通用模板 BPO Deep Dive Process ReviewPPT

DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED1“?BPO Deep Dive Process ReviewJune 2003TEVDRAFT CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED2The Travel & Entertainment Voucher (TEV) function is performed by the Global Payments team in Shared Service Center 1 and Shared Service Center 2. These centers collect the expense data, audit the data for Diversified Financial Institution policy and local regulations compliance, process the TEV through either the XYZ or ABC system, credit either the corporate card or the employee and finally post the relevant accounting entries. All this work is performed in-house aside from printing and disbursement of the cash reimbursement checks which is outsourced.In Shared Service Center 1 (serving the U.S. Canada and Employees with US denominated Corporate Cards), employees enter their information on-line using the XYZ system. Credit card expenses are uploaded into XYZ, the employee adds any additional expense charges, the manager approves the expense report on-line and the payment is processed. In most cases the payment is electronically credited to the corporate card or the employee (through the regular pay cycle); and, paper checks are the exception. TEVs for Canadian employees are scanned in Canada (using Scanning) and processed in the Shared Service Center 1 (audits however, are completed in Canada).In Shared Service Center 2 employees enter their expenses into the ABC system or complete an Excel voucher form which is then approved by their manager either on-line or manually. Subsequently, the local market liaison conducts a pre-audit of the information and creates a batch list of the TEV vouchers and sends it along with the associated receipts to Shared Service Center 2. If the original expense report is paper, the Shared Service Center 2 enters the expenses line data into System (ABC is online). Shared Service Center 2 then performs a secondary pre-audit of the data, and then processes the payments (electronic payment or paper check). After the payments are processed, a post-audit of the information is conducted on 10% of the receipts. The EMEA region employees, also supported by Shared Service Center 2, submit paper vouchers. Shared Service Center 2 keys this information into System. For the EMEA region a 100% of TEVs are pre-audited.For both Shared Service Center 1 and Shared Service Center 2, submitted receipts are kept for 3 months and then shipped back to the local market for off-site archiving (Shared Service Center 1 stores receipts for US domestic).Prior to June of 2002 TEV inquires were processed by telephone and email (US only). Currently all inquiries are handled by email.TEV:Process OverviewDRAFT CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED3TEV:V 6.02Technology/ConcurWeb Based ApplicationV 3.0TechnologyMainframeIn-houseV 3.0TechnologyClient Server ApplicationIn-houseNATechnologyIn-houseNATechnologyClient Server ApplicationIn-houseNAShared Service CenterClient Server ApplicationIn-houseNATechnologyMainframeNANALocal MktMainframeIn-houseNATechnologyMainframeSystems InventoryDRAFT CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED4TEV:Approved On-line Submission(XYZ)Manual Check (paper)Corp Card CreditApproved On-line Submission(ABC)ACH Payments Direct Deposit Electronic File Approved Paper Submission (System)Paper Receipts($25.00)Pass Audit?YYesGL Entry & UpdateEmployee Email NotificationProcess step1A applies to JAPA region (ABC & System)TEV Online InquiryCustomer ResponseOutputInput Processoccurs only in SSC 3; occurs only in SSC 1;occurs in the local marketoccurs in both SSC 3 & SSC 11.A Audit Data(at Local Market)6.0 Box Hard Copy ReceiptsNoProcess step 7.0 applies to all markets. For JAPA, 10% of receipts are audited. For EMEA, 100% of receipts are audited. For U.S, every 13th receipt, 100% of vouchers with imputed income and 100% of Senior Executives ( band 90) are audited.Process FlowProcess step1B applies to both JAPA and EMEA. Note that in EMEA data is 100% audited & in JAPA it is 10% audited.DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED5TEV:Process Financials$ thousandsLocation 1Location 2TotalLocation 1Location 2TotalRegular Payroll-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Temporary Payroll-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Benefits-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Salaries & Benefits-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Data Processing-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Occupancy & Equipment-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Telephone & Communication-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ T&E-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Other Operating Costs-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Direct Operating Cost-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ FC Overhead-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Other FC Overhead-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Technology Service Fees-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Other Svc Fees-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Indirect Costs-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Process Costs-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Regular staff- - - - - - Temporary/contract staff- - - - - - Total FTE- - - - - - 2003 Forecast2002 ActualsDRAFT CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED6Location 1 Location 2TotalLocation 1 Location 2TotalManual TEV62,878 16,581 79,459 73,100 58,370 131,470 Electronic TEV- 165,816 165,816 - 124,350 124,350 Total62,878 182,397 245,275 73,100 182,720 255,820 2003 Forecast2002 ActualTEV:Process VolumesDRAFT CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED7TEV:Process Benchmark Comparisons2003 FcstTotal90th%75th%50th%Total Cost as % of Revenue0.001%0.002%10.014% 10.065%1Loc 1Loc 2OverallMedianBest in ClassHighMediumLowCost to Pocess a T&E voucher6.01$ $6.51$6.38$9.38 3$1.29 $2 2$8.16 3$7.20 3$12.00 3HighMediumLow$11.16 3$13.83 3$22.21 32003 FcstLevel of Automation (Avg.)Level of Automation (Median) *BenchmarksBenchmarks*DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED8TEV:Loc 1Loc 2AvgHighMediumLowAvg.1.0 Audit DataT&E Vouchers With Errors10%NANAT&E Vouchers With Errors0.4% 30.9% 30.4% 3NA2.0 Enter Data% of TEVs (Electronic)0%91%68% of Companies using electronic TEVNANANA25% 43.0 Process Payment90th %75th%25th%Avg.3,69911,4007,433Number of TEVs Processed Per FTE48,000 518,360 51,596 59,255 64.0 Complete Accouting and ReconciliationDoes not maintain this metric and a suitable industry benchmark was not readily identified5.0 Scan Envelope With Bar CodeDoes not maintain this metric and a suitable industry benchmark was not readily identifiedLevel of AutomationBenchmarks2003 ForecastNumber of TEVs Processed Per FTEProcess Benchmark ComparisonsDRAFT CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED9TEV:Loc 1Loc 2Avg.Avg.HighLow6.0 Box Hard Copy ReceiptsDoes not maintain this metric and a suitable industry benchmark was not readily identified7.0 Audit Receipts% of receipts auditedEMEA - 100%JAPA - 10%8%Overall 25%Percentage of companies that audit all receipts54% 78.0 Process Customer InquiryOtherAverage time to process a TEVEMEA - 5 days JAPA 3 days5 daysNA3 days 814 days 82003 BudgetDoes not maintain this metric and a suitable industry benchmark was not readily identifiedBenchmarkLevel of AutomationProcess Benchmark ComparisonsDRAFT CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED10TEV:Leading PracticeIssue corporate cards to employees for travel expenses (with personal liability for the card), so that cash advances can be eliminated. Use standardized receipt submission envelopes so that upon receipt, the envelope can be bar-coded and linked to an electronic transaction. Require receipts for a reasonable materiality threshold that meet tax laws but also, minimizes bottlenecks. Observation at Diversified Financial InstitutionDiversified Financial Institution issues corporate cards to employees, directly reimbursing their account; liability for the card resides with the employeeShared Service Center 1 uses standardized bar coded envelopes. Shared Service Center 3 does not use standardized bar-coded envelopes for receipts, however, the corporate card statement is attached to the TEV and cash receipts are cross-referenced to the voucher.Shared Service Center 1, Diversified Financial Institution policy is to require receipts for all expenses greater than $25 for Shared Service Center 1. Shared Service Center 2, receipts required for every expenditure. LocationDiversified Financial InstitutionShared Service Center 2Shared Service Center 1Shared Service Center 2Shared Service Center 1Process Excellence ImplicationsAs the leading provider of Corporate Cards Diversified Financial Institution is leading the drive to expand usage of Corporate Card. Shared Service Center 1 is following leading practice. For regions serviced by the Shared Service Center 2, Diversified Financial Institution should consider mandating the use of standard receipt envelopesAlthough the IRS threshold for receipts is $75, Diversified Financial Institution, like many other companies, to control expenses uses a lower limit ($25) no changes recommended. For non US markets, where not constrained by local regulations/tax implications, consider implementing a minimum $25 receipt limit.RatingLeading Practice ReviewLow To None Low to MediumMedium to HighVery High123DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED11TEV:Leading PracticeImplement service level agreements (SLAs) with business partners to encourage timely processing of TEVs, i.e., must submit TEV within x days of traveling, receipts must be received within x days of submitting expenses. To ensure compliance a leading practice often seen is the use of penalties whereby expenses are reversed and deducted from employees if receipts are not received in a timely manner.Observation at Diversified Financial InstitutionPolicies in place governing timely submission of TEV and receipts.Shared Service Center 1, policies and a corporate card compliance team monitor for both personal use and timely submission (reflected in credit input rate). Non compliance reports are circulated to managers. Shared Service Center 2, uses a similar approach with monthly and quarterly reporting mechanismsLocationDiversified Financial InstitutionProcess Excellence ImplicationsDiversified Financial Institution is following the leading practice and appears to have a strong reporting mechanism.RatingImplement Expense Management Automation (EMA) software that automates the collection of data, review of expenses and disbursement of funds. Shared Service Center 1 serving the domestic US uses an EMA solution by Concur (XYZ). Markets and regions serviced by the Shared Service Center 2 use either paper TEVs, Excel or functionality incorporated into ABC (an in-house developed Procurement system). Solutions supported by the Shared Service Center 2 are not end-to-end EMA systems and tend to only target specific elements of the T&E process, i.e, submission and approvalShared Service Center 2Shared Service Center 1XYZ appears to have good functionality with strong “spend” controls built in. Diversified Financial Institution should consider rolling-out this standardized solution to other regions.Leading Practice ReviewLow To None Low to MediumMedium to HighVery High45DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED12TEV:Leading PracticeEstablish a self service employee portal so employees are able to view status of TEV submissions, make changes to TEV within limits and view T&E policy, etc.Use an integrated TEV system that includes scanning, document archiving and electronic document management technology.Observation at Diversified Financial InstitutionEmployees serviced by Shared Service Center 1 (XYZ ) can view TEV status (e.g processing, approval). Employees serviced by Shared Service Center 2 (ABC, System) have little to none self-serving ability.Shared Service Center 1 currently does not scan receipts (aside from Canada); however, it expects to have the process in place by Q2, 04. Shared Service Center 2 does not scan invoices.Shared Service Center 2, for Malaysia and Australia receipts are scanned locally (Scanning) and the images processed in the Shared Service Center 2. Other Shared Service Center 2 serviced markets do not use scanning technology for TEV.LocationShared Service Center 2Shared Service Center 1Shared Service Center 2Shared Service Center 1Process Excellence ImplicationsXYZ is in line with leading practices. Diversified Financial Institution should consider leveraging the self-service capabilities of this tool in markets/regions serviced by the Shared Service Center 2. Shared Service Center 1 is already in-line with leading practice as it relates to receipt management (2). As it progresses to receipt scanning, Shared Service Center 1 will gain even further process efficiency through the ease of electronic document archiving and management. Shared Service Center 2 should consider implementing similar systems/processes. RatingLeading Practice ReviewLow To None Low to MediumMedium to HighVery High67DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED13TEV:Leading PracticeImprove the quality, timeliness and level of detail in T&E reports. Allow on-line access to department managersReduce extent of in-depth checking of receipts. Leading practice companies use exception audits and “hot-lists” of a) common types of misuse/error and b) frequent abusers to control expensesObservation at Diversified Financial InstitutionThe XYZ system used at the Shared Service Center 1 has rich reporting functionality that the TEV department has used to identify control weaknesses and improve overall T&E expenses management. System functionality is a limiting factor for markets/regions serviced by the Shared Service Center 2. Primary reporting mechanism is the GLShared Service Center 1 audits 100% of TEV for senior executives (band 90 and above). For other employees a list of frequent T&E offenders is maintained. Shared Service Center 2 creates a monthly report of out-o-policy employees. A quarterly report on repeat offenders is distributed to management.LocationShared Service Center 2Shared Service Center 1Shared Service Center 2Shared Service Center 1Process ExcellenceFor markets using XYZ investigate opportunities to electronically distribute T&E reports to managers on a monthly basis. For markets/regions serviced by Shared Service Center 2 consider implementing XYZ system in medium term. Short term improvements maybe possible through the use of BU level T&E flash reports that highlight key problem areas.Shared Service Center 2 should consider maintaining a list of frequent T&E offenders. Better reports that supports identification of potential control weaknesses should be developed; consider leveraging specific best practices from Shared Service Center 1RatingLeading Practice ReviewLow To None Low to MediumMedium to HighVery High89DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED14TEV:Foot NoteSource1.0CGE&Y Rapid FX database June 20002.0“Automating Travel and Entertainment Expense Reporting” Conference Board 20003.0IOMAs 2003 AP Department Benchmarks and Analysis4.0“Harnessing the Power of T&E Outsourcing” Meta Group 20025.0IOMA 2001 AP Benchmarks6.0Hackett Benchmarking Study7.0Global T&E Expense Management Survey 20008.0Best Practices in Expense Management Automation 2003Benchmark Sources