BRPI0705942B1 - method implemented in computer, system and computer storage medium - Google Patents

Abstract

process modeling systems and methods. The invention relates to operational processes which are analyzed according to a location metric, a source metric and a transformation metric. Optimization processes are recommended based on operational process modeling. Providers and source locations for the recommended optimization processes are evaluated based on provider metrics and source metrics. Providers and source locations for optimization processes are recommended based on provider and source assessments.

Description

Descriptive Report of the Invention Patent for METHOD IMPLEMENTED IN COMPUTER, SYSTEM AND COMPUTER STORAGE MEDIA.

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY [001] The present invention generally relates to modeling operations, and specifically refers to the optimization of operational processes by identifying operational processes eligible for centralization, redesign, and / or subcontracting, and by identifying locations of source and providers for operational processes.

[002] A company can analyze its operational processes in an attempt to optimize processes to achieve cost savings, improved scalability or other optimization objective. For example, a company can analyze the operational process involved in making an engine, and can determine that significant cost savings can be generated if the engine block machining process is redesigned and subcontracted while the process of building the engine of the machined block remained unchanged.

[003] Operational processes can be optimized either by keeping the process at home or by subcontracting (outsourcing) the process, redesigning the process, outsourcing (outtasking) the process, or implementing some other optimization process. In addition, the operating process can be further optimized by identifying source locations to allocate the performance of the operating process and the providers to execute the operating process. The choice of an optimization process for an operational process, however, is difficult in the absence of a systematic and objective assessment.

[004] Here is described a system and method for modeling

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 6/48

2/31 process to assess which operational processes should be centralized, redesigned, subcontracted, or outsourced, and to select locations for operational processes.

Brief Description of the Drawings [005] Figure 1 is a diagram of the relation of entities of a system to analyze the operational processes.

[006] Figure 2 is a functional diagram of a system for analyzing operational processes across multiple dimensions.

[007] Figure 3 is a diagram of the relationship of entities in a system to analyze source locations.

[008] Figure 4 is a functional diagram of a system for analyzing source locations based on an operational process analysis and a source location analysis.

[009] Figure 5 is a diagram of the relationship of entities in a system to analyze providers.

[0010] Figure 6 is a functional diagram of a system for analyzing providers based on an operational process and provider analysis.

[0011] Figure 7A is a graphic display of operational processes evaluated in relation to a source metric and a transformation metric in a first step.

[0012] Figure 7B is the graphic display of the operational processes evaluated in relation to the source metric and the transformation metric in a predicted time.

[0013] Figure 8 is a graphic display of operational processes evaluated in relation to a source metric and a location metric.

[0014] Figure 9 is a table of an example of operational process evaluation criteria and multiple dimension metrics.

[0015] Figure 10 is a table of dimensional classifications that

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 7/48

3/31 correspond to the assessment criteria and dimension metrics in Figure 9.

[0016] Figure 11 is a table of an example of criteria for assessing source location and location metrics.

[0017] Figure 12 is a table of an example of evaluation data for locations of very close, less distant and very distant source.

[0018] Figure 13 provides summary tables of examples of evaluations based on the data in the table in Figure 12.

[0019] Figure 14 is a table of providers to analyze subcontracting or outsourcing.

[0020] Figure 15 is a table of providers to analyze the provider's experience.

[0021] Figure 16 is a table of an example of provider evaluation criteria and provider metrics.

[0022] Figure 17 is a table of an example of evaluation data for providers.

[0023] Figure 18 is a summary table of examples of evaluations based on the data in Figure 17.

[0024] Figure 19 is a flow chart of an example of an operational process analysis process.

[0025] Figure 20 is a flowchart of an example of an identification process for optimization processes based on source and transformation metrics.

[0026] Figure 21 is a flowchart of an example process for identifying optimization processes based on source and location metrics.

[0027] Figure 22 is a flow chart of an example of a process for evaluating source locations.

[0028] Figure 23 is a flow chart of an example of a process

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 8/48

4/31 provider evaluation.

[0029] Figures 24 and 25 are flowcharts of examples of processes to graphically display an analysis of operational processes according to a source metric and a transformation metric.

[0030] Figures 26 and 27 are flowcharts of process examples of graphically displaying an analysis of operational processes according to a source metric and a location metric.

[0031] Figure 28 is a flow chart of an example process of graphically displaying the analysis of source locations and providers. [0032] Figure 29 is an example of a computer system that can be used to implement the systems and methods described here.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION [0033] Figure 1 is a diagram of the relationship of entities in a system 100 to analyze operational processes 102. Evaluation criteria 104 are defined for the operational processes 102 of an entity 101, such as a business or unit company business. In an implementation the evaluation criteria can be the same for all operational processes 102. In a different implementation, evaluation criteria 104 can be modeled for each operational process 102. For example, if an operational process 102 is a complaint process for an insurance company, and requires direct contact with customers so an example of an evaluation criterion may include direct interactions with customers. Conversely, if operating process 102 is a machining process for an engine block, then the example of the evaluation criterion may not include direct interactions with customers.

[0034] Multiple evaluation dimensions are associated with evaluation criteria 104. In the example of system 100 in Figure 1, the

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 9/48

5/31 location metrics 106, source metrics 108 and corresponding transformation metrics 110 are associated with evaluation criteria 104. In one implementation, corresponding metrics 106, 108 and 110 provide metrics to determine which processes 102 should be subcontracted, redesigned, or remain unchanged based on evaluation criteria 104, and at what level of location (very close, less distant and very distant) the processes should be carried out. Metrics 106, 108 and 110 can determine whether an operational process 102 is more eligible or less eligible for an optimization process based on the corresponding evaluation criteria 104.

[0035] Operational processes 102 are evaluated against evaluation criteria 104 and corresponding metrics 106, 108 and 110 to generate location classifications 112, source classifications 114, and transformation classifications 116. Location classifications 112, source classifications 114, and transformation classifications 116 can then be evaluated against each other to identify the first and second optimization processes 120 and 122 for operational processes 102. [0036] In an implementation example , the first optimization processes 120 are the location and source optimization processes, and the second optimization processes are the source optimization and transformation processes. For example, location ratings 112 can be evaluated against source ratings 114 to identify early optimization processes 120 for operational processes 102. Early optimization processes 120 may include moving a process to a very distant location, a less distant location, or a very close location.

[0037] A very distant location (offshore) can be an

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 10/48

6/31 location that is geographically distant from the location in which an operational process is currently performed or the location in which the commercial matrix is currently located. For example, India can be a very distant location for Western Europe and North America.

[0038] A less near location (nearshore) may be a location that is generally geographically closer than locations that are very distant and / or is culturally similar to the current location in which a process is currently performed or the location in which the commercial matrix is currently located. For example, Canada may be a less distant location for the United States, and Eastern Europe may be a less distant location for France.

[0039] A very close location (onshore) can be a location within the same country where the operational process is currently performed or the commercial matrix is currently located.

[0040] Operational processes 102 can also be optimized by determining whether operational processes 102 should be managed by itself or managed by third parties. Operational processes managed by itself are processes that are managed by entity 101, while operational processes managed by third parties are processes that are managed by a third party. Thus, the first optimization processes 120 may also include identifying whether an operational process 102 that needs to be moved to a very distant location, a less distant location, or a very close location should be managed by itself or managed by a third party.

[0041] Likewise, transformation ratings 116 can be evaluated against source ratings 114 to identify the second optimization processes 122 for each PROPetition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, pg. 11/48

7/31 operational process 102. The second optimization processes 122 may include redesigning an operating process, outsourcing an operating process, subcontracting an operating process, or maintaining the operational process as is.

[0042] Redesigning an operational process may involve one or more changes in an operational process or harmonization between disparate processes. For example, redesigning a claim process for an insurance company that processes all claims in the same way may include adding a determination as to whether a claim exceeds a threshold value, and processing claims that exceed the threshold value in an accelerated way.

[0043] The outsourcing of an operational process may involve moving the execution of an operational process to an external resource, without changing the operational process. For example, outsourcing engine block machining may involve machining engine blocks at a less distant location by the same operational process currently implemented at a very close location.

[0044] Subcontracting an operational process may involve moving the execution of an operational process to an external resource and redesigning the operational process. For example, subcontracting an operating process may involve hiring third parties to perfect and harmonize the process before executing the subcontracted process. Improvement and harmonization can be determined only by third parties, or can be determined in conjunction with entity 101.

[0045] Operational processes 102 can be additionally defined by a Full Time Equivalent (FTE) value indicative of the number of full time workers for a process. In addition, the FTE value can be divided into an FTE value inPetição 870180141750, dated 10/17/2018, pg. 12/48

8/31 suit and an external FTE value, which are respectively indicative of the entity's resources and third-party resources that execute the operational process. For example, the operational process may have an associated FTE value of 20, indicating that 20 people are employed to perform the process. The FTE value can have an internal FTE value of 12 and an external FTE value of 8, indicating that 12 people are employed by the entity and 8 people are employed by third parties to perform the operational process.

[0046] Operational process 102 can also be defined by periodic resource specifications. FTE forecasts may also include internal and external FTE values for each of the periodic resource specifications. For example, the FTE value, and the internal and external FTE values, for an operational process can be as shown in Table 1 below:

Year FTE value Internal FTE value External FTE value 2009 20 12 8 2010 22 12 10 2011 25 15 10 2012 25 12 13

TABLE 1: Example of FTE Specifications [0047] FTE values can be used to assess the impacts of process subcontracting and redesign on entity 101. For example, if a process has a large FTE value and a large value external FTE, then the process can be an external candidate process for subcontract optimization; a process that has a high FTE value and a high internal FTE value can incur a significant non-recurring cost if the operational process is subcontracted, etc.

[0048] Figure 2 is a functional diagram of a system 130 for analyzing operational processes 102 through multiple dimensions. The functional diagram in Figure 2 can also define an inspection 870180141750, dated 10/17/2018, p. 13/48

9/31 graphical user interface that can be implemented to display the analysis results of system 100 in Figure 1. Operational process 102 can be evaluated using a source scale 132, a location scale 134, and a transformation scale 136. Each operational process 102 can have an associated location classification, source classification and transformation classification that can be mapped into optimization spaces 140 and 150 to identify the appropriate optimization processes.

[0049] The evaluation of operational processes 102 in relation to the source scale 132 and the location scale 134 can identify a first set of optimization processes in the optimization space 140. The first set of optimization processes 140 may include running the process operational 102 in one of a very distant operation managed by 141 itself, a very distant operation managed by third parties 142, a less distant operation managed by 143 itself, a less distant operation managed by third parties 144, a very close operation managed by 145 itself, and a very close operation managed by third parties 146. In the example of evaluating operational processes 102 against source scale 132 and location scale 134, source scale 132 is primarily indicative of whether an operational process should be managed by itself or managed by a third party, and the 134 location scale is prim indicative of whether an operational process should be located too close, less distant, or too distant.

[0050] Likewise, the evaluation of operational processes 102 in relation to the source scale 132 and the transformation scale 136 can identify a second set of utilization processes in the optimization space 150. The second set of optimization processes 150 can include maintaining the operational process as is

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 14/48

10/31

151, outsource 152, redesign 153, and subcontract 154.

[0051] In the example of evaluating operational processes 102 in relation to source scale 132 and transformation scale 136, source scale 132 is primarily indicative of whether an operational process should be performed by a third party, and transformation scale 136 is primarily indicative of whether an operational process should be redesigned or maintained as is.

[0052] Figure 3 is an entity relationship diagram of a system 160 for analyzing source locations 162. System 160 can be used in conjunction with system 100 in Figure 1. Specifically, system 160 can be used to evaluate source locations that are very close, less distant and more distant 162 for operational processes 102. Evaluation criteria 164 are defined for source locations 162. In an implementation, evaluation criteria 164 can be the same for all source locations 162. In another implementation, evaluation criteria 164 can be modeled for each source location 162.

[0053] Corresponding location metrics 166 are associated with evaluation criteria 164. Location metrics 166 can determine whether a source location 162 is more eligible or less eligible to receive an operational process 102 based on the corresponding 164 evaluation criteria . Evaluation criteria 164 may include non-process-specific evaluation criteria and process-specific evaluation criteria. Non-process-specific evaluation criteria are criteria that are independent of an operational process 102, for example, political stability, employment restrictions, etc. On the contrary, the process-specific evaluation criteria are criteria that are specific to an operational process, for example, an operational process 102 may require several specific skills such as tooling, software 870180141750, from 10/17/2018, p. 15/48

11/31 tware and publication.

[0054] Source locations 162 are evaluated against evaluation criteria 164 and location metrics 166 to generate location ratings 168. Location ratings 168 can be used to determine which source location 162 is best qualified for receive an operational process 102.

[0055] Figure 4 is a functional diagram of a system 170 for analyzing source locations 162 based on an operational process analysis and source location analysis. Operating process analysis can evaluate operating processes against a source scale 172 and a location scale 174 to identify a set of optimization processes in an optimization space 176. These optimization processes include running the operational processes in a from a very distant operation managed by itself, a very distant operation managed by third parties, a less distant operation managed by itself, a less distant operation managed by third parties, a very close operation managed by itself, and a very close operation managed by third parties.

[0056] Each source location 162 has an associated location classification 168 to determine which source location 162 is best qualified to receive an operational process that must be optimized. For example, if a specific operational process performed by an entity in France should be located less distant, then Munich, Warsaw and Rome may be possible less distant source locations 162. Each source location is evaluated based on the evaluation criteria 164 and on site metrics 166 to generate site ratings 168. Source location 162 with the highest rating for the specific operating process is thus determined to be the best qualified to receive the operating processPetition 870180141750, 10/17/2018, pg . 16/48

Specific 12/31.

[0057] Figure 5 is an entity relationship diagram of system 180 to analyze providers 182. System 180 can be used in conjunction with system 100 in Figure 1. Specifically, system 180 can be used to evaluate providers 182 to execute operational processes 102. Evaluation criteria 184 are defined for providers 182. In one implementation, evaluation criteria 184 can be the same for all providers 182. In another implementation, evaluation criteria 184 can be modeled for each 182 provider.

[0058] Evaluation criteria 184 may include non-process-specific evaluation criteria and process-specific evaluation criteria. Non-process-specific evaluation criteria are criteria that are independent of an operational process 102, for example, market share, market capitalization, etc. Instead, process-specific evaluation criteria are criteria that are specific to an operational process.

[0059] The corresponding provider metrics 186 are associated with the evaluation criteria 184. The provider metrics 186 can determine whether a provider 182 is more qualified or less qualified to perform an operational process 102 based on the corresponding evaluation criteria 184.

[0060] Providers 182 are evaluated against evaluation criteria 184 and provider metrics 186 to generate provider ratings 188. Provider ratings 188 can be used to determine which provider 182 is best qualified to perform an operational process 102.

[0061] Figure 6 is a functional diagram of a system 190 for analyzing providers 182 based on an operational process analysis and a provider analysis. Operational process analysis 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 17/48

13/31 can evaluate operational processes against a source scale 192 and a location scale 194 to identify a set of optimization processes in an optimization space 196. These optimization processes may include moving an operational process to a from a very distant location managed by itself, a very distant location managed by third parties, a less distant location managed by itself, a less distant location managed by third parties, a very close location managed by itself, and a very close location managed by third parties.

[0062] Each provider 182 has an associated provider classification 188 to determine which provider 182 is best qualified to perform an operational process that must be optimized within the optimization space. For example, if a specific operational process performed by an entity in France is to be located less distant and managed by a third party, then a first and a second provider in Munich, Warsaw and Rome may be possible providers 182. Each provider is evaluated based on the evaluation criteria 184 and provider metrics 186 to generate provider ratings 188. Provider 188 with the highest rating for the specific operating process is thus determined to be the best qualified to perform the specific operating process.

[0063] Figure 7A is a graphical display 200 of operational processes evaluated in relation to a source metric and a transformation metric. The graphical display in Figure 7A can be used to graphically display the results of an optimization analysis of operational processes.

[0064] A first geometry axis 202 is mapped to a first metric and a second geometry axis 204 is mapped to a second metric. In the example of graphic display 200, the first

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 18/48

14/31 metric is a source metric and the second metric is a transformation metric. The mapping of the source metric and the transformation metric defines an optimization space 206 that includes a redesign space 208, a subcontracting space 210, a space to keep as is 212, and an outsourcing space 214.

[0065] The graphic display elements 220, 222, 224, 226, 228 and 230 are generated for each corresponding operational process that is analyzed. The corresponding operating processes have associated source classifications and transformation classifications. The graphic display elements 220, 222, 224, 226, 228 and 230 are rendered on the graphic display according to the source classifications and the transformation classifications of the corresponding operating processes. The placement of the graphic display elements 220, 222, 224, 226, 228 and 230 are thus indicative of the optimization process selected or recommended for the operational processes. For example, as shown in Figure 7A, a redesign is recommended to optimize operational process 222; the operating process associated with the display element 230 must be kept as is; and the operational processes associated with display elements 224, 226, and 228 must be outsourced. The operating process associated with the display element 220, which is equally mapped between the redesign space 208 and the subcontract space 210, can be either redesigned or subcontracted to achieve optimization.

[0066] The graphic display elements 220, 222, 224, 226, 228 and 230 can also include visual indexes to display additional information regarding the corresponding operational processes. For example, graphic display elements can be scaled in size according to a feature specification or a corresponding operating process. For example, display elements

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 19/48

15/31 graphs 220, 222, 224, 226, 228 and 230 of Figure 7A are scaled according to the FTE values, with a shaded region corresponding to an external FTE value and an unshaded region corresponding to an FTE value internal.

[0067] Figure 7B is the graphic display of the operational processes evaluated in relation to the source metric and the transformation metric in a predicted time. The FTE values, which include the internal FTE values and the external FTE values, are changed accordingly.

[0068] Other visual indexes can also be used. For example, the graphic display elements 220, 222, 224, 226, 228 and 230 can be switched in size to first show the internal FTE values, and then show the external FTE values.

[0069] Figure 8 is a graphical display 300 of operational processes evaluated against a source metric 302 and a location metric 304. A first geometry axis 302 is mapped to a source metric and a second geometric axis 304 is mapped for a location metric. The mapping of the source metric and the transformation metric defines an optimization space 306 that includes a very distant space managed by 308 itself, a very distant space managed by third parties 310, a less distant space managed by 312 itself, a less distant space managed by a third party 314, a very close space managed by the 316 itself, and a very close space managed by a third party 318.

[0070] The graphic display elements 220, 222, 224, 226, 228 and 230 are rendered on the graphic display 300 according to the source classifications and the location classifications of the corresponding operational processes. The placement of the graphic display elements 220, 222, 224, 226, 228 and 230 are thus indicative of the optimization process selected or recommended for the processes

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 20/48

16/31 operational. For example, as shown in Figure 8, the operating process associated with display element 230 must be very closely managed by a third party; the operating process associated with the display element 222 must be less distant managed by itself; the operational processes associated with display elements 224 and 228 must be less distant managed by third parties; and the operating process associated with display element 226 must be far away managed by a third party. The operating process associated with the display element 220, which is equally mapped between the very distant space managed by the 308 itself and the very close space managed by a third party 310, can be moved very far and managed either by the entity or by third parties to achieve optimization.

[0071] In Figure 8, the graphic display elements 220, 222, 224, 226, 228 and 230 also include visual indexes to display information related to source locations 162 and providers 182. Examples of graphic display elements 220, 222, 224, 226, 228 and 230 define an outer circular space indicative of a source location, for example, locations 1-8, and an inner circular space indicative of providers, for example, providers 1 and 2. Thus, each graphic display element 220, 222, 224, 226, 228 and 230 visually leads to a suggested location and a suggested provider for each corresponding operating process. For example, the operating processes that correspond to graphics 222, 224 and 228 should be located less distant at location 5 (Montreal), with the operating process that corresponds to graphic 222 running provider 2, and the remaining operating process that corresponds to graphics elements 224 and 228 being executed by provider 1.

[0072] Figure 9 is a table 400 of examples of criteria for

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 21/48

17/31 evaluation of operational process 402 and corresponding multiple dimension metrics. Examples of dimension metrics are a location metric 404, a subcontracting metric 406, and a transformation metric 408. Each metric 404, 406, and 408 can have a corresponding weight 410. Metrics 404, 406, and 408 can determine whether an operational process that is evaluated against defined 402 evaluation criteria and metrics 404, 406, and 408 is more eligible or less eligible for an optimization process.

[0073] The evaluation criteria 402 may have a unit of measure 414 to evaluate an operational process. In this example, the unit of measure is High, Medium and Low, and indicates the degree to which a criterion applies to an operational process. For example, the Direct interaction with customers criterion would have a high applicability for the operational process of adjusting claims for an insurance company. On the contrary, the same criterion would have a low applicability for an operational process of machining an engine block.

[0074] Other units of measure can also be used, depending on the evaluation criteria. For example, a valuation criterion can have a binary unit of measure, for example, Yes / No, or a quantifiable unit of measure, for example, a coin amount, or a percentage.

[0075] Each metric 404, 406 and 408 is applied to increase the eligibility of an operational process based on an evaluation criterion, as indicated by an up arrow symbol; or to decrease the eligibility of an operational process based on the evaluation criteria, as indicated by a down arrow symbol; or does not affect the eligibility of an operational process based on the evaluation criteria, as indicated by a ticked box symbol.

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 22/48

18/31

For example, the Direct interactions with customers criterion tends to reduce the eligibility of a process to be optimized based on the location metric 404 and the subcontracting metric 406. In contrast, the required overtime criterion tends to increase the eligibility of a process is optimized based on the location metric 404 and the subcontracting metric 406. Adjusting the weights 410 for each metric 404, 406 and 408 can additionally reduce or increase the eligibility of an operational process.

[0076] The evaluation criteria 402 may comprise different categories of criteria, such as a category of Operation Model 416, a category of Commercial Experience 418, a category of Volume 420, and a category of Strategic Importance 422. Additional categories may also be used.

[0077] Figure 10 is a 440 table of dimensional classifications that correspond to the evaluation criteria 402 and the dimension metrics 404, 406 and 408 in Figure 9. The operational processes First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth, by For example, they are evaluated against the evaluation criteria 402 and the corresponding metrics 404, 406 and 408 by entering the corresponding measurements in the data columns 441, 442, 443, 444, 445 and 446. Based on the measurements in the data columns 441, 442, 443, 444, 445 and 446, the operational processes are classified against the evaluation criteria 402 and the corresponding metrics 404, 406 and 408 to generate the location metric classifications 450, the source metric classifications 452, and transformation metric classifications 454 for each operational process. In Figure 10, classifications 450, 452 and 454 are shown only for the First operational process. Location metric ratings 450, source metric ratings 452, and Petition ratings 870180141750, 10/17/2018, pg. 23/48

19/31 transformation metric tions 454 are used to generate a location rating 451, a source rating 453 and a transformation rating 455 for each operational process.

[0078] Figure 11 is a table 460 of examples of 462 source location evaluation criteria and 464 location metrics. Source locations are evaluated against 462 evaluation criteria and 464 location metrics defined to determine which source location is best qualified to receive an operational process.

[0079] Location metrics 464 are applied to increase the qualification of a location, as indicated by an up arrow symbol; or to decrease the qualification of a location, as indicated by a down arrow symbol; or it does not affect the qualification of a location, as indicated by a ticked box symbol. Adjusting the weights 466 associated with each location metric 464 can additionally reduce or increase the qualification of a location.

[0080] Evaluation criteria 462 may comprise different categories of criteria, such as a prerequisite category 470, a non-project specific category 472, and a project specific category 474. Evaluation criteria 462 may have a 468 unit of measure to evaluate source locations. In this example, the units of measure depend on the specific evaluation criteria. Prerequisite criteria 470 has quantified units for measuring, for example, a currency value or a percentage rate; the project non-specific criterion 472 has a high, medium or low unit of measure; and project specific criteria 474 has a binary unit of measure.

[0081] Figure 12 is a 480 table for an example of evaluating very close, less distant and very distant locations 870180141750, from 10/17/2018, p. 24/48

20/31 tes. In Figure 12, the source locations of Paris, Nice, Munich, Warsaw, Montreal, Bhratpur, Delhi and Mexico City are evaluated against evaluation criteria 462 and corresponding metrics 464 by entering the corresponding measurements in data columns 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487 and 488. Based on the data in data columns 481-488, each provider location can be evaluated based on the prerequisite criteria 470 and the non-specific criteria of project 472. In addition, each site can be further assessed against an operational process by comparing its corresponding specific project 474 competencies with the competence specifications of the operating process.

[0082] Figure 13 provides summary tables 490, 491 and 492 of sample evaluations based on the data in the table in Figure 12. Table 490 summarizes the results of an evaluation of provider locations very close to Paris, Nice and Munich in relation to the Sixth operating process, which can, for example, be an operating process that must be optimized very closely. A generic rating column 500 lists the generic rating 502 based on the prerequisite ratings and the non-specific project ratings generated by evaluating each provider location against evaluation criteria 470 and 472 and location metrics 464 correspondents. In an implementation, generic 502 ratings are an average of the prerequisite rating and the project non-specific rating for each provider location. In another implementation, generic classifications 502 may be based on an adjustable weighting of prerequisite classifications and non-specific project classifications for each provider location. The corresponding classification symbols 504 are also listed within the generic classification column 500.

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 25/48

21/31 [0083] A prerequisite classification column 510 lists the prerequisite classifications 512 and the corresponding classification symbols 514 generated by the evaluation of each provider location against the prerequisite evaluation criteria 470 and to the corresponding 464 location metrics. A project non-specific classification column 520 provides the project non-specific classifications 522 and the corresponding classification symbols 524 generated by evaluating each provider location against the project non-specific evaluation criteria 472 and metrics 464 matching location codes.

[0084] A Sixth Process Specific Classification Column 530 provides the Sixth Process Specific Classifications 532 generated by evaluating each provider location against the project specific evaluation criteria 474 and the corresponding location metrics 464. The corresponding 534 classification symbols are also listed.

[0085] The Nice provider location has the highest Sixth process specific classification 532, that is, 6.4 compared with 5.7 for Paris and Munich. This classification is based on the available competencies of the provider's location as assessed against the competence specifications of the operational process. For example, the Sixth process may require skills 1, 3 and 4. As shown in Figure 12, Nice has skills 1, 3 and

4. Paris, however, does not have competence 3 and Munich does not have competence 4. Consequently, the Nice provider location is assessed as having a higher process specific assessment. When combined with the generic 502 rating, the Nice provider location is determined to be the best location to receive the Sixth process, as it also has the highest generic rating, ie 6.5 compared to 5.1 for Paris and 5.9

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 26/48

22/31 to Munich.

[0086] The determination of which provider location is best qualified to receive an operational process can be based on an average of the process specific classification and the generic classification. In another implementation, the determination can be based on an adjustable weighting of the generic classification and the process specific classification.

[0087] Table 491 provides a similar summary for the locations of less distant providers for a Second process, a Third process and a Fifth process, and table 492 provides a similar summary for the ratings of very distant providers for a Fifth process and a fourth process. As shown in table 491, Montreal is determined to be the best provider location for receiving the Second process, the Third process and the Fifth process. Likewise, in table 491, Delhi is shown to be the best provider location for the First case, and Mexico City is shown to be the best provider location for the Fourth case.

[0088] An evaluation process similar to the one described above with reference to Figures 11-13 can be used to identify the best qualified providers to execute the operational processes. Candidate providers can be assessed for each process based on process specific assessment criteria and project non-specific assessment criteria to identify the providers that are best qualified to perform the specific operational processes. The analysis and selection of providers is described below with reference to Figures 14-18.

[0089] Figure 14 is a table of 600 providers to analyze subcontracting or outsourcing. In this implementation example, column 602 lists all the processes that are identified by paPetition 870180141750, from 10/17/2018, pg. 27/48

23/31 to be subcontracted or outsourced. Specifically, subcontracting lines 604 list the processes to be subcontracted, and outsourcing lines 606 list the processes to be outsourced. Column 608 lists the types of providers that must be matched for each process. For example, the N ² 1 process must be performed by a commercial processing subcontracting (BPO) provider with transformational capabilities; the N ² 2 process must be performed by a BPO provider with a specific experience, for example, a specific experience in a specific process or a specific experience in subcontracting; process N ⁵ 3 and process N ² 4 must be performed by an information technology subcontracting provider; and the N ² 5 process must be performed by a provider with some other specific capacity.

[0090] Figure 15 is a table 610 of providers to analyze by provider experience. In this implementation example, column 612 lists the BPO providers with transformational capabilities; column 614 lists BPO providers with specific experience; column 616 lists IT subcontracting providers, and column 618 lists other providers. Lines 620 list existing providers that entity 101 may already have a relationship with, and lines 622 list new providers that may be new to the market or may not have a pre-existing relationship with entity 101. Providers N ² 1-8 can be listed in the table according to their corresponding status as defined in the row and column categories. In other implementations, N ² 1-8 providers can also be selected subject to their availability in specific locations determined according to the process described above in relation to Figures 11-13.

[0091] Figure 16 is a table 630 of an example of criteria

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 28/48

24/31 provider assessment and provider metrics. Providers are evaluated against the 632 evaluation criteria and the 634 provider metrics defined to determine which provider is best qualified to perform an operational process.

[0092] Provider metrics 634 are applied to increase a provider's qualification, as indicated by an up arrow symbol; or to decrease the qualification of a provider, as indicated by a down arrow symbol; or does not affect a provider's qualification, as indicated by a ticked box symbol. Adjusting the weights 636 associated with each provider metric 632 can additionally reduce or increase the qualification of a provider.

[0093] Evaluation criteria 632 may comprise different categories of criteria, such as a generic provider category 640, and a project specific category 642. Evaluation criteria 632 may have a unit of measurement 638 for evaluating the locations of subcontracting. In this example, the units of measure depend on the specific evaluation criteria. The project-specific provider criteria 642 also includes criteria that indicate whether a provider has experience with a specific process and / or is capable of executing a process, for example, if the provider previously performed the process or similar processes, or if the provider you may even be able to perform the process.

[0094] Figure 17 is a table 650 of an example of evaluation data for providers. In Figure 17, the N- 1-8 providers are evaluated against the 632 evaluation criteria and the corresponding 634 metric by inserting the corresponding measurements in the data columns 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 657 and 658. With Based on data and data columns 651-658, each provider can be assessed based on the corresponding 640 generic criteria and the criteria

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 29/48

25/31 project specific 642. In an implementation, data relating to generic criteria 640 is used to generate a generic classification, and data relating to project specific criteria is used to generate a project specific classification. The ratings can be used to generate an overall rating which can be a weighted summed rating, an average rating, or simply an added rating for each provider.

[0095] Figure 18 is a summary table 700 of the example evaluations based on the data in Figure 17. A provider column 702 lists the candidate providers. A global grade column 710 lists global classifications 712 that are based on generic classifications 722 listed in a generic column 720 and project specific classifications 732 that are listed in a project specific column 734. Classification symbols 714, Corresponding 724 and 734 are also listed within classification columns 710, 720 and 730. Process columns 740, 750, 760, 770 and 780 include process capacity columns 742, 752, 762, 772 and 782 and symbols graphics capacity 744, 754, 764, 774 and 784. In this implementation example, process columns 742, 752, 762, 772 and 782 indicate whether a specific provider can run a corresponding process. In another implementation, process columns 742, 752, 762, 772 and 782 can indicate whether a specific provider has previous or current experience with a corresponding process.

[0096] In the implementation example of Figure 18, the provider with the highest global rating is best suited to execute a process, based on all the criteria and metrics described above with reference to Figures 14-17. For example, the N-3 provider may be better suited to execute processes 3, 4 and 5,

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 30/48

26/31 as it has the highest rating of 5.3 and is eligible to perform these processes; the N-1 provider may be better suited to perform the N ^Q 1 process, as it has the next highest rating of 5.1 and is eligible to perform this process; and the N ² 2 or 5 providers are equally suited to running the NP 2 process, as they have the next highest rating of 4.5 and are eligible to run these processes.

[0097] In another implementation, the provider's eligibility for a process may additionally be subject to a selection logic that determines whether the provider is located within a location selected to receive the process. For example, if the NP 1 process is to be subcontracted, and the NP 1 provider does not have a presence in a subcontracting location considered the most suitable for receiving the NP 1 process, then process column 742 and the graphic capability symbol 744 correspondent may indicate No.

[0098] The results of the provider location analysis and the provider analysis can be further summarized by graphically presenting the provider locations best qualified to receive an operational process and the providers best qualified to perform the operational process. For example, in Figure 8 above, the Sixth process corresponds to the graphic display element 230; the second process corresponds to the graphic display element 222; the third process corresponds to the graphic display element 224; the fifth process corresponds to the graphic display element 228; the first process corresponds to the graphic display element 220; and the fourth process corresponds to the graphic display element 226.

[0099] Figure 19 is a flow chart 800 of an example of a process for analyzing operational processes. Stage 802 defines the

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 31/48

27/31 evaluation criteria for operational processes. Stage 804 associates the corresponding location metrics with the evaluation criteria. Stage 806 associates the corresponding source metrics with the evaluation criteria. Stage 808 associates the corresponding transformation metrics with the evaluation criteria. Stage 810 assesses processes against the first assessment criteria and the corresponding metrics. Stage 812 generates a location rating, a source rating, and a transformation rating based on the assessment. These classifications can be used to identify one or more optimization processes for the operational processes.

[00100] Figure 20 is a flowchart 820 of an example of a process for identifying optimization processes based on source and transformation metrics. Stage 822 assesses the source rating against the transformation rating. Stage 824 identifies the optimization processes for the operational processes based on the assessment. Examples of optimization processes include redesigning an operating process, outsourcing an operating process, subcontracting an operating process, or keeping the operating process as is.

[00101] Figure 21 is a flowchart 830 of an example of identification process for optimization processes based on source and location metrics. Stage 832 assesses the source rating against the location rating. Stage 834 identifies the optimization processes for the operational processes based on the assessment. Examples of optimization processes include moving a process to a very distant location, a less distant location, or a very close location. Optimization processes may also include determining whether the execution of the operating process should be managed by itself or managed by

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 32/48

28/31 third parties.

[00102] Figure 22 is a flow chart 840 of an example of a process for evaluating source locations. Stage 842 defines the evaluation criteria for the source locations. The evaluation criteria can include process-specific evaluation criteria and non-process-specific evaluation criteria. Stage 844 associates the corresponding location metrics with the evaluation criteria. Stage 846 assesses source locations against assessment criteria and location metrics.

[00103] Figure 23 is a flow chart 850 of an example of a provider evaluation process. Stage 852 defines the evaluation criteria for providers. The evaluation criteria can include process-specific evaluation criteria and non-process-specific evaluation criteria. Stage 854 associates the corresponding provider metrics with the evaluation criteria. Stage 856 evaluates source providers against provider criteria and metrics.

[00104] Figures 24 and 25 are flowcharts of examples of processes to graphically display an analysis of operational processes according to a source metric and a transformation metric. In flowchart 860, stage 862 defines a first geometry axis and a second geometry axis on a graphic display. Stage 864 maps the first geometry axis to the transformation metric. Stage 866 maps the second geometric axis to the source metric. Stage 868 generates the corresponding graphic display elements for each operating process. Stage 870 renders the graphic display elements on the graphic display according to the source classifications and transformation classifications that correspond to the operational processes.

[00105] The graphic display elements can be rendered

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 33/48

29/31 in defined areas that correspond to the recommended optimization processes. In flowchart 880, stage 882 delimits a first graphic region indicative of a subcontract optimization process. Stage 884 delimits a second graphic region indicative of an outsourcing optimization process. Stage 886 delimits a third graphic region indicative of a redesign optimization process. Additional areas can also be delimited in the graphic region, such as an area that corresponds to an optimization process to keep as is.

[00106] Figures 26 and 27 are flowcharts of examples of processes to graphically display an analysis of operational processes according to a source metric and a location metric. In flowchart 890, stage 892 defines a first geometry axis and a second geometry axis on a graphic display. Stage 894 maps the first geometry axis to the location metric. Stage 896 maps the second geometry axis to the source metric. Stage 898 generates the corresponding graphic display elements for each operating process. Stage 700 renders the graphic display elements on the graphic display according to the source classifications and location classifications that correspond to the operational processes.

[00107] The graphic display elements can be rendered in defined areas that correspond to the recommended optimization processes. In flowchart 710, stage 712 delimits a first graphic region indicative of a very close optimization process. Stage 714 delimits a second graphic region indicative of a less distant optimization process. Stage 716 delimits a third graphic region indicative of a very distant optimization process. Additional areas can also be delimited in the graphic region, such as the areas that correspond or to the management

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 34/48

30/31 or to third party management of the operational process that is placed too close, less distant or too distant.

[00108] Figure 28 is a flowchart 920 of an example process of graphically displaying the analysis of source locations and providers. The process example of flowchart 920 can be used in conjunction with the process example of flowchart 910. Stage 922 renders the graphic display element that corresponds to the operational process based on the location classification of the identified source location. The identified source location and the source location that is determined to be the most adaptable to receive the operational process.

[00109] Stage 924 renders the graphic display element that corresponds to the operational process so that the display element is additionally indicative of a selected provider. The source provider selected is the provider that is determined to be the best qualified to perform the operational process.

[00110] Figure 29 is an example of a computer system 1000 that can be used to implement the systems and methods described. Computer system 1000 may include a processor 1002 coupled to computer readable memory 1004, such as RAM or other data storage. Computer system 1000 may also include other data storage 1006, such as a database, monitor 1008 and keyboard 1010. Computer system 1000 may include program instructions executable by processor 1002 to implement the systems and method of process analysis described here. Although presented as a single computer system 1000, computer system 1000 can be implemented as a computer network.

[00111] The apparatus, methods, flowcharts, and structural block diagrams described in this patent document can be

Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 35/48

31/31 implemented in computer processing systems that include a program code that comprises program instructions that are executable by the computer processing system. Other implementations can also be used. In addition, flowcharts, structural block diagrams described in this patent document, which describe specific methods and / or corresponding acts in support of the corresponding steps and functions in support of the described structural medium, can also be used to implement the structures of software and corresponding algorithms, and their equivalents.

[00112] This written description presents the best mode of the invention and provides examples to describe the invention and allow a person skilled in the art to make and use the invention. The written description does not limit the invention to the precise terms presented. Thus, although the invention has been described in detail with reference to the examples presented above, those skilled in the art can make changes, modifications and variations in the examples without departing from the scope of the invention.

Claims (19)

1. Computer implemented method (1000) characterized by the fact that it comprises: define, by one or more computers (1000), the first evaluation criteria for a possible source location very close, a possible location of a source less distant and a possible location of a source more distant; associate location metrics (166) corresponding to the first evaluation criteria; classifying the source location very close, the source location less distant and the source location more distant in relation to the first evaluation criteria and the corresponding location metric to generate the location ratings for each source location (162); select a source location (162) from the closest source location, the least distant source location, and the most distant source location, which is most qualified to receive an operational process (102) under evaluation, based on the ratings of the location; define second evaluation criteria for an own provider and a possible third party provider; associate corresponding provider metrics with the second assessment; classify the own provider and the third party provider in relation to the second evaluation criteria and the provider metrics to generate the provider ratings for each provider; and selecting a provider from the provider itself and the third party provider, who is best qualified to perform the operational process (102) under evaluation, based on the provider ratings. Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 37/48 2/8 2. Method according to claim 1, characterized by the fact that it still comprises: define third evaluation criteria for a possible redesign process, a possible outsourcing process, a possible subcontracting process and a non-transformation process; associate corresponding transformation metrics with the third assessment criteria; classify the redesign process, the outsourcing process, the subcontracting process and the non-transformation process in relation to the third evaluation criteria to generate transformation classifications for each process; and select an optimization process, among the redesign process, the outsourcing process, the subcontracting process and the non-transformation process, to be executed in the operational process (102) under evaluation, based on the transformation classifications. 3. Method according to claim 2, characterized by the fact that it still comprises: compare the location classification for the selected source location (162) in relation to the transformation classification for the selected optimization process; and to identify a different optimization process for the operational process (102) under evaluation based on the comparison of the location classification in relation to the transformation classification. 4. Method according to claim 2, characterized by the fact that it still comprises: define a first geometric axis and a second geometric axis on a graphic display; map the first geometric axis in relation to one of the Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 38/48 3/8 transformation metrics; map the second geometric axis in relation to one of the source metrics; generate a corresponding graphic display element for the operational process (102); and rendering the graphic display elements on the graphic display according to the source classification and the transformation classification that correspond to the operational process (102). 5. Method according to claim 4, characterized by the fact that it still comprises: delimit on the graphic data display a first graphic region indicative of the subcontracting process; delimit on the graphic data display a second graphic region indicative of the outsourcing process; delimit on the graphic data display a third graphic region indicative of the redesign process; and delimit on the graphic data display a fourth graphic region indicative of the non-transformation process. 6. Method according to claim 4, characterized by the fact that it still comprises: scale the size of the graphic display element according to a corresponding operational process resource specification (102). 7. Method according to claim 1, characterized by the fact that the first evaluation criterion comprises: evaluation criteria that are not specific to the operational process (102) under evaluation; and evaluation criteria that are specific to the operational process (102) under evaluation. 8. System, characterized by the fact that it comprises: Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 39/48 4/8 one or more computers (1000); a computer-readable medium coupled to one or more computers (1000) having instructions stored on it that, when executed by one or more computers (1000), causes the one or more computers to perform operations that comprise: define first evaluation criteria for a possible source location very close, a possible location of a source less distant and a possible location of a source more distant; associate location metrics (166) with the first evaluation criteria, rank the source location too close, the location of the least distant source and the location of the most distant source in relation to the first evaluation criterion and the location metrics (166 ) correspondents to generate location ratings for each source location (162), define second evaluation criteria for an own provider and a possible third party provider; associate corresponding provider metrics with the second assessment; classify the own provider and the third party provider in relation to the second evaluation criteria and the provider metrics to generate the provider ratings for each provider; and selecting a provider from the provider itself and the third party provider, who is best qualified to perform the operational process (102) under evaluation, based on the provider ratings. 9. System according to claim 8, characterized by the fact that the operations still comprise: compare location rank to location Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 40/48 5/8 of the source (162) selected in relation to the transformation classification for the selected optimization process; and to identify a different optimization process for the operational process (102) under evaluation based on the comparison of the location classification in relation to the transformation classification. 10. System according to claim 8, characterized by the fact that the operations still comprise: define a first geometric axis and a second geometric axis on a graphic display; map the first geometric axis in relation to one of the transformation metrics; map the second geometric axis in relation to one of the source metrics; generate a corresponding graphic display element for the operational process (102); and rendering the graphic display elements on the graphic display according to the source classification and the transformation classification that correspond to the operational process (102). 11. System according to claim 8, characterized by the fact that the operations still comprise: delimit on the graphic data display a first graphic region indicative of the subcontracting process; delimit on the graphic data display a second graphic region indicative of the outsourcing process; delimit on the graphic data display a third graphic region indicative of the redesign process; and delimit on the graphic data display a fourth graphic region indicative of the non-transformation process. 12. System according to claim 8, featuring Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 41/48 6/8 by the fact that operations still comprise: scale the size of the graphic display element according to a corresponding operational process resource specification (102). 13. System according to claim 8, characterized by the fact that the first evaluation criterion comprises: evaluation criteria that are not specific to the operational process (102) under evaluation; and evaluation criteria that are specific to the operational process (102) under evaluation. 14. Computer storage medium (1004) encoded with a computer program, characterized by the fact that the program comprises instructions that when executed by one or more computers (1000) cause the one or more computers (1000) to perform operations that comprise: define first evaluation criteria for a possible source location very close, a possible location of a source less distant and a possible location of a source more distant; associate location metrics (166) with the first evaluation criteria, rank the source location too close, the location of the least distant source and the location of the most distant source in relation to the first evaluation criterion and the location metrics (166 ) corresponding to generate location classifications for each source location (162), select a source location from the closest source location, the least distant source location, and the most distant source location, which is most qualified to receive a operational process (102) under evaluation based on location classifications; Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 42/48 7/8 define second evaluation criteria for an own provider and a possible third party provider; associate corresponding provider metrics with the second assessment; classify the own provider and the third party provider in relation to the second evaluation criteria and the provider metrics to generate the provider ratings for each provider; and selecting a provider from the provider itself and the third-party provider, who is best qualified to perform the operational process (102) under evaluation, based on the provider's ratings. 15. Computer storage medium (1004) according to claim 14, characterized by the fact that the operations still comprise: compare the location classification for the selected source location (162) in relation to the transformation classification for the selected optimization process; and to identify a different optimization process for the operational process (102) under evaluation based on the comparison of the location classification in relation to the transformation classification. 16. Computer storage medium (1004) according to claim 14, characterized by the fact that the operations still comprise: define a first geometric axis and a second geometric axis on a graphic display; map the first geometric axis in relation to one of the transformation metrics; map the second geometric axis in relation to one of the source metrics; Petition 870180141750, of 10/17/2018, p. 43/48 8/8 generate a corresponding graphic display element for the operational process (102); and rendering the graphic display elements on the graphic display according to the source classification and the transformation classification that correspond to the operational process (102). 17. Computer storage medium (1004) according to claim 16, characterized by the fact that the operations still comprise: delimit on the graphic data display a first graphic region indicative of the subcontracting process; delimit on the graphic data display a second graphic region indicative of the outsourcing process; delimit on the graphic data display a third graphic region indicative of the redesign process; and delimit on the graphic data display a fourth graphic region indicative of the non-transformation process. 18. Computer storage medium (1004) according to claim 16, characterized by the fact that the operations still comprise: scale the size of the graphic display element according to a corresponding operational process resource specification (102). 19. Computer storage medium (1004) according to claim 14, characterized by the fact that the first evaluation criterion comprises: evaluation criteria that are not specific to the operational process (102) under evaluation; and evaluation criteria that are specific to the operational process (102) under evaluation.