Custom Technology for Custom Research; A Case Study

Customized Operations for Customized Research Presenters Sameer Inamdar, AGM, Datamatics Global Services Ltd. Eleanor Dilworth, VP TRS Project Services/Sampling, Synovate (USA)

Plan for the Hour Introduction Objective of the paper Our Experience Customized Operations Model Conclusion 2

Market Research Today 1. Projects are becoming more challenging a. We are moving from a world of ‘OR’ to a world of ‘AND’ b. Of course, costs of operations today has to be less than yesterday!! 2. Technology in MR operations is still pretty standard (compared to the pace outside of MR)… 3

Projects Today • High volume • Unique requirements that need different approach • Multiple deliverables • Monthly/weekly/daily • Extended period of time 4

Challenges • How do you meet requirements and remain cost efficient and cost competitive? • How can you differentiate from your competition on turn around time and quality? • How can you maximize project margins and ensure that the project will have long term savings? 5

Typical Approach • Try to fit these large/unique projects into current processes and technology 6

Problem • One-size-fits-all approach causes over runs leading to extra efforts & resources 7

Objective of the Paper • Propose a Conceptual Model for Customized Operations that will help in: – Determining suitability of a project to be adapted for customized technology operations – Maximizing Process-Technology alignment for that project – Decision-making for resource planning, KPI/metrics, & alignment with long term organization goals – Determining total cost of operations for different approaches and suggest the best approach with minimum cost 9

Customer Satisfaction Project 11

Scope of the study • Customer follow-up program for a car company • Three year program with estimated 1.5 million interviews per year; 120,000 per month; 5,000 per day • 100% of interviews to be recorded - respondent comments not typed in by interviewer (Qual-Quant methodology) • Open end comments to be transcribed then coded • Tight turn around time requirements – Email sent to client within 30 minutes containing transcribed and coded information for any interviews flagged as Hot Alert – Remaining transcribing and coding completed by 6am following morning • Complete transparency – data, recording, resulting transcription and applied codes visible to client at respondent level via website 12

Challenges • Turn-Around-Time – 30 mins for Hot Alert (4% of files) and all remaining files processed by 6:00 am • Logistics – large number of files to be transferred across multiple locations and then consolidated • Quality – stringent quality norms to be followed • Resource Planning - small time window to execute the entire process • Outsourcing – transcription not a service provided internally and timing constraints 13

Existing Technology Interview Audio file per File Transfer CST  4:00 pm start interview to Partners Transcription & Coding Upload to Transcription CST  6:00 am Consolidation website + coding data 14

Existing Technology Interview Audio file per File Transfer CST  4:00 pm start interview to Partners • CATI Dialer automatically generates audio wave file per interview Transcription • Files classified per type of interview and & Coding language Upload to Transcription+ CST  6:00 am Consolidation website coding data 15

Existing Technology Interview Audio file per File Transfer CST  4:00 pm start interview to Partners • Every 30 minutes, files batched and sent to partners for transcribing and coding Transcription • The file transfer is by FTP & Coding Upload to Transcription CST  6:00 am Consolidation website + coding data 16

Existing Technology Interview Audio file per File Transfer CST  4:00 pm start interview to Partners • Audio Files are downloaded by partners • Team transcribes and codes using software Transcription available & Coding • Transcription and coding data combined • At periodic intervals, the transcription/coding data file is batched and uploaded to Synovate servers Upload to Transcription CST  6:00 am Consolidation website + coding data 17

Existing Technology Interview Audio file per File Transfer CST  4:00 pm start interview to Partners • Once files downloaded by Synovate, they are matched back with other structure data and audio file Transcription & Coding • Files are then uploaded batch-wise to website for client Upload to Transcription CST  6:00 am Consolidation website + coding data 18

Wait a minute – Was that the BEST way?? 19

Can we make it better, i.e. more profitable operations? 20

Of course we can and we did!! 21

How you ask?? • Followed a conceptual model for Customized research which focused on – Establishing an efficient Process after understanding project requirements – Getting the Technology to fit the Process 22

The “Out of Box” Process 23

Process Technology Fit CST  4:00 pm File per File conversion Interview start interview & routing Continuous transfer to partners Transcription & Coding Download Continuous upload CST  6:00 am Upload to individual files - Transcribed + website and Consolidate coded data 24

Process Technology Fit In Short - Automated all manual tasks 29

But the story does not end here…. 30

Few weeks later • Software provided real time metrics to measure efficiency at each stage • Further Process Re-engineering possible – Integration of transcription and coding software – Classification of audio files into buckets which helped in allocations 31

Software Snapshot 32

Software Snapshot 33

Productivity Tracker 34

Productivity Tracker 35

Savings • Resources – 20% less number of resources required • Software – 40% savings on licensing/transaction costs • Total Cost of Operations – Estimated savings of $630,000 over three years 36

Benefits • Quality & TAT – As per client requirements • Well managed • Process and technology dependent – Human intervention rarely required • Transparency – Real time metrics available for every activity 37

Managed increased volumes Ramp-up 120000 100000 80000 Volume 60000 40000 20000 0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Period 38

Improved Quality Quality Score 95 100 92 84 84 84 76 80 Score (%) 60 40 20 0 November December January February March April 39

So what did we learn from this? 40

Learning • It pays to think out of the box and design your own process • Metrics is key requirement for process reengineering • For Large/Long term projects look closely at existing software (transaction) & resource cost. • Using your own technology can give you more control over your process and metrics 41

Conceptual Model Organization Understand the Long term / large project scope projects & requirements Technology Design process & Project Document as per project organization requirement alignment Processes Technology & process Process alignment Automation Simulation 43

Technology Process Alignment  Parameters used for checking alignment • Fitment of technology with process flow and Data flow diagrams • Productivity • Training • Monitoring performance • Resource planning • Costs 44

Technology Organization Alignment  Parameters used for checking alignment • Adaptability • Flexibility • Scalability • Scope for further process re-engineering 45

Conclusion • Technology is an enabler not solution by itself • Large ongoing projects need a different approach • Understanding project score and designing efficient process is first and most important step followed by appropriate technology solution • Metrics is key to process re-engineering. The technology solution selected should provide real time data • Process re-engineering and automation is an ongoing process • Move from outsourcing which is “Lift & Shift” to Smart-Sourcing and partnership with service providers 47

Questions 48

49

Custom Technology for Custom Research; A Case Study

0 comments

Notes on slide 1

Favorites, Groups & Events