Reduction in New Business Discrepancy

Reduction in New Business Discrepancy
Max Life Insurance

Max Life Overview
Key Facts (2016-2017)
 Gross written premium USD 1.6 Bn

 Profit before tax USD 100 Mn
 Asset under management USD 6.7 Bn
 Customers 3 Mn
Founded in 2000
205 branch offices spread across India
Our Strategic Priorities (2016-2017)
Service Superior Human Strong Distribution Cost Robust Compliance Enhance Embedded Value and
Excellence Capital Network Optimization Framework New Growth Avenues
Max Life Insurance 2

Max Quality System
MAX Performance Excellence Framework (MPEF)
Innovation
Lean Six Sigma / Standardized

Quality and Service Excellence
MAXimize Quality Best Practices

Standardized Methodology Leadership, Planning,
Annual Assessments
For Continuous Improvement Customers, Measures,
Employees. Processes
Cycles of Improvement
Guidance & Direction
Service Excellence
Council
SEVA
Reward & Standard
Recognition Metrics
Quality And Service Delivery MQS SCORECARD
Linked To Career Progression Customer, People,
Process, Finance
Communications

SECTION 1
PROJECT
PROCESS
1.1.0 Understanding the Context for Project Selection

1.2.0 Project Selection Process
1.3.0 Team Selection and Preparation

1.1.1 Who was responsible for selecting the project? (Q1)
Project Selection Committee 1.1.1. Who was

Deciding
responsible for Factors
project
selection? (Q1)
Chief Operations Officer

Steering Chief Financial Officer Strategic
Indicators
Committee Chief Distribution Officer Priorities
Head Quality & Innovation
Service Excellence (Customer
Voice of Customer
Experience)
Cost Optimization Operating Expense

Responsible For
Strong Distribution Network Sales
Robust Compliance
Audit Ratings
• Rigorous application of project selection process in line with Framework
Strategic Priorities
Superior Human Capital Voice of Employee
• Ensuring alignment between project goals & company’s Vision &
Mission Enhance Embedded Value
Revenue
and New Growth Avenues
• Promoting mindset for continuous improvement and allocating Six
Sigma resources for selected projects

What background information on the company or those who selected the project was
1.1.1 provided to better understand the context of the project (Q2)(1/2)
SCALE OF THE PROJECT

10,000 Proposal
Distribution Team More Than Quality Check By
45,000
SIX Agents Forms Received Per 149
in 205 Branches Operations Team
ZONES Month CITIES
Service
Excellence
 Policy
205 Issuance Process- Head Office
BRANCH  45000
OFFICES Policy Pack AGENTS
Data Entry Underwriting Policy Pack
Scrutiny Shipped
Q2. What
background Max Life 4 sheeter
28% Discrepancies Strong Distribution
Network
information?
(1/2)  528
Operating
proposal form-
Expense
OPERATIONS
STAFF Page 1  3500
DISTRIBUTION
Cost of rework due to discrepancy TEAM
MEMBERS
Three out of six Strategic Priorities of Cost

the organization are getting impacted Optimization
through this project

1.1.1 What background information on the company or those who selected the project was
provided to better understand the context of the project (Q2)(1/2)
Drivers
Discrepancy was Of -Loyalty
at 28% | Max impacting
Key indicators Life were :-
Tactical Level
Purchase & Onboarding

Q2. What
Sellers
Policy Policy Documents, Medical check –up, WelcomeKit
background Customer Satisfaction Scores – 84% Top 2 Box
Features & information?
Benefits (2/2) (proves 16% Customers did not rate us
Customer Impact Premium Excellent
Customer or Very Good)
Care
Communication Advertisement Payment • Centre
Over all complaints logged Branch Website
for proposal
Process (Inbound Calls)
Service Excellence processing contribute to 15% of total complaints
EXPERIENCE AREAS
Strategic Level
Overall Experience Price Value Imagery

Distribution Team Distribution Satisfaction Scores -61% Top 2 Box background
Q2. What
Impact information?
Customer Loyalty (proves 39% did not rate us Excellent or Very Good) (2/2)
Strong Distribution Network
Overall Impact Industry
Experiences Max Life Gap
on Loyalty Average
Costing Units
Overall quality of the application process 83Count Unit cost
81 Cost in US Dollars
+2
(Millions)
Ease of filling up/ simplicity of the insurance application form 88 89 -1
Discrepant applications 35,552 52 0.03
Clarity of documents required for buying the policy 83 84 -1
36% Business Impact
Ability of the company keeping you updated on status of your Cost per grievance
policy 871,769 4,50087 0.12 0
Annual
Time taken for policy to Cost
be issued once application is submitted
Optimization
Cases cancelled due to 772458 87
premium 2.32
-10
discrepancy not resolved
lost
Ease of making payment for purchase of the policy 72 87 -15
Source : Insurance India Syndicate Report-(Customer Loyalty Walker Model) KANTAR IMRB : Market Research Bureau-2016-2017
Market Research Bureau-2016-2017 Max Life Insurance 7
1.2.1 How was the gap brought to the attention of the project identification group ? (Q1)
1.2.2 How was the gap

brought to the attention
Operations Review of the project Implications Project Selection Committee
identification group ?
(Q1)
• Service Excellence: - Customer Satisfaction Scores –
• High discrepancy - 28% discrepancies in policy packs lead to dissatisfaction of • Reviewed the project selection matrix
prospective customers & our sellers basis the input matrix
• Customer satisfaction scores - 84%
• Cost Optimization - Cost of Rework – incurred to resolve • Identified the gap area
• Policy pack grievance rate - 2.11 per defects before the Policy contract is delivered to customer and
thousand policies cost incurred to resolve defects discovered by customers for
rectification of defective policy packs, reprinting charges, • Approved the budget for the project.
delivery charges etc
• Distributor satisfaction scores - 61%
• Review mechanism was set on a monthly
• Strong Distribution Network - Distribution Satisfaction
frequency
• Loss of new business - 2.3% Scores – Discrepancies in policy contracts lead to
dissatisfaction of prospective customers & our sellers
• New Business Opportunity Loss – Business lost due to delay

in discrepancy resolution Money required to prevent defects.
Sources of Information:- Data:-

• Strategic Plan • Strategic Goals
• Voice of Process • Key Performance Indicators from Performance Scorecards
• Voice of Customer • Customer Satisfaction Scores
• Voice of Distribution Team/Agent • Distributor Satisfaction Scores

1.2.1 What was the gap (Problem Solving) (Q2)
1.2.1. . What was
the gap (Q2)
Impact on Service Impact on Cost Impact on Strong

Key Process Indicators Current Level / Gap Distribution Network
Excellence Optimization
28%
High Discrepancy % (much higher than the H H H
desired 15%)
Policy Contract Grievance Rate Rate- 2.11 / 1000 policies

(No. of complaints regarding policy (leading to Customer
H H M
servicing) dissatisfaction)
Customer Satisfaction Scores –

84%
CSAT
(Top 2 Box rating of Excellent
(lower than desired target
to be an Industry leader) H M M
& Very Good)
Distributor Satisfaction Scores -
61%
DSAT
(Top 2 Box rating of Excellent &
(leading to seller
dissatisfaction) H M H
Very Good)
2.3%
Loss of New
Business Opportunity
(loss of revenue for the L H H
organization)
Type of Impact – Degree of Impact

Reduction in discrepancy % will lead to increase in Customer and Distributor Satisfaction score. This H - High
will also reduce grievances related to delay in processing and help the organization generate revenue M - Medium
L - Low Max Life Insurance 9
1.2.1 What area of the organization had the gap? (Q3) (1/2)
Insurance Policy Life Cycle
Q3. What
area of the
Product organization
Customer had the gap Claim
Research & Policy Issuance (1/2) Policy Servicing
Acquisition Management
Design
Survival Benefits
Product Development Marketing Research Field Quality Check Policy Endorsement
Payout
Distribution
Risk Valuation Data Entry – Vendor Policy Alterations Claim Assessment
Management
Lapse & Revival

Risk Management Brand Management Quality Check Claim Payouts
Management
Product Launch Publicity & Promotion Underwriting Loans & Withdrawals Fraud Management
Complaint
Direct Sales Premium Collection
Management
Printing & Dispatch

Policy Cancellation
of Policy Pack

1.2.1 What area of the organization had the gap? (Q3) (2/2)
1.2.1. What area of Impact on Impact on Cost Impact on

Process Current Gap the organization
Service Excellence
had the gap (Q3) Optimization Distribution
(2/2)
Discrepant form logged

Form login process by Agents
by agent H H H
Field quality check by branch Poor scrutiny of proposal
operations team form H H H
Data entry errors /
Data entry & quality check by
*Business Partner (BP)
incorrect discrepancies H H H
marked by *BP
Incorrect requirements raised

by the underwriters or all
Underwriting
requirements not H M M
raised at one go
Expensive rework /delay in

Printing & dispatch
of policy contract
despatch of policy packs H H H
due to discrepancies
Degree of Impact
H M L
High Medium Low
*BP: Business Partner Max Life Insurance 11

1.2.2 What data was generated to help select the project ? (Q1)
1.1.1 (Q1)
Customer Satisfaction Scores Distributor Satisfaction Scores
(% Top 2 Box) (% Top 2 Box )
Input Data 80%
86%
85%
85% 60%
Strategic Priorities 84% 84%
84%
40%
83%
Key Process
82% 20%
Indicators
81%
80% 0%
Benchmarking Aug'15 Dec'15 Apr'16
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Activities 1.2.2
What data was
generated? Q1
Quarterly Discrepancy % New Business Loss Due To Discrepancy

3.5
700 Grievance Rate v/s Competition
40% 38%
3.1
600
594 Per 10k Policies
3
33% 2.5
30% 30% 2.5 2.3 500
30%
2 400 348
311 332
305
20% 1.5 300 308
1 200
0.320000000000 141
10% 0.47 100 107
0.5 002 0.35 77
100 66 55
20 32 26
0%
0
0
Apr - Jun'15 Jul-Sep'15 Oct-Dec'15 Jan'16-Mar'16
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Count(in '000) HDFC SBI LIFE LIC
Annual premium in USD Millions MAX LIFE INSURANCE ICICI PRUDENTIAL

What methods or tools were used to assess or prioritize the need for the project? (Q2) (1/2)
1.2.2 Why were these methods and /or tools used to select the project?(Q3) (1/2)
Selection process Data Tools 1.2.2 What

methods or
Why? 1.2.2 Why these
methods or
tools were tools used (Q3)
1.1.1 (Q1) used (Q2) (1/2) (1/2)
 Voice of Customer &  Kantar IMRB survey  Understand gap areas

Distribution team  Analyze process performance and KPI
Problem  Business scorecard
Detection  Key performance index deviations
(KPI) of operations  Operations
 Visually understand the process gaps
process dashboard
versus best practices
Potential Project  To quantitatively and qualitatively assess

 List of potential projects  Prioritization matrix
Identification and prioritize projects
 Project selection
 Impact of each project on selection
Selection of  List of selected projects matrix
criteria
Projects  Project selection criteria  Methodology grid
 Select appropriate methodology
(GB, BB, Maximizer)

What methods or tools were used to assess or prioritize the need for the project? (Q2) (2/2)
1.2.2 Why were these methods and /or tools used to select the project?(Q3) (2/2)
1.2.2. Method to
assess the need for Why? 1.2.2 Why these methods
Who : Tools Used : Project Prioritization the project ? (Q2) or tools were used ? (Q3)
Matrix (2/2) (2/2)
 Process owner provide data Weigh each potential project with respect to selection criteria, To prioritize the project based on its Strategic
 Project selection committee select projects with higher impact and appropriate Priorities, Financial Impact, Ease of
methodology (Maximiser, Green Belt, Black Belt) Implementation and Customer Impact
PROJECT PRIORTIZATION MATRIX

Impact on
Financial Impact on End Ease of
Potential Projects Strategic Score
Impact Customer Implementation
Priorities
Reduction in Grievances in Policy Pack Errors 4 4 5 3 240
Increase Distributor Satisfaction Scores 5 4 5 4 400
Reduction in New Business Discrepancy 5 4 5 5 500
Improvement in First Year Modal Collection 3 5 5 4 400
Enhancing “Service To Recruitment”

Business Contribution
5 5 5 5 625
Impact on Strategic Priorities

Score Financial Impact
100-300 Impact on End Customer Ease of Implementation
>601 = Project score
301-600
5 Methodology Grid 4 Maximizer 5 Belt
Green 5
Black Belt 500
What goals (organizational), performance measures, and /or strategies were the project expected to impact? (Q1)
1.2.3 What was the relationship between the stated measures and perceived gap in 1.2.1? (Q2)
What is the problem statement that expresses where the organization wants to be at the end of the project? (Q3)
1.2.1
Strategic Priorities Performance Measures Current Level Desired Level Gap
1.2.3 What goals  Discrepancy %  28%  <=15%  13% worse than desired
project expected to
impact ? (Q1)
 Customer Satisfaction  84% Top 2 Box  89% Top 2 Box  Lower by 5% than target
Scores
Service Excellence  Policy Contract Errors 2 .11 per 1000  1.0 per 1000  Grievances higher by 53%
(customer complaints) policies policies despatched
dispatched
1.2.3 What was
 Cost of Rework – the relationship  <10 K
 15 K between stated  5% more than desired
(discrepancy / and perceived
Customer complaints) gap? (Q2)
Cost Optimization
 Distributor  62% Lower by 9% than

 70%
Satisfaction Scores target
 Business Cancellation  USD 2.32 M
Strong Distribution Network  < USD 1.39 M
due to Discrepancy  20% worse than
Problem Statement desired
In today's business scenario, customer delight & faster issuance is the core By the end of the project
we hoped to have The gap we
expectation of a client which is currently impacted due to high level of intended to close
discrepancies while sourcing a policy. achieved
To mitigate the situation & provide absolute delighter and faster issuance we
1.2.3 What is the
propose to start a project to reduce the initial discrepancy which currently stands problem statement
at 28 % & reduce it to <=15%. This project also aims at providing delighter to (Q3)
Customer, Agent and Distribution team.

How were the stakeholders groups identified? (Q1)
1.3.1 What or who were the stakeholders groups ? (Q2)
1.3.1. Wh at or who
Stakeholder Analysis Approach
were the
Who ers Role were the
1. 2. Stakeholder 3. 4. stakeh5.old 6. 7. 1.3.1. How s
Sub-process 1.2.1 (Q3)List of Stakeholder 2)
groups (QMatrix Resistance Resistances ers group
SIPOC Stakeholder stakehold
Stakeholder Interview Detection Approach (Q1)
Detection identified
To classify them
•Drive strategic
Who? objectives
Six Sigma Team
To clearly define
Steering
To assure no sub Team
To assure no
I Sponsor and Champion
To get to know according to • Drive organizational
Method goals Approach
:Stakeholder Analysis
process was left stakeholder was
Internal Stakeholders
left behindStakeholders
Project’s scope them in depth influence, Defined
• Project by Max Quality System
reviews Impact
behind Influence
interest & support Interest Support
• Solicit new business
VALIDATED STAKEHOLDERS
Distribution Team E Distribution
Distribution Team •Collaboration with operations
3 3 1 =9
Supplier Inputs Process • Participate in surveys
Output Customer
Policy Issuance 3 3 3 = 27
Policy Issuance Team E • Underwriting non medical policies
• Proposal form Subject Matter Expert • Policy specialist
contract issued
Underwriting 2 •Provide 3 opinion
2 =18
• Agents • Mandatory • Additional • Customer
• Medical test documents
Underwriting Team E AgentsUnderwriting Team 3 information requested • Agent = 6
(Photograph, date of • Underwriting
2
from the medical policies
customer 1
centers • Distribution team
birth proof , identityBusiness Partners • Counter offer made to
proof,Partner
Business address proof) 1 • Data entry
3 and scanning
customer 3 team =9
E Third Party Service Providers
• Printing and policy pack dispatch
External Stakeholders
• Medical reports
Customers 3 1 1 =3
• Premium check
Feet on Street who sell • Solicit new business
Proposal Agents E •Collaboration with operations
Insurance Policies
Data entry by Discrepancy Discrepancy
form PF and Case moved
document
BP* and resolved by • Participate
to
in surveys sent back to
START received discrepancy branch branch for
at branch scanning by BP* Underwriting
marked (if any) operations • End customer resolution
office Customers I End Customer
If discrepancy- •Participate
Case sent for in surveys
Policy contract If resolved
Discrepancy printing on printing and
printed and case accepted,
resolved hold by Policy document
END dispatched to else rejected
Roles :- Influencer Issuance team verification by BP*
CustomersI E Executor
*PF :Proposal Form *BP: Business Partner Max Life Insurance 16

What knowledge or skill sets were determined to be necessary for successful completion of project?(Q1) (1/2)
1.3.2 To what extent did the existing stakeholder groups have the required knowledge or skills? (Q2) (1/2)
What additional knowledge and skills were brought in to make the project successful?(Q3) (1/2)
Max Quality Competency Evaluation
System Matrix
Current Level Additional
Project Team Knowledge Required Gaps Identified As Is To Be
1. 3 . 2 of Knowledge Knowledge Imparted
t
Wha ge 1.3.2
• Six Sigma Awareness wled ü 1. 3 . 2 t ditional?
Sponsor kno (1/2) ha What ad /2)
• (Q1
)
ü To w (Q2) (Q3) (1
Strategic Vision nt?
exte 1/2)
• Influence and Leadership ü (( None High High Not applicable
• Coaching and Training ü
• Negotiation ü
• Six Sigma Awareness ü
Champion • Strategic Vision ü
None
• Influence and Leadership ü High High Not applicable
• Decision Making ü
• Process Knowledge ü
• Basic innovation tools
• Basic Innovation Tools for Idea Generation û Innovation Tools None High
• Brainwriting
• Advanced Statistical Tools ü
Black Belt • Team Work ü
• Influence and Leadership ü
None
• Coaching and Training ü High High Not applicable
• Interpersonal Relationships ü
• Project Management ü
• Innovation Tools ü

• Process Knowledge û Process Knowledge Low Medium Process walk through

What knowledge or skill sets were determined to be necessary for successful completion of project?(Q1) (2/2)
1.3.2 To what extent did the existing stakeholder groups have the required knowledge or skills? (Q2) (2/2)
What additional knowledge and skills were brought in to make the project successful?(Q3) (2/2)
1.3.2
t
Wha ge Current Level Gaps Additional Knowledge
Project Team Knowledge wled
As Is To Be
kno (2/2) of Knowledge Identified Imparted
Required (Q1
)
• Six Sigma Methodology ü None High High 1.3.2

t
1. 3 . 2 t Wha al?
Project Leader ha ition
Influence To w (Q2) add (2/2)
and • Influence and Leadership û Strategy
Low extent? High
) (Q3
)
(2/2
Team Members • Coaching and Training ü Innovation Tools, Brainwriting,
None High High Idea Sorting and Refinement
• Interpersonal Relationships ü
• Project Management ü Low High
Innovation
• Innovation Tools û Tools
Low High
ü Basic Innovation Tools,

Distribution Team • Effective Communication None High High
Brain Writing and Creative
• Process Knowledge ü None High High
Challenge
• Innovative Thinking û Yes Low High Six Sigma Green Belt,
• Six Sigma û Yes Nil High Team Building
Business Partner • Product And System Knowledge ü None High High
Process Knowledge, Skill Building
• Sales Skills ü Yes Low High System Training, Financial and
• Form Filling Guidelines û Yes Low High Underwriting Guidelines
Agent Advisor • Product Knowledge û Yes Low High Process Knowledge &
• System Knowledge û Yes Nil High Skill Building
• Form Filling Guidelines û Yes Low High
1.3.3 Before the project started, what specific training was done? (Q1)
Leader ship training Six Sigma training  Understanding

for project team on system & process
stake holder on DMAIC  Understanding
management, project methodology challenges faced
management & basic by Distribution &
innovation tools Agents
Problem Solving
Project Management Six Sigma Training Process Walk through
Training for Quality Mentor
2 Days 5 Days 2 Days
Conducted by
External Consultant Conducted by
. Internal MBB’s
case study based 1.3.3 cific
e
t sp 1) Exam Based
Wha ng? (Q
i
train Tools Learnt –
Brainwriting, Creative Challenge, Ideas SIPOC and process mapping, Fishbone, FMEA / Control Impact Matrix
Sorting and Refinement, Generative Team Basic Statistical Tools - Pareto, Box Plot, Histograms, Scatter Plot, Control Charts
Building, Collaboration, Cross Functional Statistical Analysis - Hypothesis testing, Sample & Proportion Test
Team Alignment, Basics of Project Change Management - Basics of project management, Stake holder Analysis
Management 1.3.2 Software: Minitab

1.3.3 Before the project started, what was done to prepare the team to work together as a team?(Q2)
GRPI’s assessment score used to collaborate & strengthen team camaraderie Goal clarity
Working provided
together as ato team
team
Define Phase members by explaining-
Number of Project on-boarding and Kick-off along with GRPI assessment
GRPI Assessment Respondents Top 2 Box %
Top 2 Box Middle Box Bottom 2 Box
Goals: Mission and goals of the team were made clear to all
members
Goals 15 13 2 0 87%
Roles and responsibilities: Roles and responsibilities were
Roles 15 10 5 0 67% clearly assigned to each team member
Process and procedures: Processes & procedures were

Processes 15 10 5 0 67% explained to each team
Interpersonal 15 8 7 0 53%
Relations Interpersonal relationships: Project Leader checked whether
the relationships among team members were healthy and
T-2 % 80 and above <80 to 65 <65 supportive for a good team work
Generative team building exercise . How the Sponsor supported the team
1. 3 . 3 a s
was initiated to align everyone and tw
improve interpersonal relation score. Wha e to
don re • Sponsor chaired the project team kick off meeting
In - house session conducted for a
prep (Q2)
project team members ?
team
• Sponsor approved the team off-site
In - house change management
session conducted post GRPI for
team members • Approved the charter and agreed for team progress
review
Interventions for Team Building

1.3.4 What roles and expectations were determined ahead of the project (Q1)
ARMI tool used to set roles and expectations from the project team
PROJECT TEAM
DEFINE MEASURE ANALYZE IMPROVE CONTROL
A - Approver of team decisions
ROLES outside their charter/authorities
Sponsor A A A A A R - Resource to the team, one
What Role?
Champion A M R R R whose expertise, skills, “clout”
Quality Mentor R R R R R may be needed on an adhoc
basis
Project Team / SME M M M/R M/R M
M - Member of team, with the
Other Stake holders I I I I I authorities and boundaries of the
Project Team
 Toll gate reviews and sign offs charter

I - Interested party, one who
What  Guidance on additional skill sets required
will need to be kept informed on
Expectation?
 Additional resource allocation in specific phases direction, findings.
.
1.3.4 les
t ro Quality
Wha nd Sponsor Champion Project Leader Project Team Subject Matter Expert
a ns?
c tatio Mentor
e
exp (Q1)
 Provide  Ensure  Rigorous  Lead the team to  Ensure closure of • Ensure project’s
Strategic alignment with application success assigned actions deliverable(s) meet
What Role vision business of Six Sigma  Regular reviews the needs of the
and  Guarantee  Ensure resource with Sponsor &  Meet deadlines stakeholders,
Expectations? commitment allocation  Decision Champion policies, standards,
of team  Decision making with  Assignment of  Actively and best practices
 Remove making with Champion tasks participate in
roadblocks quality mentor DMAIC process

1.3.4 What deadlines and deliverables did the team have to consider ahead of
actually starting the project? (Q2)
Deadlines Deliverable Project Plan
Deadlines Deliverable
• 14th June 2016 to • Project Charter
• CTQ of 30% reduction • Project plan sharing with Champion &
Define 10th July 2016
Sponsor
• Process Mapping
Phase • 1 month from the
• Toll gate review signoffs • Weekly meetings with Black Belt & Green Belt
project startup for project progress
• 11th July to 26th July

• Data collected & MSA • Project plan sharing with Champion & Sponsor
2016
Measure • Process performance • Weekly meetings with BB & GB for project
• 15 days from the ‘Define’ progress
Phase phase completion
• Toll gate review signoffs
• 27th July to 15th August • Hypothesis testing of historic data

2016 • • Share outcome of analysis & root causes
Analyze Customer need analysis
• • Share customer insighting outputs with team
• 1 month after closure of Validation of root Causes
Phase ‘Measure’ phase • Tollgate review signoffs
• 16th August to 16th • Solutions designed & tested • Standard DMAIC checklist verification
Improve September 2016 • Cost benefit & risk analysis • Review with Champion & Sponsor
• Implementation plan
Phase • 1 month from closure of • Final solutions implemented
‘Analyze’ phase • Tollgate review sign offs
• 17th September to • Process control systems

30th Dec 2016 • End of phase presentation to Master
• Governance & dash boarding
Control •
Black Belt & project Sponsor
• 3 months from end of Control charts 1.3.4.
‘Improve’ phase • Replication opportunity What deadlines and
• Best practice sharing deliverables? (Q2)
Direction to the project team by the steering committee was to complete the project before the last quarter i.e. by Dec’16
Before the project started, what team routines, including communication were
1.3.4 established?(Q3)
.
1.3.4 am
t te Detailed Communication Plan
Wha es and
in n
rout unicatio Type
What m ) How
com an? (Q3 When Who (Communication
(Team Routines) pl Why Whom (Communication
(Frequency) (Members)
Mode)
Type)
Governance To discuss requirements,
review progress against plan, issues, Steering Ashish Sharma
Monthly e-mail One Way
milestone dates and committee (Project Sponsor)
upcoming events
Internal Project Project Sponsor, Ashish Sharma, MIS & dashboard
review CTQ Tracking and Vinita Gattani, Roopa
Stakeholders monitoring
Fortnightly Champion and reviews through Two Way
key project team Rajendra & Project conference calls
team
Cross functional Tracking on movement. Skype calls, emails,
team huddles Review last weeks plan vs. Roopa Rajendra & Two way / One
Weekly Key project team WhatsApp,
closure and agree on next Anjali Kalaskar Way
conference calls,
weeks plan
External Business partner Conference calls,
Stakeholders review To discuss requirement, and Two way / One
Weekly Business partner Roopa Rajendra emails, in-person
issues Way
meetings
Stakeholder Type of MIS Periodicity

One way communication Dashboards & MIS
Project CTQ movement along with with Internal (Management Information
Steering Team Monthly
new initiatives Stakeholder using System)
Operation's Team Regular update on discrepancy % Weekly
Update on cases cancelled & cases Two way communication email, WhatsApp, SMS,
Distribution Team Daily
discrepant with Internal Stakeholder Conference calls & Skype
Project Team Project CTQ Movement Weekly using

SECTION 2
2.1.0 Key Measures Expected of the Project

2.2.0 Possible Root Causes
2.3.0 Final Root Causes
2.4.0 Project Management Update

2.1.1 What specific goals and/or measures was the team trying to achieve with the project? (Q1)
1.2.3
Business Case Problem Statement
In today's business scenario, customer delight & faster issuance is the core expectation Pain : Discrepancy % from January ‘15 to March ‘16 is at
of a client which is currently impacted due to high level of discrepancies while sourcing 28%
a policy. This also impacts organization with higher costing due to repeat activity and
higher investment due to man hours involved in rework & delay in decisioning of a Opportunity –There's an opportunity to reduce the
case, resulting in grievances leading to customer & distributor dissatisfaction. discrepancy to <=15% & thereby
Discrepancy may be found in the proposal form or other documents provided, which • Reduce rework
may end up as grievances. • Increase Customer satisfaction scores
To mitigate the situation & provide absolute delighter and faster issuance we propose • Increase Distributor satisfaction scores
to start a project to reduce the initial discrepancy which currently stands at 28 %. This • Reduce policy pack grievances
project also aims at providing delighter to customer, agent and distribution team. • Reduce business leakage
Goal Statement Project Scope
Metric Current level Goal / Target Target date Process under improvement: Policy Issuance &
discrepancy management process
Current Starts with : Proposal form received at branch office
28% <=15% 30-12-2016
Discrepancy % Ends with : Policy pack printed & dispatched
2.1.1 cific Out Of Scope: Other distribution (sales) channels
e
Project Plan t sp ) Project Team
Wha ls? (Q1
go a
Phase Start End Remarks Sponsor: Ashish Sharma
Define 14-06-2016 10-07-2016 By the end of the Champion: Vinita Gattani SME: Sheetal Manickam
project the company Project MBB: Syed Saif
Measure 11-07-2016 26-07-2016 Project Mentor: Anjali Kalaskar
expected to reduce
Analyze 27-07-2016 15-08-2016 Project Leader: Roopa Rajendra
New Business
Improve 16-08-2016 16-09-2016 Member: Jyoti K,Meghdoot B, Rohit S Udbighna P, Taral
Discrepancies to B, Brian D, Rupande T, Anil D, Kaushik G, Arindom G,
Control 17-09-2016 30-12-2016
<=15% Meenakshi T

What additional potential benefits, other than the specific goals and /or measures, was the
2.1.1 project expected to impact? (Q2)
Project Goal
Current Estimated
2. 1 . 1 Reduction of New Business Discrepancy
Expected Benefits Wha nal
t 28% <=15%
itio
add ntial
1.2.3 (Q1) pote ? (Q2)
efits
ben
Additional Potential Benefits Measure Current Estimated
Higher Customer Satisfaction Scores

CSAT 84% Top 2 Box 89% Top 2 Box
( CSAT )
Higher Distribution Satisfaction

DSAT 61% Top 2 Box 71% Top 2 Box
Scores ( DSAT )
Policy pack 2.11 per 1000 1.05 per 1000

Reduction in Policy Pack Errors
grievance rate policies policies Service Strong Distribution Cost
Excellence Network Optimization
Business USD 2.32

New Business Opportunity Lost USD 1.39 Million 1.1..1
lost Million
Q1
Cost of 3 Strategic Priorities impacted by the project
Cost of Rework 0.15 K <10 K
rework

What methods and/or tools were used to identify possible root causes ?(Q1) (1/4)
2.2.1 Why were these methods and/or tools selected [to identify possible root causes]?(Q2) (1/4)
Analysis of Current
Capability Report SIPOC
Situation
Binomial Process Capability Report for Discrepancy
P Chart Rate of Defectives
1
0.4 40
1
1
%Defective
Proportion
1 1 1
0.3 _ 30
UCL=0.2835
P=0.2749
LCL=0.2663 2.2.1.What
1 1
methods
0.2 20
and/or tools
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 8000 16000 24000 (Q1) (1/4)
Sample Sample Size
Tests are performed with unequal sample sizes.
Cumulative %Defective Histogram

Target
28 Summary Stats
(95.0% confidence) 4
%Defective: 27.49
Lower CI: 27.28
Upper CI: 27.70 3
26
%Defective
Target: 15.00
PPM Def: 274934 Frequency
Lower CI: 272834 2
Upper CI: 277041
24 Process Z: 0.5980
Lower CI: 0.5917
1
Upper CI: 0.6043
22 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 15 20 25 30 35 40
Sample %Defective
• This was used to determine the capability of the

• To identify the various departments and stake-holders involved
process
2.2.1 Why • To identify Supplier, Input, Process, Output and Customer, for
• The team used mini-tab to create the capability chart were these the complete end to end Policy Issuance Process
to recognize instability and determined a course of methods
and/or tools
• Detailed process mapping was done to understand cross
action to remove the out of control conditions
selected (Q2) functional linkages / areas impacted in the issuance process
• Discrepancy % is very high leading to process sigma (1/4)
operating at 0.59

What methods and/or tools were used to identify possible root causes ?(Q1) (2/4)
2.2.1 Why were these methods and/or tools selected [to identify possible root causes]?(Q2)(2/4)
Process Mapping Analysis of Current Situation Qualitative

Customer Agent
Analysis
and Insighting
Distribution
(Value Insighting
/Non Value add Analysis)
2.2.1.What
methods
and/or tools
(Q1) (2/4)
From receipt of Proposal form in the

branch to Policy Pack shipped –
22 Non Value Added Activities Identified
• To understand the interactions and details of the as is 2.2.1 Why •• To understandanalysis

Qualitative importance
wasversus
done satisfaction levelmapping,
post process of to
process, process mapping was done to understand the were these Customer and MUDA.
Distribution and analyzed each verbatim and
methods
identify the
entire process in detail,
• This mapping helped us in identifying the gaps in the and/or tools • grouped
22 non similar voices.
value added activities identified right from receipt of
selected (Q2) • Understood each attribute question along with its score
process (2/4) form in the branch to policy pack shipped.
and reason for low rating.
• 10 activities identified were beyond teams controls .
What methods and/or tools were used to identify possible root causes? (Q1) (3/4)
Box Plots Identification of Root Causes Affinity Diagram
2.2.1.What
methods
and/or tools
(Q1) (3/4)
2.2.1 Why
were these
 Box plots created to check variation among the Zones. methods • Branches with highest discrepancy were called to understand
and/or tools reasons for high discrepancy and Affinity diagram was created
selected (Q2)
 There is a significant difference in the discrepancy count (3/4)
across the Zones, with the highest discrepancy occurring in • This activity made it easy to visualize the homogeneous
South Zone groups and therefore guided the team towards a viable project.

What methods and/or tools were used to identify possible root causes? (Q1) (4/4)
Cause and Impact

Control EffectProcess
Matrix
MatrixTool Business need Identification of Agents Fishbone
not gathered
No system cut offs
No validation process Root Causes Forms logged in late
# Issues for highRequirement
discrepancies
not for 100% cases Priority Rating
evening by agents
in branches IMPACT
1Control
NewImpact
executives raised
notwith IT
trained adequatelyStraight for quality
pass casecheck
gets marked as
Distribution team not 9Forms not filled correctly by
trained to fill the form
2 Matrix
First Wrong discrepancy
prior agents not trained to fill thediscrepancy form correctly 9agents
marked by Head office High Medium Incomplete Low
proofs
3 Business partner errors Discrepancy marked without
9
No check points for provided by Agents 2.2.1.What
4 Incorrect documents given operation
Untrained by agent users reason byWrong discrepancy
underwriter and No check Documents
points fornot 9 No
underwriter methods
Underwriter on
5 Proposal forms is too cramped hence errors
Business Partner filled correctly 9 accountability
marking&wrong
distribution team marked by underwriter in marking discrepancy and/or tools
6 Manual process hence too many errors
discrepancies Discrepancy not part 9 (Q1) (4/4)
Revised illustration & counter
7 No validation No
process
Accuracy % validation
for 100% cases process for Discrepancy marked
offer do not get uploaded in
Notes not
of distribution KRA* entered in system
9 for
8 High premium and high 100%
not included Old casesnotcases gets
sumproducts
assured system without
marked reason frequently
discrepant
simultaneously contact
No refresher details
session9
9 in UW* KPI’s * deleted from
Forms generated from online portal are outdated the provided to agents 9
Indexation
System not process not
Doublesystemquality check not Underwriter do not
Agents nottrained
checkonnotes and
6financial
10 Teams
In Over Control
sight or negligence by operations user whileupgraded checking by
followed thescanning
forms
fo r & Underwriting guidelines Causes for
11 Too many handoffs happening in the process in branches
hence gets marked ac t o rs
discrepant mark discrepancy6
ting f ies
center Discrepancy 2.2.1 Why
12 Cases scanned are not clear hence discrepant p a c 6
h ig h im r e p a nc
Operations team push
were these
13 Operations team have toTick 9 marks
rush with the
g hd
not isc check due
quality to the time constraint Proposal form not
3 methods
Late logins received at the h i
branch,
14 No check points for underwriter to check whether valid cases
New executives not trained on
without
discrepancy quality
is getting Additional
marked information gets
structured in marked
3
order as and/or tools
acknowledged quality check
operations user has to rush in withproposal
Quality selected (Q2)
15 Wrong discrepancy
check marked by Underwriter check due to time discrepancy by Underwriter
Proposal form3 (4/4)
form Negligence by operations user while
16 No system cutoffs in branches quality constraint
check is too cramped 3
Scanning centre errors while 3
17 Highest logins received late in the evening post closing hours
scanning No system cut offs in
18 Double quality check not happening in branches Maker checker concept not followed by Verygiven
little space3 Sales
in  From
From• Control
this Impact
this activity
activity Matrix
cause-and-
cause-and-
Scanning center errors Incorrect documents by team
19 NotesAdditional
in system notes systembranches
forinimportant notfields not entered operations team
by Operations users the form 3
Proposal
effectwas
form
effect
generated from
matrixalsotool
matrix used
tool wastoused
was identify
used for
for
entered by Operations team areas
prioritizing
prioritizing and
the their
the long degree
long list
list of
of
20 All tick marks notHigh acknowledged
logins receivedin proposallate BP*formProposal
Insufficient
in
formof is too
knowledge
Proposal forms
Proposal form
generated
3 online portal is
data entry users version control from online
not clear of impact
21 Underwriter do not check notes and marks discrepancy cramped & not 3 possible
possible root root causes.
causes.
the evening portal are
not trackednot clear 3
22Out Mandatory
ofUnderwriter
ControlIndexation
do not checkprocess
entirely not BP followed by scanning
* not trained centerproperly
structured  Out
Out of of 2626 causes
causes top top 99 key
key
and marks discrepancy
23 DC clarification marked as discrepancy
Revised illustrationAdditional instead of addinfo
counterinformation seeked by underwriter 3 • This was done
areas
areas of
of improvement
improvement
Fish specifically
bone was used were
were
with for
the
24 Straight pass case gets marked as non
offer, not uploaded in is straight
marked aspass
discrepancy
Insufficient knowledge 3
25 Revised illustration counter offer not uploaded in the login application Old products not deleted from3 the system identified
simultaneously
identified
groupingSponsorto
to potential
of be
be
and validated
validated
root
Champion
systemusers
Operation due related
to system of data entry user Form Visibility further
further
causesthrough
through
under 4 statistical
statistical tools.
categories. tools.
26 ADD Info's gets marked as Discrepancy by Underwriter 3
constraints
*KPI’s : Key performance indicators *BP: Business Partner Max Life Insurance 30
2.2.1 How was the team prepared to use these methods and/or tools [to identify possible root
causes]? (Q3)
Team Building Workshops External Internal Classroom Training for Six Sigma tools Exam
Consultant MBB’s Based
Why? 1.3.2
Why?
Since interpersonal relationship scores was low during 5 days of rigorous training to the project team on DMAIC
the GRPI & to build the cross functional alignment & methodology for better understanding of quality check
2.2.1 How motivate the team to actively participate in improvement tools and statistical hypothesis tools. To enable the team to
was the team journey team building workshops was facilitated. conduct root cause analysis through historical data &
prepared to
use methods
project management skills.
and tools?
(Q3)
Process walk through / on the job training
Team was
prepared to use Why?
the methods & Live demonstration was done to understand gap areas
tools through
in the issuance process by SME from Policy Issuance &
education &
training Underwriting team.
interventions Case
Field training for customer / Distributor Insighting Study
1.3.3 Based
Why?
Facilitation skills was also arranged by the Sponsor to To demonstrate how to administer a open ended
the team through management development programs. questionnaire to walk in Customer & Agents to
capture insights from the gathered data.

What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to identify the possible root causes?
2.2.2 (Q1)(1/3)
2.2.2 ta
t da QUALITATIVE DATA QUANTITATIVE DATA
Wha ated ? EXTERNAL QUANTATIVE DATA
er
gen (1/3)
(Q1
) • Customer & Distributor • Discrepancy trends in various
• Industry trends on complaints
satisfaction survey– detailed buckets like:
reported on application
analysis of attribute level score • Zonal distribution
processing
Data Generated • In-sighting with both customer • Cluster level distribution
& distributor to understand • Type of fields in the proposal
reasons for bottom 2 box score form
• Complaints received at call
center
2.2.1 Voice of Customer

Trends compared versus Plan Industry Benchmarking
and Agents
Tools
.
2.2.2
How (Q1)
d
lyze
ana (1/3)
How?

2.2.2 (Q1)(2/3)
2.2.1 Who Six Sigma Project Team
SIPOC Qualitative Analysis & Capability Report

Process Mapping
Tools Affinity Diagram
2.2.2 ta
t da
Wha ated ?  To identify the non
er Project Scope:  Process
ge n ) ( 2 / 3 )
(Q1 value added activities
Performance
 Inputs from receipt of form in
Bucket wise discrepancy
 Outputs the branch to policy
 % Conforming
 Suppliers pack dispatch
Data Generated  Customers  To visualize the
 % of Variation
homogeneous groups
2. 2 . 2
How d
lyze
ana 2 / 3 )
)( Process capability
(Q1  Process walk  Brainstorming
 Process walk
 Document  Customer, Agent and with Minitab &
for accuracy
review Employee in sighting calculated capability
How? indicators, outliers &
variations

2.2.2 (Q1) (3/3)
Who Six Sigma Project Team
Fishbone and Brain Storming Cause & Effect Matrix and Box Plot
Tools Control Impact Matrix
2.2.2 ta
t da
Wha ated ?
er
gen )(3/3)
(Q1
Generation of 26 Causes with high priority Box plots created to
possible root causes scores & most likely possible check variation among
root causes out of 26 causes the Zones
Data Generated
2.2.2
How d
lyze
ana 3/3)
)(
(Q1 Zone wise discrepancy
By finding relationship Prioritization of highest
priority using brainstorming percentages were
between sub causes with big technique with the team plotted to analyze
How? specific zonal level issues
Y and real root causes

2.2.2 What were the possible root causes? (Q2)
2. 2 . 2
t
Wha root
sible
pos uses
ca
)
1. Timely discrepancy resolution not happening (Q2
14. Multiple handoffs in the policy issuance cycle
2. Lack of timely updates from a centralized identity 15. No process for recognition and appreciation for
3. Multiple priorities at the front end hence lack of Operations team
collaboration 16. No process to check if correct discrepancies has been
4. Low knowledge of Operations resources and Agents marked by the business partner or the underwriter
PR
5. Lack of refresher sessions on process changes 17. No process designed for high premium cases which
OC
LE
6. Failure at quality check points leads to discrepancies
OP
7. Incorrect discrepancies marked by vendor and
ESS
18. No process to upload revised illustration and
Underwriter
PE
counter offer simultaneously
8. Document scanning errors 19. No check points for Underwriter to check whether
9. First prior class of agents have high discrepancies valid discrepancy is being marked
10. Discrepancy marked without mentioning the reason by 20. No validation process for wrong discrepancies
Business partner or underwriter 21. No process to delete old products from core system
11. Scanning centre errors during scanning TECHNOLOGY
12. Notes in system for important fields not entered by
branch operations
13. Riders mentioned incorrectly in the form
22. Manual logging of proposal forms

23. Real time information on discrepant cases not available to the Agent and Distribution team
24. Lack of identification of automation opportunities through voice of Customer/ Distributor
25. System cut off required by Operations team post 6:00 PM
26. Outdated proposal forms on agent portal

What methods and/or tools were used to identify final root causes?(Q1) (1/2)
2.3.1 Why were these methods and/or tools selected [to identify the final root causes]? (Q2) (1/2)
2.3.1 Who Six Sigma Project Team
What methods
and tools ?
(Q1) (1/2) Brain Storming
Cause & Effect Matrix 5 Why Analysis Pareto
Tools and
Gemba Walk
Understanding the Team exercise in order To identify the To identify the

to identify possible possible root vital few from
end to end process
causes effecting the causes arising out the trivial many
and to identify project ‘Y’ and of the cause and using the 80:20
Why? 2.3.1 possible breakages prioritizing them effect exercise principle
Why these
methods and
tools ? (Q2)
(1/2)
Organized a visit to Zonal, regional

Possible root causes Used immediately level discrepancies
business partner after the Cause &
premises and also at weighted in terms of and also the top
How? Effect diagram to reasons for
the head office to see their impact on CTQs reach to the root
the end to end policy discrepancies
causes on the were plotted on
issuance process prioritized X’s Pareto

What methods and/or tools were used to identify final root causes?(Q1) (2/2)
2.3.1 Why were these methods and/or tools selected [ to identify the final root causes]? (Q2) (2/2)
Who Six Sigma Project Team
Attribute Failure Mode

Hypothesis Testing
Tools 2.3.1 Effect Analysis
Gage R & R
What methods
(FMEA)
and tools ?(Q1)
(2/2)
To test the process To shortlist identified To statistically validate

knowledge of business failure modes with through data the final root
partner against highest risk priority causes creating the process
Why? standard numbers ( RPN ) breakages
2.3.1
Why these
tools were
used ?(Q2)
(2/2)
Processing test of sample FMEA team workshop All possible X’s where data
How? cases were conducted to was organized along was available were tested
assess Business Partner’s with the project team through various hypothesis
knowledge against the and Business Partners test like 2P test, Anova & Chi
standard square

How was team prepared to use the methods and /or tools [to identify the final root causes?
2.3.1 (Q3)
Max Life’s Lean Six Sigma Methodology
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

DMAIC
Problem Performance Problem Performance Performance
Methodology
Master Black Belt Internal

MBB’s
Green Belt Six Sigma Training

Trainings 2.3.1 (5 days training for project team)
How was
the team
prepared?
(Q3) Exam
Tools Used Based
• SIPOC, Process Maps

• Brainstorming, Ishikawa, 5 Why
• Cause and Effect Matrix, Pareto Analysis
Tools Learnt • Stakeholder Analysis Matrix
• Failure Mode Effect Analysis
• Hypothesis testing with statistical tools – 1.3.2
Chi Square, 2 P Test, Anova & Attribute Gage R & R 1.3.3

What data was generated and how was the data analyzed in order to identify the final root
2.3.2 causes? (Q1)
What are specific examples of data analysis that led to the final root causes? (Q2)
Gemba and Who Six Sigma Project Team
2.3.2.
Cause and Effect
SME opinion Affinity Diagram 5 Why Pareto FMEA Hypothesis Test Gage R & R
What dat
a Matrix
? (Q1)
generated
Consolidated Process walk All possible Relevant data Zonal and List of potential Historic data Operator to
list of all through causes segments were Regional level failure modes in segments such as : operator variation
Gemba and identified and extracted to either data was analyzed - Agent Tenure and also variation
possible causes the Policy
SME opinion for extracting the - Zonal distribution between the
identified grouped ascertain or Issuance Process - Operator Tenure sample tested
through through affinity collaborate or vital few root
-Type of against the
Data brainstorming, diagram validate 5 Why’s caused from trivial
Discrepancies standard
5 Why, VOC many
2 .3 . 2 and Cause &
ed ?
w A nalyz Effect matrix
Ho
(Q1)
Data  Hypothesis
All possible causes Validation by Datawas
wasanalyzed
analyzed For relevant causes Pareto created on Risk Priority Testing
evaluated basis observation and similar causes Why was asked 4 to testing in mini- through mini-
and similar causes Minitab to identify Number (RPN)
by discussion tab in measure tab with data
impact and a rating were grouped
were grouped 5 times from the vital few regions basis risk
with specialist phase collected in
was assigned by together to
together to processing team to with highest associated with
Analysis the project team identify emerging
identify emerging ascertain the root discrepancy  Results of tests measure phase
South and West 1 contribute to each failure
(9-high, 3-medium, themes cause of the issue allowed to
themes
.2 highest discrepancies accept / reject
2.3 1-low)
a mp les? hypothesis
ex
What Q2) 2.3.2 Wrong
( • Certain class
Discrepancy What
Timely specific
are High premium discrepancy
Manual resolution leads of agents have examples (Q2) Agents are not
updation of & high coverage marked by Document
process of form to waste of high trained on form
version cases leads to business scanning errors
filling transportation discrepancies filling guidelines
• Untrained controlled discrepancies partner due to
and wait time lack of refresher
branch proposal forms
Examples operations on agent portal
sessions.
executive
The use of various methods and tools with records/data were effectively used at each phase to determine the root causes
2.3.2 What was (were) the final root causes ? (Q3)
2.3.2
S. No. Possible Root Causes Final root
1 Manual process of form filling
Final Root Causes causes (Q3)
2 Documentation errors
3 Class of agents has impact on discrepancies Manual process of form filling
4 Untrained operations executive
5 Outdated proposal forms on agent portal
6 Wrong discrepancy by business partner
Documentation errors
7 Form filling guidelines unclear to agents
8 Higher the premium, higher the discrepancies
9 No system cut off time in super branch offices
Class of Agents has impact on discrepancies
10 All questions not filled in proposal form
11 Validation process for small samples only
12 No checklist for discrepancies raised by underwriting team
Untrained Operations executive
13 Over sight by operations team due to high volumes of forms
14 Discrepancy marked without mentioning the reason
15 Unclear discrepancy definitions between underwriting and branch offices
Outdated proposal forms on Agent portal
16 Scanning center errors
17 Notes in The Policy Processor (TPP) for critical fields not entered clearly
18 Quality check team not calibrated
19 Underwriting do not check notes and mark discrepancy Wrong discrepancy by Business Partner
20 Incorrect Illustration given by agent s
21 Old products not deleted from The Policy Processor (TPP)
22 Too much pressure on quality check team Form filling guidelines unclear to Agents
23 Revised illustration& counter offer, not uploaded simultaneously
24 Documents not uploaded under correct headers by business partner
25 Additional Information gets marked as discrepancy by underwriting Higher the premium, higher the discrepancies
26 Riders mentioned incorrectly in the proposal form
Potential Causes : 26 Validated Causes: 8

2.3.3 How was (were) the final root causes validated? (Q1)
Who Six Sigma Project Team 2.3.3 Tools Used

How final Root
causes were
validated (Q1) SME Chi
Validated Root Causes Gemba FMEA Anova 2P TEST Gage R&R
Validation Square
1
Manual process of form filling
2 Documentation errors
3 Class of agents has impact on discrepancies
4 Untrained operations executive
5
Outdated proposal forms on agent portal
6 Wrong discrepancy marked by business partner
7 Untrained Agents
8
High premium cases leads to discrepancies

What evidences showed that the final root causes were validated prior to solution
2.3.3 development? (Q2)
2.3.2 &
2.3.3
8 Validated Root Causes Evidences

Potential causes : 26 & Validated : 8
2.3.3
ces
How eviden
X1 - Manual X4 - Untrained final
showed that
process of form were
operations root causes
)
filling executive validated(Q2
Validated using Validated using X7 – Untrained

FMEA 2 proportion test Agents
X5 – Outdated Validated using

X2–
proposal forms FMEA
Documentation
errors on agent portal
Validated using Validated using

Chi square Gemba X8 - High
premium, high
discrepancies
X3 - Class of X6 - Wrong
agents has impact discrepancy by Validated using
on discrepancies business partner Anova
Validated using Validated using

Chi square test Gage R& R
The use of various methods and tools with records/data were effectively used at each phase
to determine the root causes
How was the correctness of the initial project scope, deliverables, and timing confirmed (or,
2.4.1 what changes were made)? (Q1)
How Who 2.4.1

ess
he correctn
How was t ct
l proje
• Projects • Sponsor of the initia nd
development is verables, a
• Champion scope, deli 1)
reviewed during firmed? (Q
• Black Belt timing con
tollgate meeting
after each phase of
DMAIC
Project Adhered
Project Timelines Deliverables
Project Deliverables
Project Scope Root causes detected within the project’s scope confirmed us that there is no need to change it
How were the stakeholders involved and/or communicated with during the root cause phase of
2.4.1 the project ? (Q2)
1.3.1 Stakeholder Analysis Approach
 Six Sigma Project Team
Who :
 Stakeholder Analysis Approach 2 3 4 5 6 7
Method : 1.
 Defined by Max Quality System Sub-process List of Stakeholder Stakeholder Resistance Resistance
SIPOC Detection Stakeholder Interview Matrix Detection Approach 1.3.4
1.3.1 (Q3)
2.4.1
the
How were
rs involved
Who ? How were they involved stakeholde ?
Stakeholders municated How were they communicated
and/or com
(Q2)
Understanding the concerns of distribution during Skype calls, emails, • Calling - two
Distribution Team Agency Sales Team review meetings and making them understand the risk WhatsApp, conference calls, way / one-way
due to discrepancy weekly business reviews • Meeting- two way
Internal
Provided record of gaps for root cause analysis and Skype calls, emails, • Calling - two
Policy Issuance • ProvideRepresenting
guidance on key improvements way / one-way
primary participants in brainstorming sessions WhatsApp, conference calls,
Policy strategic
• Influence Issuance Team
decisions • Meeting- two way
weekly business reviews
• Resource allocation
• Cost approvals Skype calls, emails, • Calling - two
Participating in review meetings, brainstorming
Underwriting Team Representing Underwriters sessions and process walkthrough WhatsApp, conference calls, way / one-way
weekly business reviews • Meeting- two way
Customer Policy Holders Through customer surveys, gathered information on Not applicable • Not applicable
gaps regarding the service being provided currently currently
External
Agents Contracted Sales Agent Through Agent surveys, gathered information on gaps Agent in-sighting • Meeting-two way
regarding the service being provided Agent town halls
Provided information regarding issues being faced Conference calls

Business Partner Third Party Service Provider at processing center & areas of improvement • Calling – two way
In person meeting • Meeting- two way

2.4.1 What stakeholder resistance was identified and / or addressed in this phase of the project?(Q3)
1.3.1 Strongly Moderately Moderately Strongly Resistance Influencing
Stakeholders Neutral
Against Against Supportive Supportive Identified Strategy
2.4.1 Loss of business due to

Distribution Team How stakeholders
resistance
Lack of time to attend project
review meetings
discrepancy was brought to
notice
identified (Q3)
Internal
Policy Issuance None Not Applicable
Multitasking with other activities Agents understanding of

Underwriting Team hence would not have time for
Agent training
underwriting grids and
required documents would
help reduce your rework
Customer None Not Applicable

External
Highlighted benefits of
Willingness to agree on
Agents discrepancies raised by Policy
Issuance team
faster issuance, timely
incentives and repeat
business from Customers
Business Partner None Not Applicable
Stakeholder resistance was identified using Stakeholder Matrix. Project team organized meetings to overcome the resistance

How was the appropriateness of the initial team membership and management routines
2.4.1 confirmed (or, what changes were made)?(Q4)
GRPI’s agreement score used to collaborate and Stage wise GRPI Scores (%) How Who
strengthen team camaraderie
GRPI Score Trend Projects development is • Sponsor
(Top 2 Box) reviewed during • Champion
85%
tollgate meeting after • Black Belt
80% each phase of DMAIC
80%
75%
75%
68%
70%
65%
60%
Define Measure Analyze Stage
Stage
GRPI Score improved by 7% in 2.4.1

Measure Phase and then How was
management
from 75% to 80% routines
confirmed(Q4)
1.3.4 Initial Management Routine Confirmation
Management •Team meeting for project follow

Committee Monthly Review ups took place as per plan
Quality Team Monthly to • Meetings with Sponsor

Feedback from Sponsor Fortnightly and Champion were as per schedule
Review with Sponsor and  Timely meetings Sponsor /
Weekly Reviews • Stakeholders assisted all
Champion, established that Champion
meetings
initial team routines were  100% attendance on
appropriate time Business Partner Weekly Reviews • Analyze phase tollgate
approved by Champion and
Sponsor
SECTION 3
3.1.0 Possible Solution or Improvements

3.2.0 Final Solutions or Improvements
3.3.0 Project Management update

What methods and/or tools were used to identify the possible solution(s)? (Q1)
3.1.1 Why were these methods and/or tools selected [ to identify possible solutions]? (Q2)
2.3.2
Validated Root Who Six Sigma Project Team
Causes 3.1.1 3.1.1
What methods / What Methods / Tools Why? Why these tools /
tools? (Q1) methods selected? (Q2)
Brainstorming & Affinity To generate maximum possible solutions in limited time
1. Documentation
errors Diagrams through tools like 6 thinking hats and SCAMPER
2. Class of agents has Consultation with
impact on Marketing & Subject To leverage the creative expertise of marketing team and
discrepancies Generation experience of SME and to benefit from their experience
Matter Experts
3. Untrained operations of possible
executive
solutions To identify the non value added activities and generate the
4. Form filling Qualitative Analysis
guidelines unclear to solutions to eliminate it
agents 1.2.1
Benchmarking To identify the practices and ideas from competition
5. Wrong discrepancy
by business partner Hypothesis Testing /
To validate the selected solutions
6. Higher the premium, FMEA
higher the
discrepancies
To prioritize the selected solutions basis time impact, cost
Selection Solution Selection Matrix
impact and sigma impact
and
validation To select suitable solutions basis the outcome of time and
7. Manual process of Time & Motion Study
motion study
form filling
8. Outdated proposal To test the solutions in controlled environment and select
forms on agent Who? Pilot Testing
portal Who? the appropriate solutions

How was team prepared to use these methods and /or tools to identify the possible
3.1.1 solutions? (Q3)
Roles Trained on Classroom Training for Six Sigma tools
Why?
5 days of rigorous training to the project team on DMAIC
Basic innovation tools for idea methodology by an Internal MBB for better understanding
Sponsor generation brain writing & of QC tools and statistical hypothesis tools. To enable the
Champion brainstorming team to conduct root cause analysis through historical data
SME & project management skills followed by an exam.
Process walk through/on the job training

Team was
prepared to use Why?
 Six Sigma methodology
the methods & Live demonstration was done to understand gap
 Influencing and leadership
tools through Green Belt areas in the issuance process by SME from issuance &
3.1.1
education & Exam How team was underwriting team
training Based prepared to use
interventions tools / methods?
(Q3) Field training for customer / Distributor Insighting
 Six Sigma methodology Why?

 Innovative thinking To demonstrate how to administer a open ended
Team Members
 Form filling guidelines questionnaire to walk in customer & agents to
capture insights from the gathered data
 Product & system knowledge

3.1.2 What
(Q1)
data was generated and how was the data analyzed to determine the possible solution(s)
3.1.1.
2.3.2
Validated Root
Causes
Consultation with SME Affinity Diagram Multi-Voting
Brain Storming
Tools and Benchmarking
1. Documentation
errors
2. Class of agents has
impact on
discrepancies
3. Untrained operations 35 ideas were  Clubbed the solutions in Ideas for possible Rechecking the
executive to controllable and solutions grouped list of possible
generated for
4. Form filling uncontrollable factors. by affinity prioritized
guidelines unclear to possible solutions
Data solutions
Agents  Best practices of Insurance
Generated industry were also mapped
3.1.2
What data
5. Wrong discrepancy generated and how
by Business Partner analyzed (Q1)
6. Higher the premium,
higher the  35 Solutions analyzed
discrepancies We analyzed all by SME to check the We grouped ideas Analyzed the
these solutions feasibility of impact of
further and implementation by affinity to make
Analysis solutions on
clubbed in to prioritization easier Impact, Cost
7. Manual process of major buckets  We conducted industry and Ease
form filling benchmarking to
8. Outdated proposal identify best practices
forms on Agent
portal

3.1.2 What are the possible solutions? (Q2)
35 Possible Solutions
Validated Root Causes 2.3.2 1 Tablet based form login instead of physical copy of proposal form 3.1.2
3.1.1. 2 Form to be filled in front of customer only, Customer to fill the form online What possible
People 3 More products to be introduced in the online portal of Max Life Insurance solutions? (Q2)
4 Penalty clause to be applied for every scanning and data entry error
1. Documentation Tools / Method 5 Business partner to be given a thorough training for 15 days only then he should be allowed to work individually
errors 6 Salary to be deducted for every scanning error of the operator
2. Class of agents has 7 Scanning error not to be included as discrepancy for branch operations
impact on Brain 8 Scanning operator to be recognized monthly without any error
discrepancies 9 Agent town halls to be conducted across 205 offices, financial and underwriting guidelines shared with the agents
Storming
3. Untrained operations 10 Agent to be recognized on giving discrepant free application
executive 11 Small mementos to be given to Agents on providing discrepant free application
4. Form filling 12 Commission to be on hold for Agents on giving more than 5 discrepant applications in a month
guidelines unclear to 13 Checklist to be used by Agents before submitting the applications
agents 14 Discrepancy to be part of internal assessments for operation users
Consultation
with SME and 15 Branches with lowest discrepancy % to be recognized in annual rewards and recognition ceremony
Process
Benchmarking 16 Quarterly assessments launched for branch executive to gauge
den t ified knowledge levels followed by certification
i
5. Wrong discrepancy
17 Repository with important guidelines and forms
s o lu tionsto be created and shared with users for easy reference
le
by business partner
18
3 5 p ossib executive before logging the case in the system
Checklist to be used by operations
19 Double quality check to be done before pressing the final submit button in the system
6. Higher the premium,
20 Operation users with more than 10 discrepancies in a month to be notified to HR and put on improvement plan
higher the
discrepancies 21 Snaps of users with high discrepancies to be flashed through emails across branches and showed as hall of shame
Affinity Diagram
22 Snaps of users with no or lowest discrepancies to be flashed under hall of fame
23 Training managers to conduct regular con-call with the branch operations to provide them training
Technology 24 SME to handhold 2-3 Operations resource during first initial month of on boarding before shipping out proposal form
25 Soft quality check by a SME from another location to check the form and then to ship the form
7. Manual process of 26 Incorrect versions of proposal forms removed from the portal
form filling Multi-Voting 28 Agents to check the versions of the form with operation before submitting the application to operations
8. Outdated proposal 29 Discrepancy validation process to be initiated , where each discrepancy will be validated by SME and removed if incorrect
forms on agent 30 Training to be provided to Business partner, post certification only then he can mark discrepancy
portal 31 In the first 30 days of training period business partner to mark discrepancy only post checking with some one senior
32 Training to be given to Agents on form filling and documents
33 One pager handouts on form filling, financial and underwriting guidelines to be shared with agents during town halls
34 Form filling to be part of Agents on boarding training sessions
3.1.2 What evidence showed that the solutions identified were possible instead of final? Q3
1.3.4
What: Checklist designed by quality department
Purpose: Project’s development and correct use of methodology
How : Presented in project’s tollgate so that Champion and Sponsor approve Improve Phase Checklist
the phase
3.1.2
What evidences
showed
improvements
were possible?
(Q3)

3.2.1 What methods and/or tools were used to identify the final solutions? (Q1)
Why were these methods and/or tools selected [to identify the final solutions]? (Q2)
3.1.2.
Possible Solutions 3.2.1
What meth
ods Methods 3.1.2
Possible ?
were used
1. TAB based form login instead of physical
Solutions (Q1)
copy of proposal form Snapshot Solution Selection Matrix 35 possible solutions
2. Form to be filled in front of customer to be validated
only, Customer to fill the form online Prioritization Matrix
3. More products to be introduced in the
online portal of max life insurance 1.2.2 1 2 3 >=201
4. Penalty clause to be applied for every
High
scanning & data entry error Impact Final All solutions
Cost Ease (Approved)
5. Business partner to be given a thorough On CTQ listed by the
Score <=200
training for 15 days only then he should team which had
be allowed to work individually Low the final scoring
6. Salary to be deducted for every scanning 10 10 10 (Discarded) < =200 was
error of the operator 200 7-10 rejected
7. Scanning error not to be included as 8 5 7 High
discrepancy for branch operation 4-6
8. Scanning operator to be recognized Medium
monthly without any error
1-3 - Low
9. Agent town halls to be conducted across
205 offices, financial & underwriting
guidelines shared with the agents Service Strong Distribution Cost
10. Agent to be recognized on giving Excellence Network Optimization
discrepant free application
11. Small mementos to be given to agents
on providing discrepant free application 3.2.1
12. Commission to be on hold for agents on methods
Why these We wanted to select those with higher impact
giving more than 5 discrepant ? (Q2)
were used
applications in a month on results impacting Strategic Priorities
13. Checklist to be used by agents before
submitting the applications
*For cost factor 1-3 will be Green, 4-6 will be Amber and 7 -10 will be Red Max Life Insurance 53
3.2.1 How was the team prepared to use the methods and/or tools to identify the final solutions]?
(Q3)
Roles Trained on Refresher on Six Sigma Improve phase tools
Sponsor Basic innovation tools for idea Not Applicable

Champion generation (brain writing)
Subject Matter Expert 3.2.1
How the team was
prepared to use 1 day -
these methods /
Team was tools? (Q3)  Techniques & tools exam
prepared to use  Brainstorming with creativity based
the methods & Six Sigma Methodology techniques like SCAMPER, 6 thinking hats
tools through Green Belt  Cost benefit analysis
Innovative Thinking
education &  How to select an appropriate solution
training  Pilot testing
interventions  Refine the solutions
 Solution validation
 Case study for FMEA
Six Sigma Methodology
Team Members Innovative Thinking

3.2.2 How were the methods and/or tools used to determine the final solution(s)? (Q1)
Solution Selection Matrix

Who Data 3.2.1 Cost Impact
# Final root causes Possible Solutions Q1 Impact-10 Ease -10 Final Score
-10
• Six Sigma team • List of1.1)
possible solutions
Tablet based form login 9 3 9 210
•Manual
Stakeholder • Values Solution Selection Matrix
1 process of form filling 1.2)ofForm
critical
to bevariables
filled in front of customer only 5 2 9 160
representatives 1 2 3
1.3) More products on the online portal Final 5 6 2 130
Impact Final Score
2.1 ) Penalty clause for
On CTQ +
scanning & Cost
data entry +
error Ease Solutions 9 7 9 250
2.2 ) Business partner training for 15 days only then he should be allowed to work individually 9 7 9 250
>=200 – High Score , <200 – Low Score
2 Documentation errors 2.3) Salary deduction for wrong discrepancies for Business partner 5 3 5 130
2.4 ) Scanning error not to be included as discrepancy for branch operation 3 3 3 90
2.5) Scanning operator to be recognized monthly without any error 3.2.2 14 solutions 3 7 3 130
3.1) Financial & Underwriting guidelines to be shared with the agents Howin townhall
were these scored more 9 7 9 250
3.2) Agent recognition on discrepant free application determined as final 9 2 9 200
3
Class of agents has an impact
solutions? Q1)
3.3) Mementos to be given to agents on providing discrepant free application
than 200 were 3 3 3 90
on discrepancies selected as final
3.4) Commission on hold for agents for discrepancies >than 5 in a month 4 3 2 90
3.5) Checklist to be used by agents solutions 6 3 5 140
4.1) Discrepancy to be part of internal assessments 9 3 9 210
4.2) Branches with lowest discrepancy % to be recognized in annual rewards 8 5 9 220
4.3) Quarterly assessments for branch executives 7 5 9 210
4.4) Repository with imp guidelines to be shared 9 5 9 230
4.5) Checklist to be used by Operation executive 9 2 9 200
4.6) Maker checker concept to be followed 5 5 4 140
4 Untrained Operations executive
4.7) Operation users with> 10 discrepancies to be on improvement plan 6 4 3 130
4.8) Snaps of users with high discrepancies to be flashed through emails 4 3 5 120
4.9 ) Snaps of users with no or lowest discrepancies to be flashed under hall of fame 8 3 9 200
4.10 )Training managers to conduct refreshers 9 3 9 210
4.11) An Operation to handhold 2-3 Operations resource during the initial month of on boarding 5 3 5 130
4.12) Soft quality check by an SME from another location to check the form 5 3 5 130
5.1) Incorrect versions of proposal forms removed from the portal 8 3 9 200
Outdated proposal forms on
5 5.2) TAB based form login instead of physical copy of proposal form. 9 3 9 210
agent portal
5.3) Agents to check the versions of the form with Operation before submitting 6 3 6 150
6.1) Discrepancy validation process to be initiated 9 5 9 230
Wrong discrepancy by Business
6 6.2) Training to be provided to Business partner, post certification to mark discrepancy 9 5 9 230
Partner
6.3) In the first 30 days of training period business partner to mark discrepancy only post checking with senior 9 5 9 230
7.1) Training to be given to Agents on Form filling & documents 9 5 9 230
Form filling guidelines unclear
7 7.2) One pager handouts on form filling, financial and underwriting guidelines to be given to agents 8 4 8 200
to agents
7.3) Form filling to be part of agents on boarding training sessions 8 7 Max Life Insurance 210 55
6
3.2.2 What was (were) the final solution(s) ? (Q2)
2.3.2
3.2.2
Validated Root Causes 14 Final Solutions What were the final
solutions? Q2)
People 14 final validated People
solution
• Agent Townhalls conducted across 205 offices by department heads, financial and underwriting
1. Documentation guidelines shared with the agents
errors • Agent to be recognised on giving discrepant free application form
2. Class of agents has • Training managers to conduct regular concall with the branch operations team to provide them training
impact on • One pager handouts on form filling, financial and underwriting guidelines created and handed to the
discrepancies agents by branch operations and shared during agent townhalls
3. Untrained
operations executive (4 Solutions) Process
4. Form filling
guidelines unclear to • Penalty clause to be applied for every scanning and data entry error
agents • Discrepancy to be part of internal assessments for operation team users
• Branches with lowest discrepancy % to be recognised in annual rewards and recognition ceremony
Process • Quarterly assessments launched for branch executive to gauge knowledge levels followed by certification
• Discrepancy validation process to be initiated, where each discrepancy will be validated by SME and
removed if incorrect
5. Wrong discrepancy • In the first 30 days of training period business partner to mark discrepancy only post checking with some
by business partner (7 Solutions) one senior
6. Higher the premium, • Form filling to be part of agents on boarding training sessions
higher the
discrepancies
Technology
Technology
• Mobile device( tablet ) based form login (mApp*) instead of physical copy of proposal form
7. Manual process of • Repository with imp guidelines and forms to be created and shared with users for easy reference
form filling (3 Solutions) • Incorrect versions of proposal forms to be removed from the portal
8. Outdated proposal
forms on agent  mApp -Paper less digitised mobile based device. Tablet based application
portal
 Agent has to download an application from play store and can login from anywhere

3.2.3 How were the final solution(s) validated? (Q1)
3.2.2
14 Final Solutions Who ? Six Sigma Project Team
3.2.3
People:- How were Pilot test initiated in 30 offices of North Zone to
1. Agent town halls conducted across 205 offices by department improvements
validate all possible solutions including mApp
heads, financial and underwriting guidelines shared with the validated? (Q1)
agents One test including all final solutions
2. Agent to be recognised on giving discrepant free application How ?
3. Training managers to conduct regular concall with the branch Learned from results
operations to provide them training
4. One pager handouts on form filling, financial and underwriting Validated those which impact on discrepancy %
guidelines created and handed to the agents by branch operations
and shared during agent town halls
Process:- Root cause
5. Penalty clause to be applied for every scanning and data entry Shortlisted Pilot
analysis
Modified Identified
error done to
solutions solutions solutions solution
6. Discrepancy to be part of internal assessments for operations users validate
results
7. Branches with lowest discrepancy % to be recognised in annual
rewards and recognition ceremony
8. Quarterly assessments launched for branch executive to gauge
knowledge levels followed by certification
9. Discrepancy validation process to be initiated, where each
discrepancy will be validated by same and removed if incorrect;
Validation Tools
10. In the first 30 days of training period business partner to mark
discrepancy only post checking with some one senior  Focus group based validation conducted with stakeholders and
11. Form filling to be part of agents on boarding training sessions
Technology :- project team members
12. Tab based form login (*mApp) instead of physical copy of
proposal form  2P Test, FMEA, Attribute Gage R and R done to statistically check
13. Repository with imp guidelines and forms to be created and shared
with users for easy reference
pre and post pilot results
14. Incorrect versions of proposal forms to be removed from the portal
(*mApp) = Mobile based application to log a case through agents Tablet

3.2.3 What evidence showed that validation was performed prior to implementation? (Q2)
Failure Mode Effect Analysis

TIME AND MOTION STUDY FOR NEW BUSINESS Pre Pilot Post Pilot
A B C D E F
PHYSICAL
Process Step PROPOSAL LOGIN
S.NO Potential Failure Mode Potential Effect(s) of Failure
(In order of execution)
Severity Occurrence Detection RPN Actions taken Severity Occurrence Detection RPN
Training, recognition,
Quality check done by Operation user not Discrepant proposal
Time form
taken for Time280
taken for
1 5 7 8 Discrepancy % included in 5Tracker5 10 250
operation user trained on form QC shipped out by branch Time taken
data entry in new second quality Time KRAtaken for preparation
Office
Discrepant form Policy Processing for Proposal TIME TAKEN
S. No User Agent does not resolve Duplication of work, Increase
business tracker check on System popup/
system notification
data and dispatch
2 code to agent for
handed number date
in customer dissatisfaction, 4 Form
8 first 7 224 for unfilled/ unattached 4 5 (A+B+C+D+E=F)
9 180
rectification
all discrepancies on receipt
delay in policy issuance of resolution from entry
documents to scanning
quality check
Amount may getproposal
allocated to form distribution hub
Incorrect entry in My Online payment made by
3 Banking process
money by operation
some other policy / short 3 8 4 96 customer
3 3 9 81
premium
ADEL 1 Lakshmi XXX211661 16-Nov-16 00:03:01
Discrepancy marked by Head 10:05:06 05:07:50 08:00:01 02:00:01 25 MINS
1 Proposal form scanned Scanning centre errors office delay in issuance, leads Document scanning using
4
by scanning centre while scanning to customer and agent
3 9 5 135 Tablet by agents
3 5 7 105
ADEL 1 Ravi XXX186563 16-Nov-16 dissatisfaction00:05:01 08:05:06 10:07:50 10:05:01 02:08:01 30 MINS
2 Training given to business
Leads to operation, customer
Data entry done by User not trained on partner for 30 days, penalty
5 and distribution 4 9 7 252 4 6 9 216
25 MINS
ADEL 2 partner
business Ram XXX186530
data entry process 17-Nov-16dissatisfaction00:02:00 06:07:50 08:07:00 09:05:02
clause applied to BP for 02:09:01
3 every wrong data entry
Due to data entry Delay in policy issuance,
No second System popup/
No second
notification No second
ADEL 2 Vishnu XXX188658 17-Nov-16 00:02:53 4 10:09:45 9 10 MINS
Case moved to match error, case stuck in branch operation, customer
46 fail bucket match fail bucket for a and distribution
8 6 192check for unfilled/
quality quality unattached
check 4
quality 5
check 180
documents
long time dissatisfaction
No second
ADEL 2 toVishnu
Case moved crack XXX980616 17-Nov-16
Wrong discrepancy 00:03:00 10:04:00 No second QC Training,No second QC
recognition, 10 MINS
57 marked by head office Lack of knowledge 6 6 6 216 Discrepancy % included in quality
6 check
6 6 216
team bucket
user KRA
No second No second No second
ADEL 2 Vishnu XXX372390and17-Nov-16
Revised illustration
Discrepancy marked by 00:02:49
UW 11:03:00 11 MINS
6 Counter offer marked
counter offer not
as branch operation uploads
quality check quality
System glitches check
taking more quality check
3.2.3
8
by underwriter
uploaded
incomplete docs, leading to
6 6 5 180 time to be fixed hence RPN 6 6 5 180
simultaneously in What evidence remains same.
ADEL3 Mary XXX602581 22-Nov-16 00:03:41
delay in issuance 10:03:01 showed05:07:01
validation 07:05:01 03:05:01 25 MINS
7 system by underwriters
before
Welcome calling Wrong details captured Case rolled back to data entry No second Customer
implementation? Noonsecond
boarding
No second
9 ADEL3 Vaishnavi
Process XXX307070
in proposal form 22-Nov-16 00:04:03 3
and marked discrepant 09:03:00
5 5 75
(Q2) process initiated through 3 3 7 9 MINS63
8 quality check quality check
ISMS (ISMS-interactive SMS) quality check
3.2.4 What additional potential benefits were anticipated from the final solutions? (Q1)
1.2.3 Were the additional potential benefits anticipated prior to implementation? (Q2)
3.2.4
nal Anticipated /
Potential Expected Definition What additio Additional potential benefits
Specific Objectives nefits Not
Additional Benefits Results / Measurement potential be ) detected during pilot tests post
ted ? (Q1 Anticipated
anticipa
3.2.3
implementation of solutions
Reduction in Reduction in % of business
Specific Benefits <=15% Anticipated
discrepancy % leakage due to discrepancy not resolved  Productivity increased for
Additional Reduction in 1.05 per 1000 Count of customer grievances related to operation resource in the North
Anticipated Zone
Benefits policy contract errors policies policy pack error
Additional Reduction in cost of USD<=11k Cost spent on resolving discrepancies and
 Feeling of belonging &
Anticipated team work in North Zone
Benefits rework customer grievances
Additional Higher customer Customer transaction analysis  Reduction in wrong

>84% Top 2 Box rating Anticipated discrepancies being marked for
Benefits satisfaction scores
(Excellent and Very Good) North Zone
Additional Higher distributor >61% Distributor transaction analysis –
Benefits satisfaction scores Top 2 Box Top 2 Box rating Anticipated  Due to mApp, there was
(Excellent and Very Good) reduction in discrepancies,
Additional Customer satisfaction survey – which reduced cost of rework
Benefits
Customer loyalty >75% Top 2 Box rating Anticipated and grievances
(Excellent and Very Good)  Sales 2 service % increased
Additional for North Zone, thereby
Take up rate for mApp >50 % Increment in take up rate of TAB by agents Not Anticipated increasing revenue which was
Benefits
contributed by branch
Additional Employee Employee engagement survey
>78% Not Anticipated Operations team
Benefits engagement scores ( Top 2 Box rating of excellent and very good )
Additional Malcolm Baldridge based process assessment
Process maturity index 5 Not Anticipated
Benefits (ADLI)
Additional QDNA Number of employees trained on quality
>20% Not Anticipated
Benefits (Quality DNA) methodology and tools 3.2.4
Were the additional potential
Additional Project replication across non Agency benefits anticipated prior
Project replication To be tested Not Anticipated implementation ? (Q2)
Benefits channels
What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to justify why the chosen final
3.2.5 solutions should be implemented? (Q1)
How and Who ? When ?
Sponsor & Champion approval of During Improve phase
pilot tests results presented by tollgate
Green & Black Belt Service Strong Cost
3.2.5
What data Excellence Distribution Network Optimization
generated and
Input how analyzed
Data generated for final Analysis Final solutions
data solutions? (Q1)
Discrepancy Trend %
20% 19% High impact was demonstrated &
Pilot test’s results of mApp in
North Zone 18% 17% approved and permission for 2nd
16% pilot run in South Zone
Before pilot After Pilot
 Customer satisfaction survey  CSAT scores

14 Final   DSAT scores
Distributor satisfaction survey
validated  Rework cost  Cost of rework
No objection to this analysis
solutions  Grievance rate  Policy pack grievance rate
 Loss of business opportunity  Business leakage %
• We showed how some solutions required practically no

cost at all to be implemented
Actions with low or no cost associated
Calculation of cost associated • (No inventory required to hold stock of proposal forms if
was directly approved
electronic mode is adopted.)
• Visual management through MIS dashboards
 Actions with immediate implementation

We presented an action plan showing immediate were approved.
Implementation times
implementation plan  For technology – 2nd pilot test suggested
for South Zone

3.2.5 What evidences showed that justification was performed prior to implementation? (Q2)
What ? Who? When ? 3.2.5 Possible Solutions Basis the encouraging pilot results
What evidences in North Zone, the steering team
A follow up meeting was showed prior to Pilot 1 approved the pilot test of mApp for
Approved the Sponsor and
implementation Champion
conducted to present implementation? South Zone
the results of the test (Q2)
Evidences of pilot test which were performed prior to implementation Max Life Insurance 61
How was the correctness of the initial or updated project scope, deliverables and timings
3.3.1 confirmed (or what changes were made) ?(Q1)
How? Who?
Project Development is reviewed • Sponsor & Champion
during a tollgate meeting after • Quality Department
each DMAIC phase ends
Sponsor, Champion, Master Black Belt & project team
• Black Belt
conducts project management review for the final tollgate phase
3.3.1 Time Compliance Deliverables Initial Project Scope

How was the
correctness
verified? (Q1)
 All deliverables defined were  Solutions designed &
• 16th August to accomplished & this was approved within projects
16th September 2016 reflecting in the improvement scope confirmed that there
Improve
• 2 Months after Analyze phase phase check list was no need to change it
Phase
ends  Governance, reviews and project  To check mApp
team meetings conducted at feasibility pilot testing
1.3.4
Correctness of every key milestone stage of the
extended till Jan’16
project
scope, timings and
deliverables
Time Compliance
Special approval taken from
Champion & Sponsor to extend
the timelines of the project
which was due to extension of
mApp pilot testing

How were stakeholders involved and / or communicated with during the solution phase of the
3.3.1 project? (Q2)
What stakeholder resistance was identified and /or addressed in this phase of the project ? (Q3)
How ? Who ?
2 3 4 5 6 7
• Stakeholder Analysis Approach Six Sigma Team 1. Resistance Resistance
Sub-process List of Stakeholder Stakeholder
• Defined by Max Quality System SIPOC Detection Stakeholder Detection Approach
Interview Matrix
1.3.1 3.3.1
How were 3.3.1 3.3.1
stakeholders What resistance How was
Communication / communicated? identified? (Q2) resistance
Stakeholder (Q2) Resistance Detected Influencing Strategy addressed? (Q3)
Involvement
Go ahead given for pilot
Distribution team None Not applicable
implementation for mApp
Active participation in projects
Policy Issuance team None Not applicable
development as SME for the project
Support validation of solutions &
Underwriting team None Not applicable
provided ideas
Customer By taking feedback through surveys None Not applicable
Participation in external & internal Reluctance to change to new Agent town halls to be conducted to address
Agents
surveys system resistance & advantage of digitisation shown
Monetary loss due to penalty Explained how automation will help in
Participation in monthly business
Business partner clause and lesser revenue due to reduction of data entry errors as there would
partner reviews
digitization be no handwriting related errors
Newly introduced in this phase as a
stake holder for renegotiating
Procurement team None Not applicable
contract with BP* for introducing
penalty clause
*BP: Business Partner Max Life Insurance 63
How was the appropriateness of the initial or updated team membership and management
3.3.1 routines confirmed? (or, what changes were made) (Q4)
How ? Who ? Initial Management Routines

Project development is reviewed • Sponsor & Champion • Team meeting for projects follow up & plan of next steps for mApp
during a tollgate meeting after • Quality Department implementation took place as scheduled
each DMAIC phase
• Green Belt
• Meetings with Sponsor & Champion were not postponed or
3.3.1.
How was the rescheduled
appropriateness
Tollgate review with Team, Sponsor and Champion of team •Stakeholders assisted to all meetings planned for communication
confirmed? (Q4)
• Analysis phase tollgate approved projects development so far &
• Workload manageable so need to allowed us to move to next steps
Team Membership Workload manageable
change any so no need to change
team membership • Special approval taken from Champion & Sponsor to extend the
any team membership timelines of the project due to extension of mApp Pilot testing
Stakeholder Analysis •We

Noadded
changea in the member
team knowledgefrom& Procurement
scope so no GRPI Trend Assessment
Matrix needdue
team to change or add members
to the solutions identified during the
( Document Review) 80% 83%
brainstorming & for redoing the contract for 68% 75%
80%
Business Partners
40%
0%
• Master Black Belt approved use of DMAIC Define Measure Analyze Improve
Management Routines • Updated stakeholder feedback
GRPI Score improved by 7% in Measure
( Document Review) • Increase communication with stakeholders phase and then from 75% to 80% in
• Meetings held with deadline and deliverables Analyze phase. In Improve phase it
achieved improved to 83%

SECTION 4
4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation

4.2.0 Solution / Improvement Implementation
4.3.0 Project Results

How were stakeholders involved in planning the solution implementation? (Q1)
4.1.1 How were stakeholders involved in implementation the solution implementation? (Q2)
How ? Who ? 4.1.1 4.1.1
lders
Stakeholder Analysis Matrix Six Sigma Team How stakeho How were
were involved stakeholders involved
in planning ? implementation ?
1.3.1 (Q1) (Q2)
Involvement in
Stakeholder Represented by Involvement in Implementation
Solution Planning
Participated as a team member in Accepted the new working ways by signing on the
Distribution Team Distribution team
INTERNAL
implementation planning new process checklist

Active participation in final planning of Active participation in final implementation of
Policy Issuance Subject matter expert
solutions solutions
Active participation in final implementation of
Underwriting Team Representing Underwriting team Support validation of solutions
solutions
Inputs gathered through listening posts
Customer Policy holder Participated in listening posts & surveys
EXTERNAL
and surveys
Feet on street who sell life insurance Actively participated as a team member in
Agents Provided on the job observations
policy implementation planning
Improvements were shared during
Execution of tasks related to improvements that
Business Partner Third party service providers business partner meeting. We listened to
required supplier intervention
partner’s voice
Learning & Actively involved in training initiatives for By preparing required training calendars and
ADDITION
Representing training managers

Development Team implementing solutions training the required resources
NEW
Implementation of penalty clause for Business Partners

Procurement Team Representing Procurement team Business partner contracts revisited
included in the contract for data entry errors
Being a high impact project there was a continuous need to involve stakeholders from the perspective of change management,
governance and approvals

What was done to anticipate resistance before it occurred? (Q1)
4.1.2 What type of resistance were actually encountered during the course of solution implementation? (Q2)
How was the actual resistance identified? (Q3)
2 4 6 7
1 3 5
Sub-process Stakeholder Resistance Resistance
SIPOC List of Stakeholder Stakeholder Matrix
Detection Interview Detection Approach
4.1.2
4.1.2
What was done to 4.1.2
What resistance Ho w was resistance
anticipate
actually indentified? (Q3)
resistance? (Q1)
encountered? (Q2)
Stakeholder Resistance Anticipated Resistance Detected How Identified
Why would Agents pay for

Distribution Team None None
buying the Tablet
Policy Issuance None Noned None

d e ntifie
None
a n ce sI
Underwriting Team
i s t None None
Customer None
3 Res None None
Agents Not technology skilled Reluctance to change to new system Gemba walk and during Agent in-sighting
Agreement on new terms and Monetary loss due to penalty clause and
Business Partner Monthly vendor meeting discussions
conditions lesser revenue due to digitization
Learning and Lack of resources to train the Face to face interactions & feedback
None
Development Team Agents on mApp through conference calls
Procurement Team None None None

How? : Using Stakeholder Analysis and holding meetings between stakeholders and by seeking feedback on pilot run
How was the actual resistance addressed? (Q1)
4.1.3 How did the team know it was successful in addressing the resistance? (Q2)
4.1.3 4.1.3
1.3.1
4.1.2 How was How did the team
resistance know it was
addressed ? (Q1) successful in
addressing the
resistance? (Q2)
Stakeholder Resistance Detected How Addressed Confirmation of Success
Distribution Team None Not applicable Not applicable
Policy Issuance None Not applicable Not applicable

Underwriting Team None Not applicable Not applicable
Customer None Not applicable Not applicable
Agent town halls addressing their queries Sharp rise (50%) in mApp
Reluctance to change to new
Agents and showcasing the benefits like – faster usage by agents and decline
system
policy issuance and happy customers in discrepancy %
Marginal (1.5%) discrepancy

Business Monetary loss due to penalty Negotiation along with procurement
from business partner as
Partner clause and lesser revenue team on better rates for lesser compared to 21% before
due to digitization discrepancy by them digitization
Learning &
Showing the value of digitization and Deployment of fresh training
Development Lack of resources to train the
faster issuance and better incentives modules and 75% adherence to
Team agents on mApp
provided to the L & D team new mApp training programs
(L & D Team)
Procurement Team None Not applicable Not applicable

What was the evidence of stakeholder group buy in? (Q1)
4.1.4 What evidence showed that buy-in was obtained prior to implementation? (Q2)
Q1. Q2
1.3.1 Evidence of buy What evidence
in showed that buy-
in was obtained
prior to
implementation?
Stakeholder Evidence of Buy in ? Degree of Buy-in Buy-in Prior To Implementation
mApp pilot testing was done in North & South Zone,

Convinced with tablet based
Distribution Team H
H results were encouraging, hence full scale
logins as it reduced issuance time
implementation approval given for PAN India roll out
Constructive feedback received Approval received during stakeholders project review
Policy Issuance M
during pilot testing meeting
Constructive feedback received Approval received during stakeholders project review
Underwriting Team M
during pilot testing meeting
Partial improvement noted in
Customer M Not Applicable
Customer satisfaction scores
Positive feedback received through surveys conducted
Positive feedback received through before full scale implementation. Also positive feedback
Agents H
H
surveys from agents of North Zone received during face to face agent in-sighting in North
Zone
Improved productivity and reduction Approval received during stakeholders project review
Business Partner H
H
in wrong discrepancy seen meeting
Learning & Positive feedback received during Approval received during stakeholders project review
Development Team H
H
pilot testing meeting
( L & D team)
Was neutral so that contracts could M Approval received during stakeholders project review
Procurement Team
be redesigned fairly meeting
Degree of Buy In H : Promotes Changes M : Accepts Changes L : Doesn’t accept changes
What process(es) or system(s) were changed or created to implement the solution ? (Q1)
4.2.1 (1/3)
4.2.1
What process or Process /
Change
S. No: Final Solutions system were System
changed? (Q1) Type
(1/3) Change
A People
1 Agent town halls initiated across 205 offices by department heads, financial underwriting guidelines shared with Permanent
the agents
2 Agent to be recognised on giving discrepant free application Permanent
3 Training managers to conduct regular concall with the branch operations to provide them training Temporary
4 One pager handouts on form filling, financial and underwriting guidelines created & handed to the Agents by Temporary
branch operations & shared during Agent town halls
B Process
1 Penalty clause to be applied for every scanning & data entry error Permanent
2 Discrepancy to be part of internal assessments for Operations team Permanent
3 Branches with lowest discrepancy % to be recognised in annual rewards & recognition ceremony’ Permanent
4 Quarterly assessments launched for branch executive to gauge knowledge levels followed by certification Temporary
5 Discrepancy validation process to be initiated, where each discrepancy will be validated by SME Temporary
6 In the first 30 days of training Business Partner to mark discrepancy only post checking with some one senior Permanent
7 Form filling to be part of agents on boarding training sessions Permanent
C Technology
1 Tablet based form login instead of physical copy of proposal form Permanent
2 Repository of important guidelines & forms uploaded on employee portal and incorporated in the training Temporary
program & shared as a hard copy
3 Incorrect versions of proposal forms removed from the portal Permanent

What process(es) or system(s) were changed or created to implement the solution? (Q1)
4.2.1 (2/3)
mApp
BusinessProcess
Revised
National
Partner’s Downloading
Maps Goal
Changed
Sheet
Recognition
Contract Procedure
According
for
For
Revised ToFor
Operations Tab
New
Best Branch Team
Incorporating ProcessClause
Office
Penalty
SnapProcess
shot ofand
mApp
downloading
Systems changed to
procedure for Tabs
implement
solutions
4.2.1
What process or
system were
changed? (Q1)
(2/3)

i o t
n w a
What process(es) or system(s) were changed or created to implement the solution? (Q1)
4.2.1 (3/3)
i
n
g
l
e
d
e
n
g t
4.2.1 p BusinessSnap shot ofSneak
e Partner one ofpeak
Training the self helpmApp
inside
r Process interactive video
What process or r y
system were o g
6 training videos incorporated in mApp for self help
changed? (Q1) v Day i Day o 5th
(3/3) i 1,2 v 3,4 p Day
d e e On
e n r war Before project-
d a ds Business partner training process
t t
t o o
o r
d
t a o
h Day 1, 2, 3 t n
e • Day 1-Data entry operator
a trained by Max Life
• Day 2– Refresher session t
d• Day 3- Question andeanswer session h Post project -
a n e
t Day 4 and 5 t Business partner training
a• r 2 days with a senior
On the job training for j process
y o
e b
n o
t Day 6 to 12 p
r • 1 week system training
e
y r
GO live- 13th day a
o• t
Discrepancy if any marked post checking with senior • Source inspection
p• o
Error in marking discrepancy found during match fail stage, • 2nd level check &
e feedback immediatelyr shared with data entry user feedback sharing
r technique used on
a Post 30th day
business partner site
t• 1 month from GO live date user can independently mark
o discrepancy
r

What systems were changed or created to measure and manage the performance of the
4.2.1 implementation? (Q2)
System Enhancements
Who: Project Heir
 Automated dashboards
Online mechanism to capture
created for publishing
agent feedback mApp
from portal
adoption
installed in%all the branch offices
to Non
gathermApp cases wereon mApp
live feedback
informed to respective Zone
heads in distribution
• Feedback shared with
operations on daily basis
• Daily tracking of issues with

4.2.1
Operations What systems
changed to
measure
implementation?
(Q2)
• Daily MIS published on

discrepant cases
• Discrepancy% were reported at

monthly distribution review to
increase accountability

What were the results? (Q1)
4.3.1 How did the results compare to the specific project goals/measures from Item (2.1.1)? (Q2)
Metric Current level Goal / Target 4.3.1
4.3.1
Current
28% <=15%
How were results
compared to 2.1.1 Specific Goal What were the
results? (Q1)
Discrepancy % specific goals?
35% Pre Project (Q2) During Project Post Project
30% 29% 29%
30% 28% 27% 28% 28% 27%
26%
24%
25% 22%
20%
20%
16%
14% 13% 13%
15%
11% 10%
10%
5%
0%
Mar-16
Nov-16
Mar-17
Jan-16
Feb-16
Apr-16
May-16
Jun-16
Aug-16
Sep-16
Oct-16
Dec-16
Jan-17
Feb-17
Apr-17
May-17
Jun-17
Jul-16
Improvement
in all 6 Zones
P value less
than 0.05 Sigma up
from 2.08
to 2.59

What additional benefits were realized from the project? (Q1) (1/3)
4.3.2 How did the team measure any of the additional benefits that were "Soft”? (Q2) (1/2)
How do the actual additional benefits that were realized compare to the expected additional benefits identified in item 3.2.4? (Q3) (1/2)
4.3.2
4.3.2 How do the actual
What additional additional benefits that
benefits realized ? 3.2.4 were realized compare to
3.2.4 the expected additional
(Q1) (1/3)
benefits ? (Q3) (1/2)
Strategic Pillars
Additional Benefits Pre-Project Expected Results Achieved How Measured
Impacted
Count of cases and annual
Reduction In New
2458 cases with 1474 cases with 1314 cases with USD premium lost due
T Business
USD 2.32 Million 1.16 Million 0.89 Million cancellation of cases on
Opportunity Lost
account of discrepancy
Cost
Amount spent on resolving Optimization
T Cost of Rework USD 15K USD<=11K USD 9K discrepancies and
grievances
Reduction in 2.11 per 1000 1.05 per 1000 Reduction in policy

T 0.51 per 1000 policies
Policy Contract Errors policies policies contract errors
Higher Customer Survey by external market

89% Service
S Satisfaction Scores 84% 90% research agency
Excellence
(Top 2 Box Scores) ( KANTAR IMRB)
Distributor Satisfaction Survey by external market

Scores (Top 2 Box 62% 70% 71% research agency
S
Scores) ( KANTAR IMRB)
Strong Distribution
4.3.2 Network
How did the
team measure
S T any additional
Soft Tangible benefits? (Q2)
Benefit Benefit (1/2)
What additional benefits were realized from the project? (Q1) (2/3)
4.3.2 How did the team measure any of the additional benefits that were "Soft”? (Q2) (2/2)
How do the actual additional benefits that were realized compare to the expected additional benefits identified in item 3.2.4? (Q3) (2/2)
4.3.2 4.3.2
What additional How actual additional
3.2.4 benefits are compare to
benefits realized ?
(Q1) (2/3) the expected additional
benefits ? (Q3) (2/2)
Additional Benefits Achieved Strategic Pillar

Pre-Project Expected Results How Measured
Impacted
Survey by external
S Customer Loyalty 78% agency
69% >75%
Scores (Top 2 Box) (KANTAR IMRB)
Employee Survey by external

S Engagement Scores 73% >78% 81% market research agency
(Top 2 Box) (KANTAR IMRB)
Malcolm Balridge based
S
Process Maturity
3 5 5 process assessment
Service
Index (ADLI) Excellence
S As per Max Quality
Quality DNA 15% >20 % 30% definition
S 3.2.4 Unex
T pec
efit Bene ted
t Ben Soft fits
Cos Benefit
Cost benefit approval of • Productivity increased as branch operations team had more time for
USD 1.29 Millions Sales to Service (S2S) and Sales to Recruitment (S2R) activity
vetted by Chief Financial • They earned extra incentives due to S2S and S2R 4.3.2
How did the
Officer (CFO) • Team felt a sense of belonging, as they were more motivated team measure
• Team work and collaboration observed between Sales and any additional
S T Operation hence the increase in Employee Satisfaction scores benefits? (Q2)
Soft Tangible (2/2)
Benefit Benefit

4.3.2 What additional benefits were realized from the project? (Q1) (3/3)
Customer Satisfaction Top Box Trend Distribution Top Box Trend

From Apr '16 - Mar'17 From Jan’16 – Nov’16 Distributor
93% Customers 71% satisfaction
92% 92%
91%
90% 90% 90%
satisfaction scores
89% scores YTD 65% increased from
88% 88%
86% 86% stands at 62% 62% Top 2 Box
89% to 71% Top 2
4.3.2
Box
What additional
benefits realized ?
April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Jan'16 Jun'16 Nov'16 (Q1) (3/3)
Loss of Business Opportunity
Policy Contract Grievance Rate (in USD Millions)

2.32
2.11 Policy pack 1.16 Cases of
grievance business
0.99
rate reduced cancelled
from 2.11 per reduced from
1000 policies USD 2.32
Pre-Project ( Apr'15- Mar'16) Post-Project (Apr'16-Mar'17)
to 0.99 per Million to 1.16
1000 policies Million
Customer Loyalty Scores mApp Adoption %

95%
78% Customer
mApp
loyalty scores 50% adoption
69% increased
25% increased from
from 69% to
25% to 95%
78%
Apr'15- Mar'16 Apr'16- Mar'17 Nov'16- Dec'16 Jan'17- Mar'17 Apr'17 -Jun'17

SECTION 5
Sustaining Communicating
Results
5.1.0 Sustaining Results Over Time

5.2.0 Communication of Results

What was done to make sure the process or system changes made during the implementation
5.1.1 (Item 4.2.1) continued to be followed? (Q1/) (1/2)
Who ? How ? Systems and
Changes made Failure Mode RPN Mitigation Strategy RPN
Standardized processes
Six Sigma Team  100% agents not
monitoring plan Agent town halls, financial and  Agents with high discrepancy tracked for
covered.
underwriting guidelines shared with the
 Guidelines not followed
224 townhall attendance. Issuance % is part of agents 180
What and How ? Frequency Who agents to avoid discrepancy key result areas
by the agents
Business partner contract modified to  Ongoing penalty clause followed by maker
Share dashboards on  Penalty not charged 252 216
include penalty clause checker rule while verifying bills
mApp adherence and Daily
 Validation process not  Discrepancy % made part of operations goal
discrepancy % Discrepancy validation process initiated - adhered by field sheet and national recognition.
320 72
Share dashboards on for field  Underwriter marking  Accuracy % included in underwriter key result
other additional project Fortnightly wrong discrepancies areas /Transition from physical to mApp
benefits Process sheets updated to accommodate
 Process not followed 336  Mystery audits to keep checks on adherence 140
new changes post mApp
Management results
Monthly Quarterly assessments launched for  Operations do not  Assessment mandatory for operation for
presentation 280 250
branch operations attempt the test annual ratings
Project
Follow up for corrective Discrepancy % included for annual  Lack of periodical goal  Documentation mandate and review by Zone
Weekly Heir – 150 45
actions performance appraisals for operations sheet review operations manager
Rohit
 Attendance % mandatory for agent
Sharma mApp training included as a part of agent  Agent does not attend
Tracking of Business 504 licensing/mApp training module uploaded in 200
Daily / on boarding training
Partner errors and agent portal
Monthly 30 day training provided to business  BP* does not attend
penalties  Weekly surprise tests conducted for BP * to
partner on process and product training and marks 252 216
check knowledge levels.
knowledge incorrect discrepancy
Lead continuous  System cut off implemented post 6:30 pm as
improvement meetings  Agents logging through
most of the logins used to happen late evenings.
on other initiatives Weekly Tablet based form login physical forms 336  Regional manager approval required for logging
128
identified during physical forms
solutioning Incorrect versions of proposal  Project heir to update correct versions.
 Agent portal not
forms/formats removed from agent 448  mApp gets automatically updated with recent 140
Standardized 5.1.1 updated on time
portal formats
Monitoring Plan What was done Repository of important guidelines and
ensure changes  Due to system issues  Central repository of forms created and shared
formats uploaded on employee portal and
were sustainable ? 120 36
incorporated in training program and portal may not work with operations to save in their desktops
(Q1) (1/2)
shared as a hard copy
Automated dashboards created to show  System issues, delay in
80  Manual dashboards circulated in case of failure 20
adoption of tablet usage MIS
Automated daily MIS projecting  System issues ,delay in Max Life Insurance 79
What was done to make sure the process or system changes made during the implementation
5.1.1 (Item 4.2.1) continued to be followed? (Q1) (2/2)
5.1.1
Multiple actions were taken to

What was done
ensure changes 2. 5.
were sustainable ?
ensure the sustenance of the (Q1) (2/2)
change in operational practices
4.
5.
4. 3
1. 3. .
2.
1.
Real time tracking on
mApp usage
Discrepancy % included
for Real
annual award
time tracking on mApp usage
Penalty clause for Business category
Discrepancy
Partners Process
% for
included changes
for
scanning and as per ISO standards
Ongoing annual award category
data entry errors
Processpenalty
control clause
systemfor business
developed partners
Process changes as per ISO
Role ofof
Project Team
standards Role Project Team
for scanning / data entry errors •
What?
What? Apply
• Six
Apply SixSigma
Sigmamethods
methods and tools
and toolsto sustain
to project
sustain results
project results
Who?
Who? Multiple actions
Multiple actionswere
were taken toto • Monitor
taken • Monitorandand control improvements
control improvements achieved
achievedduring project
during project
Process control system Project team
Project team ensure the
ensure thecontinuity ofof
continuity • Present
• ongoing results monthly
Present ongoing results monthly
developed Project
Projectheir
heir changes in process/systems
changes in process/systems • Extend
• the
Extend theimprovements
improvements further
further

5.1.1 What evidence showed that this became part of the organization’s culture /operating strategy?
(Q2 )
Poster sent to all offices Details
mApp of Who? Project
discrepancies
launched Heir
sent
across 205 Automated dashboards for
during mApp launch on the Agents
offices of mobile asIndia
Max Life SMS tracking discrepancy
Evidence Issuance Guarantee for
Training Decks on mApp updated online Quarterly Assessments for Operations Non Discrepant Cases
 Objective met and steady results maintained Cost of Project
over time Rework Replication
 Monthly project progress reviewed with
stakeholders by Heir . Framework of reducing Framework of reducing discrepancies
 Management promoted the replication of mApp waste cost was replicated was replicated by Customer Advisory
in other channels. by Human resources and Team and Agent Contracting
 Improvement of other additional benefits Procurement team Department this year
https://ecube.maxlifeinsuran
ce.com/SDIT/DocumentsLib
Discrepancy reduction project replicated
/Documents/Operations%20
Training/New%20Business by Customer Advisory channel
%20One%20Stop%20Shop
5.1.1
What evidences
confirmed part of
organization‘s
culture? (Q2)

5.1.2 What was done to make sure the benefits obtained from the implementation (Item 4.2.1) were
maintained? (Q1)
Who : Project Heir & Process Owners, Six Sigma Team How : Dashboard
Measurement and Control system Dashboards to track

designed for the project Customer Satisfaction
GovernanceScores
Reviews 5.1.2
What was done to
Data
Indicators How did we measure Monthly Business Partner
ensure benefits were
Source Monthly Operations Review maintained? (Q1)
Review
mApp Cases logged through the
mApp Usage Monthly Ops review to Monthly Business partner
adoption new application using mApp discuss obstacles and issues review to assess current
Control Charts for
MIS related to new system performance tracking discrepancies
Discrepancy No of discrepancies per
Discrepancy % application / no of forms
MIS Project Leader review with
logged in the branch Quality Dashboard
Subject Matter Expert
Customer Policy Contract No of errors in the policy Dashboard published by
Review with SME to include
grievance Error % contract / total no of Policy any key highlights /iniatives Quality team – Quality Index |
report contracts shipped for the month to track Control Charts | Productivity
Dashboards Index
Customer Customers who rated us as Distributor Satisfaction Scores
CSAT MIS Satisfaction Very Good and Excellent Dashboards to track mApp
Scores (Top 2 Box) issues received at helpdesk
Distributor Distributors who rated us as
DSAT MIS Satisfaction Very Good and Excellent
Scores (Top 2 Box)
Business Business No of cases cancelled / no of

Leakage MIS Cancellation% forms logged in the branch
Agent Cases resolved by agent

Helpline Grievance% helpline / the number of
Report complaints received at the call
center

5.1.2 What evidence showed that this became part of the organization’s culture / operating
strategy? (Q2)
Long Term Solution Status Remarks How it became the organization's culture?
1. As a one step further we are incorporating dark reader in mApp to
check the authencity of documents uploaded (OCR - Technology • In progress Requirement  Important process circulars sent through a
solution ) • Activity raised with centralized process control unit with reference to
 To compare data on standard documents like Pan/ postpone to Information process updates
first week of  Replication of discrepancy reduction , cost of rework
Aadhar/Passport Technology
 To check completeness of documents – eg ECS form, customer Apr’18 department framework by Procurement, Customer Advisory Team
declaration form - in mApp journey and check for blank and Human Resources
documents.  Sharing Best practices on knowledge portal &
Employee portal
2. mApp replicated across other channels -Customer Advisory team Replicated  Similar dashboards implemented for other channels
Successful
and Bancassurance Channels in Oct’17 for monitoring discrepancy % ,mApp usage, Business
cancellations & Customer Satisfaction Score
Q2.
come
Evidence be
mApp replicated and anization
35% part of Org
30% adopted by other29%
channels Discrepancy Trend strategy?
29%
30% 28% 28% 28%
27% 27%
26%
25% mApp Adoption-October '17 24%
22%
105% 20%
20%
100% 100% 100%
100% 96% 16%
Next Phase of the
95% 15% 93% 14%
13%
Project 13%
kicked off
14% 14%
12%
Pre Project 11% 11%
90% 10%
10% During Project 7%
8% 8%
85%
5%Agency IMF/ IM Customer Yes Bank Axis Bank
Advisory Post Project
0% Team
May'16
Aug'16
Nov'16
Mar'17
May'17
Sep'17
Jan'16
Feb'16
Mar'16
Jun'16
Jul'16
Sep'16
Oct'16
Dec'16
Apr'17
Jul'17
Aug'17
Oct'17
Nov'17
Dec'17
Apr'16
Jan'17
Feb'17
Jun'17
Jan'18
5.2.1 How did the team communicate the results to the various stakeholder group? (Q1)
Q1.
1.3.1
Communication to the Organization on
Drivers
Won Of‘Project
1st Prize in Loyalty
How
of the|Year
Max
Communicated
Lifeas
Awards Won 1st Prize in Max Group Excellence day How did th
e team
Stakeholder Whothe best Six Sigma project in achieving desired under CustomerFeedback Impact for the best Six Sigma ica te the
commun
Tactical Level
successful closure of Green Belt Project resu ?

lt s
CommunicatePurchase !! Communicate
&results !! Communicate!!
in the Organization
Onboarding Project
Sellers
Policy Policy Documents, Medical
Projectcheck
closure–up, Welcome kit
presentation along with the achieving desiredapproval
Obtaining results inof the Organization
inheritance phase and
Steering Team Sponsor and
Features & Team
learning's and Meetings
results through emails & intranets congratulations received.
Champion
Benefits
 Project closureProject
meeting withwith
closure cross
duefunctional
Premium project
approvals from team
Sponsor, Project
Customer selected for Project Of the Year award and Max
Care
Quality Team Communication
Master Black Belt Advertisement Payment
Champion & announcement of project closure by Excellence Day.Branch
Centre Project selected to showcase in
Website
Process Ecube where the project module was
quality program office
Head of Operations was shared
addressed Quality
(Inbound Council
Calls) of India
Stakeholder Meetings uploaded to be viewed by all
Internal Stakeholders
the team through a webcast to employees

 Meeting with quality council to share the results and introduce the project heir
High motivation levels, shared vision, commitment
Distribution Team Distribution Team EXPERIENCE
Corporate meetings,
accomplish strategicAREAS
project reviews,
priorities SMS
and collaboration to use the new application
Strategic Level
Project summary & results with the learning's Appreciation on reduction of discrepancy % productivity
Operations Team Formal Project Closure
and results. Through emails & intranets
Branch Offices
Price to quality council
Value and management committee increased due to less re-work, high motivation levels
Imagery
Overall Experience
 Closing presentation
Subject Matter Expert Project closure presentation along with the Appreciation on reduction of discrepancy %
and Project Team Company
learning's Wide Communication
and results. Through emails & intranets productivity increased due to less re-work.
Customer Loyalty
 Publication of project story board through internal communication channels
Underwriting, Learning Project closure presentation along withMaxthe Life Commitment and collaboration
Max forLifecontinued
and Development Team
Underwriting
( emails, and
intranet,
Experiences news-letters, webcast, posters and standees) Industry Gap
Training Team learning's and results. emails & intranets2016 support in training
Average 2017
Overall qualityProcurement
of the Application process
Through 83
companies channels of communication 81 +2 84
Procurement Team Team Continued support in management
Ease of filling up/ Simplicity of the insurance
via email application
and meetings
88 89 -1 92
form
Business Partner Third party service Project summary & results in business reviews High commitment from business partner to improve
Stakeholders
providers 83 productivity
84 and validation
-1 of the 86
expected results
Clarity of documents required for buying the policy
External
1.1.1
36%Agent Advisors
Ability of theFeet on street-selling
company keeping
insurance policies
Agent townhalls, agent interactions,
you portal
agent updated on status
87
Commitment and collaboration to use the 1.1.1
87
new application 0 87 (Q1)
(Q1)
of your policy Customer blogs, company updates Appreciation due to reduced grievance rates
Customers End Customer
Time taken for policy to be issued once application is
77 87 -10 87
submitted
Ease of making payment for purchase of the policy 72 87 -15 91
Source : Insurance India Syndicate Report-(Customer Loyalty Walker Model) Indian Market Research Bureau-2017-18 Max Life Insurance 84
Thank You
Jury Members
“We Must Become The Change We Want To See.”

(Mahatma Gandhi)
Max Life Insurance

Reduction in New Business Discrepancy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reduction in New Business Discrepancy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reduction in New Business Discrepancy

Max Life Insurance

Key Facts (2016-2017)

 Gross written premium USD 1.6 Bn

Our Strategic Priorities (2016-2017)

Max Life Insurance 2

MAX Performance Excellence Framework (MPEF)

Lean Six Sigma / Standardized

MAXimize Quality Best Practices

Max Life Insurance 3

1.1.0 Understanding the Context for Project Selection

Max Life Insurance 4

Project Selection Committee 1.1.1. Who was

Chief Operations Officer

Cost Optimization Operating Expense

Max Life Insurance 5

SCALE OF THE PROJECT

Three out of six Strategic Priorities of Cost

through this project

Purchase & Onboarding

Overall Experience Price Value Imagery

1.2.2 How was the gap

• New Business Opportunity Loss – Business lost due to delay

Sources of Information:- Data:-

Max Life Insurance 8

Impact on Service Impact on Cost Impact on Strong

Policy Contract Grievance Rate Rate- 2.11 / 1000 policies

Customer Satisfaction Scores –

Type of Impact – Degree of Impact

Insurance Policy Life Cycle

Lapse & Revival

Printing & Dispatch

Max Life Insurance 10

1.2.1. What area of Impact on Impact on Cost Impact on

Discrepant form logged

Incorrect requirements raised

Expensive rework /delay in

*BP: Business Partner Max Life Insurance 11

Quarterly Discrepancy % New Business Loss Due To Discrepancy

Max Life Insurance 12

Selection process Data Tools 1.2.2 What

 Voice of Customer &  Kantar IMRB survey  Understand gap areas

Potential Project  To quantitatively and qualitatively assess

Max Life Insurance 13

PROJECT PRIORTIZATION MATRIX

Increase Distributor Satisfaction Scores 5 4 5 4 400

Reduction in New Business Discrepancy 5 4 5 5 500

Improvement in First Year Modal Collection 3 5 5 4 400

Enhancing “Service To Recruitment”

Impact on Strategic Priorities

 Distributor  62% Lower by 9% than

Customer, Agent and Distribution team.

*PF :Proposal Form *BP: Business Partner Max Life Insurance 16

Max Life Insurance 17

• Six Sigma Methodology ü None High High 1.3.2

ü Basic Innovation Tools,

Leader ship training Six Sigma training  Understanding

2 Days 5 Days 2 Days

Max Life Insurance 19

Process and procedures: Processes & procedures were

Max Life Insurance 20

 Toll gate reviews and sign offs charter

Max Life Insurance 21

PF :Proposal Form BP: Business Partner Max Life Insurance 16