Improving Internal
Compliances in travels
ISEL GLOBAL | WWW.ISELGLOBAL.COM
contact@iselglobal.com
Define Phase
Business Case
• Our Team manages deployments from India for employees across group
entities.
• The aim is to facilitate travel for business assignments in a compliant and cost
effective manner.
• We envisage to ensure each deployment is compliant from tax and
immigration perspectives.
Problem Statement
Current compliance level stands at 56% (between Jan to Jun 2019) which needs
to be improved.
Goal Statement
Increasing compliance in deployments from current 56% to 100%. Out of scope is
technology glitch and oracle downtime.
Estimated Business impact
• Zero non-compliance
• Improved process efficiency & Employee satisfaction
• Reduced risk of legal exposure
• Potential delay in revenue recognition approx. $400 per day, per employee.
Timelines
September 15,2019
Threat Opportunity Matrix
Threat Opportunity
a) Increase in the no. of
errors
a) Reduction in errors
b) Dissatisfied employees
b) Lesser compliance risk
c) Need to improve
process efficiency
Short
term
a) Compliant
a) Potential legal risk
deployments
b) Non-compliant travels
b) Highest process
c) Delay in revenue
efficiency
recognition
Long term c) Employee satisfaction
CTQ Drill Down
Linkage of Project ‘CTQ’ to Business Y
Level 1 - Transforming deployment experience Business Y
Need
Level 2 - Timely documentation Compliant travel
Drivers
Level 3 - Entity Mapping Payroll Set-up On-boarding
Metric
Project CTQ Improving percentage compliance Project Y
CTQ Characteristics Chart
Project Y
• Operational definition – Improving percentage compliance
• Performance calculation formula – (Total No. of non-compliances / Total
No. of employees travelling ) * 100
Business Y – Transforming Target – 56% to 100% excluding IT
deployment experience glitch and oracle downtime
Start of process – Exit logged by Unit – Every eligible employee
business HRM travelling
End of process – On-boarding on Opportunity – One opportunity of
new entity defect in One unit
Specs. Limit – 100% compliance Defects – Delayed on-boarding,
(excluding IT glitch and Oracle incorrect entity mapping and
downtime) delayed payroll set-up
COPIS
CUSTOMER OUTPUT INPUT SUPPLIER
• Exit by HRM. • Business HRM.
• Closure of • Team handling
Employee travelling
Timely on-boarding pending on-boarding.
on assignment
increment. • HR team for
• Latest offer offer
PROCESS
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Data gathering Analysis of info Share info Deliver output
Timely exit trigger, PFSS on-boarding If CTC discrepancy, On being provided
logged by HRM keeps trigger on then Biz HR is with correct info,
before travel hold to validate directed to on-boarding is
information correct the data completed
Diagnose Phase
Data Collection Plan
Metric Critical X’s Types of measure Frequency of Source of Responsibility
Operational reporting information
Definition
Exits logged for Input /Count Case to case basis Reports from On-boarding team
travels HRMS tool
On-boarding Input Case to case basis Reports from On-boarding team
requests HRMS tool
Concur request for Input Daily reports Report from Concur approval
travel (monitor Concur tool team
Improving controls)
percentage
Concur checklist Process Case to case basis Manual checking Concur approval
compliance
validation from documents team
(Project Y)
sent by employee
Onboarding Process Case to case basis HRMS tool and On-boarding team
documents Offer tracker
validation
Approved Concur Output Daily reports Report from Concur approval
requests (Monitor Concur tool team
controls)
Run Chart and Normality test
Summary Report for Yes
Anderson-Darling Normality Test
A-Squared 2.38
P-Value <0.005
Mean 1 .0690
StDev 0.9232
Variance 0.8522
Skewness 1 .31 909
Kurtosis 2.73506
N 29
Minimum 0.0000
1 st Quartile 0.5000
Median 1 .0000
3rd Quartile 1 .0000
Maximum 4.0000
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
0 1 2 3 4 0.71 78 1 .4201
95% Confidence Interval for Median
1 .0000 1 .0000
95% Confidence Interval for StDev
0.7326 1 .2485
95% Confidence Intervals
Mean
Median
0.8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4
Run Chart and Normality test
Process Capability Testing
Current Target
Target (10 time
Current Target (100%
reduction in
Capability compliance)
DPMO)
No. of units (applicant
72 72
count)
Each unit has
6 6
opportunities
Total Defect count (non
85 0
compliance checkpoints)
DPO 0.20 0.00 0.02
DPMO 196759.26 0.00 19675.93
Z (short term) 2.35 6.25 3.56
Hypothesis Testing
Test and CI for One Proportion X1= Defect 1 - Delay in logging exit
Method
p: event proportion
Normal approximation method is used for this analysis.
Descriptive Statistics
N Event Sample p 95% Lower Bound for p
72 19 0.263889 0.178452
Test
Null hypothesis H₀: p = 0.1
Alternative hypothesis H₁: p > 0.1
Z-Value P-Value
4.64 0.000
Inference:
P-value > 0.05; which means Proportion of defects due to X1 is greater than
10% of total defects. This defect is Significant
Hypothesis Testing
Test and CI for One Proportion X2= Defect 2 - Pending increment
Method
p: event proportion
Normal approximation method is used for this analysis.
Descriptive Statistics
N Event Sample p 95% Lower Bound for p
72 8 0.111111 0.050191
Test
Null hypothesis H₀: p = 0.1
Alternative hypothesis H₁: p > 0.1
Z-Value P-Value
0.31 0.377
Inference:
P-value < 0.05; which means Proportion of defects due to X2 is equal to or less
than 10% of total defects. This defect is NOT Significant
Hypothesis Testing
Test and CI for One Proportion X3= Defect 3 - Incorrect Offer letter
Method
p: event proportion
Normal approximation method is used for this analysis.
Descriptive Statistics
N Event Sample p 95% Lower Bound for p
72 8 0.111111 0.050191
Test
Null hypothesis H₀: p = 0.1
Alternative hypothesis H₁: p > 0.1
Z-Value P-Value
0.31 0.377
Inference:
P-value > 0.05; which means Proportion of defects due to X3 is equal to or less
than 10% of total defects. This defect is NOT Significant
Hypothesis Testing
Test and CI for One Proportion Defect 4 - Unaware of process (wrong exits,
misses, delay in giving project ID, etc.)
Method
p: event proportion
Normal approximation method is used for this analysis.
Descriptive Statistics
N Event Sample p 95% Lower Bound for p
72 19 0.263889 0.178452
Test
Null hypothesis H₀: p = 0.1
Alternative hypothesis H₁: p > 0.1
Z-Value P-Value
4.64 0.000
Inference:
P-value < 0.05; which means Proportion of defects due to X4 is greater than
10% of total defects. This defect is Significant
Hypothesis Testing
Test and CI for One Proportion Defect X5 - IT issue cases
Method
p: event proportion
Normal approximation method is used for this analysis.
Descriptive Statistics
N Event Sample p 95% Lower Bound for p
72 4 0.055556 0.011152
Test
Null hypothesis H₀: p = 0.1
Alternative hypothesis H₁: p > 0.1
Z-Value P-Value
-1.26 0.896
Inference:
P-value < 0.05; which means Proportion of defects due to X5 is equal to or less
than 10% of total defects. This defect is NOT Significant
Hypothesis Testing
Test and CI for One Proportion Defect X6 - Access Activation de
Method
p: event proportion
Normal approximation method is used for this analysis.
Descriptive Statistics
N Event Sample p 95% Lower Bound for p
72 27 0.375000 0.281154
Test
Null hypothesis H₀: p = 0.1
Alternative hypothesis H₁: p > 0.1
Z-Value P-Value
7.78 0.000
Inference:
P-value < 0.05; which means Proportion of defects due to X6 is greater than
10% of total defects. This defect is Significant
AS-IS Process Map
Start
Business
Contact Sends offer to Informed Closes increments.
mobility team employee for about travel Gets revised offer.
HR
for offer acceptance and logs exit Sends to onboarding
Helps to
Releases offer arrange visa
letter basis
Mobility
and permits
Team
reqd. docs
Redirected to HR
On-boarding
Info not OK.
Offer rejected.
Receives exit. Redirects to HR
team
Validates info
Info OK.
On-boarding done
Accepts offer Obtains work
Employee
and starts visa permit and Employee
process raises Concur travels
No info to HR. Missed
compliances End
Fish bone analysis
Effects
Causes
People
Org. Support
No awareness on criticality and
Frequent staff rotation expectations
Lack of user-friendly trainings
Lack of cross-skilling
Lack of process adherence
No standard dashboards
No advanced technology training
Lack of monitoring and
control mechanisms
Lack of process SOP’s
Method Materials
5W 1H Analysis
X’s Why 1 Why 2 Why 3 Why 4 Solution
Non-compliance Delayed Exit not logged on Employee did not Employee Attend pre-departure
onboarding time inform travel date to knowledge gap mandatory training
HRM
Non-compliance Delayed Exit not logged on Employee did not Employee missed to Introduce control in
onboarding time inform travel date to inform HRM concur phase to
HRM ensure travel on after
exit trigger
Non-compliance Delayed Exit not logged on HRM did not log exit HRM knowledge Attend HRM training
onboarding time trigger gap
Non-compliance Delayed Exit not logged on HRM did not log exit Technology issue Out of scope of
onboarding time trigger faced in logging exit project
Non-compliance Delayed Exit logged but Increment not closed Travel is on same Introduce control in
onboarding onboarding on on tool month as increment concur phase to
hold due date ensure travel only
after closure of
pending increments
Non-compliance Delayed Exit logged but Increment closed but Introduce controls in
onboarding onboarding on not reflecting on concur phase to
hold mobility offer letter ensure travel only
after revised offer is
produced
Non-compliance Delayed Exit logged but Incorrect mobility Compensation not Introduce SOP and
onboarding onboarding on offer letter as per current standardize process at
hold structure offer issuance stage
Design Phase
Control Impact Matrix
Serial Solution Impact (High, Effort (High, Medium, Cost (High, Medium,
No. Medium, Low) Low) Low)
1 Attend pre-departure mandatory High High Low
training
2 Introduce control in concur phase to High High Low
ensure travel on after exit trigger
3 Attend HRM training High High Low
4 Out of scope of project High High Low
5 Introduce control in concur phase to High High Low
ensure travel only after closure of
pending increments
6 Introduce controls in concur phase to High Medium Low
ensure travel only after revised offer
is produced
7 Introduce SOP and standardize Medium High Low
process at offer issuance stage
TO-BE Process Map
Avoid gap between exit and onboarding.
Start Travel with correct and complete docs.
Business
Contact Sends offer to Informed about Collates docs Logs exit as
mobility team employee for travel. Completes per onboarding per SOP
HR
for offer acceptance pre=requisites checklist
Releases offer Helps to
arrange Concur rejected if
letter basis
Mobility
visa and no exit trigger. Sent
Team
reqd. docs
permits back to employee
Redirected to HR
On-boarding
Offer rejected.
Receives exit.
team
Validates info
Info OK.
On-boarding done
Accepts offer Obtains work
Employee
and starts visa permit and Employee
process raises Concur travels
End
Deploy Phase
Executive Summary – Implementation plan
Timelines 1st Aug to 7th Aug 8th Aug to 25th Aug 26th Aug to 8th Sept 9th Sept to 25th Sept
Tollgates TG2-Sol.ID and TG3-Training and TG4-GO-Live and
TG1-DEFINE
SET-UP Awareness session Monitoring
• Solution • Resource • Process trainings for • Online training launch
identification. identification in PFSS HR • Concur approval
High Level
• Project sign-off. team. • IT system testing process launched
Activities
• Detailed • Training plan creation. • Training for PFSS and • Concur approval
implementation plan. • Technology set-up. concur teams monitoring and
• Governance model • Onboarding approval dashboard published
process set-up
Stakeholders Mobility /C&B Mobility /C&B / IT Mobility /HR/PFSS/C&B Mobility /IT/PFSS/C&B
High Level • Discussion initiated • Implementation plan • Approval process and • SOP’s duly validated.
accomplishments with PFSS for revised • Structure formation. checklist shared with • Capture process
and deliverables. onboarding process. • Governance structure relevant teams. performance daily and
Comments and • Governance structure discussed and in place. • Templates/Process weekly reporting.
Suggestions identified. • Communication plan in Maps/SOP’s • Weekly update
• Communication plan place. completed. meetings and process
blueprint. • IT Solution initiated • Interim IT testing review.
• IT Solution identified. completed • Validation of process
maps and operating
procedures
Status Complete Complete Work in Progress Work in Progress
Control Charts
Control Charts – U Chart
Business Impact
Calculation
FMEA
FMEA Template
Control Plan
Measurement
Measurement Measurement / Who will Recording
SN Control Point Specifications Reaction Plan
Unit Evaluation method Frequency do? method
Control Panel Correct it into m/c if found
1 Heater 1 Temp 270-350 deg Deg C once/2 hrs operator Check sheet
display out of spec.
Control Panel Correct it into m/c if found
2 Heater 2 Temp 270-350 deg Deg C once/2 hrs operator Check sheet
display out of spec.
Control Panel Correct it into m/c if found
3 Heater 3 Temp 300-400 deg Deg C once/2 hrs operator Check sheet
display out of spec.
HIPS Sheet As per the Reject the lot if found out of
4 mm Work Manual Twice/Shift operator Check sheet
Specification Model spec
Chiller Control Correct it into m/c if found
5 Chiller Temp. 10-15 deg Deg C once/2 hrs operator Check sheet
Panel display out of spec.
According to Take Countermeasure for
Product Quality Liner Quality
6 the Spec Ok/No Ok once/2 hrs operator Check sheet reducing or controlling the
and Spec Check Sheet
given defect
Recording
Regular If same problem occurs the
defect/Countermea Once in a Operator/ Recording
7 Defect History updation of countermeasure should be
sure history on week Engineer Board
record taken is known
Board
Proper Manual Checking If found unsuitable change
insulation As Shown in at model change the sponge tape with new
8 once/2 hrs Operator Check sheet
(Sponge the manual time and during one and as shown in the
Condition production manual
Test and CI for One Proportion
Method
p: event proportion
Normal approximation method is used for this analysis.
Descriptive Statistics
95% Lower Bound
N Event Sample p for p
72 11 0.152778 0.083037
Test
Null hypothesis H₀: p = 0.1
Alternative hypothesis H₁: p > 0.1
Z-Value P-Value
1.49 0.068
Test and CI for One Proportion
Method
p: event proportion
Normal approximation method is used for this analysis.
Descriptive Statistics
95% Lower Bound
N Event Sample p for p
72 11 0.152778 0.083037
Test
Null hypothesis H₀: p = 0.1
Alternative hypothesis H₁: p > 0.1
Z-Value P-Value
1.49 0.068
Test and CI for One Proportion
Method
p: event proportion
Normal approximation method is used for this analysis.
Descriptive Statistics
95% Lower Bound
N Event Sample p for p
72 8 0.111111 0.050191
Test
Null hypothesis H₀: p = 0.1
Alternative hypothesis H₁: p > 0.1
Z-Value P-Value
0.31 0.377
Thank You.
For more info, www.iselglobal.com
