140 likes | 261 Views
ReVisit Management Tool - Understanding the Graphical User Interface (this contains user guide like details – but FOCUS-ed on how to help each CE improve their performance). Explanation of Environmental Code Usage, 30_Minute ReVisit Rate 3 Day Module ReVisit Rate 3 Day ReVisit Rate, and
E N D
ReVisit Management Tool- Understanding the Graphical User Interface(this contains user guide like details – but FOCUS-ed on how to help each CE improve their performance) • Explanation of Environmental Code Usage, • 30_Minute ReVisit Rate • 3 Day Module ReVisit Rate • 3 Day ReVisit Rate, and • the Overall / Total ReVisit Rate • NOTE: The data used as examples is for the US, primarily for ATM’s on FLM contracts • - the measurement period was 3 months from 13 December 2008 to 13 March 2009
What is the purpose of ReVisit Rate • What is ReVisit Rate ? • ReVisit Rate is a measure of the actual rate at which we return to service a unit within a period of time. • e.g., a 20% ReVisit rate means we are back to the same module (or Unit) on 1 out of 5 WO’s within 72 hours • There are multiple ReVisit measures, each of which is intended to help isolate different root causes of Repeat work orders, each of which needs a different training action. • (NOTE: ReVisit measures will not calculate a failure when the next WO is WO-Type RAST, PM, PMCU, RFIT, etc) • The Categories below will identify the purpose of each measure. • How is it useful ? • The reason for the measurement is to improve by • (1) leveraging best practices that drive a low rate of REPEAT work orders, and • (2) applying those learnings to address the root cause of high rates of Repeat work orders • (3) identifying Preferred-CE’s who have the skill required to more effectively repair Problem Units • A CE weakness in any ReVisit Category represents a unique learning need: • CategoryInsight into Best & Worst Practices • - 30 Minute: Process & Procedure Adherence: Call Closure, Machine Button-Up & Test • - Environmental: Prevention: Inspection of Consumables and Customer (Help Desk) Follow-up • - Module: Quality: Repair Skill on the Area of Failure • - Product: Prevention: Appropriate Whole Unit Inspection • Improvement Opportunities • - Reduce Incidents by focusing on the causes of Repeat work orders • - Create an Environment for Success for each CE on each and every call (work order) • by using the likelihood of a repeat work order to identify appropriate CE competency requirements • - Use Preferred CE’s to address Problem Units, thus reducing call volume - PUP and SSDG Chronics are predictors of Repair Complexity, thus identify the need for higher skilled CE’s ReVisit Pilot Approach
Overview - Environmental Code Usage • A CE weakness in any ReVisit Category represents a unique learning need: • CategoryInsight into Best & Worst Practices • - Environmental: Prevention: Inspection of Consumables and Customer (Help Desk) Follow-up • Environmental • The primary purpose of this view is to identify, by CE, the volume of WO’s closed with • Environmental Cause Codes, enabling field management to identify corrective actions • This data can be used to drive improvements by: • Identifying CE’s • who never or rarely use Environmental Cause Codes • who over use Environmental Cause codes • the US average use of Environmental Cause Codes for customers with FLM contracts is 20% of WO’s • CE’s with > 40% usage may be over using the code • FIRST-LINE only CE’s may average a higher rate than SLM CE’s • All Jams are not Environmental WO’s, and recurring jams often indicate a more serious root cause, due to hardware • Actions • Re-enforce guidelines for environmental cause code usage (NCRU CE Reporting Standards) • NOTE: The graphical view of Environmental WO’s being provided is not a Repeat Work Order measure. • Rather, it is simply a view to help identify CE’s who may be mis-using the Environment Cause Codes ReVisit Pilot Approach
Example: Environmental Code Usage Do we really think 60-100% of WO’s are Environmental for some CE’s , and 20% or less for others? Is zero Environment Cause Code usage reasonable? Each Bar is the % of all WO’s used by that CE that are coded as Environment Preferred CE – The preferred CE’s you provided are identified by <P>. How do they look against the rest of the team? Do you need to make adjustments to your “Preferred CE” list? ReVisit Pilot Approach
Overview - 30 Minute Revisit • A CE weakness in any ReVisit Category represents a unique learning need: • CategoryInsight into Best & Worst Practices • - 30 Minute: Process & Procedure Adherence: Call Closure, Machine Button-Up & Test • 30 Minute Revisit • The 30 Minute Revisit Rate is a measure of the frequency of a repeat work-order within 30 minutes of a prior work-order. • There is no equivalent Call Back measurement capability, this enhancement is intended to isolate very poor practices. • The chart illustrates three causes of 30 Minute Revisits • Parts suspensions, where another WO is dispatched to the same unit while the call is suspended • this may not be a problem, but CE dialogue can help identify • that we need a change to the CE’s PPK or some other parts stocking change • that a CE delays going back to the unit even after the part is available • Overlapping WO’s, excluding parts suspensions and 2nd WO’s that are not Type 1-3, FLM 1-3 This means that another work order arrived, while the current one is open. Potential Causes: • The Service Coordinator is notified of this by 4Tell, and on average 2 of 3 are cancelled, butindividual SC’s may not use the information • when unsure if a call is a duplicate, a SC should route the second call to the same CE who can CANCEL the extra one • The CE is suppose to cancel a second WO on the same unit, but some actually create extras • the old FLT organization would create extras if a call was transferred to SLM, or a 2nd module was repaired • Repeat WO’s, those work orders created with 30 minutes of the END of the prior WO.This typically happens when a CE fails to run a test transaction or the prior Repair was ineffective. • This data can be used to drive improvements by: • identifying mentoring & training needs associated with duplicate call handling; end unit identification; appropriate use of test transactions; and inspection of the unit and environment, prior to call closure, to prevent additional service calls • we expect the 30 Minute ReVisit Rate to be <2% ReVisit Pilot Approach
EXAMPLE: 30 Minute ReVisit Discuss cancelling of overlapping calls with CE, or other suspend reasons. Do we really think another WO within 30 minutes is acceptable on 4-11% of WO’s for some CE’s , and 0-2% or less for others? Discuss parts suspend with CE, is a PPK or parts stocking change needed ? Each Bar is the %WO’s by a CE with a Repeat WO within 30 minutes of the CE’s WO (including overlapping wo’s) Preferred CE – The preferred CE’s you provided are identified by <P>. How do they look against the rest of the team? Do you need to make adjustments to your “Preferred CE” list? ReVisit Pilot Approach
Overview – 3 Day Module Revisit • A CE weakness in any ReVisit Category represents a unique learning need: • CategoryInsight into Best & Worst Practices • - Module: Quality: Repair Skill on the Area of Failure • 3 Day Module Revisit • The 3 Day C-AOF (Module) ReVisit Rate measures the CE’s ability to repair a particular module. • It measures how frequently we return to repair the same module within 72 hours of a prior WO • The Graphical Display excludes all 30 Minute Revisits (all 3 types) • On ATM’s 10-15% of CE’s attain Best-In-Class levels of Performance (7.5% for ATM’s on FLM contracts, 3.5% for SLM only) • Unlike Call Back, this measures all repeat FLM calls, & Combines like AOF’s (e.g., measures DISPR as PICK and Presenter Repeat WO”s) • This data can be used to drive improvements by: • Providing the ability to measure quality for each C-AOF separately • a manager can review and compare the ReVisit Rate of all CE’s for a particular module • CE’s with a lower ReVisit Rate have better Repair Quality, those with higher Rates have worse Repair Quality • the data can be mis-leading (e.g., a new CE given “simple” tasks may have a low ReVisit%), but has been highly accurate • further segmentation is possible, e.g., we have found poor DISPENSER repair quality on Diebold (untrained CE’s) • Providing the ability to measure overall Module (C-AOF) Repair Quality • this helps identify CE’s with consistently low ReVisit Rates, who are good candidates to be Preferred CE’s • Guideline – 7.5% is Best in Class for ATM’s with FLM contracts (10-15% of CE’s perform at this Level), 10% is Good • Actions • Observe the range of performance and the average across the group, identify CE’s with training needs • Identify CE's with a High 3 Day C-AOF Revisit Rate. NOTE: The measure is not reliable for CE’s who have run a very low #WO’s. ReVisit Pilot Approach
EXAMPLE: Dispenser Module ReVisit Do we really think a C-AOF Revisit Rate of >15% for some CE’s and 10% or less for others is acceptable? . . . best in class is 7.5% Each Bar is the %WO’s by a CE with a Repeat WO within 72 Hours after the CE’s WO (excludes 30 Minute Repeat wo’s) Why preferred ? Why not preferred ? Why preferred ? Yes, preferred ! Yes, preferred ! Preferred CE – The preferred CE’s you provided are identified by <P>. How do they look against the rest of the team? Do you need to make adjustments to your “Preferred CE” list? ReVisit Pilot Approach
Overview – 3 Day SN Revisit • A CE weakness in any ReVisit Category represents a unique learning need: • CategoryInsight into Best & Worst Practices • - Product: Prevention: Appropriate Whole Unit Inspection • 3 Day SN Revisit • The 3 Day Serial Number (SN) ReVisit Rate measures the CE’s ability to inspect the rest of a machine. • It measures how frequently we return to repair the same module within 72 hours of a prior WO • The Graphical Display excludes all 30 Minute Revisits (all 3 types) & all 3 Day C-AOF ReVisits from the measure • On ATM’s 10-15% of CE’s attain Best-In-Class levels of Performance (7.5% for ATM’s on FLM contracts, 3.5% for SLM only) • There is no equivalent Call Back capability, this enhancement is intended to measure a CE’s skill at proactively inspecting & preventing WO’s • This data can be used to drive improvements by: • Identifying CE’s who may not take time to thoroughly inspect a machine (e.g., fail to adhere to the INTENT of the 10 Step Check List) • We have found many instances where CE’s have the ability to perform better, but do not due to SLA pressure • CE’s who have low rates on the C-AOF and SN ReVisit Rates are good candidates to be preferred CE’s • a CE with a high 30 Minute ReVisit Rate due to parts suspends, may still be a Preferred-CE candidate (they do not control Parts Availability) • Guideline – 7.5% is Best in Class for ATM’s with FLM contracts (10-15% of CE’s perform at this Level), 10% is Good • Actions • Observe the range of performance and the average across the group. • Identify CE's with a High 3 Day C-AOF Revisit Rate. NOTE: The measure is not reliable for CE’s who have run a very low #WO’s. This view is available in the tool, a Branch summary is not provided in this package ReVisit Pilot Approach
EXAMPLE: 3 Day SN ReVisit Do we really think a SN Revisit Rate of >15% for some CE’s and 10% or less for others is acceptable? . . . best in class is 7.5% Each Bar is the %WO’s by a CE with a Repeat WO within 72 Hours after the CE’s WO (excludes 30 Minute & CAOF Repeat wo’s) Each Bar is the %WO’s by a CE with a Repeat WO within 72 Hours after the CE’s WO (excludes 30 Minute & CAOF Repeat wo’s) Why preferred ? Yes, preferred ! Why not preferred ? Yes, preferred ! Preferred CE – The preferred CE’s you provided are identified by <P>. How do they look against the rest of the team? Do you need to make adjustments to your “Preferred CE” list? ReVisit Pilot Approach
Overview – Overall Revisit • A CE weakness in any ReVisit Category represents a unique learning need: • CategoryInsight into Best & Worst Practices • - 30 Minute: Process & Procedure Adherence: Call Closure, Machine Button-Up & Test • - Environmental: Prevention: Inspection of Consumables and Customer (Help Desk) Follow-up • - Module: Quality: Repair Skill on the Area of Failure • - Product: Prevention: Appropriate Whole Unit Inspection • Improvement Opportunities • - Reduce Incidents by focusing on the causes of Repeat work orders • - Create an Environment for Success for each CE on each and every call (work order) • by using the likelihood of a repeat work order to identify appropriate CE competency requirements • - Use Preferred CE’s to address Problem Units, thus reducing call volume - PUP and SSDG Chronics are predictors of Repair Complexity, thus identify the need for higher skilled CE’s • 3 Day Overall Revisit • This graph simply combines all the 30 Minute, C-AOF & SN ReVisit measure into an integrated view. • the improvement actions are identified for each measure on the prior slides • There is no equivalent Call Back capability, this enhancement is intended to measure a CE’s overall Repair Quality to prioritize training needs • This data can be used to drive improvements by: • Helping a manager to prioritize improvement activities (for a CE, as well as across CE’s to yield the biggest saving opportunity) • Guideline – 15% is Best in Class for ATM’s with FLM contracts (10-15% of CE’s perform at this Level), 20% is Good This view is available in the tool, a Branch summary is not provided in this package ReVisit Pilot Approach
EXAMPLE: 3 Day SN ReVisit- This Graph is just a combination of the others, to view Overall Repair Quality Do we really think an overall Revisit Rate of >40% for some CE’s and 20% or less for others is acceptable? . . . best in class is 15% Each Bar is the %WO’s by a CE with a Repeat WO within 72 Hours after the CE’s WO (excludes 30 Minute & CAOF Repeat wo’s) Why preferred ? Yes, preferred ! Why not preferred ? Yes, preferred ! Preferred CE – The preferred CE’s you provided are identified by <P>. How do they look against the rest of the team? Do you need to make adjustments to your “Preferred CE” list? ReVisit Pilot Approach
Action Required • You should review the 4 pages of ReVisit Information for your Branch • It provides insights about the wide variation of performance by CE • We need to Reinforce proper use of Environmental Codes • We need to remind CE’s, especially those that were part of the FLT organization • that they are “not” to create multiple work orders per visit • that they can enter multiple cause codes per work order • We need to remind CE’s • to CANCEL duplicate dispatches to the same Unit • to READ Repair Advice on their RIM device • 74% of PUP-wo’s occur as the 4th PUP (or more) on the same UNIT, it seems CE’s are not reading Repair Advice which identifies a PUP-wo • You or your TM’s may need to remind Service Coordinators • that they need to route PUP-wo’s to preferred CE’s • that they need to cancel duplicate work orders (4Tell notifies the SC of potential duplicates, but the SC does not always act on the info) • Thus, sometimes the SC fails to (a) cancel the duplicate, and (b) worse they route potential duplicates to a different CE • A ReVisit workbook is available for each Branch • You need to identify a ReVisit Champion / Facilitator who will drive action in your Branch (an AFOD, and/or an analytical TM) • they should review the file for your Branch • they can obtain hands-on assistance by scheduling a 1 hour meeting (contact Mike Robinson at 937/445-1897) • they will then be ready to facilitate use of this data by each TM in your Branch • You need to determine the role of the RTSS in using the ReVisit information, and providing feedback and training • Not all RTSS’s are ATM experts, the ReVisit tool identifies CE’s with high Repair Quality, intelligently pick Mentors • Immediate Improvement Actions • Communicate proper Environmental Cause Code Usage (General Explanation, Specific to Over using CE’s) • Communicate proper Call Closure, 1 WO per unit (General Explanation, Specific Dialogue for CE’s with High 30 Minute ReVisit %) • Determine Learning Intervention (e.g., Mentoring) for specific CE’s with high Dispenser 3 Day Module ReVisit Rates • You need to reassess / validate your list of Preferred CE’s (via use of the ReVisit Workbook, and review of all Module Repair Quality) ReVisit Pilot Approach
To Access ReVisit Performance Data • CE Performance Details are available from: Folder: \\susday748\ReVisit File: ReVisit_Management_Tool_(v2d)__CC-BBB__dd-mmm-yyyy__to__DD-MMM-YYYY where: CC is a country code . . . in large countries, BBB identifies the Branch(es) followed by a date range dd-mmm-yyyy__to__DD-MMM-YYYY (typically 3 months) For Training & Assistance Contact: Mike Robinson US Phone # 937/445-1897