Breakout Session: Operating Model

David Metnick
Randall Wozniak

Copyright©©2009
Copyright 2010Accenture
Accenture All
All Rights
Rights Reserved.
Reserved. Accenture,
Accenture, its
its logo,
logo, and
and High
High Performance
Performance Delivered
Delivered are
are trademarks
trademarks of
of Accenture.
Accenture.
Agenda
• Operating Model Benefits and Rationale
• Risks of not having an Operating Model
• Value Progression of an Operating Model
• Operating Model Components
• Metrics
• Process
• Technology
• Infrastructure
• Organization
• People
• When to Develop the Operating Model
• Case Study:
• Business Situation
• Establishing the Operating Model
• Enabling Key differentiators
• Establishing Governance
• Service Management
• Relationship Management
• Performance Management
• Service Delivery

Copyright © 2010 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 2

Operating Model Benefits and Rationale
Benefit
Ensures alignment of all
organizational units to a common
vision
Helps increase speed to transform
Clarifies operational responsibilities
(both internal & external)
Enables impact of transformation
decisions to be easily identified
Provides a consistent overall model
for performance measurement
Copyright © 2010 Accenture All Rights Reserved.
Rationale
• Helps align stakeholder interests toward achieving a common set of target business benefits
• Provides a basis for deciding key issues
• Facilitates a consensus on what is important about how the Shared Services organization works
• Educates stakeholders on how service delivery will be achieved via changes related to process, people,
and technology
• Reduces the time & cost to complete the program, thereby realizing the benefits more swiftly
• Provides an authoritative source to guide all process designs
• Allows process designers to consider each process within a larger context
• Helps minimize the cost to transform by expediting process design and minimizing the chance of
rework thereby allowing the client to realize transformation benefits earlier
• Facilitates training and communication of personnel by providing an easy to understand framework
• Provides an authoritative basis for communicating what business units/corporate/SSC are
responsible for
• Documents interaction ‘rules of engagement’ between ‘organizational’ units (both internal & external)
• Shows the impacts to the interactions, processes, and organizational units when changes are
planned or undertaken
• Enables performance measurements to be performed both per capability area and end-to-end across
the whole operating model
• Provides a consistent framework by which to evaluate the performance of different operational groups.
3
Risks of not having an Operating Model
Risk
Design of SSC without a common vision
Unclear division of operational roles and
responsibilities
Future transformation, process or
technology decisions for SSC would not
have a unified operating model to base
decisions on
Performance measurement is based on
each process or service without considering
the overall SSC model
Copyright © 2010 Accenture All Rights Reserved.
Description
• SSC process, organization, technology designs created without guidance from an overarching
vision and model
• Stakeholders are not fully aligned
• Process designers are creating designs without considering the larger context
• Training and communication of personnel are not unified with a common framework
• Annual SSC strategies and decisions are not based on a unified operating model
• Operational roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined as they relate to governance and
process
• External stakeholders (business units) may not have an authoritative basis or for interacting with
the SSC
• Key decisions are made without a comprehensive model to consider
• Decision-making takes longer since all components of the SSC must be considered without a
comprehensive model or document to refer to
• Changes to the SSC would have to be documented in many locations without a clear
understanding of the overall impact to SSC
• New business units and functions are brought into the SSC scope of work without a unified
model to guide the transition
• Performance measurements are performed at a micro level without also considering the macro
level. The performance measurements for each capability are not tied to the end to end
performance metrics.
• The various operational groups are not measured through a consistent framework.
4
Value Progression of Operating Model

Proactively Manage Service

• Responsive Service Delivery

• Effective Continuous Improvement
Improve Insight • Insight-Driven Decision-Making
Value

• Value-Added Reporting
• Accurate, Consistent, and
Measurable Services
Reduce Cost

• Process Efficiency
• Increased Effectiveness
• Improved Controls

Formalization and execution of the Operating Model

Copyright © 2010 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 5
Operating Model Components
Mission, Vision, Shared Values, & Core Competencies Culture
The shared set of assumptions, beliefs, values,
Alignment understandings and meanings that guide perceptions,
judgments, and behaviors

Operating Model
Operating Model Components: The organizational
levers that individually, and as a collective group,
Culture directly influence the degree to which the SSC can
Metrics achieve high performance
• Metrics
People Process The measurements which drive the performance of
the SSC, teams, and people
• Process
The end-to-end activities that produce measurable
outputs
Shared
Services • Technology
The tools, both enabling and applications, that are
critical to business success
Organization Technology • Infrastructure
The physical location, facility, and the associated
tangible assets
• Organization
Infrastructure The structure and associated governance model that
influences how the SSC should operate, including
the roles, responsibilities, and reporting relationships
• People
Execution The profile of the SSC employees including all
competencies (i.e., Core, Technical, and
Results Achieved Professional)
Copyright © 2010 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 6
Operating Model - Metrics
Utilization of measurements in all operational activities linked
back to the mission, vision, and values is foundational in a
Shared Services model.

KPIs are aligned from top-down Identifying Strategic

Objectives and Critical Success Factors facilitated
quantification of a qualitative Mission statement.

Mission
OSS Mission
OSS Mission
Ohio Shared Services
executes financial
transactions for its customers
while skillfully balancing
efficiency and customer
service to add value through
lower cost and improved
effectiveness. Our primary  Highly Motivated and
key to success is a highly
motivated, top performing,
self directed workforce.
Strategic
Strategic Critical
Critical Success Organizational
• Process KPIs tailored for
Objectives
Objectives Success
Factors Organizational
KPIs business processes
Factors KPIs
• Process KPIs mapped
Strategic Objectives Critical Success Factors Organizational KPIs against high-level business
 Excellent Value and
 Excellent Customer Service
 % SLA Targets Met
processes to ensure end-to-
 Adherence to service level
Service to Customers agreements  Partner Satisfaction % end process,
 Maintain credibility with
Partners
 Focused continuous  CI Project Savings ($)
• Activities and customer
 Efficient and Effective improvement dependencies are measured
Operations  Standardized high quality
services sufficiently.
 Associate Satisfaction %
 Satisfied OSS Associates
Top Performing  Transactional Volume / FTE
 Highly productive workforce
Workforce  Managed/un-managed turnover %
 OSS Cost (by process, agency, etc)
 Cost Competitive  Rigorous cost management
 Agency Savings ($)
Service Provider
 OSS Budgeting Accuracy %
(Cost/ISTV)

Copyright © 2010 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 7

Operating Model - Processes
The standardization of business processes is a critical enabler of
the Shared Services business case.

• Develop a process inventory

ERP Business • Take an end-to-end view, even if the entire

Requirements process will not reside within the Shared Services
• Understand the interdependencies
Enabling
Technology
Requirements • Involve your users and customers ERP

Organization
Process Design / Capacity
Flows Modeling 5 Day Pay Cycle Holding Period
OAKS 2 OAKS OAKS
Supervisor Send back to OAKS Agency adjusts ER
Correct & traveler via coding as necessary
Re-Approval
resubmit workflow If Budget Check is failed
and/or until 5 day Pay Cycle 10
If necessary Holding period is complete
(ER >20% of
original TA) Fail
OAKS OAKS OAKS UDS 3 Fail
5
Submit OAKS 9 OAKS
Create Travel Supervisor
Expense
Service Authorization
(TA)
Approves
TA
Reports
(ER)
Scan
Receipts
Pre-Audit Pass
Budget
Check
Pass EFT

Management Employee
Travels Individual KPIs- T&E Teams

Framework Submit for ER < $10 and/or

T&E quality assurance
Pre-audits processed
Receipts mileage reimbursement Avg. time to pre-audit ER
under $250)
4
1
6
7
8
End to End/ End to End/
# OSS/ Agency Potential Measurement # OSS/ Agency Potential Measurement
Change 1
2
Agency
Agency


Avg. time from travel completion to ER submittal
% of ERs requiring re-approval
6
7
ETE
ETE


Avg. time from ER submittal to payment processing
Avg. time from scanning at OSS to payment processing

Management Agency
OSS
ETE



# of TAs aged over 5 days in approval worklist
T&E Reimbursements Processed per OSS FTE
% of T&E reimbursements pre audited
8
ETE
OSS
Agency



% of T&E Reimbursements paid within 30 days
Avg. time to pre-audit expense report
% of ERs passing budget check
Strategy 3
Agency
OSS


% of envelopes without bar code cover page
# of T&E image exceptions
9
Agency  Avg. time to resolve T&E exceptions (pre-audit/budget check
fail)
Agency  Avg. time from travel completion to OSS receipt scanning Agency  # of ERs aged over 5 days in budget check exception list
4
Agency  % of ERs submitted within 90 days of completed travel OSS  T&E quality assurance %
ETE  % of ERs pre-audited Agency  # of journal expense reports
ETE  % of pre-audits failed 10 ETE  Average ER $ value (by expense type)
Agency  % of pre-audits failed due to incorrect receipt submissions Agency  % of T&E Reimbursements received before year-end
5
Agency  Avg. time to resolve T&E pre-audit error (incl. in T&E exception KPI) OSS  # of T&E related inquiries in OSS Contact Center (by channel)
Agency  Avg. number of pre-audit submissions
OSS  Avg. time from scanning at OSS to being pre-audited

Copyright © 2010 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 8

Operating Model - Technologies
Technology plays an integral role in achieving the desired process
standardization and efficiency in the Shared Services model.

Workflow

SME 170 Solutions

• Enable organizational consolidation into the
eAI Demographic Data
Shared Services model

SeeBeyond (e’Gate) PeopleSoft HR CDDB • Facilitates efficient and measurable customer

interaction
Core
Scanning & Archives ERP Travel & Entertainment
• Enables efficient and effective service
Open Text
egSAP, Oracle,
PeopleSoft Concur Expense management
• Exploits the ERP platform
Call Distribution Change Control
Supplier Employee

Integrated with PBX

Web
Portal
Web
Portal Merant PVCS
• Provides business intelligence to enable process
and operational excellence
Information Delivery/
Reporting Procurement
• Enables efficient and effective services delivery
Core ERP/Best of Ariba
Breed Tool
• Sustains beyond original business case benefits

Copyright © 2010 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 9

Operating Model - Infrastructure
Determination of the location and build out of the facility is complex and
must be integrated with the overall Shared Services Planning.

• Selection of Location and Site

•Build out/ Transformation of Facility

• Acquisition of Physical Assets

Copyright © 2010 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 10

Operating Model - Organization
The structure for Governance and organization of work being
preformed in the Shared Service Center must account for all
management processes.

• Governance

• Leadership and Organization

• Reporting Relationships

• Roles and Responsibilities

Copyright © 2010 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 11

Operating Model - People
Establishing employee profiles that account for skill sets as well as
characteristics and behaviors generate the desired culture.

1 7/1/09

• Placement within the Organizational Structure

6 Total: 5 Leads; 1 Admin

Requirements &
1 7/1/09 Service
Ohio Shared Services Lead
Config. OBM
Administrative
Support Center Lead Management

Establishing employee profiles that account for skill sets as well as D

M
1 characteristics and
7/1/09 1 behaviors
7/1/09 generate
1
the7/1/09
desired culture.
1 7/1/09
Bus. Ops &
Process & Client Customer Service Finance Lead Process
Integration Lead Lead
Excellence Lead

1 7/1/09
1 7/1/09 HR Support*
6 Total: 4 Coaches; 2 Analysts (2 OBM

 Placement within the Organizational

Cont. Improv. Structure
positions on-site and four off-site)

Organizational Chart Analyst 1 7/1/09

Information
1 10/1/09 Technology
Cont. Improv.
Analyst 1 7/1/09

role and responsibility profiles  Right Skills

1
and7/1/09
ExperiencesFiscal Support
Serv Mgt. Analyst 1 7/1/09

Facility Support

4 7/1/09 3 10/1/09
Position Profiles1 7/1/09 1 7/1/09
Coaches

Skills Assessment
Coaches

Scorecard
Training Communications

 Right Characteristics and Behaviors

Key
• Right Skills and Experiences
43 Associates

OSS
9 7/1/09 9 7/1/09 9 9/1/09 10 10/1/09
SDWT #1 SDWT #2 SDWT #5 SDWT #6 OBM on-site

9 7/1/09 7 7/1/09 10 10/1/09 OBM off-site

SDWT #3 SDWT #4 SDWT #7 Other Org.
# of Go Live
FTE’s 1 7/1/09 Date

• Right Characteristics and Behaviors

Copyright © 2010 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 12

Operating Model Components - Summary

• It is best to design all components initially rather than attempting to piece meal each.

• The model gains the most value by having each area well thought out, only defining
one or two components eventually drives the need for the rest.

• Some components can be designed in parallel, others should be build upon one
another.

• Model is designed in an integrated fashion consistent with the overall all Shared
Services vision and strategic objectives.

• Each component should account for how Shared Services will be positioned in the
organization (single function vs. multi-function).

• The technologies component will determine the high-level application and technical
architecture.

Copyright © 2010 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 13

When to Develop the Operating Model
Shared Services Deployment Approach
Program, Migration, and Journey Management

10 Weeks
Quick Wins
Phase I
Strategy & Planning
Typically 3-5 Months

• Strategic Intent and Phase II

Vision Design Typically 3-6 Months
(Depending on Tech. Needs)
• Scope of Shared
Services • Organization and
• Fit with Other Change Phase III
Process Design
Initiatives • Training Design
Build and Test
TBD Based on Approach
• Current State Analysis / • Service Mgmt
Opportunity Framework Design • Application / Phase IV
Assessment Technology Build
• Shared Services
• Workforce Transition
• Shared Service Center Deployment
Planning
Operating Model Build
• Change Management
• Application / Technical
• Shared Services • Execution of Deployment Plan
Design • Deploy Applications /
Requirements Organization Build
• Gather Application /
• Site Selection
• Detailed Roll-out Plans Technologies
Technology • Shared Service Center
• Application /
• Training and Work Shadowing
Requirements Facility Design • Workforce Transition
Technology Test
• Cost / Benefit Analysis • Roll-out Strategy
• Training Build and
• Business Case Delivery
=Management Checkpoint Validation

Note: = Operating Model related activities in the overall deployment approach.

Copyright © 2010 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 14

Case Study:
Business Situation
Current State Response
• New Administration • Build and operate Shared Services Center
• Budget: revenues not keeping pace with – Separate back-office from programs
expenses – Gain union buy-in of a high performance
• Aging workforce workplace
– 14% eligible to retire in 2011
– 33% eligible to retire in 2014 • Reorganize and restructure agency operations
• “Pre-historic” business processes supported by • Implement new cash management strategies
policy and legislation & controls
• Assessment results • Manage staff headcount –reduce positions through
– Inefficient leverage of technology – Attrition
– Inefficient process cycle times – Unfilled vacancies
– 75% of finance resources focused on • Develop and execute equipment control policies
transaction processing
– Travel reimbursement processing costs:
$37/T&E report
– AP vendor invoice processing costs:
$29/invoice
Copyright © 2010 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 15
Case Study:
Establishing the Operating Model
The team Developed an Operating Model with customer service
first in mind.

• Governance to serve
the customer in the
best possible ways

• Management
Processes to focus
on customer
concerns
• Service Delivery
reducing steps
and handoffs

• Use of technology
to increase self-
service and
reduce manual
processing
Copyright © 2010 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 16
Case Study:
Enabling Key Differentiators

New ways of interacting and providing service materialized in five areas.

• The Operating Model became a 3-dimentional

multi-component and sub component framework.

Governance Service Relationship Performance Service Delivery

An enhanced level
of interaction not
previously used
across agencies
Copyright © 2009 Accenture All Rights Reserved.
Management Management Management
Refined processes
Defined activities Detailed peer Tracking of quality with embedded
driving high- assignments at and accuracy at the measurements to
performing, service strategic and tactical center, team, and ensure service
oriented operations levels, included individual levels with levels and accuracy
detailed discussion daily, weekly, monthly targets
plans and frequency and quarterly
for engagement frequency
17
Case Study:
Establishing Governance
The strategic and tactical interactions with key stakeholders sets the
framework for successful interaction and an open door.

Customers SSC
• Governance Model
Employees Customer Service
•T&E related questions Phone, E-Mail, OSS Portal, Fax
•Vendor related questions Employee Inquiry Mgmt
Vendors
Phone, E-Mail, Fax, eSupplier Vendor Inquiry Mgmt
•Invoice, payment, &
Complex Inquiries

master data questions

Agency Liaisons

• Governance Cadence
Phone, E-mail, Fax
(Coaches)
Transferred I

(Agency
Inquiries

Escalations)
Misdirect
Inquiries

Agency Business Office Finance

•Invoices (from Vendors) Interoffice Mail Payroll
Inquiry Mgmt

•Vendor Maintenance Forms Maintenance

Coordination
Escalated

Employees
Participants Frequency Responsibilities
Compensation channels
Interoffice Mail / US Mail
•T&E Reports/Receipts Processing

Vendors Strategic T&E

US Mail Processing  Performance review  Monthly (during  Primary interface with Stakeholders
•Invoices • SSC Lead meetings stabilization)  Chair Council meetings
•Vendor Maintenance Forms  Point to point  Quarterly (after  Facilitates performance review meetings
• Stakeholders
discussions
Supporting Departments Council meetings
Supporting IT
stabilization)

• Relationship Management
Operational
 E-mail / phone  Daily  Agency business office(s) primary interaction
• SSC Coaches
(point-to-point)  Periodic point for issue management and production
• Agency  Process council process council collaboration
meetings meetings  Review all SSC contact center inquiries

Relationship Management Participants

requiring input from Agency business office
 Ensure consistency and appropriateness of
Associate-Agency interactions
Interaction with Departments and Vendors will be handled by front line associates on a routine basis.

Tactical
• SSC Associates  ERP and CRM
workflow
 Daily
 Periodic
Supervisors will be engaged to handle escalated issues.

Department
 Daily 1
finance function
Departments
 Daily contact center interactions
Department
interactions via 2 Department
Service 1 Service 2
• Performance Management
• Customers (All  Contact center process council automatic
Council workflow requests (to/from
Lead
segments) interactions meetings agencies)
 Process council SSC Lead SSC Lead SSC Lead SSC Lead SSC Lead
SSC

meetings
SSC Customer Relationship Liaison
SSC Supervisor OSS Coaches OSS Coaches OSS Coaches OSS Coaches

 Establish a culture of teamwork and high performance

Strategy
• Continuous Improvement
SSC Associates
Departments Responsibility

 Design adaptable support tools to meet OSS performance management needs

All SSC Associates

Department Lead
Department Processing Lead
Department Lead
Customers
Ongoing Ongoing
Department Lead Department Lead Department Lead Department Lead
 Review and ensure understanding  Seek timely and relevant
of associate competencies and performance feedback for myself
target results and team
Department Lead Department Lead Department Lead
Expectations
Department Lead
Performance
Information  Use data and observations to
identify personal strengths and
areas for improvement

 Build my learning and

Employees, Agencies and Vendors
development plan

Ongoing Monthly / Quarterly

 Receive recognition for outstanding Outcomes  Discuss my performance with my
individual and team performance Assessment team lead and seek his or her input

 Seek development support  Lead my quarterly review with my

coach

 Agree on concrete steps to

continue my learning and
development

Copyright © 2010 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 18

Case Study:
Enabling Service Management
A detailed plan for delivering service sets expectations for what service will
look, feel and sound like as well as the service will be measured.

The OSS “Operating Cycle” ensures service delivery is proactively managed to Agency partner expectations. Service
Management focuses on the tools necessary to support the initial phases of this cycle including Service Definition (Service • Service Definitions
Catalog, SLA), Performance Measurement (KPIs), Performance Reporting (Scorecards), and Intra-state Transfer Voucher.

Performance
The OSS “Operating Cycle”
Measurement
Organizational, Process,
With expectations clearly
understood, Shared Services will
• Service Level Agreements
begins with definition of services and Individual KPIs measure performance of services
provided through the OSS against commitments and KPIs
Service Level Agreement and agreed upon in the SLA. These
Service Catalog, and are KPIs will be reported to key
essential to setting appropriate
expectations for OSS services
stakeholders in various Reports
including the OSS Balanced
• Performance Measurement
with Agency partners. Scorecard and SLA Scorecard.

Performance
Service Definition Service Level Reporting • Performance Reporting
Service Catalog, SLA Agreement Balanced Scorecard, SLA
Scorecard

• Service Review
Advisory
Using performance reporting output OSS will
proactively review service delivery to ensure that
partner expectations are met or exceeded and Service Review
costs allocated through Advisory are understood Relationship Management
and reasonable. This will be the primary focus of – CFO Council, Agency
the Relationship Management Process. Interaction Monitoring

Copyright © 2010 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 19

Case Study:
Relationship Management
Relationship Management provided a structure for Service Review
activities in the “Operating Cycle.”
• Tactical level interaction - day-to-day with outside
agencies/ departments
• Strategic level interaction - periodic with CFOs and
other key stakeholders
Performance
Measurement
Organizational, Process,
and Individual KPIs Plan (and Revise) Relationship Management
Strategy including: RM design (objectives, roles/
Plan (and
responsibilities, Revise) Relationship
process flows) meeting/ call
Management Strategy,(key
schedules, key contacts including:
clientkey
contact
Performance contact points, objectives,
matrix), other tools, etc and tools
Service Definition Service Level Reporting
Service Catalog, SLA Agreement Balanced Scorecard, SLA
Scorecard
Plan
ISTV

Service Review
Service Review Establish contact,
Relationship Management
Relationship
– CFO Council, Management
Agency
Communicate Partner communicate Shared
– CFO Council,
Interaction MonitoringAgency satisfaction outcomes
Interaction Monitoring and address issue
Assess Execute Services messages,
develop relationship,
areas and foster partnership

Measure

Measure Partner
Satisfaction
Copyright © 2009 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 20
Case Study:
Enabling Performance Management
Performance is an underlying aspect of every process and
measurement at the individual, team, and center level, this concept
added greater accountability.

Service Shared Services Performance Individual Performance

• KPIs are linked to sources of measurement
Management Management Evaluation

Internal Scorecards Formal and inf ormal

perf ormance
Service Level KPI Selection Operational Individual f eedback
Agreement (SLA) Reporting Scorecard
External Perf ormance
Service Catalog
Chargeback
Reporting
(Balanced
Scorecard, SLA
Daily/weekly/monthl
y/ yearly reporting
and management
Individual
Operational
Metrics
Improvement Plans
Skill blocks and Core
• Enabling Technologies captured metrics by process
methodology
Scorecard) rhythms
Key Reporting
Competencies
and processor
Controls

KPIs Reporting Operational Cadence & Controls

Org
8am

All manual
inputs to
Daily
Scorecard
10am 12pm

(whiteboards, signs, live reporting views, etc.)

TE/AP/VM/CC Coach/Team Lead
2pm

Run Operational Reports and communicate key performance statistics with team as appropriate
4pm

• Performance is measured by
center, team, and individual
(trackers, Review daily results with Associates and drive action plans.
Balanced QAs, etc)
must be
Populate
Daily
completed Scorecard f or
TE/AP/VM/CC Coach/Team Lead

by end of previous day

Scorecard previous perf ormance

day Service
Mgmt.
Review Daily Scorecard performance
and determine action plans
Finalize Daily
Scorecard

TE/AP/VM/CC Coach/Lead SM

Mission
9AM Service Mgmt <1PM Coaches send 2PM Service Mgmt
sends Daily Scorecard commentary f or Daily sends Daily Scorecard
pre-read Scorecard to LT

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

Function Performance Team Performance Governance Meeting
Huddle Function Huddle Coach/Team Function Lead/Coach
Lead/Coach
Populate discuss Lead/ Associates discuss present results and Weekly
Produce
Complete detailed
Scorecard
performanceresults and results and communicate actions as appropriate in
OSS Lead
function trending

Critical Success
determine appropriate necessary actions Governance Meeting
monitors with
actions analysis (AP, TE, Dashboard
Weekly and CC) AP Performance Meeting SM Analyst
Monthly trending FIN Lead, AP Coach, SM
SM Analyst

SS-Customer
Analyst, CI discuss detailed

Factors
SM Analyst
AP perf ormance
SM – CI
Produce Weekly One on One

SLA Scorecards Function

Operational
Reports/
CC Performance Meeting
TE Performance Meeting CC Lead, CC Coaches, SM
FIN Lead, TE Coach, SM Analyst, CI discuss detailed
SM Analyst, CI discuss
metrics implications to
CI
Dashboards Analyst, CI discuss detailed CC perf ormance
SM Analyst T&E perf ormance

Org KPIs Complete detailed

OSS Lead – FIN
OSS Lead- CI
One on One

• Cadence for reviews is

OSS Lead, CI discuss
function trending One on One CI project and program
analysis (VM) OSS Lead, FIN Lead progress

KPI KPI SM Analyst discuss issues and

perf ormance f or Finance

VM Performance Meeting OSS Lead – SM

FIN Lead, VM Coach, SM One on One
OSS Lead – CC
Analyst, CI discuss detailed OSS Lead, SM Analyst
One on One
VM perf ormance discuss Weekly OSS
OSS Lead, CC Lead

established to maintain adherence

Lead dashboard and
discuss issues and
OSS perf ormance
perf ormance f or Contact
Center

Process KPIs
Functional Daily
KPI KPI KPI KPI KPI

Individual KPIs
Scorecards
Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4
to service level targets and
agreements
Facilitate completion of OSS Individual Scorecards Quarterly
OSS HR Lead

Produce OSS Balanced Scorecard and ISTV Report Quarterly

KPI KPI KPI SM Analyst

Update Service Charter

Beginning of Quarter OSS Lead Beginning of Quarter OSS Lead Beginning of Quarter OSS Lead

Operational Reporting sends f inal Balanced Scorecard

and ISTV volumes to state-wide
CFOs and stakeholders
sends f inal Balanced Scorecard
and ISTV volumes to state-wide
CFOs and stakeholders
sends f inal Balanced Scorecard
and ISTV volumes to state-wide
CFOs and stakeholders
and Scorecards for
forward fiscal year
SM Analyst

Beginning of Quarter OSS Lead

Quarterly Balanced Scorecard
and ISTV Review FIN Lead, SM
Analyst host open conf erence call
f or all OSS CFOs to discuss
Balanced Scorecards and ISTV
volumes
Quarterly Balanced Scorecard
and ISTV Review
Quarterly Balanced Scorecard
and ISTV Review
Annual OSS KPI Review
Function Lead, SM Analyst review
KPIs and evaluate changes f or
f orward f iscal year
sends f inal Balanced Scorecard
and ISTV volumes to state-wide
CFOs and stakeholders
Beginning of Quarter FIN Lead
emails Partner Agency CFOs f or
f eedback on Service Charter

Quarterly Balanced Scorecard

Individual Scorecards and ISTV Review

Annual Service Charter Review

Request f eedback f or f orward
f iscal year Service Charter and
sign agreed-upon documents

21
Case Study:
Enabling Service Delivery
Service was structured to account for customer uniqueness's, paths of
interaction, coverage by staff, information necessary to service, and skill
sets required.

• Customer expectations by segment and channel

• Systems and skills required

• Staff coverage

• Desired Customer
Experience

Copyright © 2010 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 22

Final Thoughts
• The Operating Model cannot be developed as a single version by an isolated team. It must be an
iterative process with input from the organization’s key representatives. This ensures buy-in and
will identify issues that will be resolved before moving on to the overall Design phase.

• The Operating Model should consist of a high-level description of the Shared Services solution
which summarizes the new organization, the scope of services, and how it will interact with the
operating units, customers, suppliers, and other third parties. It should be targeted at a board-
level audience and clearly define how the “to be” differs from the current model.

• The key influences on the Operating Model design will come from the Shared Services vision and
strategic objectives. The vision and strategic objectives will have been developed with significant
input and direction from senior leadership. The Model should clearly make the link to the
organization’s objectives.

• The Operating Model should be a holistic view of the new organization. It is intended to be
relatively high-level. This is of particular relevance to the development of the process model. It is
not advised to develop detailed process and application designs, while issues associated with the
organization, service management, etc. have not been sufficiently explored.

• The Operating Model creates the basis for the Business Case and Implementation Plan. If the
Operating Model goes to a level of detail that does not increase the level of confidence in those
deliverables, work will have prematurely extended into the Design phase.
Copyright © 2010 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 23