OnTrac Star Certification Program An Award Winning Company Star Certification Program Effectiveness Studies of the Star Certification Program

About us An award winning company that provides operations management consulting, training and software that helps ITES operations improve operational efficiencies. Estd: 2004, 100+ top tier clients, Global delivery capabilities, 100% referral rate “Most Significant Contributor to the BPO Industry Award” at Asia Outsourcing Excellence Awards in Singapore, 2013 “Strategic Enabler for BPO Award” at BPO Excellence Awards in Mumbai, 2013 “Most Proficient Partner Award” from GE Money Servicing 2009 Accenture, Aditya Birla Minacs, Allianz Cornhill, American Express, Bank of America, Barclays, Cognizant, Dell, Deutsche Bank, Firstsource, GE Money, HCL BPO, HP, HGSL, HSBC, IBM, Infosys, Intelenet, Interglobe, Maersk, Royal Bank of Scotland, RR Donnelley, Siemens, State Street, Syntel, Telus, Unisys, Wipro, WNS, Xchanging…..

Effectiveness at Industry Level

Phase 2 (8 Weeks Implementation) Industry Performance This section provides information on improvement seen in a large sample of batches trained on Star Certification Program. The graphs in the following slides show correlations between: (A) % of activities implemented during Phase 2 in various batches. AND (B) % of metrics that showed improvement during Phase 2 in the same batches. Star Certification Program Structure Phase 3 (A) Implementation checklist Phase 2 (8 Weeks Implementation) (B) Metric improvement Phase 1 (40 hours ILT)

Industry Performance Industry Trend Industry Trend Each point on the graphs represents a batch of participants from a company. The graph shows correlation between: X Axis- % of activities implemented during Phase 2 by various batches in multiple companies. Y Axis - % of metrics that showed improvement during Phase 2 in the same batches in multiple companies Industry Correlation : 78% Industry Trend Industry Trend

Insights from Industry Performance Insight 1: Industry trendline shows that higher implementation leads to higher percentage of metrics improving. Indeed there is a strong correlation between the two (78%). Industry Correlation : 78% BOX B Insight 2: Box A shows that implementation below 75% does not improve more than 40% of the metrics. Box B shows that implementation above 75% tends to improve 50% to 100% of the metrics. This means, implementation should be greater than 75% for good results. BOX A Industry Trend

Performance of companies against Industry trend This graph shows the trendline of various companies that have trained several batches on the Star Certification Program. Industry Correlation : 78% Captive BPO Insight: Barring a few outliers, each company shows a positive correlation between higher percentage implementation and percentage higher metrics improving. BPO Arm of IT Company Independent 3rd Party BPO Domain Focused BPO Industry Trend

Insights from Industry Performance Q1: Batches in Q1 need direction. They are not implementing their learnings, and hence are not showing results. Q2: Batches in Q2 need further training. They have high degree of implementation, but they are not effective. Q3: Batches in Q3 are efficient. They are showing high implementation and high improvement. Q4: Batches in Q4 need investigation. With very little implementation, they are showing good improvement. Q4 = Needs Investigation Q3 = Is Efficient Q1 = Needs Direction Q2 = Needs Further Training Industry Trend

Experiment at a BPO Company

Experiment Details The client (a third party BPO company) wanted the following questions answered: What is the effectiveness of the entire program (all three phases)? What is the effectiveness of phase 1 alone (training only) compared to the effectiveness of phase 2 (Monitoring TLs during implementation)? Description: In the experiment, the client identified 2 batches of TLs with similar profiles. One batch would go through all the phases, while another batch would NOT go through phase 1 (training). However it would go through phase 2 and 3. The following slides demonstrate the results of the experiment.

Metric Improvement Control Group (No Training) 14 Participants Experimental Group (With Training) 15 Participants No. of metrics 26 25 Metrics that improved 21 (81%) 15 (60%) Metrics that met or exceeded targets 14 (54%) 3 (12%) Insight: Monitoring TLs makes them good, but training makes them great.

Common Metrics Insight: Better implementation leads to improvement in all metrics

Implementation Consistency Experimental Group Better implementation – better results Control Group Inconsistent implementation – poorer results Insights: Better consistency in implementation leads to better operational results

City 2– Metric Improvement Control Group (No Training) 13 Participants Experimental Group (With Training) 16 Participants No. of metrics 28 24 Metrics that met or exceeded targets 13 (46%) 6 (25%) Metrics that improved 24 (86%) 19 (79%) Insight: Monitoring TLs makes them good, but training makes them great.

City 2- Common Metrics Insight: Better implementation leads to improvement in all common metrics

City 2– Implementation Consistency Experimental Group Good consistency – good results Control Group Good consistency – good results Insights: Comparable implementation results in similar improvements

Learnings! Monitoring TLs does improve performance Training TLs and then monitoring them results in better performance Consistent implementation of managerial tasks results in improvement of all metrics

End! OnTrac, www.IAmOnTrac.com info@IAmOnTrac.com