Wipro BPO Case Study

2009 Wipro Ltd - Confidential
Improving Overall Claim Handling

Accuracy
Methodology : DMAIC - Services
WIPRO Ltd (BPO Division)
Green Belt : Ashish Dubey
Team Members:
Hitesh Mhatre, Amit Vaikunthe, Mangesh Pokale,
Anoob Varghese, Vijaykumar Gupta, Praveen
Nayyar, Sanket Mungekar, Anwar Shaikh
Black Belt : Pradeep Khabrani
Champion : Amrish Sharma
LBB : Sunanda Sharma
MBB : Devender Malhotra
Lean and Six Sigma Expertise
Wipro BPO
Wipro Limited
Company Overview
Wipro Ltd has 4,600+ employees trained in Six Sigma & 2600+ trained in Lean.
Other methodologies followed are Kaizen workouts, Continuous improvements,
Transformations, 350 + certified black belts, 21 Lead Black Belts, 18 Master black belts,
410 Certified Lean Facilitators and few certified Kaizen facilitators. We have successfully closed
5800+ six sigma projects through any of the three methodologies such as Improving Existing Process (DMAIC),
Developing Six Sigma Software (DFSS), and Designing Six Sigma Process or Product (DSSP). This has given us an
overall financial savings of INR 15.77 Billion Savings.
The BPO division of Wipro Technologies is one of the largest BPO service providers on a global delivery platform.
Wipro BPO provides a broad spectrum of services across CRM, Back Office Transaction Processing - Finance &
Accounting, Procurement & Supply Chain, Legal Process Outsourcing, Human Resources Outsourcing &
Knowledge Services - Industry Specific Solutions and BPO Consulting. With annual revenue of USD 395 Million (FY
2009-10), Wipro BPO caters to 75 clients (FY 2009-10) across various geographies and industries with 26 state-
of-the-art delivery centers spread across 11 countries. Wipro BPO is equipped to offer services on a 24 x 7 x365
basis.
Incorporated in 1945, Wipro Limited (NYSE: WIT) is a diversified US$ 5 Billion (FY
2009-10) conglomerate with approximately US$ 19 billion in market capitalization.
Wipro is known for its strong relationship, client commitment and the value added
to clients. Major group companies include Wipro Technologies, Wipro
2009 Wipro Ltd - Confidential 3 2009 Wipro Ltd - Confidential 3
3
Process Overview & Funneling approach
3
Claim filed by
Provider
RMO Scans the
claim into
digital format
Auto-
Adjudicator
processes the
claim
Manual Claim
processing &
Adjudication
Provider
appeals/
disputes
Contact Center
resolves the query or
routes for
reconsideration
Fallouts
Y
N
Year End
audit
conducted
by external
3
rd
party
auditors
Low Productivity
$29,226 in last 3 months
Mis-payment of Claims
$539,585 in last 3 months
Re-processing or Re-Adjudication
22% of rework due to processor errors
Penalty charged by end-
customers to our client
Penalty data unavailable
TAT for claim Payment
$6452 in last 6 months
Revenue leakage for
the client
Our client is one of the Largest Health care insurance provider in US serving more than 50 million Customers.
Our Client has healthcare contracts with top companies like Boeing, Xerox, HP, etc. for their employees.
Some premium (performance guaranteed) customers have penalty based contracts with our client basis service
catered to them.
Wipro commits 5% year on year revenue benefit to premium clients by means of productivity improvement or
business process optimization
Prioritized basis
revenue impact to
the client
(contributes to 93%
of the overall
leakage)
Process Overview
Business Case:
Mis-payment of claims has a maximum impact on the client
bottom-line in the form of penalties, incorrect payouts and
rework/re-adjudication of claims
Partnering with the client in an initiative to optimize their
business will further enable Wipro to maintain a long term
relationship and emerge as a service partner instead of a
vendor.
Problem Statement:
The average Overall Claim Handling Accuracy for the last 15
weeks is 96.87% which has resulted in a financial loss of
$616,705 to the client (15 weeks).
Pre - Project remediation implemented :
(8 weeks before project initiation):
Refresher sessions conducted for top error codes
Weekly SME and QA calibration sessions
Client update dissemination process standardized
Automated update dissemination and signoff mechanism
Increased internal audits for Fatal errors
However the implementation failed to show improvement
Goal Statement
The intent of doing this project is to improve the claim
handling accuracy to 98% (statistically validated) post
identification of root causes and hence reduce the financial
impact to the client.
Project Benefits:
Reduction in financial impact to the client
Establish a gain share model with the client
Stay ahead of the competition
Reduction in factors of inaccuracy and revenue leakage
Business Case and VOC
Scoping
Longitudinal:
Start - Processor picks a Claim for
processing.
End Processor finalizes the claim
(Closes/Denies/Pays/Routes)
Lateral:
In Scope:
All processors / All locations
Outside Scope:
Training / Data Entry / Voice business
CTQ Drill Down
Define 19-Jun-09
Measure 10-Jul-09
Analyze 11-Sept-09
Improve 30-Sept-09
Control 5-Nov-09
Project Milestones
CTQ Characteristics
A I C D
Overall Claim Handling Accuracy (OAR) is defined as Percentage of Claim without any Financial or Procedural
error to the total claims audited.
Overall Accuracy = Total Claims audited Errors identified
Total Claims Audited
Any processed Claim with any amount of Financial error or Procedural Error is a defect.
Data Collection Plan:
CTQ
Measure
Type of Data
Discrete/Cont
Target Upper spec Lower spec
Describe your
measure
Overall Claim
Handling
Accuracy
Ratio of Claims without
any error to the total
claims audited
%
Continuous 98.0% 98.0% -
Data Required Data Source & Location Sample Size Responsibility
Agent and Team Level Data Weekly External Data Last 15 weeks of Data by Client Vinay Kumar
Error Codes / Reasons External Audit Team 15 Weeks data Ashish D
Agent and Team Level Data Weekly Internal Data Last 15 weeks of Data Bipin Saxena
Productivity Data Production reports 15 weeks data MIS
Claims processed details Client CRM Dump 15 weeks data Sumeet Patil
Claim Skip Data Production Files 15 weeks of Data MIS
Date of Joining and alignment HR Dump and Converter 15 weeks of Data MIS
Defects/Errors data Int. and Ext. Error Trending 15 weeks of Data Vijay Gupta
Operational Definition of Project CTQ:
Defect Definition:
100% External Claims
audited for 15 weeks
Data Collection Plan:
Validating Measurement System
Month
Audit
_QA
Erro
r_QA
Audit_
Client
Error_
Client
Audit
Delta
Error
Delta
Feb-09 4009 191 3962 188 47 3
Mar-09 5377 167 5334 169 43 2
Apr-09 4864 156 4826 156 38 0
May-09 4925 134 4921 135 4 1
Jun-09 6370 209 6364 211 6 2
5 steps of extracting reports:
1. Select the Duration
2. Select the Site
3. Select report type
4. Select level of report
5. Select expected report fields
Root Cause for Reporting issues identified:
Certain Policy samples do not get reported when
pulling the report through the Individual processor
measures (Report level)
Calibration was attained with the client MIS and
the methodology adopted by them was rectified
with a retrospective effect.
QA_Lead Client_MIS
100
80
60
40
20
0
Appraiser
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
95.0% CI
Percent
QA_Lead Client_MIS
100
80
60
40
20
0
Appraiser
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
95.0% C I
Percent
Date of study: 8th July 2009
Reported by: Ashish Dubey
Name of product: External Accuracy Reporting
Misc: Check for reporting Variance
Assessment Agreement
Within Appraisers Appraiser vs Standard
1. Discrepancy identified in reporting by client MIS and Wipro from
the same audit tool
2. The steps for report extraction were mapped and a attribute
assessment analysis was conducted
3. The agreement rate between both parties showed as 20%
4. A calibration call was scheduled with the business team of the
client to re-map the steps for report extraction
5. Basis the client business team inputs, it was identified that the
appraiser versus the True value was 20% for client MIS team
Conclusion:
Quality reporting to be done using the Detailed error
trending report instead of Individual processor measures
The Delta in Audit # is eliminated
Rectified the data retrospect with the client and
corrected data considered for baselining and analysis
Weekly reporting to evaluate any discrepancies Any duplicate
transactions audited, must be removed
Highlight during monthly business reviews
A I C D
0.980 0.975 0.970 0.965 0.960 0.955
LSL
LSL 0.98
Target *
USL *
Sample Mean 0.968674
Sample N 15
StDev (Within) 0.00593917
StDev (Ov erall) 0.00654083
Process Data
Cp *
CPL -0.64
CPU *
Cpk -0.64
Pp *
PPL -0.58
PPU *
Ppk -0.58
Cpm *
Ov erall Capability
Potential (Within) Capability
PPM < LSL 1000000.00
PPM > USL *
PPM Total 1000000.00
Observ ed Performance
PPM < LSL 971734.91
PPM > USL *
PPM Total 971734.91
Exp. Within Performance
PPM < LSL 958320.28
PPM > USL *
PPM Total 958320.28
Exp. Ov erall Performance
Within
Overall
Capability Analysis of Overall Claim Handling Accuracy
Continuous Data: Normality Plot
As p > 0.05, the data is normal
Continuous Data: Run chart and Control Chart
Data was found to be random, As p > 0.05 for Trends,
Oscillations, Mixtures and Clustering
Control chart was plotted, which shows that the data is in
control
Capability Analysis was conducted
Z
st
= -0.24
Mean = 96.86%
15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.95
Weeks
O
v
e
r
a
ll
C
la
im

H
a
n
d
lin
g

A
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
_
X=0.96867
UCL=0.98649
LCL=0.95086
I Chart of Overall ClaimHandling Accuracy
Process Baseline and Target Validation
M I C D
Baseline process sigma
multiple is -0.24
Z st = 1.50 + (3 * P pk) = -0.24
Data Analysis Normality Test and stability check:
Test of mu = 0.98 vs < 0.98
95% Upper
Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T P
OAR 15 0.96867 0.00654 0.00169 0.97165 -6.71 0.000
Improvement Target:
0.985 0.980 0.975 0.970 0.965 0.960 0.955 0.950
99
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
1
OAR
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
Mean 0.9687
StDev 0.006541
N 15
AD 0.260
P-Value 0.660
Probability Plot of OAR
Normal
0.980 0.975 0.970 0.965 0.960 0.955
X
_
Ho
OAR
Boxplot of Overall Claimhandling Accuracy
(with Ho and 95% t-confidence interval for the mean)
Accuracy target of 98% is
statistically significant
( p-value < 0.05)
9
Prioritization of Causes
Focus groups and Brainstorming activities
conducted across locations to generate
possible causes impacting Accuracy
Potential Factors identified from Cause &
Effect (Fishbone) Diagram
Brainstorming &
Fishbone:
Multi-Voting (Criterion based):
M I C D
10
Quick-win Implemented
Sr Description of X Quickwins Implemented Impact Status
1
Overlooking
Information by
employees
Devised 5 golden rules which will be mandatory on all claims Mandatory Checks Closed
Andon - 5 Golden Rules of claims adjudication were formulated and
rolled on the floor with fliers put across on every agents workstation
Ready Reckoners Onging
2
Lack of RnR and
Fun activities /
Only
reprimanding
and no
appreciation
Initiated Monthly and Quarterly RnR along with awards like Microwave,
Mp3 players, camera, TV, LCD, DVD Player, etc
Awards and
Recognition
Ongoing
Procured a Foosball table and initiated Championship across teams to
promote fun activities
Fun Element Closed
Initiated Fun Fridays which includes fun events like Bingo, Volleyball
and cricket
Fun Element Ongoing
3
Miscommunicati
on of OPH
Targets / Sups
unsure of daily
tasks and KRAs
Standard template for Daily Production Review (DPR Format)
implemented, which is used to review agents by supervisors
Awareness of
performance
Ongoing
Daily review of supervisors using the DPR by Floor Managers
Enabling
accountability
Ongoing
DPR includes actual performance along with targets and highlights KRAs Signoffs enables focus Ongoing
4
Time wasted
due to Idling /
Supervisors
Refrain from
laborious tasks
Daily review of supervisors on team metrics like absenteeism,
Utilization, Occupancy (DPR includes)
Awareness of
performance
Ongoing
Andons
Implemented
M I C D
X.No. Prioritized Xs Description Tool Used Validated
X1 Misinterpretation of policies and
instructions
Literature issues with client documents and P&P resulting
in Misinterpretation of policies and instructions.
Pareto and Pie Chart
Analysis of Prioritized Causes
M I C D
Cnt 32 30 28 18 18 17 16 23 69 61 57 49 45 44 44 39
Percent 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 4 12 10 10 8 8 7 7 7
Cum % 75 80 84 87 91 93 96 100 12 22 32 40 48 55 63 69
Error Category
O
th
e
r
P
r
o
v
id
e
r
B
e
n
e
fits
In
te
r
p
re
ta
tio
n
K
e
y
in
g
/ T
y
p
o
E
r
ro
rs
P
e
n
a
lty
E
v
a
lu
a
tio
n

/ A
p
p
l ic
a
tio
n
N
u
r
s
e
s
R
e
v
i e
w
C
a
lc
u
la
tio
n
E
r
r
o
r
P
ro
v
id
e
r
S
e
l e
c
tio
n
S
P
I
In
te
r
p
re
ta
ti o
n
R
e
m
a
r
k
C
o
d
e
P
r
o
v
id
e
r
C
o
n
tr
a
c
t C
a
lc
u
la
tio
n
P
a
y
m
e
n
t E
r
r
o
r
D
u
p
lic
a
te
S
e
rv
ic
e
s
H
a
n
d
lin
g
A
d
j
u
s
tm
e
n
t E
r
r
o
r
C
o
-o
rd
in
a
ti
o
n
o
f
B
e
n
e
fi
t
A
d
d
i tio
n
a
l In
fo
r
m
a
t
io
n
H
a
n
d
l in
g
M
e
m
b
e
r
B
e
n
e
fits
In
te
r
p
re
ta
tio
n
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
D
e
f
e
c
t
s
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
Pareto Chart of Error Category
X2 Tenure in Complex Queue Vintage in the process impacts the ability to gain
accuracy in claim processing
Moods Median and Test
of Equal Variance
Defects due to
- Member / Provider Benefit
Interpretation
- Calculation
- SPI Interpretation
Are due to misinterpretation
of policies and instructions,
which contribute to 67% of
overall defects
Analysis shows that Claim
Handling accuracy across
various tenure groups does
not differ statistically
Test of Equal Variance shows
that variation in performance
across Tenure groups is
insignificant
X3 Handling Difficult and Dedicated
Policies
Dedicated policies and specific work types result in
higher defects
2 Sample t test
M I C D
X4
X9
Lack of productive count for routes
Productivity Pressure results in
accuracy defects
Routes require research and time for reviewing the
claim, however if routed, reaps no productive count for
the processors resulting in production pressure for
meeting targets and hence rush resulting in accuracy hit
Best Subset
Regression and
Correlation
Policy Type has a statistically significant impact on Claim handling
accuracy, however Dedicated policies depict better performance
as compared to Non Dedicated policies.
Hence it can be statistically stated that dedicated
policies have no negative impact on Overall Claim
Handling Accuracy
Overall CPH and Claims
Handled have an impact on
Accuracy, however R-Sq (Adj)
is very low
Correlation Analysis shows
that Routes, CPH and Claims
Handled (Productivity
Pressure) has no Correlation
with Overall Accuracy.
X5 High Dollar Claims and aged ORS Claims which are aged in the system or bear a
high Paid or Billed amount result in more defects
Anova, Regression, Test of equal
Variance & Chi Square
M I C D
Billed Charges and Paid Charges have
a significant impact on Sample Size of
External Audits
Claims with Paid amount < $2500 has
observed defect count greater than
expected defect counts
Chi-Square value for <$500 is
maximum
Hence validated that action plans need
to be devised on Claims with Paid
amount < $500 and > $10000
X6 Focus on Payment Accuracy only Financial accuracy is critical to process and a Penalty
metric in SOW. Process focus stays on Financial
accuracy only, however procedural errors also are
included in Claim Handling accuracy
One way Anova, Box
Plot and Pareto
63% of the errors are due to
financial defects, it will be incorrect
to forego the procedural errors in
totality
Top 5 Procedural Error Codes
identified for improvement, which
contribute to 51% defects:
K002, P001, F009, K001, B004
M I C D
X7 Calculation Errors while paying
claims
SMEs expressed that agents commit calculation
mistakes resulting in overpayment or
underpayment
Correlation and Multiple Linear
Regression
Multiple Regression helped in identifying
that Underpayment, Over payment and
Mispaid amount shows no correlation with
Overall Claim Handling Accuracy and
Financial Accuracy
P>0.05, No Correlation of overall
accuracy or Financial accuracy
observed with Over, Under or Mis
Payment
X8 Incorrect Markdown by Sam Auditors External Errors charged by auditors include cases which
are incorrectly marked as an error affecting process
scores
2 Sample t test and
Pie chart
Post Reburtal _Pre Reburtal
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.95
0.94
0.93
0.92
State
C
la
im
s
H
a
n
d
lin
g
A
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
Pre and Post Reburtal Comparison
Incorrect markdown has an average
impact of 1.4%.
Basis analysis, 46% of the
challenged errors are approved and
reversed by the external SAM
Team.
Suggested Ops team to identify a
SPOC to validate errors charged on
a daily basis
X10 Assumption based processing Agents tend to assume steps while processing claims,
which may be erroneous
Correlation and
Scatter plot
M I C D
X11 SME will handle Please Audits and
attitude to relinquish owners of the
claim
Agents classify claims under doubt and pass it over to
SME for audits. Post classifying, agents relinquish
ownership and do not track the claim status
Impact Analysis and Pie
Chart
% errors (Focus / Knowledge) were
correlated to Overall Claim
handling accuracy and analysis
shows that there exists a strong
negative correlation between Claim
handling Accuracy and Errors due
to focus issues
21% of the Please audits were
found to be erroneous
Analysis shows that the impact of
the Please audit sample on
Overall Claim Handling accuracy
is negligible
4.00% 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50%
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.95
0.94
Focus Issues
O
v
e
r
a
ll
C
la
im

h
a
n
d
lin
g

A
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
Scatterplot of ClaimHandling Accuracy vs Focus Issues
X13 SME Busy with mails or meetings Agents highlighted that SME stay busy handling mails
or attending meetings and this results in deficiency in
support
Correlation and
Regression
Correlation shows that
Accuracy and AHT are not
correlated. Hence it can be
validated that though timely
support is necessary, its
impact on Accuracy is
insignificant
X.No Prioritized Xs Description Tool Used Validated
X1 Misinterpretation of policies and
instructions
Literature issues with client documents and P&P resulting in
Misinterpretation of policies and instructions.
Pareto and Pie Chart
X2 Tenure in Complex Queue Vintage in the process impacts the ability to gain accuracy in claim
processing
Moods Median and Test of
Equal Variance
X3 Handling Difficult and Dedicated
Policies
Dedicated policies and specific work types result in higher defects 2 Sample t test
X4 Lack of productive count for routes Routes require research and time for reviewing the claim, however if
routed, reaps no productive count for the processors resulting in
production pressure for meeting targets and hence rush resulting in
accuracy hit
Best Subset Regression and
Correlation
X5 High Dollar Claims and aged ORS Claims which are aged in the system or bear a high Paid or Billed amount
result in more defects
Anova, Regression, Test of
equal Variance & Chi
Square
X6 Focus on Payment Accuracy only Financial accuracy is critical to process and a Penalty metric in SOW.
Process focus stays on Financial accuracy only, however procedural errors
also are included in Claim Handling accuracy
One way Anova, Box Plot
and Pareto
X7 Calculation Errors while paying
claims
SMEs expressed that agents commit calculation mistakes resulting in
overpayment or underpayment
Correlation and Multiple
Linear Regression
X8 Incorrect Markdown by Sam Auditors External Errors charged by auditors include cases which are incorrectly
marked as an error affecting process scores
2 Sample t test and Pie
chart
X9 Productivity Pressure results in
accuracy defects
Agents complained that the rush for production resulted in defects Best Subset Regression and
Correlation
X10 Assumption based processing Agents tend to assume steps while processing claims, which may be
erroneous
Correlation and Scatter
plot
X11 SME will handle Please Audits and
attitude to relinquish owners of the
claim
Agents classify claims under doubt and pass it over to SME for audits. Post
classifying, agents relinquish ownership and do not track the claim status
Impact Analysis and Pie
Chart
X12 Only Threats and no Support by
supervisors
Agents highlighted that supervisors threaten to place on action plan and
PCCP rather than assisting in improving
Champions Input
X13 SME Busy with mails or meetings Agents highlighted that SME stay busy handling mails or attending
meetings and this results in deficiency in support
Correlation and Regression
Validated Causes
M A I C D
17
Counter Measures for Validated Xs
X Description of X Counter Measure Owner Status
X1
Misinterpretation
of policies and
instructions
Extract all possible SPI and formulate a module for Vitality Sanket M Closed
Include Commonly used Jargons in the SPI Vitality Training Module Anoob V Closed
Implement Lean - Standard Work Tenet Mangesh P Closed
X2
Aged ORS and High
dollar claims
Redefine Internal sampling methodology and devise a real time audit
mechanism
Ashish D Closed
All claims with paid charge of over $10,000 to be prioritized for audit Ashish Dubey Closed
Implement Gemba boards to control aged inventory Anwar Shaikh Closed
Sampling plan to be revised for BL certified processors (PR Samples) Ashish Dubey Closed
X3
Focus on payment
accuracy
Root cause sheet to be initiated wherein agents accept their errors and
individually identify the root cause of the error made, post detailed
feedback
Pravin Nayyar Closed
Daily Agenda in Shift end huddles to include floor level error trends
irrespective of its type
Amit
Vaikunthe
Closed
Special Audits to be initiated with higher focus on claims other than Paid Vijay Gupta Closed
X4
Incorrect
markdown by SAM
auditors
SPOC from QA Team identified, who must review all errors on a daily basis
and challenge discrepant errors charged by SAM
Hitesh Mhatre Closed
Incorrect markdowns to be highlighted in client visit and Quarterly
business review
Amrish
Sharma
Closed
X5
Assumption of
processing steps
Outlier team identified and aligned with a dedicated auditor for additional
focus
Mangesh
Pokale
Ongoing
Develop possible automated scripts which can eliminate manual
intervention and automate calculations and procedures
Vijay Gupta Closed
100% audits for OJT agents, by a dedicated OJT Auditor Ashish Dubey Ongoing
M A C D
Action Plan for X1: Standard Work (Lean Tenet)
Challenges Actions and Benefits
Interpreting the benefits correctly for varying
claim types
Inventory piling up in case of difficulty in
understanding claim types
Performance Guaranteed Policies
The work allocation process was modified
A dedicated personnel for work allocation
Allocation rules defined basis
Policy Type
Skill Level of processor
Segmentation conducted on the floor dividing
processor groups as
Performance Guaranteed processors
Dedicated and High Dollar processors
CCOD Router
Medicare Processor
High Dollar Processor
Hospital Claims
processor
Performance
Guaranteed -
Dedicated processors
Simple Claims
Medicare / Medicaid
High Dollar
Dedicated Policy
Mixed
Specialty Processor
M A C D
Action Plan for X1:
Misinterpretation of policies and Contracts
Claim Processors Special Processing
Instructions
Claim Payment
Claim
OFE
Gap - Technical jargon (Logical)
SME intervention enables better
interpretation of SPI
SPI Defects Actions and Benefits
Interpreting technical language
Interpreting logical and conditional expressions
(Greater than or, if then else, if then else if, etc)
Understanding English vocabulary during processing
and trainings
Module devised and delivered which included
Jobaids for understanding medical language
Jargons and logical expressions (direct & multi
level)
Trainings delivered in local language thus easing
out understanding of logical and conditional
jargons and hence improving documentation
Research
Claim Flow:
M A C D
Action Plan for X2: Revised Sampling Approach
Claim processor Claim processed Auditor
Real Time
Sampling
Claim Filters Claim
Java / ASP based tool deployed to capturing
productivity real time
Dump extracted every 2 hours for all claims
processed
A sampling plan put in place to identify possible
errors
Normal Audits @ 10/week per agent
Special audits to enable hygiene
Macros run to flag off identified opportunities
Real time audits conducted
Financial errors identified rectified with void
process
Daily Agenda to cover all errors identified
Automation for Real Time Audits:
Revised Sampling:
M A C D
Action Plan for X2: Gemba (Lean Tenet)
Gemba means workplace and is one of the most commonly used tool in manufacturing industry
Gemba boards have been implemented to enable review and estimation of the floor performance
for the day/Week/Month on critical standards at a glance
Gemba boards include Inventory volumes, Age of ORS on a team level and bi-hourly productivity
along with floor level updates and critical metrics
All Gemba boards are updated by floor supervisors for their team and business manager for the
location happens every 2 hours
This is an important review tool across middle and senior leadership compounded with Omega Real
Time Manager
M A C D
Action Plan for X2 and X3:Automation (Omega)
Delay of 24 hours for data availability
All monitoring are retrospective and not proactive
Errors are identified post 24 hours and option
available to minimize impact to client
Lack of monitoring tools like Avaya, IEX as in a
voice process
A tool was internally developed to cater the following
Real time productivity capture
Real-time performance monitoring on supervisor
console (productivity, utilization, quality)
Real time sampling of claims, basis sampling
plan for each segment of processors
Real-time feedback/coaching on performance
Ability to rectify any defects identified
internally before they hit client system
M A C D
Action Plan for X5:Mistake Proofing
Assumption of steps and contract related
information
Due to rush for productivity targets, processors
tend to consider calculations which may not be
correct
Employees tend to miss out critical information
that needs to be extracted from claim policy
document
List of defects was reviewed to identify possible
opportunities of automation
VB Scripts were internally developed and deployed
to mistake proof possible mistakes
Processors need to answer the series of
questions
The tool will automatically calculate and
populate required processing fields to eliminate
manual intervention
M A C D
24
Action Plan for X5:Variation based Team Mix
Agent controllable defects Team Level
Action Plan Description Status
All teams were analyzed for variation
The floor allocation was restructured considering variation based Team
mix
Closed
Outlier management
The bottom 25 agents on accuracy were identified and assigned to 1
QA
Ongoing
QA Accountability
The KRAs for the QA included turnaround of these set of agents
including reduction in financial and procedural errors
The agent set revised every quarter
Ongoing
Module design and delivery
Vitality training conducted by the QA team instead of trainers and SME
to eliminate calibration gaps
Ongoing
SAM Error Review
SAM Review SOP formed and SPOC identified
Review of all errors conducted and discussed in a weekly client call for
reburtals
Ongoing
UMESH KOYANDE
SWAROOP SHIVRAM
SANDRA JOSEPH
NITESH MISHRA
MIRZA MUEEN A.W
MANOJKUMAR KODWANI
LOKESH SHETTY
KUMARSEN S MUDLIAR
JISHA JOHNY
GAURAV BORDE
DONALD SETHI
DICKSON D'COSTA
ASHISH DUBEY
ANITHA G NAIR
ANAND SHINTRE
AMOS CHRISTIAN
AMIT OBEROI
ALISTAIR ANTHONY GOUVEIA
AGITH CHERIAN
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs
Test Statistic 222.37
P-Value 0.000
Test Statistic 0.92
P-Value 0.552
Bartlett's Test
Levene's Test
Test for Equal Variances for Claim Handling Accuracy
Cnt 32 30 28 18 18 17 16 23 69 61 57 49 45 44 44 39
Percent 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 4 12 10 10 8 8 7 7 7
Cum % 75 80 84 87 91 93 96 100 12 22 32 40 48 55 63 69
Error Category
O
th
e
r
P
r
o
v
id
e
r
B
e
n
e
fits
In
te
r
p
re
ta
tio
n
K
e
y
in
g
/ T
y
p
o
E
r
ro
rs
P
e
n
a
lty
E
v
a
lu
a
tio
n

/ A
p
p
l ic
a
tio
n
N
u
r
s
e
s
R
e
v
i e
w
C
a
lc
u
la
tio
n
E
r
r
o
r
P
ro
v
id
e
r
S
e
l e
c
tio
n
S
P
I
In
te
r
p
re
ta
ti o
n
R
e
m
a
r
k
C
o
d
e
P
r
o
v
id
e
r
C
o
n
tr
a
c
t C
a
lc
u
la
tio
n
P
a
y
m
e
n
t E
r
r
o
r
D
u
p
lic
a
te
S
e
rv
ic
e
s
H
a
n
d
lin
g
A
d
j
u
s
tm
e
n
t E
r
r
o
r
C
o
-o
rd
in
a
ti
o
n
o
f
B
e
n
e
fi
t
A
d
d
i tio
n
a
l In
fo
r
m
a
t
io
n
H
a
n
d
l in
g
M
e
m
b
e
r
B
e
n
e
fits
In
te
r
p
re
ta
tio
n
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
D
e
f
e
c
t
s
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
Pareto Chart of Error Category
M A C D
FMEA on Improved Process
M A I D
1. FMEA was conducted post implementation of action plans
2. The prioritized failure modes were actioned and revised process map was implemented
26
New Process Performance
Process Sigma has increased from -0.24 to 2.42
0.995 0.990 0.985 0.980 0.975
LSL
LSL 0.98
Target *
USL *
Sample Mean 0.984882
Sample N 13
StDev (Within) 0.0048851
StDev (Ov erall) 0.00529751
Process Data
C p *
C PL 0.33
C PU *
C pk 0.33
Pp *
PPL 0.31
PPU *
Ppk 0.31
C pm *
Ov erall Capability
Potential (Within) Capability
PPM < LSL 153846.15
PPM > USL *
PPM Total 153846.15
Observ ed Performance
PPM < LSL 158792.09
PPM > USL *
PPM Total 158792.09
Exp. Within Performance
PPM < LSL 178361.31
PPM > USL *
PPM Total 178361.31
Exp. Ov erall Performance
Within
Overall
Capability Analysis - Improved Process
Z Calculation for Continuous Data
Phase LSL Mean S
LT
Z
LT
Z
ST
DPMO Yield
Baseline 98.00% 96.87% 0.65% -1.74 -0.24 958935.24 4.11%
Improved process 98.00% 98.49% 0.53% 0.92 2.42 177605.66 82.24%
Overall Accuracy:
M A I D
27
Validation of Improvements
P-value = 0.00
Improvement in Overall
Accuracy is statistically
significant
Mean has increased from
96.87% to 98.49%
Improvement sustained for
more than 6 months (Oct
2009 to April 2010)
Post _Pre
1.00
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.95
Status
O
v
e
r
a
l
l

C
l
a
i
m

H
a
n
d
l
i
n
g

A
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
Boxplot of Accuracy Pre and Accuracy Post
M A I D
28
Control Plan
Sr.
No
Sustenance Measures Frequency Responsibility
1 Daily Reporting of MTD and Weekly Scores Daily Vinay Kumar
2
Implementation of mandatory steps in Omega as a ready reckoner (Golden
Rules)
Weekly Ashish Dubey
3 Daily Team Agenda and Shift End huddle for update dissemination. Daily Mangesh Pokale
4 Monthly Dipsticks to enable compliance check on Sampling plan implemented Monthly Ashish Dubey
5 Quarterly revision of outlier list and allocation to 1 QA and revisiting FMEA Quarterly Ashish Dubey
6 Daily review of SAM errors by 1 dedicated resource following Reburtal SOP Daily Hitesh Mhatre
7 Real time feedbacks for Procedural errors with RCA signoff Daily Ashish Dubey
8 Daily DPR Review with supervisors & agents Daily
Supervisors and
SDL
9
Special Audits to continue, targeting anomalies in floor performance and spike
in productivity and/or claim status
Daily Sam Parulekar
10 Weekly Assessments to check dissemination Weekly
Amit Vaikunthe
and
Anoob Varghese
11 OJT processors on 100% Audits Adhoc
Sanket Mungekar
and
Praveen Nayyar
The process excellence personnel (Black Belt) would conduct monthly dipsticks to
validate sustained implementation of control plan
Process Sustenance Owner: Ashish Dubey (QA Lead)
M A I D
28 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 4 1
1.00
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.95
Weeks
O
v
e
r
a
l
l

C
l
a
i
m

P
a
y
m
e
n
t

A
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
_
X=0.98488
UCL=0.99954
LCL=0.97023
Pre Post
Overall Claim Handling Accuracy
29
Project Benefits
28 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 4 1
1.000
0.995
0.990
0.985
0.980
0.975
0.970
Weeks
C
l
a
i
m

P
a
y
m
e
n
t

A
c
c
u
r
a
c
y_
X=0.99256
UCL=0.99965
LCL=0.98548
Target = 98.3%
Post Pre
Claim Payment Accuracy
Other Benefits:
1) Due to Standard work
implementation the leakages
due to TAT were eliminated
(validated by client VOC)
2) A lean project was run parallel
to this project to improve
productivity (improved from
3.17CPH to 4.50CPH)
3) A project on re-work reduction
has been initiated on 1st July
2010
1. Mis-paid amount of $616,705 reduced to $85,505 (15 week comparison).
86% reduction achieved in Mis-paid amount
2. Realized Financial Savings of $1,055,415 to the client and $201,000 to Wipro
(gain share for business optimization) across the last 9 months
3. Institutionalization: Replicated the learning across other client domestic and
captive locations. Improvement in accuracy realized across and hence additional
revenue gain (over and above the amount mentioned in point 1)
4. The project also won the Global Quality Challenge across all domestic, captive and
outsourced locations of the client. The client senior leadership awarded Wipro a
Trophy appreciating the efforts.
5. Synergy with the client to replicate best practices across their organization and
credited as a Partner to the client and much beyond a Vendor.
6. Currently in process of implementing OMEGA across client enterprise
30
Customer Commendations
From: Client Director
To: Kannan Iyer; Amrish Sharma
Cc: Prashant Kulkarni;
Sent: Mon Jul 19 20:51:36 2010
Subject: Thanks to the team!
Kannan and Amrish,
As the June results are posted I see that your team has been 12months
consistently GREEN on delivery of DAR, CPA and PAR! Very nice work!!
I would like to say "Thanks" for the work your team is doing on our account.
I have seen consistent quality results and the teams are managing
TAT in an effective manner. Please keep up the focus and the good work !!
Please share my notes with the teams.
From: Prashant Kulkarni
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 8:50 AM
To: Ashish Dubey; Kannan Iyer
Cc: Pradeep Khabrani; Amrish Sharma; Tuhin Tushar Sanyal; Mohit
Subject: RE: Accuracy Scores - WIPRO - March 2010 - Updated
Very good performance team. As mentioned by Dirk during last week meeting, the client org
very happy with our Quality scores. They are looking at us for continuation of such performance &
also suggest them changes required to make their business more efficient and economical
This is 9th month of great performance and we are very proud of achievements. Please convey my
appreciation to your team.
Regards
Prashant- Account Head
From: Srijit Rajappan
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 7:15 PM
To: Prashant Kulkarni; Ashish Dubey; Kannan Iyer
Cc: Pradeep Khabrani; Amrish Sharma; Tuhin Tushar Sanyal; Mohit Goel
Subject: RE: Accuracy Scores - WIPRO - March 2010 - Updated
Team,
Nice to see the consistent performance from the floor. It sounds very
encouraging when the top executives in client Org commend our
performance. Keep up the great work. Consistently superlative performance
is the only way to grow our relationship with client. Thank you..
Regards,
Srijit - BU Head
Pradeep Khabrani
Manager Mission Quality
Pradeep.khabrani@wipro.com
Thank You
Wipros Value
Proposition

Wipro BPO Case Study

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Wipro BPO Case Study

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2009 Wipro Ltd - Confidential

Improving Overall Claim Handling

Anda mungkin juga menyukai