All Posts By

Parul Jain

Parul Jain is a member of the Global Sourcing team and assists clients on topics related to location optimization, sourcing strategy, cost and price benchmarking and peer intelligence. Her recent research pursuits include the impact of next-generation technologies on GICs. Parul’s responsibilities include leading Everest Group’s Location Insider subscription offering.

Middle East and Africa: An Emerging Frontier for Global Services | Blog

By | Benchmarking, Blog, Outsourcing, Talent

Numerous locations in the Middle East and Africa (MEA) are emerging as upcoming destinations for global services delivery. Several multinational companies have set up their centers in the MEA region to deliver services to Europe and North America, and tech giants including Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Uber are leveraging it for global services delivery.

What’s the appeal?

Availability and quality of talent pool

There’s been a consistent increase in the pool of entry-level talent and experienced professionals with domain-specific skills. Egypt is the leader in the region; due to various government measures to improve education quality and a significant rise in contact center operations in multiple languages, including English, French, and Arabic, the country posted an enormous 35 percent increase in the headcount for global services exports in 2018.

There’s also been a considerable rise in R&D centers and Centers of Excellence (COEs), where talented professionals with relevant and often advanced technological skill sets work to develop state-of-the-art solutions.

Less competition for talent

Because there’s a relatively large population base, limited jobs, and high unemployment rates throughout much of the region – for example, South Africa is at 27 percent and Nigeria is at 23 percent – organizations can procure talent easily and train the workers as per their specific business needs.

Cost arbitrage

Some of the countries in the MEA region offer highly attractive cost arbitrage compared to source geographies. For example, Egypt, Nigeria, and Kenya come in at 70-80 percent less (although Nigeria and Kenya are primarily leveraged to serve domestic markets), and South Africa (for non-voice F&A) and Morocco (for voice-based services) offer cost savings of 40-60 percent over source geographies.

Proximity to Europe

Proximity with various European countries is a big selling point of many African locations. For example, because Morocco offers both cultural and geographical proximity to France and Spain, companies are increasingly leveraging it for French and Spanish voice-based business process services. Because the English language was introduced by British colonists, and because there’s shared cultural affinity, South Africa is becoming a popular destination for voice-based services delivery for U.K. companies. Additionally, because most African countries share similar time zones with Europe, delivery and client teams are able to collaborate in real time, thereby, optimizing work in both the geographies.

The leading locations in the MEA region

The map below highlights key locations leveraged by global enterprises and service providers for global services delivery. While the emerging locations house 20,000 to 100,000 FTEs across global services, nascent locations employ less than 20,000 FTEs in this space.

 

A snapshot view of the top five global services delivery locations in MEA

  • Egypt: Offers the most attractive cost-talent proposition, with strong multilingual skills, especially in English, French, and Arabic languages. However, relatively higher operating environment risk with concerns around high inflation rates and repressive government policies
  • Morocco: Primarily leveraged for French and Arabic language voice-based BPS and IT services. Morocco offers moderate-high competitive intensity and strong government support (especially for the IT-BPS sector through financial, tax, and customs advantages)
  • South Africa: Characterized with large, high-quality talent pools and the highest maturity across functions, South Africa houses multiple organizations delivering voice and non-voice BPS, including complex processes. It has a stable geopolitical environment, well-developed infrastructure, high ease of doing business, strong government incentives for the IT-BPS sector, and limited safety and security concerns
  • Mauritius: It is leveraged for IT (both ADM and infrastructure), non-voice business process services, and R&D services to serve French and Canadian markets. It offers a favorable business environment, with government incentives for the IT-BPS sector, such as tax-free dividends and foreign tax credits
  • Israel: Leveraged for delivery of advanced IT (including IoT, ML, and AI) and R&D services, primarily to support the U.S. and Europe. Israel offers a highly favorable business environment with lower tax rates and conducive government incentives, such as low corporate tax and grants up to 20 percent of the amount of the investment.

For a detailed view of each of these locations, please read our latest Location Spotlight reports. Each report analyzes the individual country’s global sourcing profile, key opportunities, drivers, challenges, talent and skills availability, financial attractiveness, and environment risks.

 

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

By | Blog, Shared Services/Global In-house Centers

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!

 

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

By | Blog, Shared Services/Global In-house Centers

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

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.

Global Service Delivery Locations: Where to Go, Where Not to Go! | Blog

By | Blog, Shared Services/Global In-house Centers, Talent

Long gone are the days of selecting offshore/nearshore service delivery locations with a regional/local interpretation of demand, a focus on cost savings, and an emphasis on service delivery in and of itself. Today, it is evolving to include a global view of demand, an increasing focus on talent quality and capacity for innovation, and the involvement of group-level strategy at its core.

So, which locations will help enterprises fulfill their requirements? Where can they place a long-term bet for a sustainable strategy that provides a competitive edge against their competitors?

Everest Group’s viewpoint, “2019 Locations Predictions: Follow the Talent,” reveals location-specific forecasts that can guide organizations on how to transform their global delivery location strategies.

Everest Group’s Predictions for Global Services Delivery Locations

Asia

As companies look for large-scale rebalancing and consolidation/right-sizing to fewer centers, the primary focus of a location strategy will be talent quality and availability. Asia has the largest talent pool with varied skillsets for IT, digital, Engineering and R&D (ER&D), and BPS service delivery.

India – India will continue to progress in the next three to five years, driven by growth in the digital and ER&D functions, as well as the increase in the availability of depth and breadth of talent. Cities such as Hyderabad and Pune will experience the highest traction due to increasing demand for complex IT and high-end R&D work from the technology and BFSI giants.

The Philippines – The Philippines will continue its dominance as one of the largest voice-BPS markets, and will also experience growth in IT services, accentuated by a faster rotation into digital such as customer analytics and social media-driven services. We expect increased traction in locations beyond Manila, such as Iloilo, Quezon, Taguig, and Davao, given their attractive cost proposition and untapped talent pools.

Malaysia – Malaysia will continue to grow, especially in the multilingual BPS, banking-BPS, and digital sectors, due to the increasing demand from Southeast Asian markets and global BFSI majors.

Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA)

As companies consolidate their portfolios, and as technology and design thinking-based approaches blur the boundaries between IT and BPS, cross-functional collaboration will become critical to achieving digitalization and faster time-to-market. The EMEA region provides an ecosystem that enables companies to tap into talent that can multi-task, and is more suited for cross-functional center setups.

Poland – Poland will overtake Canada to become the third largest location in the world for BPS delivery, given its expansion of multi-functional delivery centers across various verticals and its strong government support. Cities such as Krakow, Warsaw, and Wroclaw will see traction in high-end IT services, with players setting up digital innovation hubs, including blockchain, cryptocurrencies, and AI.

Ireland – Ireland will experience the fastest growth in the region due to strong government support, well-developed infrastructure, and the increasing trend across global majors to shift their headquarters away from the United Kingdom because of Brexit uncertainties. Beyond Dublin, we also expect higher BPS growth in tier-2/3 locations such as Cork, Limerick, and Galway.

Israel – Israel will witness a significant uptick in next-generation IT services including big data, cybersecurity, cloud, and IoT, driven by a focus on research and close collaboration between academia and industry.

Americas

The rise of reshoring amidst the protectionist policies adopted by leading source geographies, including the United States, is driving companies to scrutinize and consolidate their service delivery portfolios. The Americas region is becoming a preferred choice for firms, given the ease of coordination with onshore teams, better alignment/training, and customer intimacy.

Costa Rica – Costa Rica will experience an increase in center set-up activity, although the typical scale of operations might decline due to the focus on delivering agile transformation and automation solutions to support North American operations.

Jamaica – Jamaica will see accelerated growth, especially in the BPS segment, on the back of availability of a large English-speaking talent pool and dedicated government investments to enhance the business environment.

Canada – Canada will also witness accelerated growth, particularly due to high government investments in attracting foreign investors, and especially in the IT and digital services space. Uncertainty around U.S. government policies will further drive enterprises to expand beyond existing U.S. delivery centers, especially Canada.

In today’s complex, and often volatile, environment, a tightly defined and carefully crafted location strategy is increasingly critical to enterprises’ long-term success. For more details on Everest Group’s Predictions for Global Services Delivery Locations, please see our viewpoint, “2019 Locations Predictions: Follow the Talent” or contact Parul Jain or Anish Agarwal directly.

The Three Components Your Shared Services Center Needs to Include in its Innovation Equation | Blog

By | Blog, Shared Services/Global In-house Centers

Supporting enterprises’ innovation agendas is no longer simply an opportunity for in-house shared services centers – what we call global in-house centers (GICs); it’s fast becoming a competitive imperative. And, contrary to popular perception, cracking the innovation code requires much more than just novel ideas. Success entails boarding the right people on the bus, gearing them up with the right mechanisms to drive agile decision making, and reengineering the organization’s cultural DNA to foster innovation. We’ve developed a simple approach that will help you solve this complex problem.

Let’s take a look at the three components.

The Three Components Your Shared Services Center Needs to Include in its Innovation Equation

Process

Innovation is not the product of logical thought, although the result is tied to logical structure – Albert Einstein

The first element is formulation of the right mechanisms to evangelize innovation initiatives. It requires the right idea generation mechanisms to harness unique ideas from both internal (GIC and parent company stakeholders) and external (including startups, academia, and service providers / specialists) ecosystems. A critical part of this is evaluating the strategic rationale for the partnership. While some shared services centers partner with third-party providers and start-ups for talent augmentation and skill acquisition, others leverage the connections to develop domain expertise or increase the speed of innovation.

Another essential component, specifically for GICs, is the right funding mechanism. While we see most shared services centers carving out a separate fund for innovation (which is part of the overall GIC CEO budget), we are increasingly seeing them push for a global/centralized fund where the innovation team within the center operates as an extension of the global innovation team(s), and is funded by centralized global venture funds / programs. For select initiatives, we have also seen GICs securing funding from business units and driving project-based innovation initiatives.

The third component here is timely deployment of robust governance mechanisms. Shared services centers need to adopt a disciplined approach to rigorously track performance and incorporate remedial feedback on a continual basis. This not only helps to assess the effectiveness of activities, but also guides allocation process for resources, and helps assign accountability for actions/responsibilities.

People

Innovation has nothing to do with how many R&D dollars you have. When Apple came up with the Mac, IBM was spending at least 100 times more on R&D. It’s not about money. It’s about the people you have and how you’re led – Steve Jobs

Involving the right people in the right team structure is the second critical component. Leading GICs involve stakeholders from different parts of the organization, i.e., functional and business teams, central innovation groups, R&D departments, and corporate teams to invest time in exploring adjacent and transformational opportunities. This helps in cross-pollination of teams and enables development of a holistic solution in an accelerated go-to-market timeframe. While we have seen varied designs for innovation teams (based on organizational fit and business alignment), the common thread is the focused top-driven approach to creating structural changes, supplemented by continuous support from middle management to ensure smooth implementation.

Another key initiative leading centers are taking is remodeling their existing talent practices. They are now shifting their focus from hiring for specific “skills” to hiring for “learnability” / “thinking skills”, i.e., the ability to innovate. They are incentivizing innovation, and providing special recognition for outside- the-box thinking. We are also seeing strong innovators recalibrate their existing performance measurement metrics to align with the impact generated against the business objectives.

 Culture

“Innovation is not something you do for one afternoon a week, it’s got to be in your DNA” – Jasper de Valk and James van Thiel, Google

The third principal tenet to ensuring foundational success on the innovation journey is dedicated investment in developing a customer-centric culture with active CXO-level participation. Shared services centers are deploying multiple tools to reengineer their DNA and develop a culture that breeds innovation. Most successful examples include: gamification of programs and distinctive recognition for positive reinforcement; stimulation of an experimentation mindset and instillation of risk appetite; and adoption of flexible employment models, including remote working, crowdsourcing, and open innovation.

Although new technologies are path-breaking, we believe that the key to a GIC’s success is incremental innovation. They should keep testing small-scale POCs to demonstrate end-client value and build credibility. Successful implementation of pilots can help them instill confidence among parent stakeholders, and ensure adequate support and funding for much larger scale initiatives. This process also presents centers with an opportunity to course-correct early and drive/lead enterprise-wide digital initiatives.

If you’d like detailed insights and real-life case studies on how GICs have effectively driven the innovation agenda for their enterprises, please read our recently published report – Leading Innovation and Creating Value: The 2019 Imperative for GICs. And feel free to reach out to us at [email protected] to explore this further. We will be happy to hear your story, questions, concerns, and successes!

Is a Bigger Shared Services Center (or GIC) Always Better Performing? Maybe Not | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

By | Blog, Pricing, Shared Services/Global In-house Centers

We recently conducted a deep analysis of the digital maturity of almost 60 shared services centers, (also referred to as GICs) across diverse industries and geographies, and disseminated summary findings through a series of round tables across different Indian cities, including Delhi NCR, Bangalore, Mumbai, and Pune. You can read the detailed results in our recently released Digital Maturity in GICs | Pinnacle Model™ Analysis.

Here, I want to focus on a question that recurs in most of our conversations: Does the size of a GIC have any implication on its Pinnacle performance on digital maturity? Note that we define Pinnacle GICs™ as those that achieve superior performance because of their advanced capabilities.

The answer to this question is not as objective as it seems.

Related: Commercial Options for India GIC Setups

Our study revealed that scaled GICs (those with 3,000+ FTEs) have consistently delivered better impact across cost savings, operational KPIs, and even strategic metrics such as contribution to revenue growth. It also showed that small (those with less than 1,000 FTEs) and mid-sized GICs (those with 1,000 – 3,000 FTEs) have demonstrated lower improvement across all business outcomes.

Is a Bigger Shared Services Center or GIC Always Better Performing Maybe Not blog image

Does this Mean that all Scaled GICs are Pinnacle GICs? Not Really

Based on our analysis, less than one-third of scaled GICs have been able to demonstrate Pinnacle performance, while multiple small and mid-sized Pinnacle GICs (~30 percent of the Pinnacle performers) have achieved superior outcomes because of their advanced capabilities.

  • For instance, a multinational conglomerate’s GIC (mid-sized with 1,000-1,500 FTEs) delivered 20-30 percent improvement on operational KPIs such as process agility and SLA compliance. This GIC operates as the global competency center for IT solutions development with end-to-end ownership across the application development lifecycle, thereby allowing it to drive process transformation changes and yield impressive improvements
  • A U.S. food & beverages major’s GIC (also mid-sized, with 1,500-2,000 FTEs) is leveraging pricing analytics to drive competitive advantage for its parent. The GIC developed a competitive intelligence and analytics platform, which allowed the firm to view what its competitors are selling and make recommendations on the necessary price changes to its merchants. This platform is tied to a machine learning engine that dynamically prices their products.

Related: Learn more about Everest Group’s Shared Services Center capabilities

Common Threads across all Pinnacle GICs’ Journeys

We believe it is the triumvirate of the approach to demand creation, strategic focus of the digital strategy, and orientation towards cross-functional collaboration.

Demand Creation

A pull-based approach to demand creation – i.e., a proactive approach to creating Proof of Concepts (POCs) and showcasing capabilities – has not only helped shared services centers secure CXO-level sponsorship, but also increase the existing breadth and depth of services to enable end-to-end process orchestration. For instance, a European BFSI major’s GIC currently operates as the RPA CoE, and champions the end-to-end global RPA program for the enterprise. However, this was not the initial mandate for this shared services center. It proactively started developing POCs, capitalized on visits by onshore C-level executives to showcase their capabilities, and subsequently received buy-in from the parent company. The CoE now operates in a hub and spoke model, wherein the India GIC (hub) provides global governance and drives RPA for Europe through the CEE shared services center (spoke).

Strategic Focus of Digital Strategy

While other GICs solely focus on technology adoption, most Pinnacle GICs focus on using technology to enable operational improvement, which consequentially results in employee and/or customer experience enhancement. With achievement of these objectives, financial benefits – both top-line and bottom-line growth – follow suit automatically. Technology adoption per se needs to be viewed as a means to the end, not the end itself. Pinnacle GICs’ more holistic approach allows them to see both higher chances of success and ROI.

Cross-functional Collaboration

The third – and most underrated – differentiator is the focus on cross-pollination of resources by breaking functional barriers. We believe that a siloed approach to digital enablement will not work, and that shared services centers need to break silos and provide employees with wider exposure to functional roles across the firm. This will not only improve knowledge flow and increase productivity, but also stimulate innovation. For some GICs, creating CoEs for select digital capabilities has significantly enhanced the pace of adoption, and sharing of skills and best practices

All these aspects, along with dedicated enterprise leadership, have enabled Pinnacle GICs to champion organization-wide digital services delivery.

If you’d like insights on how your shared services center stacks up against the competition on the digital maturity front, please feel free to reach out to me at [email protected].

Is Your GIC the Secret Weapon for Digital Enablement? | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

By | Blog, Uncategorized

You might recall, back in December we identified digital agility as a key 2018 initiative. In that blog, we discussed how you can create business value by making things easy, reliable, and fast for your customers. The question I would ask GIC organizations for 2018: In realizing that goal, are you part of the problem? Or are you part of the solution?

Our research, Digital Maturity in GICs | Pinnacle Model™ Assessment 2018, seeks to answer those questions.

Most GICs started small and expanded over time as they proved their value. Now that most GICs have realized the fundamental benefits of labor savings, quality and process improvement, and – in some cases – business outcome improvement, it’s time for them to look to their next act.

Our central thesis is that a GIC can be a critical driver in building and running new digital competencies. But we want to hear from you about the functions and processes that are getting the most attention and investment. Which digital technologies are you focusing their efforts on? And what capabilities did you deploy to build out these capabilities?

There are plenty of digital surveys that you can participate in, so – why Everest Group’s? Because we take a different approach that results in more meaningful, useful outputs. Our Pinnacle Model™ approach asks questions about what the very best GICs are doing in terms of real impact and then correlate the capabilities required to achieve those results. And we go beyond the online survey, talking with some respondents to understand their journeys – what worked and what didn’t.

With that information in hand, we identify a set of Pinnacle Practices™ that you can consider deploying in your GIC.

Yes, there is a ton of hype around digital; let’s get beyond the headlines and talk outcomes and practices in your GIC.

Take the survey

Is Perceived Impact Hindering Your GIC’s Growth? | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

By | Blog, Shared Services/Global In-house Centers

The GIC model has evolved significantly over the last decade, and is gearing up for the third wave of evolution – GIC 3.0, as some are calling it – driven by GICs’ strong desire to move away from the “arbitrage-first” delivery model towards a “digital-first” model.

Everest Group describes the journey to mature GICs as progressing through four different stages.

Journey to GIC maturity

GIC maturity for optimal business impact

Our research shows that best-in-class – or Stage 4 – GICs deliver up to six to eight times incremental value beyond arbitrage. Yet, while many of our engagements over the last few years have made it clear that most Global 1,000 GICs deliver value beyond arbitrage, very few track and measure their impact. When they do, it’s typically in a piecemeal, selective manner. Thus, their parent perceives that they are delivering limited business value, beyond arbitrage, to the enterprise.

By educating their parent on their impact, GICs can improve their credibility, and build a case to secure support for expanding their role.

So how can GICs measure and articulate the value they deliver?

We believe that putting a dollar number to the business impact is the most objective and effective way for GICs to showcase their true worth. The framework we use maps value drivers linked to savings, risk, and revenue, quantifying all forms of impact created by the GIC.

GIC business impact model

Here’s an example: a U.S. company’s GIC was able to prove to its parent that it delivered US$20 to 22 million in overall business impact, compared to incremental cost arbitrage of US$4 to 6 million, through increased effectiveness, greater efficiency, and revenue growth. This helped the GIC secure the parent’s buy-in on increasing the scope of functions currently delivered out of their GIC.

A comprehensive quantification facilitates measuring the overall business impact across businesses/LOBs supported by the GIC. A GIC can use these results to:

  • Enable better understanding of its impact/role in the enterprise
  • Guide internal thinking on prioritization of value-add opportunities
  • Map its maturity to the market
  • Achieve greater sponsorship from parent stakeholders

Contact us about Everest Group’s business impact quantification framework, and learn more about our research on in-house delivery models.

Rise Up and Take Your Place in the Digital Sun, GICs! | Sherpas in the News

By | Blog

Something big is stirring throughout the global in-house center (GIC) landscape. Across all industry verticals, GIC tech executives are rolling out a broad array of initiatives that place bold bets on new digital technologies, which they expect will fundamentally change how their business operates.

While the current digital market is unarguably dominated by service providers, the share of GICs is increasing slowly and steadily. GICs are well poised to support the enterprise in its digital transformation journey given that:

  • They have an established foundation with a significant talent pool and an insider’s view that is vitally necessary to support digital-related transformation
  • They play a strategic role in building internal innovation capabilities for the parent, which is imperative to survive in the dynamic digital space
  • They are closely intertwined with the core business functions and can comfortably leverage their unique position to integrate digital delivery capabilities and yield synergies for the parent.

Current landscape

While most GICs have forayed into this digital journey by supporting the parent in its broader digital agenda, some have clearly outshone to display tremendous potential not only to just effectively support, but also to lead the way for digital transformation of the enterprise. There are examples at both ends of the spectrum – some GICs continue to deliver back-end support for digital operations (e.g., social media monitoring, core analytics, and mobility testing), and some enjoy ownership of key end-to-end processes (even Robotics Process Automation!). While some operate with a push-based approach to demand creation for even evolved digitals segments (e.g., analytics,) some relish a pull-based approach for burgeoning digital segments (e.g., RPA,) and meaningfully influence the nature and quantum of digital work being delivered from the GIC.

Analytics is the most evolved segment, with ~40 percent market share. Most of the other digital segments are in the initial to mid stages of evolution. Cloud and mobility represent significant shares, with most of the GICs currently delivering transactional services within these segments, such as application testing within mobility, infrastructure management and orchestration within cloud. Social & interactive and RPA are relatively nascent segments, with only a few GICs showing capabilities to harness them and deliver effective solutions.

The extent of digital adoption across industry verticals, and the maturity of digital segments within these verticals, varies significantly. BFSI is the leading adopter of digital services, with strong capabilities in analytics, mobile, and RPA. The product and technology vertical follows next, with about one-quarter of the market share. GICs in this vertical typically develop sweet spots across the digital stack (e.g., cloud,) with significant scale and depth, thereby achieving a higher level of sophistication in select areas. The third largest adopter is the retail segment, where digital is being leveraged to understand consumer buying behavior and drive a seamless cross-channel customer experience.

Challenges

While digital presents a path-breaking opportunity for GICs to upshift the value being delivered to the enterprise, it doesn’t come without its set of challenges. Almost all GICs unanimously report that their key challenge to going digital is talent – both finding and retaining it. The highly competitive landscape, with the unprecedented shortage of “ready-to-consume” talent, is creating a situation in which entities are feeling the heat of competition not only from their traditional rivals, but also from emerging disruptive rivals. For example, retail banks are facing stiff competition from mobile payment tech providers such as Google Wallet, PayPal, and others. To overcome this challenge, best-in-class GICs have adopted innovative approaches to talent management such as hiring from creative/media agencies for specialized skills, such as social media.

To revel in this digital chaos, GICs are also driving ecosystem partnership with start-ups to drive their innovation agenda, especially automation, workflow management, and analytics. This allows them to derive complementary benefits such as acceleration of own technology, higher speed of innovation, better understanding of customer needs and new business models, branding as an innovation-driven organization, and improved internal employee motivation.

Quite distinctly, digital presents a lucrative opportunity for GICs to upshift their role from a cost arbitrage-focused provider to a strategic partner driving innovation for the parent.

Rise up and take your place in the digital sun, GICs! Your journey has just begun!

For more insights on the GIC digital landscape, please refer to our recently released report, “GICs Leading the way for Digital Transformation of the Enterprise.” The report provides an overview of the current state of digital adoption in GICs, assesses digital maturity of GICs based on a framework, evaluates functional maturity of the top three industry verticals, and highlights best practices, key implications, and calls-to-action for GICs. The report will help senior GIC stakeholders understand the opportunities and challenges offered by this disruptive wave of digital services.