This decision tree is part of the client SOP change adoption guide, which covers what to inventory before a client process transition. It answers one question for BPO transformation consultants: who inside the outsourcing company can say yes to a conversation about adoption history?
The BPO twist: whose procedure is it?
In most industries the hard part of authority is finding the executive. In business process outsourcing there is a second question first: is the record the vendor's at all? Many SOPs were written by the client, or adapted from client material under a services contract that limits reuse. Interaction data and QA samples usually relate to the client's customers. By contrast, the sign-off trail, the reviewer alignment method and the rollout playbook are often the vendor's own work.
So the tree below forks early on record origin, not only on job title. A consultant who has worked inside the knowledge base or QA platform will know where the records sit. That helps describe them; it does not settle who may license them. The guide on whether an outsourcing vendor can share client data and the client-owned vs company-owned rights map explain the line in more depth.
Walk the tree from contact to signer
Work through the questions in order. The graphic shows the same tree from the record holders at the top to the signer at the bottom.
- Who do you talk to now? Usually a knowledge manager, a training lead or a quality manager. Ask: who owns the rollout of client changes across accounts? The answer is the delivery director or head of operations.
- Will the delivery director convene? Ask whether they would sponsor an internal conversation about the company's change adoption history. If no, stop; the conversation has no owner.
- Which accounts are in question? List them by industry, not by client name. For each, note whether a transition, renewal or exit is scheduled.
- Is each record class client-derived or BPO-owned? Client SOP text and interaction data go to the counsel branch. Agent sign-off logs, reviewer alignment notes and internal playbooks continue down the main path, still subject to counsel's view of each contract.
- Who approves? The CEO (in an owner-run BPO, usually the owner), with general counsel or the contracts lead advising. Add a parent company or fund sponsor if it holds approval rights.
The introduction is ready when you have a named convener and a named approver.
Roles and what each can and cannot decide
| Role | What they know | Can they authorize a licensing discussion? |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge manager | SOP versions, change notes, which tool holds them | No; describes coverage and history |
| Training lead | Acknowledgment logs by agent, team and version | No; describes what was recorded and from when |
| Quality manager | QA reviews, scorecard versions, reviewer alignment notes | No; describes review history and export limits |
| Delivery director | Accounts, teams, transition dates, client contacts | Usually not alone; the right convener |
| General counsel or contracts lead | Data and reuse clauses in each services contract | Advises; the gate for client-derived records |
| CEO, or the owner in an owner-run firm | Company commitments and agreements | Yes, with counsel's view per contract |
Tool features shape what the leads can describe, not who decides. Guru, for example, lets a sender export who acknowledged an announcement, and Zendesk QA review data exports through an API. Those are facts for the inventory. The decision belongs further down the tree.
Guru
Zendesk QARecords that need counsel or the client's consent
Four record classes trigger the side branch:
- Client-written SOP text. Often the client's content under the services contract. The vendor's change notes and version history may be separable; counsel decides.
- Interaction data and QA samples. Calls, chats and transcripts relate to the client's customers. Many discussions begin without them.
- Agent-level records. Agent sign-offs and QA reviews name agents or carry agent IDs. Where EU law applies, personal data includes information that identifies a person by name or identification number, so counsel and the privacy owner join the call. That shapes de-identification; it does not end the conversation.
- Records from exited clients. Exit clauses may require return or deletion. Check before anyone describes them as available.
Flag each that applies in the referral brief template, so the rights review starts in the right place.
Two Illustrative accounts, two paths
Both are fictional, built for this page; neither is a real client or a completed deal.
| Step | Account 1: client wrote the SOPs | Account 2: BPO wrote the SOPs under a managed service |
|---|---|---|
| First contact | Quality manager | Knowledge manager |
| Convener | Delivery director | Delivery director |
| Record origin | Client SOP text; BPO agent sign-offs and reviewer alignment | BPO SOPs, agent sign-offs and reviewer alignment |
| Side branch | SOP text and QA samples to counsel and client consent | Agent-level records to counsel for de-identification |
| Approver | CEO with counsel, and the client's written consent for client content | CEO with counsel |
Account 2 is the cleaner case for a licensing discussion. Account 1 may still offer the vendor's own adoption trail even if the procedure text stays out. In both, volumes and years can be described from reports; the system map shows which reports to ask for.
What only SourceX's rights review can settle
Rights, scope, de-identification, SourceX's current data needs and any offer all stay open until SourceX reviews the records. Why data rights matter explains why that review comes before any promise. The SOP data-type page and AI agent adoption statistics give background for the conversation with the delivery director.
The introduced company needs 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), documented operating history, rights to license and an authorized contact. Companies in the U.S., Canada and the EU qualify, as do companies in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore, South Africa, Latin America, the UAE and Saudi Arabia when at least 70% of the data is in English. Partners sign the Channel Partner Agreement before submitting; the first valid introduction within the 90-day window is credited when the company submits a verified application, and one partner is credited per company.
Next step
Refer a company. No cap on rewards. Default reward on a company's first qualifying transaction: the greater of $50,000 plus 5% and 15% of Actual Supplier Payout, with no cap; further qualifying transactions first agreed within 12 months of the first Closing pay 15%. Eligibility and payment conditions apply, including the USD 100,000 Minimum Transaction, and a signed Schedule A or addendum can differ. A lead, meeting or signature alone does not trigger payment.
When the delivery director has agreed to convene and to bring in the CEO, who can approve, register as a partner, confirm the company on who qualifies and read the program terms before making the introduction.