1. Field of the Invention
This invention generally relates to managing services of human resources. In a preferred implementation, the invention relates to methods and systems for resource allocation on Business Transformation Outsourcing (BTO) projects.
2. Background Art
Resource optimization for Business Transformation Outsourcing (BTO) is a difficult problem for many reasons. These reasons include: human resources come from two or more organizations; those organizations often span multiple countries; sites often have different cost structures, even within the same country; and sites often have different capacities, especially when serving a distant time zone.
In addition, skill groups often have different capabilities, productivity rates, and quality levels; skill groups must align with service tiers ranging from generalist to specialist to expert; a given skill group may participate in more than one business process; and information technology affects productivity of any tier and may shift work between tiers. Other reasons why this problem is so difficult include: keeping work at its present site has particular costs and benefits, moving work from site to site has different costs and benefits, exchange rate variations change the relative costs, and timing of costs and benefits determines investment requirements.
Also, financial matters, operational matters, and business culture often impose internal constraints; logistics, regulations, and statutes often impose external constraints; and rapid and/or extensive business transformation may conflict with constraints. Further, slow and/or limited business transformation may not achieve desired results; assumptions are subject to unknown amounts of uncertainty; and as business conditions or business strategy change, the optimal solution may change.
An object of this invention is to provide a method and system for managing services of human resources.
Another object of the invention is to provide a method and system that is particularly well suited for resource allocation on Business Transformation Outsourcing (BTO) projects.
A further object of the present invention is to provide a method and system that may be used to address dynamic client needs before and during BTO projects.
These and other objectives are attained with a method, and computer system program for managing services of human resources. The method comprises the steps of modeling human resources delivery services from a services provider to a client company to determine outputs from inputs and constraints; and constructing an objective function representative of services resources at said services provider. The method also comprises the steps of determining optimum levels of human resources based on said modeling, said constraints, and said objective function; and allocating said human resources based upon said optimum levels. Preferably, said optimum levels of services are determined over tiers, sites and time periods.
The preferred embodiment of the invention is a system and a method for resource allocation on BTO projects. This preferred system includes an optimization model, along with its inputs and outputs. This system may be used to address dynamic client needs before and during BTO projects.
Further benefits and advantages of the invention will become apparent from a consideration of the following detailed description, given with reference to the accompanying drawings, which specify and show preferred embodiments of the invention.
The present invention, generally, relates to a method, and computer program system for managing services of human resources. With reference to
A preferred embodiment of the invention is a system and a method for resource allocation on Business Transformation Outsourcing (BTO) projects. This preferred system includes an optimization model, along with its inputs and outputs. This system may be used to address dynamic client needs before and during BTO projects.
An optimization model is a set of formulas that can be solved in order to determine the values of decision variables that maximize (or minimize) the objective, subject to constraints.
The objective formula, constraints 26, and parameters 30 are input by the model. Decision variables, objective value 34, and reports and charts 36 are output from the model. Intermediate computations 40 link inputs to outputs.
Preferably, in this invention, any one of several objectives can be optimized, such as the service provider's price or the client's savings from outsourcing particular business processes. However, since costs and benefits typically do not occur evenly over the life of a BTO engagement, maximizing the net present value (NPV) of price or savings is most often the objective.
Also, in the preferred embodiment of this invention, the decisions 24 are the human resources allocated across organizations, sites, and tiers in order to maximize the objective. Those resources are typically quantified in terms of Fulltime Equivalent resources (FTEs). A fractional FTE can represent either part-time or over-time work. (Using FTEs rather than headcounts avoids integer programming.)
Sites include both the client's and the provider's locations. Service tiers typically include experts (Tier 3), specialists (Tier 2), generalists (Tier 1), and self-service (Tier 0). One common transformation is to move low-value work from higher to lower tiers through automation and training, thereby freeing experts and specialists to perform more high-value work.
Specific constraints 26 vary from client to client but typically include at least the following:
a) Lower bound on FTEs by site and tier that the client wishes to retain as employees.
b) Upper and lower bounds on FTEs by site and tier which the service provider will provide via employees, subcontractors, or business partners.
c) Transition constraints that govern the timing of changes.
d) Operating constraints that ensure the combined client-provider resources are sufficient to handle the anticipated work load with acceptable quality and timeliness.
e) Financial constraints in the form of upper bounds on investments in human resources and information technology (IT).
Parameters 30 also vary from client to client but typically include:
a) Number of years in the BTO engagement.
b) Client's original FTEs by site and tier.
c) As Is and To Be allocation of work across tiers.
d) As Is and To Be productivity rates by site and tier.
e) Labor cost per FTE by site and tier.
f) Work migration costs by site and tier.
g) Information Technology (IT) costs by site and tier.
h) Expected attrition and retirement rates.
i) Discount rate for net present value (NPV) computations.
j) Currency exchange rates.
k) Expected inflation rates by country.
Computations 40 typically include:
a) Unit costs, adjusted for exchange rates and inflation.
b) FTEs by period by site by tier.
c) Movement of work between tiers.
d) Operations by period by site by tier.
e) Labor costs, migration costs, and IT costs per period by site.
f) As Is versus To Be costs resulting in net savings.
Reports and charts 36 vary from client to client but typically include:
a) Time series of resources, costs, and benefits.
b) Ranking of sites by NPV.
c) Comparison of alternative scenarios by relaxing constraints and/or changing parameters.
Step 54 is to solve the model using “most likely” values for parameters and constraints. If no feasible solution is found, then at step 56, the least important constraints are relaxed and/or parameters are adjusted until a feasible solution is found. Step 60 is to identify active constraints and to examine their sensitivity. Step 62 is to estimate the valid range for each parameter and constraint, ranging from “optimistic” to “pessimistic.”
At step 64, the method, starting with the most sensitive constraints, solves the model at various points across the full range of valid constraints and examines results for significant improvement or decline in objective. Running the model according to an experimental design can be automated.
Step 66 is to identify leverage points, which are small changes in parameters and/or constraints that produce large changes in the objective. At step 70, the method determines whether changes in leverage points that improve the objective value are acceptable to the client and the service provider(s). As represented at 72, steps 52, 54, 56, 60, 62, 64, 66 and 70 are repeated at regular intervals, for instance, semiannually, or whenever business conditions or the client's business strategy changes. As represented at 74, the new solution is implemented so that resources adjust on demand to changing business conditions and/or business strategy.
As indicated hereinabove, it should be understood that the present invention can be realized in hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software. Any kind of computer/server system(s)—or other apparatus adapted for carrying out the methods described herein—is suited. A typical combination of hardware and software could be a general purpose computer system with a computer program that, when loaded and executed, carries out the respective methods described herein. Alternatively, a specific use computer, containing specialized hardware for carrying out one or more of the functional tasks of the invention, could be utilized.
The present invention can also be embedded in a computer program product, which comprises all the respective features enabling the implementation of the methods described herein, and which—when loaded in a computer system—is able to carry out these methods. Computer program, software program, program, or software, in the present context mean any expression, in any language, code or notation, of a set of instructions intended to cause a system having an information processing capability to perform a particular function either directly or after either or both of the following: (a) conversion to another language, code or notation; and/or (b) reproduction in a different material form.
While it is apparent that the invention herein disclosed is well calculated to fulfill the objects stated above, it will be appreciated that numerous modifications and embodiments may be devised by those skilled in the art and it is intended that the appended claims cover all such modifications and embodiments as fall within the true spirit and scope of the present invention.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5799286 | Morgan et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5943652 | Sisley et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 6072493 | Driskell et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6345239 | Bowman-Amuah | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6513024 | Li | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6571215 | Mahapatro | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6574605 | Sanders et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6578068 | Bowman-Amuah | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6684191 | Barnard et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6985872 | Benbassat et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
| 7110957 | Barnard et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7113923 | Brichta et al. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
| 7308414 | Parker et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
| 7548872 | Keay et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
| 7596416 | Maluf et al. | Sep 2009 | B1 |
| 7650293 | Kiran et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
| 7702533 | Barnard et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 20020022982 | Cooperstone et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20020107914 | Charisius et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20030033184 | Benbassat et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030033187 | Jones et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030097296 | Putt | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030125996 | Bush et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20040039619 | Zarb | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040068431 | Smith et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040148190 | Barnard et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040153703 | Vigue et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040225549 | Parker et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20050004825 | Ehrler et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050027577 | Saeed | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050049911 | Engelking et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050055256 | Scott | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050060224 | Ricketts | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050065831 | Keay et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050108086 | Kosman | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050192879 | Rabbat | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050203784 | Rackham | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050240465 | Kiran et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050278202 | Broomhall et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20070022404 | Zhang et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070162321 | Behrmann et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20060184412 A1 | Aug 2006 | US |