Website Response Time Project Example

Large View

When FS Inc. implemented a client online account management system (OAMS), the primary drivers were: to remain competitive, to provide clients the ability to access their accounts online, and to reduce the need for additional client services support staff. Before OAMS, the only way a client could process a financial transaction remotely, on demand, was by a telephone call to the client services department.

OAMS quickly earned a reputation as a fast, reliable and easy-to-use system. Existing FS clients were encouraged to use the online system, especially for everyday financial transactions such as online bill payments and fund transfers. The reasoning was that the more clients who utilized OAMS, the less need there would be to add additional client services support staff.

Unfortunately, the demands of so many OAMS users soon outgrew the existing system capacity. Customers began complaining about the slowness of the system and lost transactions. In addition to the frustration experienced by the customers, fielding all those complaints was very taxing on the support personnel.

This Six Sigma project was chartered with two high-level business objectives. The first was to improve the client experience when using OAMS – in other words, to improve the speed of OAMS transactions and eliminate lost transactions. Second, management wanted this project to help get support staffing levels under control.

Initially, to handle the growing client base, we were adding two new client services agents per month. It was felt that with OAMS in place and working properly, the required number of client services agents added each month should decrease. Overall, management wanted to limit the number of new agents to one per month without compromising service levels. This target became the financial goal for our project.

With a $60,000 investment in system performance, we have been able to meet management’s target of adding only one client services agent per month instead of two. Reducing the staffing rate by one employee per month yielded an annual cost avoidance of $546,000.