برون سپاری فرایند دانش در خدمات مالی :: از دیدگاه فروشنده

This research reports the findings from a study on nine knowledge process outsourcing (KPO) vendors working in the financial services industry. It delineates financial business processes along a low to high-end continuum. Findings suggest that KPO vendors are gradually moving along the value pathway offering more complex intellectual value activity based products and services to clients. However, they face many challenges including gaining the confidence of potential clients about outsourcing knowledge-intensive work, and finding effective solutions to mitigate outsourcing risk. Our paper concludes by developing a taxonomy of KPO scenarios to provide a backdrop for further academic research and to illustrate current practice.

The knowledge process outsourcing (KPO) industry is built around a demand for business intelligence and expertise and is expected to grow from a $1.2 billion industry (at a compounded annual growth rate of 46%) expected to rise to $17 billion by 2010. Around $12 billion of the market is estimated to be outsourced to India (Evalueserve Report, 2004). Similarly, the National Association of Software and Service Companies of India. NASSCOM, predict the KPO sector in India to reach $15.5billion by 2010 (Sathe, 2006). Other countries such as China, Russia, Mexico, and Israel are also expected to become large players in this growing market (Larkey, 2006). While predictions about the market for KPO seem optimistic, an identifiable gap exists between the prospective KPO market size and senior executive knowledge about the scale and scope of KPO vendor products and services. This paper reports the findings from an exploratory-descriptive case study analysis of nine KPO vendors working for clients in the financial services industry. It aims to compile a contemporary picture of the spectrum of KPO work. Based upon our empirical data, a conceptual model is developed which identifies 19 financial services business processes using a value pathway analysis, with KPO vendors targeting their offerings at the higher end. Our data suggests that whereas some processes at the middle of the continuum might be regarded as KPO by some vendors, e.g. insurance claims processing, others see this as simply a rule-based activity with little knowledge-based content and low profits. So until there is a generally accepted definition for knowledge processes that enables a differentiation between transaction and knowledge processes, we suggest that publications regarding KPO market and financial size should be treated with some caution. As a precursor for further work, our study suggests that financial business processes need to be classified according to their knowledge-intensity to assist prospective clients of KPO in their evaluation of vendors.

This study of nine KPO vendors provides an overview of the opportunities and risks facing this emerging market, which is a variant of the global IT outsourcing industry. As our data suggest, the gap between KPO vendors is large, with the captive units, BPO extenders and some pure-play KPO vendors able to take on large amounts of KPO work, whereas the smaller vendors are likely to remain either niche-players or providers of discrete KPO services within the financial services sector. By delineating 19 types of financial industry processes, we draw a distinction between knowledge processes and transaction processes. This is by virtue of their innate knowledge, critical decision-making, design elements and analysis. Our definition of KPO is validated through our interviews with vendor firms. From our primary and secondary source data, we develop a taxonomy of KPO scenarios. We find that captive units, BPO extenders and some KPO pure-plays are moving along the value pathway by building on their IT outsourcing portfolio of knowledge-based products and services. Although the captive units are a hybrid of both vendors and clients, they share with the BPO extenders and KPO pure-plays a desire to increase their value added products and services to clients. This differs from the professional knowledge taskers and knowledge builders, who offer specific KPO work, often to only a few clients. In conclusion, if KPO vendors gradually move along the value pathway by taking on knowledge-intensive work, it is likely that new metrics and measures for risk identification and mitigation will be required. While many are likely to be qualitative, or judgement-based, in line with the type of work being outsourced, we predict this is likely to sit uncomfortably with the desire to seek hard, quantifiable measures. For KPO to succeed, vendors will need to focus upon building their brand, quality, and customer relationships. It is also expected that they will increasingly share in the risks (and rewards) of KPO, particularly as protecting knowledge assets will be of primary importance to client firms.