3.lifewaysjournal - Dec2017 Derajat Edam 9

LIFEWAYS 23
International Journal of Society, Development and Environment in the Developing World

Volume 1, Issue 3, December 2017 (23-40)
Corporate Integrity in Indonesia: Reducing Claim

Rejection by Distribution Companies Using the Ishikawa
Diagram and Toyoda Method
M. DERAJAT AMPERAJAYA1, DEWI ANGGREANI1

1Industrial Engineering, Esa Unggul University, Jakarta
Correspondence: M. Derajat Amperajaya (email: derajat.amperajaya@esaunggul.ac.id)
Abstract
XYZ Company is an Indonesian company dealing with supplying household necessities

such as food, beverages, milk, snacks, cigarettes, and medicine to 54 areas in the country
with the collaboration of more than 40 principalities. GMKE Company is an XYZ’s
principality with the highest sales level but there seemed to be an issue with regard to
financial claims between the two companies. For each program which implementation
has been agreed between GMKE and XYZ the financial claim for each area’s program
implemented by GMKE was to be sent in the form of claim letters to the Department of
Finance at Head Office (HO) of XYZ . In 2016 there were 95 letters of claim rejected out
of a total of 561 claim letters (± 17%). This study takes a closer look at the problem by
analysing aspects of the XYZ rejection of the GMKE claims. Results of the Pareto
Diagram analysis shows three main reasons for the highest rejection, namely, 23%
were because of double claims, 20% because of incorrect calculation, and 15% because
of expiration of the claim period. Further insight into the causes of rejected claims was
obtained with the Ishikawa Diagram analysis and the Toyoda method (five Whys
Analysis). It was found that double claims category was caused by ALDIS (Atri Logistic
and Distribution System) Program, incorrect calculations by ALDIS Program, and
expiration of claim period by Area Distribution Center staff.
Keywords: rejected letters of claims, double claims, incorrect calculation, period has
expired, ALDIS Programmed, ADC (Area Distribution Centre)
Introduction
The rejected letters of claim sent by Company of XYZ to the principal (Company of
GMKE) has caused the differences between estimation of revenue reception and its
realization. The rejected claim could not be paid by the principal. It was also meant that
the initial cost charged to the principal would be charged to the company. If this
condition continued, it could effected the corporate revenue and the trust of the
www.lifewaysjournal.com
e-ISSN 2590-387X
LIFEWAYS 24
principal to the company's performance in carrying out the business cooperation.

Therefore, more research need to be done to overcome this problem.
This research was conducted to find out factors that became the dominant causes
of the occurrence of the rejected letter of claims and seek solutions to reduce the
number of rejected claim letters.
Data collected are the letters of which were rejected in 2016. While the data
discussed are the quantities of rejected letters of claim and did not related to the
company's financial problems. The data used are from one of company of XYZ’s
principals, i.e. company of GMKE.
Research Method
The research was conducted at company of XYZ, the goods distribution company
located at Street of MH Thamrin No. 9 Cikokol Tangerang, Banten, Indonesia. The
research was carried out at Department of Finance in September-December 2016.
The research was to identify problem occurred in Department Finance caused by
the letters of claims being rejected by the principal. After identifying the problem,
formulation of the problem in accordance with the limitations of the research issues
was made. The formulation was to find out the rejection causes of the letters of claim
and seeking for solutions to solve the future problems. To find out the dominant factors
behind the reasons of rejection of the letters of claims, Pareto Diagram and Ishikawa
Diagram were used. The priority scale of the dominant factors was determined by using
both diagrams. While to know the possible solution which could be taken for all
categories, Toyoda method (5 Whys Analysis) would be obtained. By using CTP method
from respondents’ questioner, most occurrence factor in each category.
Results and Discussions
Flow of Document Process
Flow of the documents started from the Department of Marketing as seen in Figure 1.
The process began when the principal sent out a promotional program to Department of
Marketing in order to issue PPKP (Permohonan Persetujuan Kegiatan Promosi/Request
of Promotion Activities Approval) and to input it to ALDIS Program, before
implementing it to all areas.
e-ISSN 2590-387X
LIFEWAYS 25
Figure 1. Process Flow in Marketing Source: Data Processing Results
After PPKP was approved, ADC/RDC (Area/Regional Distribution Centre)

implemented the program according to PPKP as shown in Figure 2. The complete
program document which has been implemented by each ADC was then prepared to be
sent to Head Office (HO). The document then would be sent to the principal to be
claimed.
Figure 2. Process Flow in the ADC/RDC Source: Data Processing Results
e-ISSN 2590-387X
LIFEWAYS 26
All document from all ADCs/RDCs would be received by Document Checker Staff
in HO. As shown in Figure 3, the staff would check the completeness of program
supporting documents in accordance with the program mechanism and all
requirements contained in PPKP. Then the complete document was input into ALDIS
and submitted to the claim staff to be processed into the letters of claim. While for the
documents that was not in accordance with the mechanism and was not complete the
PPKP requirements would be returned to the ADC to be completed.
Figure 3. Process Flow Document Checker Claims Source: Data Processing Results
The process conducted by the claim staff is shown in Figure 4. The documents received
by the claim staff would be input into ALDIS before issuing a letter of claim. After a
letter of claim was approved, the documents was sent to the principal so they could pay
the claim.
e-ISSN 2590-387X
LIFEWAYS 27
Figure 4. Process Flow Document Letter of Claim Source: Data Processing Results
The next process was payment of claims in the mail system. The document of
letters of claim approved by the principal would be attached with the payment
evidence. Based on the evidence, acquaintance would conducted in the system. As for
the rejected document, the principal would receive a rejection letter (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Process Flow Document Payment Source: Data Processing Results
Identification of the Types of Rejection for Claim Letters
Table 1 contains types of rejection letters from PT GMKE as the principal and the
frequency of occurrence during 2016.
e-ISSN 2590-387X
LIFEWAYS 28
Table 1. Types of Rejection for Claim Letters
Frequency
No Rejected Claim Frequency %
Cumm.
1 Double Claim 22 23% 23%
2 Wrong Calculation 19 20% 43%
3 Period Expired 15 16% 59%
4 Supporting Data 13 14% 73%
5 There Is No Proposal 11 12% 84%
6 Substitute Goods 10 11% 95%
7 Tax Expired 5 5% 100%
Total 95 100%
Source: Data Processing Results
From this data, dominant causes of the rejected letters of claim by the principal were
identified. Some of them are as follows:
1. Expired period
Letters of claim were rejected due to expiration period stated by the principal in the
claim mechanism program. This rejection would cause the implementation cost at the
risk of the company.
2. Double claims
The rejected letters of claim have already been claimed before under a different claim
letter number and already paid by the principal.
3. No program proposal
The letters of claim were rejected because sheet of program promotion issued by the
principal was not attach in the letter.
4. Tax Invoice Expired

The letters of claim were rejected due to the expiration of tax invoice attached. The
duration of active tax invoice was three months since it was issued.
5. Substitution of goods
The letters of claim were rejected because they could not be invoiced, but the goods
should be replaced. Usually this type occurred on the goods or sample of goods bonus
program. Sometimes invoice of the program was issued by the principal, but some also
replaced the goods to the Department's logistics company.
6. Misscalculation
The letters of claim were rejected because they were not in accordance with the
provisions of the cooperation proposal programme. This type of rejection could be
revised and revision of the letters of claim could be issued during the program claim
period.
e-ISSN 2590-387X
LIFEWAYS 29
7. Incomplete Supporting Data

The letters of claim were rejected because they were not attach with supporting data or
incomplete document, such as invoices, purchasing data bonus recap, and the bonus
receipt, and the signature of area principal representative.
The graph (Figure 6) shows the magnitude of frequency of each rejection type.
The research was focused on three highest types of rejection: double claims (23.2% of
total letters of claims rejected), miscalculation (20% of the total letters of claims
rejected) and expired period (15.8% of the total letter of claims rejected). It is expected
that by discussing the three types of rejection, they could contribute 59% of
improvements for the total rejected of letters of claim in 2016 from the principal GMKE.
Sorting the Types of Claim Letters Rejection
Figure 6. Pareto Diagram for Claim Letters Rejection
Cause Factors of Claim Letters Rejection
Fishbone diagram or Ishikawa Diagram is a tool which could be used to find out the
causes of rejection for letters of claims. This research will search the causes of rejection
for letters of claim based on the three types of the highest rejection causes by the
principal.
Factors of Double Claims
The rejected letters of claim due to the double claims were a rejection caused by
producing the letter of claim twice under the different number for the same program
and the same nominal. This kind of rejected letters could not be issued again. The
rejection document would be restored in the archives by the Claim Staff. If this problem
continuedo occur, the cooperation with the principal would be effected. Below is the
fishbone diagram as in Figure 7.
e-ISSN 2590-387X
LIFEWAYS 30
Figure 7. Ishikawa Diagram for Double Claims
Figure 7 shows the causes of the rejection for letters of claims due to double claims
which seen as follows.
1. Human factors
In the human factors, there were several factors which may be the cause of double
claim in the letters of claim. The first possibility was staff of ADC/ RDC, those who
handled the claims in the area/regional where the document started. For an
example, ADC sent the document of program realization to the Headquarters Office.
After that was the document checker staff, the staff of the Headquarters Office who
received documents from all areas, the realization document form ADC which
already received from ADC. The second possibility was Claim Staff, those who issued
the letters of claim, followed up the letter to the principal, monitored the letters sent
to the principals. In this process, the Claim Staff might be less accurate when
receiving the realization document from the Checker Staff who already issued the
previous letter of claim with different number, but the same program and amount of
money.
2. Material
Hardcopy documents which were received by the ADC/RDC’s headquarters staff
turned out to be already received and the letter of claim had been issued under the
different number, but the same program and amount of money.
3. Machine
The computer program which used by the Claim Staff to make a letter of claim.
Department of Finance used ALDIS program created by the company’s Department
of IT. ALDIS Program was used for the first time in October 2015, and since it was
still fresh, there were document which have not been input in ALDIS because some
of them were still using manual system in issuing the letters of claims. This kind of
document had the possibility to be doubled claims,
e-ISSN 2590-387X
LIFEWAYS 31
4. Method
ADC/RDC would send the original documents to the Headquarters to be processed
as the letter of claim to the principal and to be stored in the archive. However, the
outgoing document which were poorly documented had the possibility to be resent.
Factors of Miscalculation
The rejected letter of claims due to miscalculation was the type of claim letter with no
accordance between the calculation of discounted programs and the alculation from the
principal. This rejection could be revised and reclaimed under the new number of claim
letter during the program claim period. Below is Ishikawanya Diagram as shown in
Figure 8.
Figure 8. Ishikawa Diagram to Factor Miscalculated Claim Letters
From Figure 8, causes of rejected letter of claims which were miscalculated due
to several factors could be determined as follows.
1. Human factors
Human factors could be the causes of miscalculation of the issued claim. The
Marketing Staff may be inaccurate in inputting PPKP into ALDIS program. The staff
could be miscalculating the claims proportion which entrusted to the principals and
conducted by Staff of ADC/RDC. The Document Checker Staff could be less
meticulous when verifying the ADC’s document realization. The Staff Claim could
also be inaccurate when issuing the letter to the Principal claim.
2. Material
Document sent by ADC to the Headquarters Office could not be read so there was
incompatibility in interpreting the amount specified on the invoice.
3. Method
The attached PPKP’s document which contained the program and program claim
mechanism were not conducted properly.
e-ISSN 2590-387X
LIFEWAYS 32
4. Machine
The computer program used by the Claim Staff in issuing the claim letters in
Department of Finance used ALDIS program made by the company’s Department of
IT. ALDIS There was different display and different menu between ALDIS program in
the Headquarters and at the branches of ADC/RDC. ALDIS program at the branches
could not display the proportion of expenses claims between the companies with the
principals, so ADC/RDC performed the calculations manually.
The Expired Claims Period
The rejected claim letters due to the expiration period were the claim letters which
issued and sent to the principal exceeded the determined claim period stated in the
agreement. This type of rejected claim letters could not be reclaimed. This rejected
claim letters could cost disadvantages for the company because they would burden the
company. Despite being in the third in the rank, this factor would affect the revenue of
the company. Below is the fishbone diagram of the factor (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Diagram Ishikawa on Expired Claims Periode
Figure 9 explains the reasons of rejected claims letters due to expiration claim
period as follows.
1. Human factor
There were some reasons caused by human factors which caused the expiration of
claim letters. ADC/RDC sent the program realization documents which exceed the
period of claim. The Document Checker Staff was late in verifying the document. The
Claims Staff did not conduct direct action on the realization document.
2. Material
The delivery document from the area to Headquarters and form the Headquarters to
the area was ambiguous so one of the parties misunderstood the claim. It caused the
expiration of claim period.
e-ISSN 2590-387X
LIFEWAYS 33
3. Method
PPKP’s annex which contained a program claim mechanism claims did not conduct
properly by ADC/RDC while carrying out the program realization. The annex should
contain program claim mechanism which described the time of documents to be
received by the principal.
Determination of Critical to Process (CTP)
This analysis method was used to determine the scale of priorities of the most
influential causes for all types of rejection occurred by using questionnaire filled by
representatives from sections related to the program claims.
Determination of CTP for Double Claims Rejection
After conducting analysis on the causes of claim letters rejection using Ishikawa
Diagram, the next step was to determine the CTP to know the highest priority on the
problems scale occurred by dissemination of questionnaire to the respondent
Table 1. Results of CTP Assessment for Double Claims Rejection
MAN Matr. Method Machine

No Respondent Staff
ADC DC D SOP ALDIS
claim
1 Mgr. Fin 3 4 3 3 4 5
2 HOA (Head of Area) 4 3 2 4 3 4
3 RCM (Reg.Claim Mgr) 4 3 2 4 3 4
4 FAS (Fin. Acc. Spvr) 4 3 3 3 5 5
5 Coord. Fin 3 5 5 3 4 5
6 ADC Staff 4 3 4 4 4 4
7 Checker Staff 4 3 3 3 4 5
8 Claim Staff 3 4 3 3 3 5
TOTAL 29 28 25 27 30 37
Table 1 shows the highest numbers on the most influential factor for the double
claims rejection in the machine are ALDIS, method, and human factor (man), namely
ADC Staff. As for the rest priority scale, they are shown in the table. Since CTP was not
too dominant in every cause factors of rejection, analysis would be done to all cause
factors of claim letters rejection.
e-ISSN 2590-387X
LIFEWAYS 34
Determination of CTP for Miscalculation Claim Rejection
Table 2 shows the most influential factor for miscalculation claims rejection is the
engine, namely ALDIS program. The second factor is human factor (ADC Staff) and the
third one is PPKP.
Table 2. Results CTP Assessment on Miscalculation Claims Rejection
MAN Material Method Machine

No Respondent Staff
Mkt ADC DC HD PPKP ALDIS
claim
1 Mkt. Mgr 3 4 3 2 2 4 3
2 Fin. Mgr 3 3 4 3 3 4 5
3 HOA (Head of Area) 3 4 2 3 4 3 4
RCM (Reg.Claim
4 3 5 2 3 3 3 4
Mgr)
5 FAS (Fin.Acc. Spvr) 3 4 2 4 4 3 4
6 Coord. Fin. 3 3 4 3 3 4 3
7 Staff ADC 4 5 3 3 5 3 5
8 Checker Staff 4 3 5 4 4 4 5
9 Claim Staff 4 4 4 3 3 4 4
TOTAL 30 35 29 28 31 32 37
Determination of CTP for Expiration Claims Rejection
Dissemination of the questionnaire was conducted to find out the highest priority from
the most influential causes of expiration claim letters rejection.
Table 3. Results of CTP Assessment on Expiration Claims Rejection
MAN Material Method

No Respondent Staff
ADC DC HD PPKP
claim
1 Fin. Mgr 5 4 4 4 3
2 HOA (Head of Area) 5 3 2 4 3
3 RCM (Reg.Claim Mgr) 5 3 3 3 3
4 FAS (Fin. Acc Spvr) 4 3 4 4 3
5 Coord. Fin 5 4 3 4 2
e-ISSN 2590-387X
LIFEWAYS 35
6 ADC Staff 4 3 2 3 4
7 Checker Staff 5 4 4 3 3
8 Claim Staff 5 4 3 4 2
TOTAL 38 28 25 29 23
Table 3 shows the highest priority for expiration claims rejection was on human
factor (man), namely ADC Staff. The second highest priority was hardcopy document
and the thurd one was Document Checker Staff. Since the assesment among cause
factors were similar, each factor of the rejection would be analyzed
Five Why’s Analysis
Analysis on Causes of Double Claims Rejection
After determining the factors, next step is to determine the root problems which caused
the rejection of double claim letters.
a. Human Factor
On the human factor for rejection due to double claims, there are three staff who
directly involved in issuing the document.
First was ADC/RDC Staff who were in the area received PPKP from Marketing to
be realized by the salesmen at the outlets. The staff also received the realization report
from the salesman. The ADC Staff would prepare the completeness of the documents
and sent it to the document Checker Staff at HO the staff verified the document
completeness and the checker would pass them to the Claims Staff to issue the claim
letter.
b. Material Factor
Hardcopy of the realization program document received by headquarters staff would be

sent back to the to Headquarters by ADC.
c. Engine Factor
The engine dactor which influenced the rejection of claims letter was software program
used by Department of Finance, namely ALDIS (Atri Logistic and Distribution System), a
program created by the company's IT Department. Some of the activities conducted by
using ALDI program were document entry, completing the document, creating invoices,
making claims, updating the payment, and checking the realization program.
d. Method Factor
The method used in the distribution and storage of the document history was improper
so many document were submitted more than once from ADC.
e-ISSN 2590-387X
LIFEWAYS 36
Table 4 shown the recap of possible analysis result for each factor of claim letters
rejection.
Table 4. Recap of Solution Result of Five Why’s Method in Double Claims

Rejection
Type of
Factors Solutions
Rejection
Man
Staff of ADC cannot create invoice if the
document incomplete staff HO & doesn't make
ADC
an invoice for a document could still be to
come by ADC.
Provide additional employees assist co-
Checker
workers For Document Checker
The history of his principal is centralized so
Claim Staff that all staff can claim to know the location of
its storage area and can access it
Material
Create form documents out for documents
Hardcopy
Double Claim dikiimkan to HO with completeness checklist
Document
documents.
Method
The whole area makes the form receipt
document containing ceklist completeness of
SOP
documents at the time of submitting the
document to HO.
Machine
Documents have been created manually, a
claim letter when no. AR program have
Program ALDIS appeared in a document in ALDIS done ending
the program so that it doesn't happen ALDIS
double claims
Analysis on the Causes of Miscalculating Claim Letters’ Rejection
a. Human Factor
There were 4 type of staff who could be the causes of miscalculating claim letters’
rejection. First was the marketing staff who created the marketing programs and
incorporated the program into ALDIS. Second was ADC staff who prepared the
completeness of realization document. Third was document checker staff who would
verify the completeness of the documents. Fourth was the claim staff who issued the
claim letters.
e-ISSN 2590-387X
LIFEWAYS 37
b. Material Factor
Hardcopy of program realization received by headquarters staff was the document

which would be issued as the claim letter by the principal.
c. Method Factor
Method which caused the rejection of claim letters was a part of PPKP mechanism.
d. Machine Factor
The influenced machine factor was a software program used by the Department of
Finance, namely ALDIS (Atri Logistic and Distribution System) which created by the
company's IT Department.
Table 5. Recap of Solution Analysis on Five5 Why’s Method of Miscalculation

Claim Letters’ Rejection
Rejected
Factor Solutions
Claims
Man
Results of the work of the Staff checked and
Marketing
verified by Marketing manager marketing
Make sure the ADC makes the calculation of the
claim correctly i.e. with the verification process
ADC
documents that have been created by ADC
Manager
Checker Dividing the work that dealt with new staff
Results of the work of staff claims examined and
verified by the manager claims to avoid any
wrong calculation of the claim, if still found many
Wrong Claim Staff
wrong calculations of letter claims made then
Calculation have to be considered to perform the rotation of
staff claims.
Material
HD Replace the cable with a new printer head
Method
Verification column has been created in
accordance with the PPKP sign in by related
parties
PPKP
e-ISSN 2590-387X
LIFEWAYS 38
Machine
Apply to the IT Dept. to enter the menu of the
ALDIS proportion of the burden of claims between the
company and the principal in ALDIS area
Table 5 is the recap of problem analysis result and possible solution which could be
applied to every cause factors of misscalculation.
Analysis on the Causes of Expiration Claim Letters’ Rejection
a. Human Factor
There were three types of staff who had the possibility to be the rejection cause of the
claim letters. First wass ADC/RDC staff who prepared a document, checked the
completeness of the claim and submit the realization document to the Central Office.
Second was document checker staff who received the document submitted by ADC/RDC
and verified the completeness of the document. Third was claim staff who verified the
documents which being submitted by the checker staff and the claim staff would
process the claim to the principal.
b. Material Factor
The language used in PPKP which issued by the marketing staff was ambiguous so it
would lead to misunderstanding.
c. Method Factor
Methods are needed to facilitate the examination of documents.
In Table 6, there are results of problem analysis and the recap of the possible
solutions which could be conducted for every cause factors of expiration claims
rejection.
Table 6. Recap of the Solution Analisys of 5 Why’s Method for the Expiration
Claims Rejection
Rejected Claims Factors Solutions

Man
ADC immediately sends the document

PPKP which is the realization that can
ADC immediately be made the letter claims,
Claims Period time limit for submission of documents
Expired be made to the Head Office
e-ISSN 2590-387X
LIFEWAYS 39
Checkers document confirming to the

ADC/RDC regarding the completeness
Checker of the documents with intense so that
documents can be immediately
accepted by the Dept. of Finance
Check the document for each claim
period by first, so that it can know
Staf claim which ones can be made a priority as
will make a claim letter
Material
Fix the language used in the

mechanism of the claims program in
Claims Period Hardcopy document
PPKP so as not to pose a double
Expired meaning for those who read it.
Method
Verification column has been created
in accordance with the period of the
PPKP
claims listed on the PPKP sign by the
parties concerned.
Conclusions
This research could be concluded as follows.

a. Based on Pareto Diagram, there are three highest types of rejection, namely double
claims, miscalculated claims, and the expired claims.
b. The assessment of CTP result shows that there were no significant differences
between the scores of each cause factors. For double claims rejection, the score
range were between 25-37, miscalculated claims were 28-37 and expired claims
were 25-38.
c. The most influential factor based on the results of CTP on double claims rejection
was ALDIS program, on miscalculated claims was ALDIS program and on expired
claims was ADC staff.
d. Based on the analysis of five whys, there were six solutions for double claims
rejection, 7 for miscalculated claims and 5 for expired claims.
Recommendations
Recommendations proposed to this research are as follows.

a. Further research need to be conducted which focused on the value of several types
of claims.
b. Another research should be conducted for other principals besides of GMKE in
order to reduce the rejection of claim letters from other principals.
e-ISSN 2590-387X
LIFEWAYS 40
c. The use of data period needed to be further examined to ensure the proportions of
claim letters rejection.
References
Bilsel, R. Ufuk and Lin, Dennis K.J. 2012. Ishikawa Cause and Effect Diagrams Using
Capture Recapture Techniques. Quality Technology & Quantitative Management
(QTQM), 9 (2), 137 – 152.
Bungin, M. Burhan. 2007. Penelitian Kualitatif: Komunikasi, Ekonomi, Kebijakan Publik,
dan Ilmu Sosial Lainnya. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Critical to Tree . http://leanapplied.com (diakses pada 14 Oktober 2016).
Djaelani, Aunu Rofiq. 2013. Teknik Pengumpulan Data Kualitatif. Majalah Ilmiah
Pawiyatan, XX (1), Maret, 82 – 92.
Feigenbaum, A.V. 1992. Kendali Mutu Terpadu, Edisi Ketiga, Terjemahan Hudaya
Kandahjaya. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Fujimoto, Takahiro. 2012. The Evolution of Production System: Exploring the Source of
Toyota’s Competitiveness. Annals of Bussiness Administrative Science, II, 25 – 44.
Gaspersz, Vincent. 1992. Manajemen Kualitas dalam Industri Jasa. Jakarta: Gramedia.
2001. Metode Analisis untuk Peningkatan Kualitas. Jakarta: Gramedia.
Heizer. Jay and Render. Barry, 2006. Operation Management Buku 1 Edisi 7. Jakarta:
Salemba Empat.
Identifying Problems Roots Cause Analysis Using 5 Whys . http://www.institute.nhs.uk
(21 September 2016).
Ilie, Gheorghe and Ciocoiu, Carmen Nadia. 2010. Application of Fishbone Diagram to
Determinane the Risk of An Event With Multiple Causes. Management Research
and Practice, 2 (1), March.
Juran, J.M. 1962. Quality Control Handbook, 4rd Edition. New York: Mc Graw Hill.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, Valarie A., and Berry, Leonard L. 1985. A Conceptual Model
of Service Quality and its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing,
49, Fall, 41 – 50.
1988. A Multiple – Item Scale For Measuring Consumer Perceptions of
Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64 (1), Spring.
Sugiono. 2010. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: Penerbit
Alfabeta.
Sukoco, Badri Munir. 2007. Manajemen Administrasi Perkantoran Modern. Yogyakarta:
Erlangga.
Tjiptono, Fandy. 2011. Service, Quality & Satisfaction. Yogyakarta: Andi Publishing.
Toyota Production System . http://web.mit.edu (diakses pada 14 Oktober 2016).
Wahyu, Ariani Dorothea. 1999. Manajemen Kualitas. Jakarta: Penerbit Erlangga.
e-ISSN 2590-387X

3.lifewaysjournal - Dec2017 Derajat Edam 9

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

3.lifewaysjournal - Dec2017 Derajat Edam 9

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

LIFEWAYS 23

International Journal of Society, Development and Environment in the Developing World

Corporate Integrity in Indonesia: Reducing Claim

M. DERAJAT AMPERAJAYA1, DEWI ANGGREANI1

Correspondence: M. Derajat Amperajaya (email: derajat.amperajaya@esaunggul.ac.id)

XYZ Company is an Indonesian company dealing with supplying household necessities

principal to the company's performance in carrying out the business cooperation.

Results and Discussions

Flow of Document Process

Figure 1. Process Flow in Marketing Source: Data Processing Results

After PPKP was approved, ADC/RDC (Area/Regional Distribution Centre)

Figure 2. Process Flow in the ADC/RDC Source: Data Processing Results

Figure 5. Process Flow Document Payment Source: Data Processing Results

Identification of the Types of Rejection for Claim Letters

Table 1. Types of Rejection for Claim Letters

4. Tax Invoice Expired

7. Incomplete Supporting Data

Sorting the Types of Claim Letters Rejection

Figure 6. Pareto Diagram for Claim Letters Rejection

Cause Factors of Claim Letters Rejection

Factors of Double Claims

Figure 7. Ishikawa Diagram for Double Claims

Figure 8. Ishikawa Diagram to Factor Miscalculated Claim Letters

The Expired Claims Period

Figure 9. Diagram Ishikawa on Expired Claims Periode

Determination of Critical to Process (CTP)

Determination of CTP for Double Claims Rejection

Table 1. Results of CTP Assessment for Double Claims Rejection

MAN Matr. Method Machine

Determination of CTP for Miscalculation Claim Rejection

Table 2. Results CTP Assessment on Miscalculation Claims Rejection

MAN Material Method Machine

Determination of CTP for Expiration Claims Rejection

Table 3. Results of CTP Assessment on Expiration Claims Rejection

MAN Material Method

Five Why’s Analysis

Analysis on Causes of Double Claims Rejection

Hardcopy of the realization program document received by headquarters staff would be

Table 4. Recap of Solution Result of Five Why’s Method in Double Claims

Analysis on the Causes of Miscalculating Claim Letters’ Rejection

Hardcopy of program realization received by headquarters staff was the document

Table 5. Recap of Solution Analysis on Five5 Why’s Method of Miscalculation

HD Replace the cable with a new printer head

Analysis on the Causes of Expiration Claim Letters’ Rejection

Methods are needed to facilitate the examination of documents.

Rejected Claims Factors Solutions

ADC immediately sends the document

Checkers document confirming to the

Fix the language used in the

This research could be concluded as follows.

Recommendations proposed to this research are as follows.

Вам также может понравиться