Category

Sherpas in Blue Shirts

Retrospective on the 2017 Global Services Market | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

By | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

As I look back on this year, it’s impossible to unplug digital from the determinants of the year’s most significant business changes. A review of how the rotation to digital impacted the global services market in 2017 provides a glimpse of factors that will be at play in 2018 as companies seek to be more competitive. In this blog, I’ll focus on three of the top factors that affected businesses this year.

Global Services Market Deceleration

Both the global services market and the Indian sector further decelerated this year. When we made projections for 2017, Everest Group was the only firm to make that call. In fact, although we were overly criticized for being overly pessimistic, the market decelerated even more than what we forecasted.

Deceleration is not the same as shrinkage. In the legacy space, the offshore labor arbitrage talent factories went from a growth space to a three percent contraction this year. Also, there has been portfolio rationalization and industry consolidation in that space. As the space shrinks, the larger firms do better than the smaller firms.

This year brought the rotation to digital with companies moving from services based on labor arbitrage to services based on disruptive digital technologies. The digital space now constitutes 25 percent of the overall market and is growing at 20 percent. The legacy arbitrage factory is 75 percent of the overall market and it’s shrinking at three percent. Within the shrinking, the big five Indian players are consolidating the market to take share; so they eked out a 1.5 percent growth while other providers shrank.

Interestingly, the compression driven by the cannibalization of digital and legacy environments is partially offset by new workloads coming into the legacy environment due to changes in market segmentation.

Market Segmentation Changing

A major factor at play in the services market in 2017 is the market beginning to segment between (a) digital transformation and (b) modernization of IT and business process services (BPS).

The digital market began splitting this year into two pieces: digital transformation vs. modernization. We clearly see two distinct, separate markets emerging in digital. This year we also saw digital transformation pilots go into programs. Pilots that ranged in size from $500,000 to $2 million in size now consistently hit between $50 million to $500,000,000 billion.

The legacy environment is also splitting into two markets: work that will be modernized and work that is too risky or expensive to modernize. We’re now 30 years beyond the inflexion point of where the market began moving from mainframe to client-server environments. Many companies still have a portfolio of applications remaining on mainframes. This is a classic example of legacy work that is too expensive or risky to modernize. As a result, companies are content at this point to let that work remain in the legacy structure. However, this year clearly brought movement in this space of companies building APIs and microservices to connect with that work, whether it is in an internal legacy infrastructure or in an outsourced legacy talent factory. This enables the companies to turn their attention to the work that they need to modernize.

What we haven’t seen is business process services (BPS) modernization take hold. IT is leading the pack currently. At the beginning of the year, we thought that BPS might lead the modernization, but it turns out we were wrong. The IT segment is moving much faster than the BPS segment in modernization work.

Rise of Small Firms

Also in 2017, we saw the rise of small provider firms. Where we see industry consolidation on the legacy side, we see vendor proliferation on the digital side. We believe this proliferation is because companies are looking to new firms to do new work. They believe the incumbent service providers are distracted and have a conflict in interest in moving to digital – a self-interest in preserving their profitable legacy arbitrage-based work. Consequently, this year brought a surge in companies looking to smaller, new service provider firms to help them understand and drive both digital transformation and IT modernization.

What Is Driving the Momentum in Digital Transformation Projects? | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

By | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

One of the remarkable IT trends in 2017 is the increasing size of digital transformation projects. I recently blogged about this phenomenon, especially as evidence refuting Gartner’s claim of these projects hitting a trough of disillusionment. The reason this growth in projects in the digital space is remarkable is that we saw no evidence of it in prior years. I believe it’s especially worth paying attention to because of what’s driving the momentum.

In 2017, we see evidence of companies shifting from digital transformation pilots to programs. 2016 brought a lot of experimentation with small pilots, but they stayed in the range of $500,000 – $2 million. Companies moving from pilots to larger, more substantial programs in 2017 are investing in the range of $10 – $50 million in these projects.

Let’s dig deeper into what is driving this momentum. The first factor in the growth in size of digital transformation projects is that the programs are sponsored by the C-suite (usually the CEO, CMO, or CFO).

Read more at my Forbes blog

New Infosys CEO Salil Parekh Brings Commitment to Digital Transformation | Sherpas Blue Shirts

By | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

Recently, Infosys appointed Salil S. Parekh, formerly a Group Executive Board member at Capgemini, as CEO and MD of Infosys. His selection was a surprising choice. He lacks the industry profile of Infosys’ prior CEOs and has no prior experience as a CEO. But I believe he is a talented executive who is well positioned to continue the existing Infosys strategy and is committed to building the next generation of Indian services. He understands all that an Indian talent base can offer while also understanding the need to broaden the global talent base and lead Infosys into a becoming a digital transformation leader. I believe the following perspectives are critical when evaluating the impact of this new leader at Infosys.

The Advantages He Brings to Infosys

As I blogged in August 2017 when Vishal Sikka resigned as CEO, the new Infosys CEO will need to make bold, decisive moves to position the company for the future. Specifically, I think he brings the following advantages to Infosys:

  • Strong credentials and deep practical knowledge in using a consulting-led approach to build a global transformation services business. Under his leadership, I expect Infosys to strengthen its consulting capabilities and use them to position the firm as a first-choice digital transformation company. Prior to joining Capgemini, he was senior partner at E&Y and used that financial services consulting team experience to help Capgemini into one of the fastest-growing financial services practices in the services industry. He understands how to blend consulting and delivery in a fast-changing industry will be powerful for Infosys, which must master a more consultative transformation approach if the firm is to emerge as a leader in digital services. Sikka had deemphasized the consulting practice at Infosys.
  • Successful track record in business turnarounds and managing acquisitions (including Capgemini’s acquisition of iGate). In October 2017, I blogged about Infy needing to aggressively acquire digital companies is a key component of its digital transformation strategy. His influence in leading Capgemini’s charge to acquire iGate indicates he understands the necessity of a strong Indian delivery component in the future mix of services.
  • Deep experience in the financial services market, which is Infosys’ largest and most lucrative market segment.
  • Notable experience in working in a global context outside of an Indian firm. Salil’s outstanding leadership capabilities were notable at Capgemini.
  • Deep understanding of the Indian/Bangalore culture along with demonstrated outsourcing industry experience. He will fit well into the Infosys culture and, thus, is a safe choice as CEO.

I think Infosys chose an external candidate to lead the firm to avoid some of the friction and issues lingering from the friction among the board, management and founders. Infosys now needs a steady hand, a more low-profile approach to building its future. Although Sikka raised the firm’s profile in the digital transformation space, he didn’t manage to bring the founders and the rank-and-file employees along. Parekh has the skills to focus on executing on the digital strategy. He will bring a fresh perspective on how to continue Infosys’ drive to remake the firm into the next-generation of services companies based on digital technologies and business models. I also expect he will be instrumental in changing the board composition over the next 18 months to ensure he has a unified board and can heal any ongoing rifts with the firm’s founders.

The fact that Parekh will be based in Bangalore is significant, as it will better position him for deeper understanding of the Infosys culture and enable him to build internal support for the difficult journey ahead in a challenging and changing marketplace.

In Salil, Infosys has found a capable executive that fits the Indian culture, yet brings the consulting and global perspective the firm needs. Thus, he should be able to build alliances in and outside the firm without creating the pushback that Sikka experienced.

What about Other Changes in Senior Leadership at Infosys?

The industry and media are abuzz with speculation on the amount of executive turnover as a result of Parekh’s selection. Every new CEO brings in new executives, and he won’t be an exception to this rule. It’s important to realize that Infosys has plenty of room to remove executives without removing existing talent. Some in the senior ranks had stayed to create stability after Sikka’s departure, but they will now be free to move on. Other senior talent had stepped up on a temporary basis and can now move back to a more sustainable role. That said, I don’t expect a wholesale removal of the firm’s senior leadership. It will be a case of streamlining the leadership team and restructuring some layers.

Should the Infosys Strategy Change?

Together, Parekh’s experience and the Infosys board’s forward-looking statements indicate that the existing digital direction and strategy that Sikka was driving will continue. I believe the firm is well positioned to participate in the consolidation of the legacy, high-margin labor arbitrage-based business. This is already taking place in the services industry, and I expect Infosys will capture a significant share of this work. However, I believe the primary goal is still to continue the digital transformation journey.

In the effort rebuild Infosys to lead in the digital marketplace, I suggest Infosys take the following five steps:

  • Build strong support from the board/founders and internal organization, A house divided will fall, and we have already seen what this will do to the organization. As I mentioned above, this will probably require changes to the board and some changes in senior leaders as well as taking a more low-key approach (at least at the outset).
  • Reset investor expectation on margins. The previous strategy’s fatal flaw was maintaining the expectation of industry-leading margins. To become the leader in the digital space, Infosys needs margin flexibility to experiment with new models and capture growth at the all-important start of the cycle.
  • Focus on understanding and building a new digital delivery model that is different from the factory arbitrage model. It’s important to recognize that this new model has yet to fully emerge in the services industry; therefore, if Infosys can be the first major firm to build such a model, it will become the industry leader.
  • Keep the commitment to aggressive pricing established under Sikka. The market will not tolerate a premium pricing position at this time.
  • Focus on its clients instead of the firm. Infosys has traditionally been introspective. Parekh looks to be capable of changing this characteristic and influencing the firm to look outside to its customers and their needs. Now, much of Infosys’ messaging is on how Infosys is changing. This needs to change to focus on how its clients are changing.

For all the above reasons, I believe Parekh is notably able to grow Infosys’ business. I don’t think he will bring clients with him, but I don’t think this is necessary. Infosys has all the clients it needs. The challenge for Infosys today is to become the digital transformation partner of choice for the clients it already has. If he can help achieve this objective, I believe Infosys will become a clear leader in the new emerging services market.

Digital Transformation: Underperforming Or Growing? | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

By | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

We’ve moved from a point of the media talking about the digital transformation’s promises and opportunities to a point of media pointing out many digital transformation projects are underperforming in expectations. Adding fuel to that fire is Gartner’s recent claim that digital transformation is going through the trough of disillusionment. But the facts belie that. We at Everest Group struggle with the Gartner claim, given that we are seeing an uptick in the size of digital transformation projects. What’s the explanation for the difference between Gartner’s claim and what we’re seeing?

Here’s what we see: the size of digital transformation projects is exploding. Last year we saw relatively small, focused projects of $500,000 to $3 million. Now digital transformation projects consistently hit $20-$100 million in size.

We find Gartner’s comment interesting, but I think it’s dangerous to take that comment in isolation.

Read more at my Forbes blog

How Cloud Impacts APIs and Microservices | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

By | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

Companies considering moving workloads to cloud environments five years ago questioned whether the economics of cloud were compelling enough. The bigger question at that time was whether the economics would force a tsunami of migration from legacy environments to the cloud world. Would it set up a huge industry, much like Y2K, of moving workloads from one environment to another very quickly? Or would it evolve more like the client-server movement that happened over 5 to 10 years? It’s important to understand the cloud migration strategy that is occurring today.

We now know the cloud migration did not happen like Y2K. Enterprises considered the risk and investment to move workloads as too great, given the cost-savings returns. Of course, there are always laggards or companies that choose not to adopt new technology, but enterprises now broadly accept both public and private cloud.

The strategy most companies adopt is to put new functionality into cloud environments, often public cloud. They do this by purchasing SaaS applications rather than traditional software, and they do their new development in a Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) cloud environment. These make sense. They then build APIs or microservices layers that connect the legacy applications to the cloud applications.

Read more at my CIO Online blog

Dark Clouds Gathering for Indian Service Providers | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

By | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

The effort around reforming H1B work visas in the global services industry has been dangling for years, entrenched in a political battle in Congress. But there’s movement again, and dark clouds are gathering on the horizon, signaling a coming storm. Five days ago, the US House Judiciary Committee passed HR 170 (Protect and Grow American Jobs Act) with solid, bipartisan support, and it carries onerous policies aimed at India’s outsourcing service providers – as well as problems for their clients. It hasn’t passed into law yet; but it could happen in 2018. Here’s my assessment of the situation.

Proposed Requirements

As I’ve blogged several times since May 2013, reform focuses on service providers whose business model depends heavily on a large percentage of H1B workers placed at US clients. HR 170 raises the classification of H1-dependent firms to 20 percent, rather than 15 percent of workers. Providers would be required to pay higher wages to their H1B workers – with the minimum salary tied to the average occupational wage in the US. That’s a raise from the current $60k up to, and potentially surpassing, $135k.

The bill adds authorization for the US Department of Labor to conduct investigations of H1B-dependent firms – without first having to establish reasonable cause – and provides for a $495 fine to be levied on the firms for the investigations.

HR 170 also would require US clients to provide attestations and “recruitment reports” attesting that no US workers were displaced by H1B workers. This would add the burden of new management and compliance processes.

Impact

Obviously, the onerous requirements are targeted at Indian service providers that heavily use H1B workers (especially Cognizant, Infosys, TCS, Wipro). The provisions would raise their costs. They would not be able to pass those costs through to clients, so it would reduce their margins. Making it more onerous to use H1B workers would also negatively impact the Indian providers’ business models, which rely on the high-margin “factory” structure for talent provision.

Is it a Long Shot?

Although HR 170 was passed with bipartisan support by the House Judiciary Committee and has yet to pass the full House. If that were to happen, the bill would still face bipartisan battle in the Senate. We’ve seen that play out this year in efforts to repeal healthcare laws and now in tax reform efforts.

However, it may not be a long shot. The bill’s main sponsor, Darrell Issa, the Republican representative from California, will face re-election battles next year and is likely to push harder for a win in visa reform. And don’t overlook the fact that California’s Silicon Valley firms would benefit from onerous visa regulations targeting India’s firms.

My Takeaway Warning

India’s service providers are already struggling in an uphill battle aside from visa reform. They struggle to gain competence and market share in evolving to the digital world. Investments in rotating to digital raise providers’ costs, take time and often lead to battles with investors and other stakeholders who want to maintain the current margin levels. In addition, margins in the digital models are low, for at least the short term.

H1B visa reform’s dark clouds gathering on the horizon for the Indian service providers will only heap new burdens on providers already struggling with margins and new business models in trying to become leaders on the digital space. I believe the bill, if passed into law, would inhibit their growth.

US clients, which want more valuable digital services from third-party firms – but want to pay the low cost they have enjoyed with offshore providers for many years – must recognize that strategy is no longer in the playbook. They also need to be mindful of providers changing their business model and delivery practices to accommodate the requirements of H1B worker provisions when the reform passes into law and how the provider’s decisions will impact the client’s work.

Clues into Amazon’s HQ2: What Does the Vancouver Announcement Tell Us? | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

By | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

In early November, Amazon announced that it will expand its presence in Vancouver from 1,000 jobs to 2,000 jobs by 2020. Although this did not receive nearly the same attention as Amazon’s request for proposals for the 50,000 employee location dubbed “HQ2”, there are some valuable clues to glean (see our earlier detailed assessment on the viability of Amazon’s HQ2 strategy and potential locations for our more complete analysis).

We read three important clues in this announcement.

  1. Vancouver is not a serious HQ2 candidate. Although Amazon is clearly comfortable enough with Vancouver to continue expanding there, it is a signal that Vancouver is not a serious candidate for the second headquarter location. If Amazon felt otherwise, the announcement did not need to be made and lose leverage in negotiating incentives for HQ2. There are multiple reasons why Vancouver may not be a strong candidate – size or cost of talent pool, too similar to Seattle, no time zone diversification, or that the complexities of operating in Canada outweigh the benefits of mainly operating in the U.S.
  2. The targeted scalability of HQ2 is going to be REALLY HARD. Assuming that Vancouver and HQ2 will have roughly similar mixes of talent, we can see that Amazon is scaling at only 15% of the rate targeted for HQ2. After setting up in 2015 and reaching 1,000 employees in 2017, Amazon is planning to reach 2,000 employees by 2020. Let’s assume that is 2,000 people over four years for an annual rate of 500 net-new employees. HQ2 is targeting 50,000 employees over 15 years, which is over 3,000 per year – 6 times what is being achieved in Vancouver. This supports our earlier view that any city under 4 million in population is clearly not viable (Vancouver is under 2.5 million) and even the largest cities (which are 7-15 million) will struggle to consistently grow at the rate indicated by Amazon for HQ2.
  3. Hmmm…is Amazon truly serious about HQ2 as stated? For purposes of our earlier analysis, we assumed that Amazon truly intended to pursue its stated vision (up to 50,000 employees in 15 years with an average salary in excess of US$100,000 and the HQ2 acting as an equal to Seattle). The announcement about Vancouver is interesting and revealing because it is inconsistent with Amazon seeking to aggregate its scale into large locations. A 2,000 employee location is certainly large, but it is much smaller than currently located in Seattle or the planned HQ2.

If centers at much smaller scale are valuable to Amazon, why even pursue the HQ2 strategy?

First, Amazon might realize that a single 50,000 location is likely too big and contemplating whether it can make “clusters” (cities within very short distances from each other) produce similar benefits as a single location, which would be multiple buildings anyway. If Amazon believes this, it might be looking to select multiple cities within a cluster for the HQ2 strategy (think Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, DC).

Second, Amazon may have intentionally set a very, very large 50,000 employee target to get maximum attention and creativity, but is planning to structure the eventual single location agreement to only commit to 5,000-10,000 employees. Still very large, but something it has a much easier chance to fulfill and then potentially exceed as it so desires.

In summary, we believe these clues Echo many of our earlier perspectives and underscore that the eventual outcome may be quite different than stated – we remain Primed to hear what Amazon decides in 2018.

Success Factors in Driving Digital Transformation at the Social Security Administration | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

By | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

The digital transformation at the Social Security Administration (SSA) is remarkable for its approach to ensure a successful outcome. Shifting the process of retiring into a digital world required overcoming a resistant culture, managing multiple stakeholder groups’ needs, surmounting organizational structures and ensuring leaders didn’t lose sight of the end outcome and focus too much on process. The SSA transformation initiative faced the same challenges that commercial businesses face.

Frank Baitman, SSA CIO at the time, recalls the agency experienced management challenges due to its structure using 1,300 field offices across the US. Its 40,000 field workers spent most of their time assisting people going through the retirement process, which didn’t give them enough time to effectively handle disability determinations and claims, and address a backlog in disability case processing. Disability, a more complex process, required far more human attention and support than the relatively simply retirement process.

Design thinking approach

This was a key consideration in the transition plan. The agency involved employees in the design thinking process so that the new business model would satisfy their concerns. As a result, the website includes a validation process so SSA employees can check in with individual retirees, and make sure they made well-informed decisions when using the online system.

Read more at CIO Online blog

PaaS, be Warned: APIs are Here and Containers Are Coming | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

By | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

A few months ago, Workday, the enterprise HCM software company, entered into the Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) world by launching (or opening, as it said) its own platform offering. This brings back the debate of whether using PaaS to develop applications is the right way to go as an enterprise strategy.

Many app developers turning from PaaS to APIs

While there are multiple arguments in favor of PaaS, an increasing number of application developers believe that APIs may be a better and quicker way to develop applications. Pro-API points include:

  • PaaS is difficult and requires commitment, whereas any API can be consumed by developers with simple documentation from the provider
  • Developers can realistically master only a couple of PaaS platforms. This limits their abilities to create exciting applications
  • PaaS involves significant developer training, unlike APIs
  • PaaS creates vendor platform lock-in, whereas APIs are fungible and can be replaced when needed

Containers moving from PaaS enablers to an alternative approach

In addition, the rise of containers and orchestration platforms, such as Kubernetes, are bringing more sleepless nights to the Platform-as-a-Service brigade. Most developers believe containers’ role of standardizing the operating environment casts strong shadows on the traditional role of PaaS.

While containers were earlier touted as PaaS enablers, they will increasingly be used as an alternative approach to application development. The freedom they provide to developers is immense and valuable. Although PaaS may offer more environment control to enterprise technology shops, it needs to evolve rapidly to become a true development platform that allows developers focus on application development. And while PaaS promised elasticity, automated provisioning, security, and infrastructure monitoring, it requires significant work from the developer’s end. This work frustrates developers, and is a possible cause for the rise of still nascent, but rapidly talked about, serverless architecture. This is evident by the fact that most leading PaaS providers, such as Microsoft Azure, CloudFoundry, and OpenShift, are introducing Kubernetes support.

As containers get deployed for production at scale, they are moving out of the PaaS layer and directly providing infrastructure control to the developers. This is helping developers to consume automated operations at scale, a promise that PaaS couldn’t fulfill due to higher abstraction. Kubernetes and other orchestration platforms can organize these containers to deliver portable, consistent, and standardized infrastructure components.

All is not lost for PaaS

However, given strong enterprise adoption, all is not lost for PaaS. Enterprises will take significant time to test containers as an alternative to a PaaS environment. Moreover, given that no major PaaS or IaaS vendor other than Google owns container technology, there is an inherent interest among large cloud providers such as AWS and Azure to build something as an alternative to containers. No wonder most of them are now pushing their serverless offerings in the market as an alternate architectural choice.

Which of these architectural preferences will eventually become standard, if at all, is a difficult pick as of today. Yet, while it’s a certainty that infrastructure operations will completely change in the next five years, most enterprise shops aren’t investing meaningfully in the new tools and skills that are required to make this shift. Thus, the futuristic enterprises that realize this tectonic shift will trample their competition. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

What has been your experience with containers, APIs, microservices, serverless, and Platforms-as-a-Service? Do you think you need all of them, or do you have preferences? Do share with me at [email protected].

Sourcing Professionals Have a Tough Job | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

By | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

If you are a sourcing professional, you have our deepest respect, because now, more than ever, your job is a tough one. The sourcing industry is changing fast, disrupted by emerging technologies, shifting talent requirements and evolving service provider capabilities. Moreover, fluctuating geopolitical and legislative issues are causing enterprises to rethink substantial, long-held sourcing strategies and provider relationships. Sourcing professionals face formidable challenges in the global economy as the new year approaches and they look for better strategies in an industry experiencing unparalleled turbulence.

Technology is Changing the Game

It used to be that a sourcing professional’s No. 1 responsibility was finding a way to get the work done as cheaply as possible. Not any more. Technology has changed the game. In nearly every industry, digital technologies are driving the development of innovative products and services and improved customer experiences. To keep pace in this digital world, enterprises are now pursuing a digital-first rather than arbitrage-first strategy. In fact, the global services market has seen a threefold increase in digital-focused deals.

Automation, once merely a service delivery tool, is now “front end,” with enterprises demanding strategy, vision and strong Proof-of-Concepts (POCs) for advanced automation in 33 percent of all application services contracts in 2016. Similarly, artificial intelligence, cognitive computing and robotics will soon begin to pervade the enterprise portfolio and will eventually become mainstream in sourcing landscape.

Talent Requirements Are Shifting

The increasing adoption of digital strategies is changing the workforce skills that enterprises seek, and, in turn, forcing sourcing professionals to revamp their location portfolios in the midst of a dynamic landscape. Location options for traditional global sourcing continue to expand, and new locations are emerging for unique talent demands, such as digital capabilities.

Geopolitical Disruption Adds Complexity

Sourcing professionals also must anticipate and react to numerous geopolitical disruptions that keep the sourcing landscape shifting like windblown sand. In the past year, for example, we have seen a significant decrease in demand from the United Kingdom given the uncertainty with Brexit; uncertainty about healthcare legislation in the US has dampened the healthcare sourcing market; and the uncertainty due to visa reforms has led to increased local hiring and onshoring in the U.S.

The Provider Landscape is Constantly Changing

Sourcing professionals also are challenged to stay abreast of changes in the provider landscape. Mergers and acquisitions are on the rise, and leading providers are making fundamental changes to their talent and service delivery models. Between April of 2016 and March of this year, Everest Group witnessed 40 acquisitions to expand digital capabilities, 140 alliances between providers and technology providers or startups, and the setup of 35 new centers and digital pods to help clients rethink their digital strategies.

Data for Sound Decision-Making

In the midst of this complexity, buyers of global services are tasked with making critical decisions. Recompeting an outsourcing contract, selecting a location for a global in-house center, or contracting for new tech services—these are the types of decisions that can significantly impact an organization’s performance and an executive’s career.

That’s why Everest Group has announced that it is doubling down on its commitment to provide fact-based comparative assessments. We’re consolidating our comparative analysis offerings – previously offered under a variety of product names – under our flagship PEAK Matrix brand, which will now evaluate services, solutions, products and locations. Additionally, we’ll be expanding the market segments addressed to include new functions, processes and industry verticals. Read more about it here.

In the midst of all the complexity and change that sourcing professionals face, one thing remains the same: Everest Group is your source for the fact-based analyses you need to make informed decisions that deliver high-impact results.