I85PREP
⌘ K
CLBB study materials
CLBB study resources

The Project That Solved the Wrong Problem

CLBB · Put your knowledge to work in context.

All case studies

The Project That Solved the Wrong Problem

A Lean Six Sigma team in a call center is chartered to 'reduce average handle time (AHT)' because AHT is 8% above the regional benchmark. The team builds a detailed process map, collects three weeks of data, and finds that AHT is driven mainly by calls about a recent billing-system change. During the Define phase, the team also learns that first-call resolution (FCR) is 62% (target 80%) and that repeat calls are counted as new calls, inflating volume and AHT. The sponsor is under pressure on cost-per-call and wants the AHT project to proceed as chartered. The team has not yet written a problem statement or a business case, and the charter's 'goal' is 'reduce AHT by 10%.'

1. Evaluate the charter as written and explain why proceeding unchanged is risky.

Read the worked answer

The charter fails several Define-phase tests:

  1. The metric is a proxy, not an outcome. AHT is a driver metric; the customer outcome is resolution. Reducing AHT while FCR is 62% can make the customer experience worse (shorter calls, more repeat calls) and may even raise total cost per resolved issue.
  2. The measurement is contaminated. Repeat calls are counted as new calls, so AHT and volume are both distorted. Any baseline built on this data is unreliable, and a 10% AHT reduction target could be met by measurement artifact rather than real improvement.
  3. No problem statement or business case. The charter states a target but not the gap, the customer/business impact, or the cost of poor quality. Without this, the team cannot defend scope or evaluate trade-offs.
  4. The solution is pre-supposed. 'Reduce AHT' assumes the problem is handle time. The data suggest the problem is resolution and a billing-system change - a different problem with a different solution space.
  5. No linkage to the sponsor's real concern. Cost-per-call is the sponsor's pressure, but repeat calls are a major cost driver; fixing FCR likely serves cost-per-call better than trimming AHT.

Risk of proceeding: the team optimizes a contaminated proxy, meets the target on paper, damages FCR, and the organization concludes Lean Six Sigma 'doesn't work' - while the real cost driver (repeat contacts) is untouched.

2. Draft a revised problem statement and goal that the sponsor could endorse, and explain each design choice.

Read the worked answer

Revised problem statement (draft): 'From [date range], first-call resolution in the [queue] is 62% against a target of 80%, and repeat contacts are recorded as new calls, inflating reported call volume and average handle time. Customer repeat-contact rate is [x]%, and the billing-system change implemented in [month] is associated with [y]% of contacts. The result is higher cost per resolved issue and lower customer satisfaction.'

Revised goal (draft): 'Increase first-call resolution from 62% to 80% within 16 weeks, while holding or reducing cost per resolved issue, and correct the repeat-call measurement so that volume and AHT are reported accurately.'

Design choices and rationale:

  • Outcome metric first (FCR), driver metric second (AHT). FCR is what the customer experiences and what drives repeat cost. AHT is retained as a monitored driver, not the goal.
  • Quantified gap and timeframe. '62% to 80% in 16 weeks' is specific, measurable, and time-bound - a Define-phase requirement.
  • Named the measurement defect explicitly. Because repeat calls are miscounted, the project must fix measurement before trusting any baseline. This becomes a defined sub-task, not an afterthought.
  • Included a guardrail ('holding or reducing cost per resolved issue'). This prevents the team from hitting FCR by simply lengthening every call and blowing the budget - the sponsor's real constraint is respected.
  • Anchored to a specific cause (billing-system change). This gives the team a concrete scope boundary and an early, high-yield target.

3. The sponsor insists on the original AHT charter. What is your response, and what would you do if the sponsor does not move?

Read the worked answer

First response - reframe around the sponsor's own objective. Do not argue 'FCR is better than AHT'; argue 'your cost-per-call goal is better served by FCR.' Present:

  • The data showing repeat calls inflate volume and AHT.
  • An estimate of the cost of repeat contacts (repeat volume × cost per contact).
  • The logic that a 10% AHT cut with 62% FCR may raise total cost per resolved issue, while an FCR improvement reduces both repeat volume and effective AHT.
  • A proposal: keep AHT as a monitored metric in the revised charter, so the sponsor does not lose visibility.

Second, offer a bounded compromise if needed. Propose a two-track charter: primary goal FCR, with a secondary AHT target, and a measurement-fix task in the first three weeks. This protects the sponsor's cost concern while correcting the problem definition.

If the sponsor still refuses:

  1. Document the recommendation and the decision in the charter record - the team's professional obligation is to surface the risk, not to win.
  2. Ask for the decision in writing and confirm the sponsor accepts the risk that AHT gains may not translate to cost-per-call gains.
  3. Proceed within the chartered scope but build in the guardrail: monitor FCR and repeat-contact rate as secondary metrics, and report them at every tollgate. If FCR degrades, the data will make the case better than the argument did.
  4. Escalate only if the risk is material and the sponsor is unreachable - typically to the deployment leader or champion, framed as a portfolio risk, not a personal dispute.

The principle: the Belt advises and documents; the sponsor decides and owns the risk. But the Belt never silently executes a charter they believe is wrong.