Quality Project for Sales System
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•268 views
I used this presentation at the 2009 Decision Science Institute (DSI) conference in New Orleans. It was based on a white paper I did which documented a large scale Quality Engineering Project that I did which focused using quality concepts and tools to improve overall sales.
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Quality Project for Sales System
Similar to Quality Project for Sales System (20)
Quality Project for Sales System
- 1. A method to improve training Presented by: thomas kaster, FazilHayati, Jared Walker Edgewood College Madison, WI Quality Control Chart 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 2. Introduction Thomas Kaster MBA Student at Edgewood College, Madison WI Focus on Quality Management and International Studies Training Consultant and Facilitator for Large Insurance Company 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 3. Project Background Inbound Call Center Direct Marketing to 28 states Licensed in Internal Health and Life Insurance Agents 2 Virtual Call Centers On located in South and one in the North Same resources Same Management Same Training Department Supposed different results 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 4. Project Background Continued Project Goal Evaluate key metrics using control charts Determine if a discrepancy exists If so, determine why Recommend plan for improvement 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 5. Performance Analysis Product Selection: Main Product 3 Ancillary Products Product : A Product : B Product : C Measure Sales Conversion: Main Product: All inbound calls to sales Ancillary Products: Percentage of products added to main product 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 6. Core Product Analysis: All Sales Operations Total Core Product Sales Across Operations 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 7. Core Product Analysis by Location Final Analysis for Core Product: Sales Are In Statistical Control Need to Improve System to Improve Sales 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 8. Product A: All Operations 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 9. Product A: by Location North is Averaging 7% More PA Sales Than South Is Considered Significant 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 10. Product B: By Location North is Averaging 9% More PB Sales Than South Is Considered Significant 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 11. Product C: By Location North is Averaging 22% More PC Sales Than South Is Considered Significant 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 13. Why?? 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 14. Between Subgroup Variation Explained Looks at each unit to determine it’s performance relative to the complete system One unit could be demonstrating high while another could be low As a result, your average may be stable from a Within Subgroup Standpoint, but your quality and consistency per unit could be poor 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 15. Per Sales Teams Veriation: Product A: Both Locations 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 16. Per Sales Team Variation: Product B: Both Locations 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 17. Per Sales Team Veriation: Product C: Both Locations 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 18. What is Happening? Two Distinct Systems In Regards to Selling Ancillary Products WHY? 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 19. Fishbone Diagram / Cause and Effect 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 20. Training History Approximately 18 months prior to analysis new hire sales training was significantly modified This modification resulted in significant improvement in ancillary sales cross selling for trained individuals The north location had substantially more recruitment during that 18 months 60% of North location sales individuals were hired during that 18 months 30% of South location sales individuals were hired during same timeframes 70% of South Location Reps Did Not Receive New Training 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 21. Pareto Chart Analysis 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 22. Final Decision Train all South location Managers and Supervisors on new ancillary sales techniques Train all South location sales representatives on new ancillary sales techniques Training was administered in the spring of 2009 Let’s see the results Was the training effective in improving ancillary sales in the South location? 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 23. Between Subgroup Variation: Both locations post training: Product A Product A: In Statistical Control 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 24. Between Subgroup Variation: Both locations post training: Product B Product B: In Statistical Control 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 25. Between Subgroup Variation: Both locations post training: Product C Product C: In Statistical Control 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 26. What did we do? Using control charts we identified a potential discrepancy in sales performance between to virtual sales call center: North and South Through the use of Ishikawa’s Fish Bone Diagram, we identified that the potential cause was due to improved training for new hires and 70% of South staff not having received the training We took a trip down to the manufacturing floor to solidify our hypothesis and recorded result in a Pareto Chart We initiated a training plan based on results Using control charts, we were able to conclude that the training was successful 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
- 27. Questions? Questions? 11/13/2009 DSI 2009
Editor's Notes
- Core Product when looked across all operationsThis depicts how the complete operational system works together to produce core product sales -The result is an average of approx 13% per month -Think of all off operations working together to make Gumbo Each location produces into this funnel and at the end of the funnel we get our Gumbo… Total core salesAnalysis: Under Control-This type of analysis is considered with-group analysisIt takes a broad look at the operations, however, it does not account for how much each sales unit is producing
- In this side we are still looking at with in group variation, only this time we are separating the results by location As we can see, for our core product we the North Location is averaging apprx 13% and the South is 12.5%. This is no significance differenceFinal Analysis for Core Product: Operations Are Stable
- Product A: All Operations is Under Control
- This control is completed by using the same data in the Within Subgroup analysis. However, the data is now sorted so the data points are depicting each sales teams average performance. Sales teams 1-4 are North Sales TeamsSales Team 5-9 are South Sales Teams As we can see, we have 4 data points, 4 sales teams that are out of statistical control Sales team North 3 and 4 are above the upper control limit and South 6 and 7 are below the lower control limit. We will see a pattern with the other 2 Ancillary products B and C
- Very Similar Pattern for Product B
- Even more discrepancy for Product C
- Using a fish bone diagram,(Ishikawa invented) we can look for the most probable reason why there is a discrepancy in sales performance. We have proven that the system is causing this error. -It is not reasonable to just conclude that everybody that comes to work in the south location chooses not to sell ancillary products.-There is something missing in the south system the is causing the difference-The fist indicator that raised the red flag was in regards to the environment. -the south location had much less recruiting and new hires in the year and a half proceeding the analysis-From there it was projected that the sales individuals and leaders did not have adequate ancillary sales training.-Why was that significant?
- To move further from a hypothesis to fact 100 random calls were listened to in each location.Using a Pareto chart, I recoded the use of the new sales technique on each call measuring Per location: Was it used for all three ancillary productsTwo of the three-One of the three- None of the threeAs you can see, the locations are a mirror image of each other If one were working in a manufacturing environment, this activity would compare to going down to the manufacturing floor and visually recording results of each gumbo machine.