Prepared by: Submitted to:

Marianne R. Nazaire Ramil Delos Reyes Business Process Analyst Senior Manager

Spi Content Solutions - Quality SPi Content Solutions - Quality

June 23, 2016

0Version 0

Feedback Report

LWW

LWW Feedback Report Page 2

I. BackgroundOn June 2, 2012 Mr. Ron Villones the Account Manager had a meeting with Mr. Elliot Ellis, the Senior Production Manager of LWW regarding the errors of typesetting and language editing that caused the whole issue of not to achieve the threshold. Based in their discussion, there will be 5% penalty on the lateness in delivery.

The investigations are focus on the following: Validity of corrections and EPP CE Error Analysis

o CE Error Categoryo Correlation between CE error category vs error type vs doc parto Valid CE per Employee

Production Error Analysis

Verbatim email from LWW

II. Analysis

▪ JGS 23-2, is composed of 11 articles with 91 typeset pages of which 5 of them found with corrections. These are: JGS20224, JGS20226, JGS20230, JGS20232 and JGS20262

▪ A total of 121 error counts were found in the involved articles which 25 error counts are classified as valid, which yield to 0.27 EPP rate. This is within the set threshold of 0.33 EPP rate.

Figure 1

LWW Feedback Report Page 3

▪ It is worth to mention that 79% or 96 corrections were actually classified as invalid errors.

CE ERROR ANALYSISo CE Error Category

▪ Copyediting EPP was 0.24 rate. This is over the threshold target of 0.20.

▪ JGS20224

was the highest contributor in Copyediting of 10 error counts among articles.

▪ CEI has significant of 11 counts or 50% among copyediting errors.

o Correlation between CE error category vs error type vs doc part

Figure 2

Figure 3 Figure 4

LWW Feedback Report Page 4

▪ Shown in figure 3, CEI was the highest contributor in Copyediting. It covers the error

type of punctuation (4), incorrect data (3), front style(2), added data (1) and misplaced (1).

▪ The most affected doc type error was the body part (9). Dominantly, the punctuation error has the most occurrences in doc type and commonly found in Author’s Name (4), Abstract (3), Body (2) and Enunciation (1).

o Valid CE per Employee

▪ The most erroneous employee was EE54 having and error count of 6 and these are all relating to punctuation error.

▪ Next erroneous employee was EE56 in Copyediting only.

▪ Although EE56 have the same error count with XX01 but the 2 error counts was Typesetting.

Production Error Analysis

▪ Typesetting process error consists of punctuation and incorrect data which found in article JGS20232, made by XX01. Then, Pre-editing error was missing data which made by EE54, found in article JGS20230. Significantly the occurrences of punctuation errors found in production and copyediting process.

Conclusion:

Thus, Mr. Ellis was correct in his statement regarding errors in language editing that caused not to achieve the threshold however only CE EPP threshold was above the threshold. Though there were errors in production such as in typesetting but the highest impact was more on punctuation errors.

III. Recommendation for Improvement

LWW Feedback Report Page 5

Root cause Action PlanResponsible

Person Timeline

Erroneous Employee

EE54

Monthly Team Leaders Assembly- Presentations, sharing and

recording of initiative on best practice.

- Posting of team photos in the TV screen in the lobby.

Team Leader = Ms. Clara

Group Head = Mr. Ibarra

July 1, 2016(records)

Punctuation Errors (Competency)

(Tools)

1.Accuracy learning Program (Regular Employees)

2. Strengthening of calibration in desktop. (Use of poke yoke system)

Account Manager = Mr. Villones

IT Sr Manager = Mr. Raf Ellis

July 5, 2016

July 1, 2016