This document discusses optimizing process efficiency in a multi-stream data keying environment through co-mingling workstreams. It identifies challenges with decentralized data keying processes, obstacles to change, and how co-mingling processes can improve seat utilization rates and reduce costs. The document presents a case study of J.P. Morgan Treasury Services co-mingling their data keying processes and provides a framework for analyzing current processes, evaluating alternatives, and documenting expected results of optimization efforts.

1. A Model for Optimizing Process
Efficiency in a Multi-stream Data
Keying Environment
Presented by:
Arun Jain, SVP/GM, Data Management Services, ICT Group
Candice Blom, VP, National Wholesale Lockbox, J.P. Morgan Treasury Services
Dan Hillman, VP, BPO Services, ICT Group
1

2. Summary
• Data Keying Challenges
• Root Causes and Obstacles to Change
• Co-mingling – The Key to Optimizing Processes
• Identifying the Best Strategy for Your Organization
• Case Study – Data Keying Co-mingling at J.P.
Morgan Treasury Services
• Question and Answer
2

3. ICT Group: Overview
• Leading global provider of outsourced
customer care and related technology &
business processing services
• $428.1 million revenue (2008)
– Publicly traded (NASDAQ: ICTG)
• Deep vertical expertise
• 40+ onshore/near-shore/offshore centers,
including India and the Philippines
• 18,000 employees worldwide
• ISO- and Six Sigma-guided operational best practices
3

4. Best Practices for BPO Projects
• Rapid start-up and accelerated turn-around
• Single domestic point-of-contact
• Dedicated project management
• Consistent, quality performance standards
• Secure, redundant global IT/data network
• Superior systems availability/uptime
Typical Outsourced Services:
• Data entry/management • Remittance processing
• E-mail response management • Loan Modification
• Mailroom/Imaging • Claims/application processing
4

5. Enterprise Challenges: Data Keying
• Data management considered critical
business function that crosses multiple
LOBs
• Evolution/growth/M&As can result in
multiple (and often duplicate) data
management processes
• Metadata created during the work-stream life cycle further
complicates ability to efficiently organize and manage data
Data Data Data Data
Capture Analysis Manipulation Storage
5

6. Enterprise Challenges: Data Keying
• True costs of data management difficult to quantify and track
– Results in redundant costs and reduced productivity
• Difficult to understand full cost of enterprise-wide data
management operations
– Inability to assess fixed and variable costs at process level
Results In:
• Overestimated efficiency levels
• Underestimated costs
• Lost opportunities for process improvement
6

7. Data Keying Inefficiencies: Root Causes
• Similar or identical processes performed in multiple
locations by separate management teams
• Decentralized processes tend to multiply over time:
• New products/services launched by multiple LOBs
• Varying turnaround times lead to over-segregation
of duties and inefficient resource utilization
7

8. Obstacles to Change
Stay out of Different management structures (by different
LOB or geography) wish to maintain direct
my sandbox. control of data and its use.
We don’t know Without a top-down or cross-functional
inventory of data management processes,
what we don’t difficult to identify and leverage opportunities
know. for process improvements.
We’ve always Ad-hoc process evolution to meet dynamic
business rules leads to less effective ways of
done it this way. doing work.
8

9. Process View of Back-Office Work
Continuous Batch Mode
9

10. The Ideal Scenario
Goal: Utilize fewest workstations; maximize seat utilization
rate (SUR)
• Monitor overall SUR as key indicator of process efficiency
Theoretical maximum monthly SUR = 585 hours (3 shifts, 7 day/week)
• Continuous processes rarely effective due to staffing constraints and
work availability limitations
3 shift, 7 day/week operation SUR = 375 hours/month considered “best-in-
class”
• Difficult to achieve and sustain for a single process operation
• Possible for some processes like lockbox and item processing that are
amenable to co-mingling
10

11. Co-mingling Work-streams Improves SUR
• SUR can increase significantly by integrating
multiple work-streams into a single processing site.
• Fixed infrastructure costs can be leveraged across
additional volumes, improving efficiency.
Results:
1. Total staffing requirements will decrease
2. Added cost savings through:
– Cross training
– Reduced supervisory requirements
11

12. Developing Your Optimization/
Co-mingling Strategy
Analyze the Document
Assess the Evaluate
Processes in Expected
Current State Alternatives
Detail Results
12

13. Assess the
Current State Gap Analysis
Document
Develop Refine
Pre-workshop Current and
Assess Gaps Roadmap And Recommended
Scope Review Desired Future
Business Case Solution
State
Define New
Identify Quick
Clarify Business Document Identify Gaps Governance and
Wins and Long
Scope Current State and Risks Operating
Term Initiatives
Models
Identify Current Create Business Prepare
Develop Define
Processes and Case Migration Plan
Participant List Opportunities to
Future Business Implementation for Future
and Project Plan Bridge Gaps
Needs Roadmap Process
13

14. Analyze the
Processes in
Detail Analyze the Processes
• Once candidate processes are identified from
gap analysis:
– Review existing and proposed process flows,
– Review quality and productivity goals, and
– Analyze options and alternate operating models.
14

15. Analyze the
Processes in
Detail Analyze the Processes
Document existing and proposed process flows
(Document all touch points with adjacent processes)
In 3 4 7 Out
1 2 5 6
15

16. Analyze the
Processes in
Detail Analyze the Processes
Analyze options and alternate operating models
• Centralized Processing?
• Decentralized Processing?
• Review potential technology constraints
• Calculate seat requirements to maximize utilization
16

17. Analyze the
Processes in
Detail Analyze the Processes
Review cost, quality and output goals
(Identify potential conflicts and tensions)
Quality Cost Output
17

18. Evaluate
Alternatives
Evaluate Alternatives
• What other frictional costs will impact alternatives?
• Identify organizational impacts
• Prepare change management plan
• Alert stakeholders and develop new governance
model
• Create implementation plan the selected optimal
solution
18

19. Document
Expected
Results Document Expected Results
• Baseline current fully loaded fixed and
variable costs as well as projected cost savings
from proposed solution.
• Plan for annual post-assessment/analysis after
reaching steady state.
• Plan for year over year productivity
improvement.
19

20. J.P. Morgan Overview:
• Global financial services firm with assets of $2.1 trillion
and operations in more than 60 countries.
• Leader in investment banking, financial services for
consumers, small business and commercial banking,
financial transaction processing, asset management, and
private equity.
• The Treasury Services business has more than 50,000
clients, a presence in 39 countries, and is one of the
world’s largest providers of treasury management
services.
20

21. J.P. Morgan Receivables
Operations
• Originator of the first lockbox – offering the service for 60+ years, J.P.
Morgan maintains one of the most extensive lockbox networks today
anywhere in the world.
• Offers Receivables Edge that allow clients to consolidate all accounts
receivable transaction data and images into a single, secure repository,
that’s accessible 24/7 via the internet, which helps expedite exception
resolution and improve straight-through processing.
• Receivables operations has an extensive geographic presence, with
processing facilities in 16 sites domestically and 3 sites globally,
representing 4,000 employees.
• Wholesale lockbox business process more than 162 million payments and 2
trillion keystrokes annually, representing value in excess of $833 billion.
• ICT performs data key for 36% of Wholesale Lockbox volume.
21

22. Data Keying Optimization Success Story
J.P. Morgan Treasury and Security Services
Overview:
Four complimentary processes consolidated from multiple sites into
single co-mingled work-stream
Processes owned by different LOBs
Current seat utilization approximately = 340 hours/seat/month
22

23. Four Processes: Original State
Fax Processing of • 400K faxes per month from institutional lenders keyed at single-shift
U.S. operation. Post system updates to loan parameter changes.
Loan Documentation
(e.g. interest rate changes) • 3 hour TAT, 24x5 day operation with very large monthly and
quarterly volume fluctuations (up to 10x daily volume at quarter end).
Credit Card • 400K applications per month.
Application Keying • Keyed from image at multiple locations in single-shift.
• 24 hour turnaround, 24x6 day operation with steady volume
throughout the month, 99% accuracy standard.
Retail Lockbox • Approximately 9M items processed per month.
• Pass 1 and Pass 2 keying performed at multiple locations.
• 24x7x365 operation. Multiple daily cut times, error standard
<1:40,000.
• Business sold by J.P. Morgan Treasury Services, June 2009
Wholesale Lockbox • Approximately 90MM keystrokes per month.
• Invoice and amount keying performed at multiple locations.
• 24x7x365 operation. Multiple daily cut times, error standard
<1:200,000.
23

24. Four Processes: Current State
• All four processes co-mingled at ICT Group BPO
site in Manila, Philippines, with Hyderabad, India
site for load balancing and disaster recovery.
• Varying turnaround times and shift patterns
allows for very high seat utilization.
• Single-management structure promotes
accountability, quality and efficiency across
processes.
24

25. Seat Optimization Model
180
160 168 seats
required with no
co-mingling
140
Total Seats Required
120
Data entry
100 Standalone Total
5,000 hrs per month unused capacity
Spare WLBX
80 WLBX
Spare RLBX
60 RLBX
Application Fax
Data Entry
40
WLBX
20 RLBX
Fax
0
Local Time Manila, Philippines
25

26. Co-mingling: Cost Savings Analysis
Stand Alone Model
Example fully Total Cost
hours/seat/ Seats
Process loaded hourly productive
month required
cost hours/month per month per year
Credit Card App. Entry 207 $7.50 45 9,324 $69,930 $839,160
Wholesale Lockbox 205 $9.50 55 11,300 $107,350 $1,288,200
Retail Lockbox 202 $9.50 66 13,311 126,454 $1,517,454
Fax Processing 198 $9.50 3 594 $5,653 $67,716
Total 204 169 34,529 $309,387 $3,712,644
Co-mingled Model
Example fully Cost
hours/seat/ Seats Total productive
Process loaded hourly
month required hours/month
cost per month per year
Credit Card App. Entry $7.00 9,324 $65,268 $783,216
Wholesale Lockbox $8.50 11,300 $96,050 $1,152,600
Retail Lockbox 342 $8.25 101 13,311 $109,815 $1,317,789
Fax Processing $7.50 594 $4,455 $53,460
Total 34,529 $275,588 $3,307,056
Savings from Co-mingling (8%) $33,799 $405,588
26

27. Success Story: Performance Results
• Standalone operations would have required 169 seats for steady state
volume of all four processes.
• By co-mingling four processes at one site under a single management team,
68 seats were eliminated.
• Co-mingling supports a robust disaster recovery solution. An additional
25% capacity is available for short term disruptions at J.P. Morgan
Treasury Services sites.
Reduction in total seats = 40%
At an average annual cost of $6,759 per
seat/year, J.P. Morgan Treasury Services
avoids over $400,000 in annual costs.
27

28. Question & Answer
Arun Jain Candice Blom
SVP/GM, Data Management Services,
ICT Group VP, National Wholesale Lockbox
J.P. Morgan Treasury Services
Dan Hillman
VP, BPO Services, ICT Group
312-336-2829
800-201-1085 candice.blom@jpmchase.com
info@ictgroup.com www.jpmchase.com
www.ictgroup.com
28