Manzana
i. Measurement of SCT, TAT time, and processing times:
TAT & SCT: The 95% SCT is used as a predicted completion time given with 95% confidence to the agent, thereby giving a realistic timeframe of turnaround for a single policy. While a useful measure for a single policy, the average processing time of all tasks is necessary to calculate the schedule for the week. By adding the throughput time per day of each step to calculate the TAT time, the manager is assuming a batching of policies which is incorrect. It is recommended to resolve (Recommendation ii) and then quote a lead time of 2 days based on Appendix 2 – Page 9 – Process analysis (Revised).
Processing times: A revision of processing times is required since as current figures are based on data from 1986 which did not assume computer usage. As a result, policy writing and rating processing times will have changed significantly since then. Since these processes are the basis of several operational calculations, measures should be revised annually.
ii. Resolving bottlenecks
Distribution clerks: Based on findings in Appendix 1 – Page 8 – Process analysis, the distribution clerks are currently at a shortage of resources. Their flow rate of requests is 19 per day, which implies that only 47.5% of requests are sent through to the underwriters. As a result, a backlog of requests persists (Exhibit 3).
The immediate recommendation is to allocate one-third of the Rater’s working hours to assist the distribution team as this will lead to a flow rate of 40 requests per day for distribution and 37 requests per day for rating (Appendix 2 – Page 9 – Process analysis (Revised)).
Underwriting: Through the outlined changes, the bottleneck now moves to the underwriters (flow rate of 22 requests a day) and, assuming equal workload between the underwriting teams, the only feasible only solution is to hire new underwriters (further discussed in long-term recommendations).
iii. Workload balancing between
TAT & SCT: The 95% SCT is used as a predicted completion time given with 95% confidence to the agent, thereby giving a realistic timeframe of turnaround for a single policy. While a useful measure for a single policy, the average processing time of all tasks is necessary to calculate the schedule for the week. By adding the throughput time per day of each step to calculate the TAT time, the manager is assuming a batching of policies which is incorrect. It is recommended to resolve (Recommendation ii) and then quote a lead time of 2 days based on Appendix 2 – Page 9 – Process analysis (Revised).
Processing times: A revision of processing times is required since as current figures are based on data from 1986 which did not assume computer usage. As a result, policy writing and rating processing times will have changed significantly since then. Since these processes are the basis of several operational calculations, measures should be revised annually.
ii. Resolving bottlenecks
Distribution clerks: Based on findings in Appendix 1 – Page 8 – Process analysis, the distribution clerks are currently at a shortage of resources. Their flow rate of requests is 19 per day, which implies that only 47.5% of requests are sent through to the underwriters. As a result, a backlog of requests persists (Exhibit 3).
The immediate recommendation is to allocate one-third of the Rater’s working hours to assist the distribution team as this will lead to a flow rate of 40 requests per day for distribution and 37 requests per day for rating (Appendix 2 – Page 9 – Process analysis (Revised)).
Underwriting: Through the outlined changes, the bottleneck now moves to the underwriters (flow rate of 22 requests a day) and, assuming equal workload between the underwriting teams, the only feasible only solution is to hire new underwriters (further discussed in long-term recommendations).
iii. Workload balancing between