Author: AkshayPandita

Strong Performance in US GBS Model Expected to Continue in 2021 | Blog

New Market Report Shows Digital Services Among Trends Driving GBS Growth

Despite the massive spread of COVID-19 across the US, the Global Business Services (GBS) model continued to grow in this market in 2020, demonstrating that the model, in its many different forms, continues to be integral to enterprise sourcing strategy.

Building on the success over the last two to three decades, GBS organizations diversified extensively and experienced growth in new verticals (such as healthcare and life sciences) and functions (such as legal, R&D, and digital).

Everest Group’s US Global Business Services Market Report provides an extensive assessment of the US GBS landscape and adoption trends, along with a deep dive into the trends leading to increased onshoring in the recent past. The report is based on Everest Group’s proprietary GBS database of more than 5,000 GBS centers.

Among the compelling findings detailed in the research are:

  1. GBS organizations are embracing digital transformation

Both the outsourcing and GBS models continued to grow in the US in 2020, with more than 40 new GBS centers in the first three quarters. However, the pace of growth and new setups were relatively lower than the prior year. Some of the new GBS center setups in 2020 include Amazon, Denso, JP Morgan, and General Motors, to name just a few.

While traditionally, organizations have used US-based GBS organizations for customer care and back-office work, a focus on engineering and R&D (ER&D) and digital services have driven new setups in recent years. Enterprises are increasingly leveraging US-based GBS organizations to build digital hubs, especially for automation, AI, and analytics, with more than 45 percent of the setups in 2020 focused on delivering digital services. This is driven by a couple of factors. First, onshore locations can provide access to high-end talent for innovation and R&D and facilitate closer integration with business stakeholders. Secondly, resiliency shown by GBS organizations during the crisis has increased enterprises’ confidence.

This image illuminates how GBS markets are steadily moving toward digital transformation.

Picture1

  1. New adopters are driving GBS growth

Surprisingly, the majority of the new GBS setups in the US in the past years were driven by new adopters of the GBS model. This continued in 2020, with more than 70 percent of the new setups by first-time implementers. The growing maturity of the GBS model, success demonstrated by peers, and decreasing obstacles related to transitions, and legal and regulatory environments have enabled new firms to move to the GBS model.

  1. US locations are attractive for GBS

The technology and communication verticals continue to dominate the GBS market in the US, accounting for more than one-third of the total activity. This is followed by manufacturing, which has experienced a significant increase in the share of total setups.

Historically, approximately 90 percent of firms have preferred non-tier-1 locations for GBS set up given attractive cost-talent proposition (within the US) and proximity to select industries. This continued in 2020, with tier-3/4 locations accounting for about 60 percent of new setups. Key tier-3/4 locations include Austin and Pittsburgh.

Positive Trends Emerge for Onshoring   

Traditionally, key factors driving enterprises towards onshoring, especially in the US, have been ease of setup, the proximity of CS services with business and customers, and a familiar operating environment. However, in recent times, the following new drivers have emerged that will continue to contribute to a spike in GBS in the US going forward:

  • Rising demand for digital services – Enterprises are rethinking the role of onshore GBS to build and drive capabilities required to fulfill the demand for digital services
  • Tightening regulatory environment – Tightening regulatory environment (in certain verticals), increased trade protectionism, and rising stringency of visa norms have led to a recent increase in onshore center setups
  • COVID-19-led disruption – While the resiliency shown by GBS organizations during the crisis has increased enterprises’ confidence, they also need to ensure greater control and proximity and reduce their offshore concentration to diversify their risk portfolio

 

Explore the complete details of the US Global Business Services Market Report by downloading the full report here.

GBS Talent and Skilling Strategies for 2021 and Beyond: A Pinnacle Model® Study | Blog

Take the Study

Global Business Services (GBS) organizations have positioned themselves as valuable partners of the enterprise, driving enterprises’ top priorities and aligning with overarching objectives. Currently, GBS organizations are evolving to become global talent hubs that house deep-domain expertise and next-generation skills for enterprises. However, with the pace of technology adoption intensifying, it’s becoming more challenging to find talent that can fill next-generation positions.

GBS organizations need a robust, futuristic skilling strategy and will want to take steps to hire talent and educate, train, upskill, and reskill their current workforce to fill these necessary roles. The below image illustrates talent-related issues that are arising for GBS organizations.

GBS talent-related challenges

Getting on the right path with a future-ready workforce

To deliver maximum value, GBS organizations should begin to strategize how to bring in next-generation talent and deliver development opportunities to advance current employees’ abilities and skills. With future-ready talent, GBS organizations will bring even more value to the table, encouraging enterprises to view them as operating units with increased leadership contributions and less as helpers. Having the right talent could also lead to expanding into additional areas in which GBS can be more involved and entrenched with enterprise strategy and decision-making.

Further, skilled talent will provide a competitive advantage for GBS organizations, with the most success coming from those that have invested heavily in their employees’ skills and competencies. Enhancing skills within the workforce will be key to augmenting strengths and differentiators for the GBS model in 2021 and beyond.

Talent strategy focus areas

There are a few specific areas where GBS organizations can adapt when it comes to acquiring talent and advancing current workforce skills, including:

  • Enhancing brand perception in the talent market
  • Utilizing out-of-the-box talent acquisition methods
  • Offering learning and development (L&D) and talent reskilling and upskilling

GBS organizations that are proactive with their talent strategies, open to adopting new tactics, and not tethered to traditional methods are among those that may see the most success.

Enhancing brand perception in the talent market

With access to high-skill capabilities being a top priority for GBS organizations in 2021, there are expected changes to GBS talent-related performance metrics, including a higher bar for quickly finding and hiring talent. Turning to non-traditional methods to catch attention is becoming more common. One of the most effective approaches is a stronger social media presence to boost brand awareness and to be viewed as a desirable place to work. Hiring strategies now include being active in niche group conversations on social media and using hashtags to get in front of the right crowds.

Out-of-the-box talent acquisition methods

GBS organizations are searching out a variety of ways to find talent. Some have found success by hiring talent with specific skills from alternative and adjacent industries. There is also a different approach when it comes to reaching junior-level talent. Organizations are partnering with educational institutions, not just to offer internships, but to co-develop classes and implement projects like campus ambassador programs and hackathons. This gives the student an opportunity to get to know the organization and develop relationships with employees. One other method of attaining niche talent is through acquihiring, where a company will acquire another company, primarily for the skills of the staff.

L&D and talent reskilling and upskilling

As GBS organizations strive to deliver higher-value and multi-function services, they will not only need to find the talent, but work to keep that talent. This could be carried out by incorporating career paths and L&D opportunities, so talent stays trained and relevant on new skills. Many organizations are developing in-house learning for employees through gamification-based programs, making learning fun and improving employee engagement. Another method taking shape is peer-to-peer learning, where employees can come together to be innovative and learn from each other.

By creating a culture of learning, investing in talent, and helping the workforce to continually develop skills, GBS organizations can create a cycle of upskilling and reskilling, which could ultimately close the talent shortage gap for good.

The 2021 Pinnacle Model study for skilling strategies in GBS organizations

To discover more about talent and skilling strategies within GBS organizations, Everest Group and The Conference Board have developed the 2021 Pinnacle Model study. The research accumulated from the study will narrow down future skilling and talent strategies and provide valuable insights around best-in-class, or Pinnacle, skilling strategies in leading GBS organizations based on our proprietary Pinnacle Model framework.

How will this research help you?

By contributing to this study, you will learn how your peers – and the best of the best – are designing and implementing their skilling strategies. We will share a complimentary summary analysis of the survey results highlighting how your organization compares against peer groups with respect to capabilities created and business outcomes achieved.

Take the Study

New India Department of Telecom (DoT) Guidelines for Remote Delivery Are a Game Changer | Blog

One of the key factors that has helped maintain service delivery levels in India – even during the peak of the COVID-19 lockdown – has been the government’s temporary relaxation of various legal, regulatory, and compliance frameworks to allow remote delivery via a Work From Home (WFH) model. In an effort to continue to increase the ease of doing business, especially with a remote workforce model, India’s Department of Telecom (DoT) has issued new guidelines for the IT-business process (BP) industry.

These guidelines should significantly reduce obstacles for companies adopting a WFH delivery model. In the post-COVID-19 era, scaled WFH adoption will be inevitable for IT-BP organizations as we highlighted in our previous blog.  In our conversations with industry stakeholders, organizations have called out uncertainties around long-term legal and regulatory support to WFH as a key challenge to sustainable and scaled adoption. The new guidelines can be the steppingstone to assuaging some key business concerns, making these organizations truly bullish on WFH adoption.

The new guidelines allow IT-BP companies in India to use a “Work From Home (WFH) facility” to deliver global services as an “International OSP” (other service providers) for a period of three years (with provisions for further extensions). Provisions within the new guidelines that will make it easier for companies to adopt the WFH model include:

  • Freedom to set up remote centers anywhere in India: This allowance supersedes various local restrictions and empowers companies to hire and operationalize employees independent of their current/future location
  • Clearer legal status for WFH employees: This provision treats WFH roles as extended / remote agent positions with rights and responsibilities better demarcated than before, effectively treating employees’ home offices as extensions of the organization’s office, easing regulatory and security hurdles to access data outside office premises
  • Relaxed registration and financial requirements: Eased restrictions include the removal of the lengthy registration process and a bank guarantee to set up a facility
  • Reduced reporting burden: The new guidelines offer more streamlined and less stringent regulatory and compliance reporting obligations for organizations
  • Relaxed tech and infrastructure requirements: These changes include the relaxation of technology and connectivity infrastructure requirements to enable WFH, as well as the easing of the requirement on static IPs and pre-defined locations-based networks

The intention behind the changes is to remove the unnecessary bureaucratic restrictions that were preventing organizations from exploring the full potential of WFH. Beyond some of these relaxations, there are provisions to retain security-related obligations to protect against unlawful content and usage, for example, empowering organizations to set up their own security mechanisms. These guidelines balance the key trade-off that organizations need to contemplate when they consider integrating WFH in the delivery model: the feasibility/ease of remote delivery versus the additional risk assumed when moving work from the office to employees’ homes. We expect these changes to be a win-win-win situation for IT-BP organizations, employees, and the overall India delivery market.

For IT-BP organizations, beyond reducing the compliance burden, these guidelines will:

  • Expand their access within the talent market, as they can hire the best-fit talent regardless of location
  • Increase access to new talent pools; for example, they can hire talent from tier-2 cities without setting up new physical offices (pre-COVID-19, 75-85% of IT-BP employees worked out of tier-1 locations, with a vast majority of them having migrated from non-tier-1 locations)
  • Drive a next wave of cost optimization. Refer to our playbook for details on the business case of WFH adoption

For remote employees, these guidelines will strengthen their rights, lay the foundation for the legal status of WFH in India’s labor laws, and ease concerns relating to health and safety in the workplace.

With various countries still struggling to ease remote delivery, we expect India’s overall competitiveness to improve (especially for organizations that are bullish on the WFH model), push growth and job creation in non-tier 1 location, and improve the overall ease of doing business.

All of this is likely to result in greater efficiency in the service delivery model by removing restrictions that allow a desirable level of WFH model adoption. A recent Everest Group survey found that adoption of WFH (complete WFH or hybrid) within India based IT-BP players will be significantly higher (65-75% FTE equivalent) than pre-COVID (less than 10% FTE equivalent), but lower than the adoption rate at the peak of the COVID-19 lockdown (80-90% FTE equivalent).

These are all welcome changes. However, it is important to understand the limits of these guidelines in pushing sustainable and scalable WFH adoption. Beyond the domain of the DoT, there are various other regulatory and compliance bodies that need to make similar forward-looking policies. For instance, there are still uncertainties related to:

  • Labor laws for WFH employees: WFH-specific regulations within India’s labor laws still do not give official status to WFH, creating uncertainties around various employee benefits and rights
  • Tax regulations: Tax incentives and deductions for employers/employees remain unclear
  • Free trade zone-related regulations: Most of India’s IT-BP organizations are based in Special
    Economic Zones or software technology parks. There is still no long-term view on temporary relaxation on import duty and mobility across these zones

We continue to track this market and expect many of these uncertainties to clear up soon. Be sure to look for updates from us soon.

If you have any questions or comments on the WFH model, reach out to Akshay Pandita.

 

Is Your GBS Organization Ready for IT Infrastructure Evolution to Enable Business Transformation? | Blog

A sustained focus on digital, agility, and advanced technologies is likely to prepare enterprises for the future, especially following COVID-19. Many enterprise leaders consider IT infrastructure to be the bedrock of business transformation at a time when the service delivery model has become more virtual and cloud based. This reality presents an opportunity for GBS organizations that deliver IT infrastructure services to rethink their long-term strategies to enhance their capabilities, thereby strengthening their value propositions for their enterprises.

GBS setups with strong IT infra capabilities can lead enterprise transformation

Over the past few years, several GBS organizations have built and strengthened capabilities across a wide range of IT infrastructure services. Best-in-class GBS setups have achieved significant scale and penetration for IT infrastructure delivery and now support a wide range of functions – such as cloud migration and transformation, desktop support and virtualization, and service desk – with high maturity. In fact, some centers have scaled as high as 250-300 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) and 35-45% penetration.

At the same time, these organizations are fraught with legacy issues that need to be addressed to unlock full value. Our research reveals that most enterprises believe that their GBS’ current IT infrastructure services model is not ready to cater to the digital capabilities necessary for targeted transformation. Only GBS organizations that evolve and strengthen their IT infrastructure capabilities will be well positioned to extend their support to newer or more enhanced IT infrastructure services delivery.

The need for an IT infrastructure revolution and what it will take

The push to transform IT infrastructure in GBS setups should be driven by a business-centric approach to global business services. To enable this shift, GBS organizations should consider a new model for IT infrastructure that focuses on improving business metrics instead of pre-defined IT Service Line Agreements (SLA) and Total Cost of Operations (TCO) management. IT infrastructure must be able to support changes ushered in by rapid device proliferation, technology disruptions, business expansions, and escalating cost pressures post-COVID-19 to showcase sustained value.

To transition to this IT infrastructure state, GBS organizations must proactively start to identify skills that have a high likelihood of being replaced / becoming obsolete, as well as emerging skills. They must also prioritize emerging skills that have a higher reskilling/upskilling potential. These goals can be achieved through a comprehensive program that proactively builds capabilities in IT services delivery.

In the exhibit below, we highlight the shelf life of basic IT services skills by comparing the upskilling/reskilling potential of IT services skills with their expected extent of replacement.

Exhibit: Analysis of the shelf life of basic IT services skills

Analysis of the shelf life of basic IT services skills

In the near future, GBS organizations should leverage Artificial Intelligence (AI), analytics, and automation to further revolutionize their IT capabilities. The end goal is to transition to a self-healing, self-configuring system that can dynamically and autonomously adapt to changing business needs, thereby creating an invisible IT infrastructure model. This invisible IT infrastructure will be highly secure, require minimal oversight, function across stacks, and continuously evolve with changing business needs. By leveraging an automation-, analytics-, and AI-led delivery of infrastructure, operations, and services management, GBS organizations can truly enable enterprises to make decisions based on business imperatives.

If you’d like to know more about the key business transformation trends for enterprises in  IT infrastructure, do read our report Exploring the Enterprise Journey Towards “Invisible” IT Infrastructure or reach out to us at [email protected] or [email protected].

Understanding the Commercial Construct of a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Model for Your Global Business Services | Blog

Transformation has become an imperative for all industries, more so during the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. A majority of our clients have highlighted the increasing pressure to manage their margins and balance their long-term vision and strategy with short-term needs in a post-COVID-19 landscape. One way for enterprises to achieve this objective is by re-assessing the setup model for their future Global Business Services (GBS) centers.

This blog focuses on one such setup option – Build Operate Transfer (BOT) – and its commercial underpinnings. In these uncertain times, BOT seems to be an especially relevant option, as it offers the unique advantage of lower short-term investment and a better long-term business re-prioritization opportunity. But only if the price is right.

Let’s take a closer look.

Can BOT be your business’ panacea?

In a BOT sourcing model, an enterprise can partner with a third-party service provider to build a delivery center (which includes investing capital, leasing the facility, and sourcing talent), operate it for a pre-defined period (based on the operational agreement), and allow the enterprise the option to transfer the center back to itself. The model helps avoid upfront capital investment, reduces operational risk, limits the burden of managerial and operational oversight, promotes new capabilities, and expedites speed-to-market. As it comes with an exit option, enterprises can also test the model without fully committing to it.

In fact, as part of a recent engagement, we helped a global technology firm assess the best-fit setup option for its GBS center in India. The firm opted for BOT, preferring to partner with a local service provider to reduce financial and operational uncertainties. While the BOT model’s benefits were evident from the start, a key learning from the engagement was that these benefits come at a relatively high cost. Thus, understanding the price tag is key before committing to the model.

Understanding the costs involved

While the key cost components of a BOT model can vary based on the specifics of the service contract, we outline below standard commercial practices prevalent in the market across the build, operate, and transfer stages.

In the build phase, the enterprise is either not required to invest or invests a limited amount, and vendors typically provide most of the upfront investment. In most cases, the service contract stipulates that the service provider’s investment includes setting up the facility (which includes both real estate and technology infrastructure), establishing the hiring mechanism, and laying the ground for services delivery. The service provider recovers this investment in the next two stages.

In the operate phase, the service provider charges the enterprise an ongoing fee to meet all operating expenses and day-to-day operations and to track and maintain pre-determined Service Line Agreements (SLAs). The ongoing fee includes the service provider’s margins, which are typically 2-5% higher than those in a pure outsourcing construct. The additional margin is often dependent on the scope, scale, and nature of services, the service provider profile, extent of initial investment, and lock-in period.

In the transfer phase, the service provider typically charges the enterprise a one-time transfer fee, which could vary widely – 20-30% in some cases – based on other contractual agreements, in lieu of transferring back all services and procured assets. Typically, this fee is charged as a percentage of the ongoing annual fee in the build phase, and an enterprise can pre-determine this percentage in the service contract. Beyond this, if rebadging is required, the service provider charges the enterprise a one-time transfer fee to give up employer rights on resources that are successfully rebadged.

Considering these cost elements, a BOT construct can be about 15-30% more expensive than a de novo / fully owned GBS model. Hence, each enterprise needs to consider the cost-benefit trade-off when selecting a suitable setup option for itself.

Making the move

When evaluating future GBS setups, we urge enterprises to be mindful about the overall business case and assess both the financial and non-financial aspects of the setup model. Doing so will help them understand both the costs involved and associated benefits. Our research strongly suggests that enterprises are likely to find a robust business case for the BOT model to navigate these uncertain times.

Are you looking to understand whether the BOT model would be suitable for your next GBS setup? Connect with us at [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]

Scaled Work From Home Inevitable for GBS Organizations Following COVID-19 | Blog

GBS organizations have traditionally been reluctant to adopt work from home

Before COVID-19, most Global Business Services (GBS) organizations have been reluctant to adopt a Work From Home (WFH) delivery model, viewing it as hard to govern and only relevant for a few work types and employees. As a result, organizations primarily used WFH for Business Continuity Planning (BCP) purposes – and with less than 5% of organizations deploying WFH at any scale (i.e., 20-50% of the workforce working from home), there was limited/no focus on building an enabling ecosystem to support remote working.

COVID-19 has redefined the art of the possible

COVID-19 led to widescale (and forced) adoption of WFH in GBS organizations across verticals and geographies, as organizations were compelled to scale up WFH quickly to ensure operational continuity and prevent large-scale absenteeism. After initial challenges to ensure home infrastructures were optimal, robust, safe, and compliant with service delivery standards/regulations, most GBS organizations found that productivity did not suffer. In fact, several organizations have reported productivity gains, though the volume of these gains remains debatable. As of May 2020, more than 90% of GBS organizations were delivering services in a WFH model. COVID-19 has redefined what’s possible, truly changing global leaders’ view of WFH, as Exhibit 1 shows.

Exhibit 1: Blueprint for scaled WFH adoption in GBS – the next normal

001

When we find ourselves on the other side of this pandemic, there will be a growing appetite for more WFH adoption, with many organizations considering it a permanent model. Leading organizations, including Facebook, Google, Microsoft, TCS, and HCL, have already announced plans to adopt WFH. We expect WFH to emerge as an imperative for GBS organizations, with more than 30-40% of GBS organizations adopting scaled WFH even after lockdown restrictions are lifted.

WFH – a strategic lever for GBS to evolve delivery and operating models

Even when there is no pandemic or other external threat forcing organizations to engage a WFH model, there is a strong business case to scale it. Our assessment shows that WFH can help drive significant GBS operating cost savings (anywhere from 5-15%), improve the talent model, lower risk in the location portfolio, strengthen the GBS value proposition, and provide societal and environmental benefits, as highlighted in Exhibit 2.

Exhibit 2: Business case for WFH

002

Adopting a WFH model can drive the next wave of cost optimization for GBS. WFH can directly impact and reduce costs related to real estate infrastructure, transportation, and consumption. WFH can also reduce people-related costs by lowering attrition and increasing employee productivity. To support these gains, GBS organizations would have to invest in technology-related infrastructure such as equipment, tools, platforms, and technologies. Detailed Everest Group analysis indicates that GBS organizations can save up to 15% of their annual operating cost with 50% of the workforce working from home. They can further increase savings potential by:

  • Increasing process standardization;
  • Reducing permanent real estate;
  • Increasing cloud adoption;
  • Creating remote sites in low-cost locations;
  • Employing automation; and,
  • Using digital collaboration tools.

WFH can help GBS organizations improve talent acquisition and engagement. For the current workforce, WFH can improve GBS employee retention, improve employee productivity due to reduced stress (such as eliminating the commute) and office-based distractions, and help strengthen branding as a socially conscious organization. For the future workforce, WFH allows the GBS organization to improve the speed and effectiveness of talent acquisition, accessing talent far from its physical site locations, as well as by leveraging the gig economy.

Beyond these benefits, WFH reduces GBS concentration risk without necessitating a change in locations portfolio. Some GBS model features, such as greater control and governance, better protection of IP and domain knowledge, and ease in driving long-term transformation, may be better suited to the WFH model. Thus, GBS organizations can leverage adoption WFH to further strengthen their value proposition to their parent enterprises.

Such a strong business case seems to indicate that WFH is a win-win-win for enterprises, GBS organizations, and the workforce. As a result, it seems inevitable that WFH will become an integral part of the services delivery model.

However, before scaling WFH, organizations must understand the interplay of various decision drivers to determine overall potential to scale it. WFH adoption does not come without challenges, such as its implications for employee development and expectations, social capital, leadership development programs, the role of front-line managers, and work-life balance. Further, there are several regulatory aspects – such as data security, labor and employment laws, SEZ norms, and current limitations of the Shops and Establishment Act or telecom departments – that may hinder scaled WFH. Stay tuned – we will cover these aspects in our subsequent blogs.

For more details on this topic, see our “Playbook: Integrating Work From Home in the Global Business Services (GBS) Delivery Model.” Or reach out to us with your perspectives and experiences, write to us at [email protected] and [email protected].

What’s the Best Structure for Your Shared Services Innovation Team? | Blog

As we presented in a recent blog, shared services centers (SSCs) – or what we refer to as Global In-House Centers (GICs) – must create their own innovation team to support their parent enterprises’ innovation agenda. But how should you structure your team to yield the desired outcomes?

Innovation maturity and mandate

You should start by determining your SSC’s innovation maturity and mandate. The maturity is determined by the strength of your existing internal capabilities, including talent, technology, and culture; the involvement and support you require from leadership; the primary focus area of the innovation, e.g., generate revenue, reduce costs, or mitigate risks; and the impact generated by your innovation initiatives e.g., dollar value of costs saved or revenues generated.

The innovation mandate is outlined by the level of ownership and visibility for innovation initiatives; the extent of cross-collaboration between business units / functional teams; and overall alignment of your SSC with the parent enterprise’s structure and business model.

Once you’re armed with that information, you can select one of the three SSC, or GIC, innovation team structures most prevalent today, based on the guidelines we present below.

Types of SSC innovation team structures

SSCs with low-to-medium maturity and innovation mandate

If this describes your SSC, you’ll do best with a centralized structure in which your parent enterprise drives the innovation and you have limited involvement. This structure allows the parent company to have greater control and ownership, and prevents the GIC’s low maturity from being an obstacle. Many organizations prefer this structure, as it enables faster implementation of enterprise-wide and business model-related innovations, promotes standardization, and improves governance of innovation initiatives. However, many SSCs are reluctant to operate in this structure, as it presents limited opportunities for them to breed an in-house culture of innovation and deliver higher-level transformational value.

SSCs with moderate-to-high maturity and innovation mandate in a specific domain

The best fit for these SSCs is a business unit-or functional team-led innovation structure. This allows the parent enterprise to adopt a decentralized innovation approach, enable direct communication and visibility between the SSC and business unit or functional stakeholders, leverage innovation teams placed within the GIC’s business units or functional teams, and provide better alignment on domain-specific end-business objectives. Key success factors include regular mentoring by the parent’s teams to build strong future-ready GIC leadership, and direct communication channels between SSC and business unit stakeholders.

SSCs with high overall maturity and innovation mandate

For GICs that fall into this category, a dedicated innovation team in which responsibility for innovation is fully in its hands works best. This structure allows the GIC to take more ownership of proposing and prototyping new, innovative solutions, and equips it with capabilities to better respond to enterprise-wide requirements.

Achieving the right balance of ownership, accountability, and investment is the key to successfully implementing this structure and making it a win-win for both SSCs and parent enterprises. It enables the SSC to reach its true potential and gain recognition as a thought leadership partner and empowers the parent to implement innovation initiatives with relative ease and replicate best practices across business units and functions.

Because every company’s innovation structure is inherently different, GIC leaders need to thoroughly investigate each of the models and decide on the most appropriate one based on their GICs’ overall maturity and mandate.

If you’d like detailed insights and real-life case studies on how SSCs are driving their enterprises’ innovation agenda, please read our report Leading Innovation and Creating Value: The 2019 Imperative for GICs.

In upcoming blogs, we’ll be discussing ways you can promote innovation and increase its impact in your shared services. Stay tuned!

 

Shared Services Centers and the Myth of Scale | Blog

Shared Services Centers (SSCs) – what we refer to as Global In-house Centers (GICs) – need to achieve breakeven to be financially viable. The breakeven equation is straightforward: the point at which total labor arbitrage (the average difference in labor cost between the SSC and a center at home) is equal to the SSC’s run cost (all non-labor costs such as facility rent, utilities, training, recruitment, travel, and other miscellaneous costs.)

Conventional wisdom says that that only large centers with a minimum of 1,000 FTEs can achieve breakeven. But that’s old-school thinking, and old-world reality.

We analyzed the breakeven point for 850 GICs in today’s digital world across a variety of factors, including the scope and complexity of services delivered, locations leveraged, and employee profiles. And we found that even an SSC with as few as 25 FTEs can be financially viable if it is delivering high-end, judgment-intensive services.

The rise of small SSCs/GICs

In the last three years, the average SSC scale, as measured by the number of FTEs, has declined by about 60 percent.

Why are we seeing this significant increase in small-scale centers? Several reasons:

  • Lower barriers to entry: Technology advancements facilitate better collaboration and knowledge transfer among leadership and peers
  • More robust ecosystem: Better infrastructure, access to a large talent pool with relevant technical and functional skills, and multiple professional services firms to provide on-ground support
  • Lower cost: Easier access to cost-competitive real estate, and wider availability of talent with the relevant functional, and managerial skills.

Today, it’s not about scale…it’s about alignment with the broader sourcing strategy

Ever since the inception of the SSC model, enterprises have been relying on their centers to improve products, processes, customer and employee experiences, build high-value skills, and drive operational excellence. But in today’s environment, scale no longer matters. Why? Because some of the main levers for SSC success, such as enhancing cultural integration, accelerating the strategic agenda (e.g., innovation, digital transformation), facilitating cross-functional collaboration, and promoting process ownership, are scale-agnostic.

Today, the decision on whether or not to establish a delivery center must be based on how it aligns with the enterprise’s broader sourcing strategy. In particular, enterprises should assess whether the SSC/GIC can help them:

  • Retain and strengthen in-house capabilities, especially for core intellectual property intensive work
  • Develop tighter integration (better control and governance) and stronger alignment on culture and brand
  • Accelerate the adoption of digital and other disruptive technologies such as automation, analytics, and artificial intelligence.

The next time you’re thinking about setting up a new SSC/GIC, don’t let the scale of the center – or lack thereof – stop you from exploring the possibilities!

Does Your Shared Services Center Need an Innovation Team? | Blog

In order to evolve from cost enablers to strategic partners that can drive competitive advantage, shared services centers (SSCs) – what we call Global In-House Centers (GICs) – must support their parent enterprises’ innovation agenda. And whether innovation means one, more, or all of the following to their enterprise, SSCs are quickly recognizing that creation of their own innovation team is one of the key ways they can deliver on that strategic requirement.

Types of innovation initiatives

11

What is an innovation team?

An innovation team is a group of dedicated resources mandated to evangelize innovation within the organization. The members typically have innovation-specific competency and relevant experience, and are unrestricted by business-as-usual constraints.

While ad-hoc or informal innovation teams used to be the norm in most GICs, the forward-thinking ones realize that a formalized approach is becoming essential for long-term success.

SSCs’ innovation teams influence strategy, capabilities, and culture

Based on our discussions with and analysis of around 800 GICs spread across offshore geographies, we’ve grouped innovation teams’ focuses and capabilities into three areas.

Shaping the enterprise’s overall innovation strategy

SSC’s innovation teams help shape their enterprise’s innovation agenda by enabling decisions on key themes such as: improving the process/product/service mix, enhancing the customer/employee experience, and revamping the business model; impact areas like cost savings, risk management, and revenue generation; and innovation partnerships with start-ups, academic institutions, etc. For example, one GIC’s innovation team was given a mandate to ideate and develop innovative solutions/products to better engage customers. It led all the stages of the innovation journey (from ideation and concept testing to detailed design and development) to develop the enterprise’s flagship mobile payments app.

Enhancing capabilities by improving skills, tools, infrastructure, and technology

SSCs’ innovation teams support and lead capability and ecosystem development. Areas they become involved in include setting up the physical work environment including innovation labs, garages, and digital pods, and developing new methodologies, frameworks, and tools. For example, one GIC we work with – that of a leading U.S.-based financial services firm –assisted in development of a cloud-based, compliant platform for instant communication and content sharing. The platform is used by more than 20,000 employees across the organization for real-time collaboration.

Fostering a culture of innovation

Beyond their primary responsibilities of supporting core, business-as-usual activities, GICs’ innovation teams often serve as “innovation champions” or “innovation ambassadors” to shine a spotlight on best practices and key pitfalls to avoid. These teams primarily consist of employees embedded within the GIC’s business units/functional teams, and focus on domain-specific innovation. This enables direct development of an innovation culture in delivery teams. For example, in one insurance company’s GIC, the innovation team is mandated with promoting innovation at the grassroots level. So, it organizes trainings, workshops, and competitive events.

Innovation team make-up

At a broad level, innovation teams are comprised of the following key roles:

  • Innovation champions: Leadership members (typically C-level executives, and functional/business unit heads) for providing strategic guidance
  • Program managers: Senior management members and/or dedicated managers for driving innovation programs/projects
  • Process experts/technologists: Experts with deep knowledge of product, technology, and tools
  • Strategists: Typically, tenured senior resources with extensive experience with innovation programs and solid domain knowledge.

Of course, some SSC’s also include other roles, some very niche and company-specific, in their innovation teams.

Size your innovation team to your specific needs

Our research found that SSCs’ innovation teams are typically comprised of five to 20 dedicated FTEs, spread across the enterprise and the SSC. A relatively small number of GICs have 20-50 or more FTEs that are specifically part of their innovation team.

While most GICs have a lean innovation team, we encountered multiple instances of recently bulked-up teams. Interestingly, there is a limited co-relationship between revenue/size of the SSC’s parent enterprise and the size of its innovation team. What tends to impact the size of the innovation team is the extent of the innovation focus, the level of innovation maturity, existing structures for driving innovation, and broader business requirements.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach. When designing your SSC’s innovation team, you should start by determining what aligns well with the existing structure and caters to evolving innovation needs. You can customize its size and composition once it’s up and running.

Commercial Options for India GIC Setups | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

There are two primary commercial options – or export-oriented schemes – available to GICs looking to export IT/ITES services from India. One is setting up a 100 percent Export Oriented Unit (EOU) under the Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) scheme. This allows operations to be carried out from any location in the country. The other is setting up a delivery center in a specified, demarcated, duty-free enclave called a Special Economic Zone (SEZ). These offer additional economic benefits (e.g., tax holiday) in lieu of positive net foreign exchange earnings from the export of IT/BP services.

Which option is best for your company? Read on to learn the differences, the trade-offs, and the variables you should factor into your decision.

The Major Differences

  • Income tax holiday: SEZ units enjoy a graded income tax holiday period that translates to significant tax savings for a large-scale setup in India. The tax holiday incentive for STPI units expired in March 2011
  • Indirect tax benefits: both SEZ and STPI schemes provide custom duty exemption on imports of capital goods. However, SEZ units are also eligible for a “zero-rated” Goods and Services Tax (GST) that effectively decreases the cost input for domestically procured goods and services
  • Location: STPI units can set up operations in any location in the country. SEZ units are restricted to a designated area.

Key Decision Variables in Selecting SEZ or STPI

  • Financial attractiveness: SEZs outweigh STPIs in both direct and indirect tax incentives. Where cost savings are significant (e.g., a large-scale setup) and need to be prioritized, SEZ is a clear choice for many enterprises
  • Access to a broader ecosystem: Many SEZs offer a complete ecosystem, with easy access to commercial, residential, healthcare, and educational options. Further, SEZs offer quality infrastructure and business continuity planning advantages including:
    • Large reputed SEZs offer a more reliable supply of utilities including electricity, water, telecommunications, and overall security
    • The office space standards and building compliances (e.g., natural disaster preparedness) are typically more stringent in SEZs
  • Access to large talent pool: Given their size, SEZs offer ready access to a large, skilled talent pool with relevant technical, functional, and managerial skills. And the ecosystem often developed in and around SEZs is a significant attraction for the talent pool to work in them
  • Site and scale flexibility: STPI units provide far more location (e.g., financial district or central business district) and scale options than do SEZs. Many small-sized GICs tend to prefer this flexibility
  • Ease of compliance: Compliance and statutory reporting requirements in STPIs are relatively more lenient than in SEZs. For instance, introduction of GST has increased the compliance and record maintenance burden on SEZ units. Exiting SEZs may involve more scrutiny given the higher economic benefits involved.

SEZ vs STPI

How a Financial Services Firm Made the Decision

Everest Group recently supported a U.S.-headquartered financial services company looking to set up a small-scaled GIC in India to deliver high-end niche IT services. Our setup advisory team used a three-step process to ultimately recommend the right facility and commercial model to meet all the client’s requirements: outlining the space, handover timeline, and proximity to the central and/or secondary business districts; assessing potential savings in operating from an SEZ; and evaluating and scoring the additional pros and cons of shortlisted sites to make our final recommendation.

When we evaluated and scored the client’s “must-haves” — scope for expansion or relocation, access to social infrastructure, lower commute time, and proximity to talent hubs – against the limited SEZ options available, it became clear that an SEZ was not the right answer for the client.

Thus, we recommended that the client go ahead with an STPI option in a large IT business park, and register the unit with the STPI to benefit from indirect tax benefits. This option allows the client to take advantage of all the business park’s large talent pool, marquee tenant profile, social infrastructure, and other amenities, and gives it flexibility for any future expansion or potential relocation within or outside the business park.

More than 30 new GICs are set up in India annually, and half of these are first-time center setups. In order to ensure their success, the enterprises establishing these centers must take the time upfront to clearly understand their objectives and requirements against the trade-offs of SEZs and STPIs.

How can we engage?

Please let us know how we can help you on your journey.

Contact Us

"*" indicates required fields

Please review our Privacy Notice and check the box below to consent to the use of Personal Data that you provide.