The document summarizes a project to reduce manual barcode entries at checkout registers in Tesco stores in the Czech Republic. The goal is to reduce manual entries by 20% by addressing root causes like poor barcode quality, incorrect product data, and inadequate staff training. Initial analyses identified key issues like a lack of focus on store productivity and inadequate training. Solutions proposed include improving the escalation process for barcode issues, refreshing staff training programs, and implementing a barcode approval process for suppliers similar to the UK process. Early improvements significantly reduced manual entries for items with RTC labels through targeted communication and process controls.

1. Scan first time
Project Sponsor:
Emanuel Lörinc
( Store Support Office Director - CR)
Black Belt Candidate:
Jiří Ptáček
( Operations Development Manager - CR)
Date: 21 May 2012

2. DEFINE
MeasureDefine Analyse Improve Control
Background
– Every day in Tesco CR we sell millions of items in crudely 5 million separate lines on till receipts.
To identify the product cashier either scans the barcode (~75%) or if there is no barcode (i.e.
weighted items, bakery) enters the PLU code manually (~25%).
– Barcode does not always scans on first attempt. When stationary scanner fails to scan the item,
cashiers will attempt with manual scanner and failing that manually enter the code.
– Manual entries significantly impact cashier productivity taking 4,8s longer than proper scan.
– This can negatively impact customer shopping trip and result in lost sales when customer decides
to leave the 'non-scannable' item on the till.
Problem statement
– The objective of this project is to understand what are the systematic root causes of these issues
and develop and deploy robust solutions to remove them.
Process Requirements
In order to understand what we wanted to achieve we
listened to our customers (Voice of the Customer) as well
as our business requirements (Voice of the Business):
Voice of the Customer:
– Stores (including Operations Directors): Want be
able to scan barcode items with scanner and
multipacks with Outer case barcode
– Customers: Don't want to wait while we are
struggling with basic operations manually
Voice of the Business:
– We want to cooperate with our suppliers to enable
smooth product throughput on till
– Tesco is willing to recover cost arising from non-
compliant barcodes
The SIPOC helped us to identify our customer requirements and the key project
dependencies. It revealed that we will need to focus not only on store operations but the
commercial part of the process as well. We also used this tool to agreed scope with our
sponsor (Eman Lorinc) at our Define end stage review.
1
2 3
Supplier Input Process Output Customer
Project team GS1 + Tesco barcode specs for new products New products Compliant barcodes Stores
Commercial buyers Signed off supplier contract amendments From: Package design Multiple items sold with
splitpack barcode
SSO Staff Training - Commercial To: Product setup Barcode specification Commercial
SSO Staff Training - Commercial and stores Existing products Reliable data for escallation
to suppliers
Commercial
Dunnhumby Dunnhumby report of potential multipack products From: Non-compliant barcode
occurrence
Bad barcodes are fixed Stores
SSO Manual entry report from tills To: Issue fix Professional service Tesco Customers
Commercial buyers Signed off supplier contract amendments
Leading Key Performance Indicators (New) Existing KPIs
Lagging Key Performance
Indicators (New)
Managers trained to see and manage improper
scanning on till
Stores are encouraged to report bad barcodes
none Number of manual entries:
1) ALL products in business
2) RTC site specific
Number of splitpacks entered
as units
Cashier enters the barcode manually instead of scanning the barcode
Goal statement
The project aims to improve the customer shopping trip by reducing the transaction time at
the checkouts and also aims to make tasks simpler for staff. By reducing the number of
manual bar code entries that have to be made we can speed up the transaction times for
customers and eliminate unnecessary tasks for our staff. The goal is to reduce manual
barcode entries currently running at 13,000 per week by a minimum of 20%

3. MEASURE
MeasureDefine Analyse Improve Control
We mapped the process on till and for setting up a new product to fully
understand what impacts the scanning. Store escalation bit of the process
was completely missing. We have identified the points of failure in the current
product setup process.
Having completed the process mapping we have the number of products
being entered manually as our Key Performance Indicator.
Its operational definition is:
“number of instances a product with barcode is entered manually on till"
We put in place a data collection plan to ensure the performance of the
project was measured in a consistent way:
– barcode product in entire business by store / week
– by number of RTC labels in store / week
Manual entries occurs when cashier is unable to scan the
products with stationary or hand scanner and has to resort to
entering the barcode manually in to till.
In order to verify our measurement system, we went in to
stores measuring 10 samples each 1 hour long on random till:
Error #1: Barcode is entered manually ( 1,93% – representing
2100 hours/month)
Source: Qlen report and Sample measurements on tills
Error #2: Barcode scanning takes longer than 3 seconds
( 2,4 – 5,9%; representing 2600 – 6392 hours/month)
Source: Sample measurements on tills
This helped to build an understanding of the potential root
causes which we fed in-to affinity exercise and fishbone
analysis in next phase:
Performance Target:
Number of products entered manually is reduced by 20% -
both RTC as well as barcode product.
5
6
7
4
Measure Type Data
Data Storage and
Location
Operational Definition How Collected Who
When/How
Often/Sample Size
Factors to
Investigate
Number of barcode products entered
manually - entire business
Output Continuous
WAM report -
distributed weekly
Number of instances a product with
barcode is entered manually on till
Through automatic
process on WAM
Project
manager
Every Monday / All
instances
Top 20% problematic
products
Number of RTC products entered
manually - per store
Output Continuous
WAM report -
distributed weekly
Number of instances a product with
RTC label is entered manually on till
Through automatic
process on WAM
Project
manager
Every Monday / All
instances
Top 20% problematic
stores
Data Collection Plan
- Poor print,
- Small barcode,
- Barcode not accessible,
- Barcode damaged,
- Cashier did not attempt scan due to previous experience,
- Multi pack barcode not set-up in system.
Quick wins:
Early in the project we have identified list of quick wins - fixed immediately
1) Reduce to clear printer maintenance
2) Store communication using existing training material including video
3) Setup investigation and escalation process

4. ANALYSE
MeasureDefine Analyse Improve Control
Identified the root-causes using a fish-bone diagram/ affinity exercise - 3
critical categories were identified as the root causes of why barcode
products do not scan:
1) Bad product data 2) Bad barcode 3) Bad scanning on till
The Failure Modes and Effects Analysis was then completed to help the team
understand the risk and impact of the root causes on the success of the project.
9 10
8
o r w e ca n 't se ll t h e p ro d u ct
b a rco d e is m a n u a lly t yp e d
B a rco d e sca n n in g > 3 s,
P e o p le
P r o d u ct d a t a
B a r co d e Re a d a b ilit y
p rin t in g
P o o r R T C a n d sca le
e sca lla t io n p r o ce ss
In -a d e q u a t e
Da m a g e d b a r co d e
lo w co n t r a st b a rco d e
S m a ll, b a d ly p la ce d ,
b a r co d e s - w e n e e d t o u se P LU
M u lt isu p p lie rs d e live r s w it h m a n y d if f e re n t
In - a d e q u a t e e sca lla t io n p ro ce ss
re q u ire m e n t
S u p p lie r n o t r e f le ct s st o r e p ro d u ct ivit y
in a d e q u a t e
P r o ce ss f o r M a n a g in g m u lt ip a cks is
E m e rg e n cy p ro d u ct w it h d r a w a l
No t o n f ile
He a d o f f ice
Lo w f o cu s o n st o re p ro d u ct ivit y in
F a ilin g t o r e p o rt issu e s
In -a d e q u a t e t ra in in g
sto
re
prod
uctiv
ity
in
Fo
cu
sn
oto
n
com
plyincen
tiv
e
to
M
issin
g
sup
plie
r
specification
Missin
g/in
ad
equ
ate
Own
design
Su
pplier
de
sign
Sm
all
prod
uct
sp
ecia
lh
and
lin
g
d
esigne
d
for
B
arcode
not
han
dling
/
storing
In
prop
erin
-store
Du
rin
g
Tran
sp
ort
ba
rco
de
s
do
es
no
tde
tectall
bad
DC
re
ce
iving
p
ro
ce
ss
d
oes
no
tge
tfixe
d
p
ro
duct
is
id
en
tifie
d
it
O
nce
ba
d
ba
rcod
e
p
rinting
p
ro
pe
rly
F
ailu
re
to
m
aintain
the
m
u
ltipa
ck
Ca
sh
ie
rd
oe
sno
ttrust
barcod
em
ultip
ack
with
m
issing
Sup
plierd
elivers
no
tifydiffe
re
nt
EAN
&failsto
Su
pplier
delive
rs
with
as
m
ultip
ack
ifn
eed
ed
av
oid
sellin
g
m
ultip
ack
Missin
g
ru
le
-ho
w
to
setu
ph
ave
store
spe
cific
req
uiresm
ultip
acksto
C
om
p
licated
p
ro
cess
chan
ge
s
m
ultip
acks,
price
prod
ucte
ntry
new
Missing
co
ntrolo
f
sp
ecifica
tio
n
e
m
be
dd
ed
in
pa
ck
ag
in
g
req
uirem
e
ntsn
ot
S
to
re
prod
uctiv
ity
re
qu
irem
ents
store
p
ro
du
ctivity
su
pp
lier
to
co
m
ply
with
Missing
ince
ntiv
e
for
Lo
gisticd
ata,
qua
ntitie
son
stick
ers
Mu
ltipa
ck
s
o
rig
in
al
barcod
e
R
TC
tag
sn
ot
put
ov
er
execute
d
prop
erly
process
not
alwa
ys
Se
cu
rity
tagg
ing
co
m
m
un
ication
fe
edb
ack
an
d
L
ow
focu
son
m
an
age
m
en
t
pe
rform
a
nce
co
ntinuo
us
No
tim
e
for
p
ro
pe
rtra
ining
o
n
till
N
o
tim
e
to
d
eliv
er
bu
yer,a
ssista
nt
Han
do
ve
rto
ne
w
in
co
nsisten
t
C
om
m
ercial
tra
in
ing
RIS
-S
up
po
rt
desk
IT
-h
elpd
esk
ca
llcen
tre
m
ainten
ance
P
rope
rty
,
com
m
e
rcial
GIRF
S
for
HO,
Ne
ed
to
refresh
R o o tca using ba r co de r e a da bility fa ilur e on che ck o ut
Process
Step / Input
Potential Failure Mode
Potential Failure
Effects
Potential Causes Current Controls Actions Recommended Responsibility By When Actions Taken
What is the
process
step and
Input under
investiga-
tion?
In what ways does the
Key Input go wrong?
What is the impact on
the Key Output
Variables (Customer
Requirements)?
What causes the Key
Input to go wrong?
What are the existing
controls and procedures
(inspection and test) that
prevent either the cause
or the Failure Mode?
What are the actions for
reducing the occurrence of
the cause, or improving
detection?
What are the
completed actions
taken with the
recalculated Risk
Priority Number?
People
Inadequate in-store
training
Longer scanning
process / inability to
sell an item / storno
4
Lack time for proper
training
7
Area director visits /
Throughput report
7 196
Refresh training in stores
including how to spot sub-
optimal performance
Bara Schejbalova 30 Jun 0
People Issues are not reported
Poor maintenance
leads to poor prints
6
Lack of focus or
feedback in store
7
Ad hoc control based in
store feedback
6 252
Refresh maintenance
training + encourage stores
to esalate issues
Vitek Saiver 30 Jun 0
People
No store productivity
focus in HO
Unnecesary impact to
store productivity
4
HO KPI's are not jolnt
with store KPI's
4 Lacking 2 32
Refresh Getting in right for
stores
Eman Lorinc 30 Jun 0
People
Inadequate commercial
user training
Product data not set
properly
6
No formal training,
high fluctuation
4 Lacking 2 48 Refresh user training Jarka Hornakova 30 Jun 0
Small badly placed
Longer scanning Store productivity not
Introduce UK process
S
E
V
E
R
I
T
Y
O
C
C
U
R
R
E
N
C
E
D
E
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
RiskPriorityNumber
S
E
V
E
R
I
T
Y
O
C
C
U
R
R
E
N
C
E
D
E
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
RiskPriorityNumber
At the end of the Analyse phase we set up the
change plan which was agreed and signed off in
the End Stage Review
• Implement escalation process from store to HO
• Refresh trainings in store and in commercial
• Implement UK barcode approval process
including fines for non- compliance
Other suppliers
49%
Tesco value
35%
Tesco standard
13%
Tesco mobile vouchers
3%
Tesco Finest
0%
Barcode products entered manually split by brand
Source: WAM report 14/11/2011 - 12/12/2011 (4 weeks)
This chart documents that from all products entered
manually, Tesco brand products are 51%.
As an output of root-causing workshop, a
senior owner has been assigned to each of
the 3 categories (from fishbone) to deliver
solution to top 3 priority issues (from FMEA)

5. IMPROVE
MeasureDefine Analyse Improve Control
11
12
13Focused first on reducing the RTC problems in
stores. We have launched communication and
setup control process within the project team.
Also as an error proofing measure we've given
stickers on all RTC printers in the business.
Picture from store communication.
We have started tracking number of manual RTC
for 8 weeks and compared with 8 weeks after
implementation of RTC solution.
Using box plots
and statistical
analysis we
know that the
improvement of
RTC is
significant
(lower is better)
Stick the label to the
printer as per picture
below
87654321
7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
Observation
IndividualValue
_
X=6042
UC L=7088
LC L=4997
I-MR Chart of RTC after total
5000
7000
9000
11000
13000
week 1 week 2 week 3 week 4 week 5 week 6 week 7 week 8
# of RTCs entered manually - before
# of RTCs entered manually - after
We wanted to confirm that we have made an
improvement (on graph lower after is better)
RTC afterRTC before
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
Data
Boxplot of RTC before; RTC after
P-Value = 0.000
RTC after 11032RTC before 11032
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Data
Boxplot of RTC before 11032; RTC after 11032
P-Value = 0.000
RTC after 11033RTC before 11033
500
400
300
200
100
Data
Boxplot of RTC before 11033; RTC after 11033
P-Value = 0.007
The improvement
in store 11033 is
also significant
(P-value = 0,007 )
even though
ranges overlap
The total
improvement as
well as
improvement in
store 11032 can
be seen from
boxplot diagram
Looking at the RTC process after the implementation it is in
control (below) and the variation is lower (boxplots)

6. MeasureDefine Analyse Improve Control
CONTROL
The business now reports on both RTC manual entries as well
as product supplier specific.
All variation is reported to the CSO and SSO Directors and the
Store directors. Internal communication team then works with
stores to resolve the issue.
We have refreshed documentation to train the users:
including RACI and process for escalation + training cards
for stores.
A plan for implementation
of the UK process for
escalation to supplier is
in progress. It needs to
be supplier specific - as
General Terms and
conditions have been
updated recently.
14 16
15
17
RTC entered manually 2539 811 571 401 350 346 4442
Percent 26,8 8,6 6,0 4,2 3,7 3,7 47,0
Cum % 26,8 35,4 41,4 45,7 49,4 53,0 100,0
SITE Other140741100111033110431405011032
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
RTCenteredmanually
Percent
Pareto Chart of SITE
Number of manual entering 197 3448426 350 348 334 292 222 208 206
Percent 3,3 57,27,1 5,8 5,8 5,5 4,8 3,7 3,4 3,4
Cum % 42,8 100,07,1 12,9 18,6 24,2 29,0 32,7 36,1 39,6
SITE
Other
11012
12004
12005
11068
11004
11039
11024
11033
11026
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Numberofmanualentering
Percent
Rucne zadane RTC po obchodech 5.3.
Top 6 most problematic
stores
Problem has been fixed
in top 6 most
problematicstores …
… except 11033 -
need to investigate
We have set-up a process within project team to use Pareto charts to
ensure that stores exercise proper maintenance of printers and scale
equipment.
If we don't see week on week improvement project team will investigate
the cause and assess whether action needs to be taken.
Process will be handed over to business (SSO internal communication)
as per agreed RACI using formal Control plan template.

7. This case study documents a quick delivery solution for causes initiated in-store - using Lean Six Sigma Black Belt tools to analyse the problem
and improve the operational delivery of maintenance and store routines compliance. Using FMEA we have identified that the priority issues are
within Tesco control and are principally in-store born issues.
This project will continue; focusing on the commercial process of product setup and supplier escalation.
The solution we identified was to create and assign owner for barcode manual entries monitoring in HO. Weekly we are reviewing manual entry
report with the top 5 worst culprits and communicating with stores and suppliers.
Main learning points/ potential future project areas:
1. Lack of interest in store productivity demonstrated in some HO departments required/requires some careful stakeholder management - simple
changes are taking too long time.
2. Tesco is causing the majority of it’s own problems/issues. From package design, through product setup to poor maintenance / store routines
compliance. Note: 5 minute thought during package design process can save thousands of hours on shop floor later.
3. Stores were failing to report issues even those which were causing quite a serious issues - we have decided to move escalation to head office
- embedding in objectives of 1 store support office role.
Scan first time
Jiri Ptacek, Operations Development Lean 6σ project summary for Black Belt certification
SUMMARY
Main results:
• Better for Customers – reduced manual entries at checkouts meaning quicker transactions for our customers
• Simpler for Staff – we have reduced the manual entries staff have to make by over 400,000 per year
• Cheaper for Tesco – the time saved by reducing the manual entries is more than 900hrs per year the time saving will continue to
increase with the rollout of the UK based process for supplier escalation (completion by November 2012). The time savings have not
been taken as productivity savings but will help when calculating future productivity models
• The measurement and reporting has been embedded in the business with escalation to HO for serious issues and training and an
escalation process for in-store born issues has been introduced
In Tesco we want to satisfy the customer as efficiently as possible at the till. That is not always the case when we allow low quality barcodes, bad
maintenance or poor product set-up that cause the barcode not to scan.