Lets assume the client has shared the following volumetric and requested the service provider to bid for the Application maintenance deal:
Guiding factors:
Utilization % | 60% |
Call Data Period | 1 Month |
Call Characteristics:
Domain | Technology | Sev 1 | Sev 2 | Sev 3 |
Billing Application | Java | 3 | 15 | 13 |
Customer Care | .Net | 5 | 10 | 28 |
Required SLA:
|
| in Minutes |
|
|
|
| Availability | Response Time | Resolution Time | Actual Resolution time (Billing) | Actual Resolution time (Customer Care) |
Sev 1 | 24/7 | 5 | 60 | 45 | 60 |
Sev 2 | 8/5 | 15 | 240 | 160 | 173 |
Sev 3 | 8/5 | 120 | 480 | 300 | 390 |
Based on the above details we can apply the step-wise resolution step to shape the deal:
Step 1: Assuming that the demand is even and the incoming calls has a poisson distribution, the l
Since Sev 1 calls are 24/7 availability we are assuming the pattern is evenly spread over 24 hrs, 30 days and 60 minutes and l for sev 1 is Number of calls/(24*30*60)
| Sev 1 | Sev 2 | Sev 3 |
Billing Application | 0.0001 | 0.0016 | 0.0014 |
Customer Care | 0.0001 | 0.0010 | 0.0029 |
Step 2: Assuming the service rate is an exponential distribution, the m
Service rate = 1/(Actual resolution time in minutes)
| Sev 1 | Sev 2 | Sev 3 |
Billing Application | 0.0222 | 0.0063 | 0.0033 |
Customer Care | 0.0167 | 0.0058 | 0.0026 |
Step 3: The number of resources for each domain, the r
| Sev 1 | Sev 2 | Sev 3 | Total | # of resource |
Billing Application | 0.0052 | 0.4167 | 0.6771 | 1.0990 | 2 |
Customer Care | 0.0116 | 0.3003 | 1.8958 | 2.2078 | 3 |
Step 4: The deal optimization based on the above characteristics can be illustrated as follows:
Lets’ assume the following assumptions:
1. We consider 2 locations US and India for this deal
2. We assume there are no shift requirements and the support will be on-call basis
3. There is only 2 levels in workforce: Software engineer and System Analyst
4. The cost for onshore-offshore is as identified in the following table:
| All figures in USD per Hour | |
| India | US |
System Analyst | 21 | 65 |
Software engineer | 19 | 60 |
5. Lets assume the pyramid definition is as follows:
|
|
|
|
| India | US | Engagement Pyramid |
System Analyst | 5% | 95% | 10% |
Software engineer | 95% | 5% |
90% |
The objective function can be laid out as follows:
Min XonshoreConshore, System AnalystROnshore,System Analyst + XonshoreConshore, Software Engineer ROnshore,Software Engineer +XOffshoreCOffshore, System AnalystROffshore,System Analyst + XoffshoreCoffshore, Software Engineer ROffshore,Software Engineer
Based on the above equation we can represent it as follows:
Min Xonshore*65*ROnshore,System Analyst + Xonshore*60*ROnshore,Software Engineer +XOffshore*21*ROffshore,System Analyst + Xoffshore*19* ROffshore,Software Engineer
The constraint for this is defined as follows:
ROnshore,System Analyst + ROnshore,Software Engineer <= 5*Xonshore
ROffshore,System Analyst + ROffshore,Software Engineer <= 5*Xoffshore
ROnshore,System Analyst+ ROffshore,System Analyst <= 0.5
ROnshore,Software Engineer+ ROffshore,Software Engineer <= 4.5
Xonshore + Xoffshore = 1
Xoffshore - Xonshore >= 0
Any Optimization engineer will be able to solve the above equation using a tool to arrive at the optimal deal parameters. We did the above and identified the following optimal function.
The above is an approach 1 for constraint model for outsourcing deal.....how do we do this in approach 2? What are the limitations of the above model?
We'll revisit these issues later...any ideas and recommendations....
No comments:
Post a Comment