Improve
Hypothesis Result
Statistical Validation of Impact
Pre- Post-

P-value>0.05,
Null Hypothesis
Accepted

Graphical Depiction

Decrease

Increase

Inference : Post-Improve – Escalation Matrix doesn’t significantly impact CSAT.

110 10/10/20
Pre-Post Analysis of Factor – Scope of Support Improve
Hypothesis Result
Statistical Validation of Impact
Pre- Post-

P-value>0.05,
Null Hypothesis
Accepted

Graphical Depiction

Decrease

Increase

Inference : Post-Improve – Scope of Support doesn’t significantly impact CSAT.

111 10/10/20
Pre-Post Analysis of Factor – Delay in Escalation Improve
Hypothesis Result
Statistical Validation of Impact
Pre- Post-

P-value>0.05,
Null Hypothesis
Accepted

Graphical Depiction

Decrease

Increase

Inference : Post-Improve – Delay in Escalation doesn’t significantly impact CSAT. 112 10/10/20
 Pre-Post Analysis of Factor – Experience Improve
Hypothesis Result
Statistical Validation of Impact
Pre- Post-

P-value>0.05,
Null Hypothesis
Accepted

Graphical Depiction

Decrease

Increase

Inference : Post-Improve – Experience doesn’t significantly impact Subscription Renewals.

113 10/10/20
 Pre-Post Analysis of Factor – FCR Improve
Hypothesis Result
Statistical Validation of Impact
Pre- Post-

P-value>0.05,
Null Hypothesis
Accepted

Graphical Depiction

Decrease

Increase

Inference : Post-Improve – FCR doesn’t significantly impact Subscription Renewals. 114 10/10/20
 Pre-Post Analysis of Factor – Escalation Matrix Improve
Hypothesis Result
Statistical Validation of Impact
Pre- Post-

P-value>0.05,
Null Hypothesis
Accepted

Graphical Depiction

Decrease

Increase

Inference : Post-Improve – Escalation Matrix doesn’t significantly impact Subscription Renewals.

115 10/10/20
 Pre-Post Analysis of Factor – Scope of Support Improve
Hypothesis Result
Statistical Validation of Impact
Pre- Post-

P-value>0.05,
Null Hypothesis
Accepted

Graphical Depiction
Decrease

Increase

Inference : Post-Improve – Scope of Support doesn’t significantly impact Subscription Renewals.

116 10/10/20
 Pre-Post Analysis of Factor – Data Verification Improve
Hypothesis Result
Statistical Validation of Impact
Pre- Post-

P-value>0.05,
Null Hypothesis
Accepted

Graphical Depiction
Decrease

Increase

Inference : Post-Improve – Data Verification doesn’t significantly impact Subscription Renewals.

117 10/10/20
 Pre-Post Analysis of Factor – Delay in Escalation Improve
Hypothesis Result
Statistical Validation of Impact
Pre- Post-

P-value>0.05,
Null Hypothesis
Accepted

Graphical Depiction
Decrease

Increase

Inference : Post-Improve – Delay in Escalation doesn’t significantly impact Subscription Renewals.

118 10/10/20
 Pre-Post Analysis of Factor – IT Issues (Present) Improve
Hypothesis Result
Statistical Validation of Impact
Pre- Post-

P-value>0.05,
Null Hypothesis
Accepted

Graphical Depiction
Decrease

Increase

Inference : Post-Improve –IT Issues (Present) don’t significantly impact Subscription Renewals.
119 10/10/20
Pre-Post Analysis of Factor – IT Issues (Resolution) Improve
Hypothesis Result
Statistical Validation of Impact
Pre- Post-

P-value>0.05,
Null Hypothesis
Accepted

Graphical Depiction
Decrease

Increase

Inference : Post-Improve – IT Issues (Resolution) don’t significantly impact Subscription Renewals.

120 10/10/20
 Hypothesis Summary Improve
Summary of ‘CSAT’ & ‘Subscription Renewals Impacting Factors

Sl. Factors Impacting Pre-Improve Post-Improve Sl. Factors Impacting Pre-Improve Post-Improve
No. CSAT P Value P Value No. Subscription Renewals P Value P Value

1. Experience 0.010 0.456 1. Experience 0.038 0.178

3. Qualification 0.004 0.583 15 FCR 0.000 0.114

4. Age 0.015 0.099 17 Escalation Matrix 0.000 0.504

6. Marital Status 0.005 0.545 18 Scope of Support 0.000 0.133

15. FCR 0.000 0.108 19 Data Verification 0.000 0.468

17. Escalation Matrix 0.000 0.077 20 Delay in Escalation (VOF/CRM) 0.000 0.779

18. Scope of Support 0.000 0.345 24 IT Issues (Present) 0.000 0.659

Delay in Escalation
20. 0.000 0.992 25 IT Issues (Resolution) 0.000 0.659
(VOF/CRM)

121 10/10/20
 Improve Summary – Take Aways Improve

• The CSAT% post-improve is 70.7%.

• Process Z value (Sigma Level – Long Term) is at 0.5451.
• Process Z value (Sigma Level – Short Term) is at 2.0451.

Compliance checks with immediate feedback, have been most effective in performance improvement.

Modification in Escalation Matrix-Remote Access, has renewed Customer’s trust in TSOs assistance
& has helped improve FCR.

Refresher Trainings have lead to remarkable improvement in performance of TSOs with experience of
0-1 Year.

Sharing of Extra responsibilities has motivated TSOs & helped hone their skills for growth with
organisation.

Share list of Customer Complaints (Post-Implementation) daily with the Project Team.

Request Customers to fill CSAT survey form, by TSOs, to increase response rate.

Increase Quality audits sample size for TSOs in Call Back Queue.

Award ‘Star of the Day’ badges to Best Performers.

Cash rewards for Team with TSOs with maximum badges.

122 10/10/20
 Control

1. Control Plan & FMEA on Control Plan

2. Time Series Study of Y – Pre & Post
3. Control Charts & Inference for Y – Pre & Post
4. Basic Analysis of Improved Y
5. Establish Process Capability
6. Control Charts & Inference (for X1)
7. Control Charts & Inference (for X2)
8. Cost Benefit Analysis and Sign Off

123 10/10/20
 Control Plan Control

For detailed Control Plan

Control Plan

124 10/10/20
Time Series Study of Y – Pre & Post Control

Inference:
• Post-Implementation, count of cases with
CSAT Score ≥ 80 is higher.

• Pre-Implementation count of cases with

CSAT Score > 80 was higher.

125 10/10/20
Control Charts & Inference: CSAT – Pre & Post Control

Inference:
• Post-Implementation, Proportion of Defective data points has reduced and is at 29.3% and
Proportion of Defective for both June and July, 2014 lies between LCL & UCL.

• Pre-Implementation Proportion of Defective data points was at 73.5%, with Defective

Proportion for August & October, 2013 being outside LCL & UCL.

• CSAT for TechSupport is under Statistical Process Control.

126 10/10/20
Control Charts & Inference: Subscription Renewals – Pre & Post Control

Inference:
• Post-Implementation, Proportion of Defective data points has reduced and is at 8.6% and
Proportion of Defective for both June and July, 2014 lies between LCL & UCL.

• Pre-Implementation Proportion of Defective data points was at 81.7%, with Defective

Proportion for August & October, 2013 being outside LCL & UCL.

• Subscription Renewals for TechSupport are under Statistical Process Control.

127 10/10/20
 Establish Process Capability Control

Process Capability – Post Implementation

Category Value

Defective Samples 41
(June, 2014 – July, 2014)
Total Opportunities 140
(June, 2014 – July, 2014)
DPO 0.2928571
(Defect Per Opportunity = Defective Samples/Total Opportunities)
DPMO 292857.1
(Defect Per Million Opportunity = DPO * 106)

Z Bench Short Term Sigma

(Long Term Sigma) (Long Term Sigma +1.5)
0.5451 2.0451

128 10/10/20
 Control Charts & Inference Control
CSAT

Subscription Renewals
Reduced
Proportion
of Defective

Reduced
Proportion
of Defective

Reduced
Proportion
of Defective
Reduced
Proportion
of Defective

129 10/10/20
 Control Charts & Inference Control
CSAT

Subscription Renewals
Reduced
Proportion
of Defective
Reduced
Proportion
of Defective

Reduced
Proportion
of Defective
Reduced
Proportion
of Defective

130 10/10/20
 Control Charts & Inference Control
CSAT

Subscription Renewals
Reduced
Proportion
of Defective

Reduced
Proportion
of Defective

Reduced
Proportion
of Defective Reduced
Proportion
of Defective

131 10/10/20
 Control Charts & Inference Control
CSAT

Reduced
Proportion
of Defective

Reduced
Proportion
of Defective

132 10/10/20
 Control Charts & Inference Control
Subscription Renewals

Reduced
Reduced
Proportion
Proportion
of Defective
of Defective

Inference:
On the basis of all the Control Charts prepared for Post-
Implementation phase, the conclusion drawn is that ‘TechSupport’ is
under ‘Statistical Process Control’.

133 10/10/20
 Cost Benefit Analysis & Sign Off Control

Benefit Source Unit Benefit (US$) Cost (US$) Total Benefit

Cost Reduction   12000 -12000
Enhanced Revenues 2248067   2248067
COPQ Cost Reduction 10000 1687200 -1677200
Total 2258067 1699200 558867

134 10/10/20
135 10/10/20