Category: Outsourcing

Six Common Mistakes Enterprises Make when Developing Service Delivery Location Business Cases | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

Everest Group regularly supports clients in developing fact-based business case models to assess all relevant costs and benefits associated with their service delivery portfolio and delivery location decisions.

Not surprisingly, we’ve seen an increase in this type of activity in the last several years due to technology disruptions, potential immigration reform laws, intensifying competition for talent, and macroeconomic and geopolitical uncertainties. We’ve also seen an increase in the number of faulty/incomplete business cases that, if unresolved, can result in unnecessarily high costs and less than expected benefits.

Six common mistakes enterprises make when creating their global service delivery location business cases.

#1 Clarity on the primary objective of the business case:

Establishing clarity on the key objectives of the business case for service delivery location selection is of utmost importance. Companies often include benefits of other initiatives (e.g., transformation) which may impact their overall locations footprint, but fail to include costs associated with these initiatives, resulting in a faulty business case. As business case assessment is typically done for long-term strategic decisions, it is critical to ensure clarity on the locations strategy and implementation roadmap under consideration.

#2 Underestimating the costs of “what it takes to get there”:

Companies often underestimate the costs associated with exiting their current location (e.g., lease termination and severance costs); disruption in their existing locations (e.g., loss of knowledge due to higher than expected attrition); migrations (e.g., employee relocation, technology migration, parallel/shadow run); and set-up of new centers (e.g., capex, cost of hiring and ramp-up, training costs, etc.)

Example: A global Financial Services company had a 12-month long shadow/parallel run to effectively complete knowledge transfer for high complexity processes. This negated most of the arbitrage-related benefits for the initial 12-18 months. In fact, the company incurred relatively higher total cost of operations (TCO) until steady state operations was achieved.

Example: In a recent engagement, the location selection for a Latin American client’s shared services center was greatly influenced by applicable withholding taxes (i.e., the Argentinean government levies a ~31.5% withholding tax on import of global services from certain locations such as Mexico). These factors significantly impacted the relative cost attractiveness of locations under consideration.

#3 Overestimating benefits:

Companies often plan multiple transformation and optimization initiatives in parallel with changes to their services delivery portfolio. In such cases, things seldom pan out as planned, and the savings achieved are significantly lower than expected in areas including:

  1. Headcount reduction from process improvements
  2. Delivery pyramid optimization
  3. Implementation of automation/technology solutions
  4. Economies of scale (in cases of location consolidation)
  5. Optimization of management and administrative overheads

Example: A BFSI firm changed its planned strategy midstream, as its initial plans to fund the business case for large scale service delivery location consolidation by reducing FTE headcount by ~ 6,000 could not be realistically achieved.

#4 Stakeholder misalignment:

A service delivery location decision must involve multiple stakeholders including onshore business leaders, offshore delivery leads, functional and GIC leaders, migrations and/or transformation teams, corporate real estate, and technology teams. Any lack of coordination among these stakeholders can pose challenges in alignment on data used, key assumptions, the roadmap for service delivery portfolio changes, and the plan for other transformation/optimization initiatives. All stakeholders must be kept in the loop from the beginning of the location evaluation, and they must periodically periodic sign-off on the approach.

#5 Industry benchmarks:

While it is important to leverage industry benchmarks, companies must contextualize information to their own unique situation. The specificity of operations or the role a location plays for the company can be different from the typical value proposition of that location/geography.

Example: A recent engagement for a global Financial Services client demonstrated that, despite industry benchmarks that indicated Location A offered ~20 percent cost savings over Location B for typical BPO processes, the client’s specific processes and talent needs reversed the cost attractiveness of the two locations.

#6 Talent competition in the local market:

Companies often underestimate the true extent of competition in the local talent market, and the impact of attrition on sustainability of their operations. This impacts a company’s ability to scale initially, retain talent, and back-fill lost staff.

Example: A global manufacturing company faced significant challenges in hiring language skills for its newly setup shared services center in the APAC region, resulting in significantly lower arbitrage savings than expected.

While developing business cases models can be a significant challenge, we believe that addressing the above-mentioned points can reduce chances of error significantly. Learn more about Everest Group’s Service Delivery Locations practice.

Trump Dump | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

In our Everest Group forecast for the services industry earlier this year, we predicted deceleration from 3.2 to 2.8 percent in the broader services market and deceleration from 7.1 to 6.8 in in the Indian market. We see no reason to change that prediction of deceleration now. But something notable has happened since we made the prediction: a deceleration in Accenture’s earnings in the consulting and systems integration areas. This is puzzling at first glance but highly significant of a major trend.

We would have expected that we would increase our earlier industry forecast, given two factors:

  • Powerful new digital technologies now coming of age that are ready for adoption and should drive a wave of adoption and new spending
  • A buoyant US and global economy that has increased consumer spending, further driving discretionary services spend

However, we see negative trends due to the insecurity caused by what I refer to as the “Trump Dump” in America and by Brexit in the UK. The Trump Dump is the politically difficult environment causing companies’ reticence or unwillingness to commit to large projects with offshore labor. We’re consistently seeing projects delayed, postponed or cancelled. This puts companies in a bind because there simply isn’t sufficient domestic talent to drive large initiatives.

The US represents almost 50 percent of the global services market. We believe the Trump Dump will have a negative effect on the broader services industry, creating impacts beyond just the Indian segment of the market. Therefore, we believe there are significant reasons for caution in forecasting market growth.

How Will Brexit Impact Your Europe Delivery Strategy? | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

On June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom (U.K.) voted to leave the European Union (EU) through a referendum, also known as “Brexit.” Indications over the last few months are that it will be a “hard Brexit,” wherein the U.K. makes a clean break from the EU’s common market. If that happens, we can anticipate the following major changes to the global services operating environment:

  • Passporting for companies will become tougher: Banks and financial institutions in the U.K. will find it more challenging to operate/set up new centers across countries in the region, as the U.K. will no longer be a part of the EU free trade market
  • Talent movement across U.K. borders will be a challenge: People will require separate work visas to work in the U.K. and continental Europe. Although this is expected to apply to new work visas, changes to visas for people currently working in these countries are still uncertain.

As many global companies leverage the U.K. and countries in continental Europe to deliver services to all of Europe, passporting and talent movement restrictions could have a significant impact on their business strategy, regardless of their operating location in the region.

Potential Brexit impacts on companies operating in the U.K. and EU

In the wake of the uncertainty, global companies that are planning to service their European customer base would prefer setting up their GICs/back-office centers in continental Europe instead of the U.K. This might cause a surge in back-office activity in continental European locations, and talent demand for multiple IT and business process functions in those countries might go up.

Additionally, companies that are currently operating in the U.K. and the rest of Europe will need to prepare for possible legal/policy changes, and will need to expedite visa, HR, and administrative processes for their employees. We expect this to lead to increased demand for back-office activity in the U.K. and continental Europe.

Moreover, with talent movement restrictions becoming a possibility, companies currently operating only in the U.K. might need to rethink their talent hiring strategy in the region, especially for language-specific needs that were previously easy to fulfill.

To paint a picture of the potential Brexit impacts, following are several sample scenarios about companies operating in the U.K. and EU, and their possible decisions pre- and post-Brexit.

Brexit decision scenarios

What lies ahead for those impacted by Brexit decisions

Until the exact Brexit-related policy changes become clearer, global companies might delay or shelve their investment decisions for the U.K. and rest of Europe. They might also possibly move toward greater levels of automation in their business operations to mitigate potential risks.

While it will be a wait and watch game over the next 10-12 months for companies operating in the U.K. and EU, they’ll need to keep their eyes carefully trained on developments in order to create effective strategies for dealing with the possible changes in the near- and long-term.
For a more detailed discussion on the topic, please refer to the recently released Everest Group viewpoint, “The Road Ahead: A Global Services Perspective on the Impact of Brexit. ”

Modern Today, Legacy Tomorrow: The Nature of Fast-Changing Skill Demand in IT Services | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

It is no hidden fact that the outsourcing industry is on the cusp of change. While the labor arbitrage model and legacy ERP applications ruled the 1990s and 2000s, digital has become the heartthrob of the current decade, and you can see enterprises entering new forays to keep themselves relevant in this fast-changing business landscape.

In this context, even the demand for technical skills has changed tremendously over the past few years. Some skills that used to have the largest pull have become obsolete, and others are struggling to keep their hold in the IT services industry.

Specialist skills losing leverage against generic skills

Consider the case of SAP on-premise business solutions. Until recently, SAP as a skillset had been very attractive among fresh graduates and lateral hires alike. High market demand coupled with supply playing catch up meant higher wages and easy to switch options in the ever-competitive outsourcing market. But over the past few years, on-premise ERP and factory-led offshoring have matured to the extent that once premium technical skills such as ABAP or Basis no longer command the same leverage over generic skills such as Java, .NET, and COBOL. Even functional skills such as finance controller (FICO) or sales and distribution have seen their premium declining over the last few years.

Specialist skills such as Cognos, Informatica, and IBM Websphere are also facing the heat in large outsourcing deals, where high competition and enterprise awareness have forced service providers to utilize a common, generic rate card irrespective of the complexity or diversity of skills involved. Also, organizations such as NetSuite, Salesforce, SuccessFactors, and Workday provide a viable option with consumption-led pricing models, which make them highly attractive. The level of competition and clear buying trends are forcing even behemoths to come to the table with cloud-based, integrated business solutions. Think SAP with S/4 HANA, which is pushed aggressively by the company’s account sales teams.
With the change in the business landscape, there’s increasingly a clear preference for new age phenomena such as big data analytics, hyper-automation, and the Internet of Things (IoT).

The impact of IoT, digital technologies, and automation on skill demand

IoT is one area in which organizations are investing large sums for either cost optimization or revenue generation, depending on their business models. And it is one area in which hardware, firmware, mobility, cloud, and analytics specialists are in extremely high demand to address its hot growth. While the likes of Angular JS and Swift are being used to develop mobile applications, Hadoop and Spark are seeing a huge demand in data analytics. Even firmware and hardware engineers are being required to work in an agile fashion using DevOps methodology, a phenomenon never seen before in industrial manufacturing.

Another big area in which significant investment is being made is Service Delivery Automation (SDA). It is being looked at as a viable alternative to labor arbitrage. Enterprises are looking to automation to reduce costs and streamline business processes. Service providers and enterprises alike are scouting for Robotic Process Automation (RPA) developers and DevOps engineers for onshore/GIC/service provider operations to significantly downsize the low-level tasks performed offshore.

Overall, the current market is in a state of flux as digital takes precedence and legacy becomes less prominent. But the demand for digital services across enterprises is clear, regardless of existing market shares.

CBS Misses The Mark On American Job Loss And H-1B Visa Issues | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

A segment of the March 19 CBS “60 Minutes” TV show reported on the H-1B visa program. The show shed light on the pain and suffering of Americans losing their jobs to foreign low-wage workers and the indignity in the way it happens. Interviewees pointed out that companies exploit the H-1B visa program as a strategy for acquiring cheaper labor rather than higher talent skills – and that’s absolutely true. The show focused the spotlight on American companies “hijacking” the H-1B visa program, using it in a way that was not intended when the legislation was written. The segment ended with an interviewee’s doomsday-type projection that American job loss to companies in India won’t end. That’s where I believe CBS and “60 Minutes” missed the mark – there is absolutely a pathway out of this situation, and many American companies started on that path over a year ago. Read more at Peter’s Forbes blog.

The Philippines: Future Foe or Long-term Friend? | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

With the uncertain political situation in the Philippines and the comments President Duterte has made about distancing from the United States militarily to align closer to China and Russia, many are concerned about what this means for the relationship between the Philippines and the U.S. And rightfully so – this would be a major shift, and over time could be a cause for concern.

At the same time, the Philippines has been quick to point out that the commercial and social relationships between it and the United States are very strong, and that it wants and expects those to continue.

And therein lies an important point… a rebalancing of military relationships does not automatically lead to poor commercial and social relationships between countries.

In a quick exercise to demonstrate how countries can have a variety of types of relationships with the United States, I did a super simple comparison of several military and social dimensions in the graphic below. In addition to the Philippines, I chose India, Malaysia, and Turkey to represent a cross-section of countries near Russia and China that have some level of meaningful connection to the United States. Turkey is a member of NATO, India is a major trading partner for services and goods, and Malaysia is an interesting mix of relations with China and the U.S. (not to mention the Malay flag looks very similar to the United States flag).

I looked at language, religion, sports, and use of NATO-sourced fighter craft (both trainers and actively deployed.) Those without NATO-sourced fighter craft tend to attain theirs from Russia or China. Most countries not in NATO and near Russia have some mix of fighter aircraft.

Philippines U.S. relationship

Based on this very simple comparison, many in the global services industry might be surprised to see that India appears to be the least well-aligned to the U.S. on most dimensions. In particular, India depends primarily upon Russia for various types of military equipment, beyond just aircraft, and India is an important export market for Russia.

By contrast, the Philippines is very closely aligned to the U.S. on all dimensions, which explains why the average Filipino has a hard time with the concept of weakened commercial and social ties to the U.S.

Time will tell what actually happens. But we should all remember that military, commercial, and social ties can operate somewhat independently. Relationships between most countries are complex and multi-faceted, so a change in one area may be slow to impact the overall relationship.

H-1B Visa Reform Impact on IT Outsourcing Deal TCV | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

In a recent blog entitled, “Is rising costs the only impact immigration reform bills will have on the services industry?” our colleagues wrote about a variety of potential effects Representative Zoe Lofgren’s (D-CA) “High-Skilled Integrity and Fairness Act of 2017” H1-B visa proposal would have on numerous parties.

Let’s look squarely at the potential impact of these changes on total contract value (TCV). Some of the key IT service providers, especially Cognizant, HCL, Infosys, TCS, and Wipro – all of which rely heavily on “landed” resources to provide IT services in the U.S. – would have some major decisions to make, ranging from tactical, such as recruitment strategy, to business strategy, such as margin cuts.

If passed, the bill would most likely take away the landed resources cost advantage. Having assessed numerous IT ADM contracts in the last 12 months, Everest Group conducted a simulation to represent a typical three-year IT AM deal, using industry standard offshoring, staffing pyramids, and local-to-landed resource ratios. Our simulation showed that the removal of the difference in pricing of local and landed resources alone would result in a 5-6 percent increase in TCV, not taking into account any auxiliary impact on service providers’ cost (recruitment, organizational restructuring, etc.)

H-1B Visa Reform impact on TCVAlready pressed for margins, IT service providers would try to pass the TCV impact on to their enterprise clients. As it is very unlikely clients would be willing to bear the cost increase, it would remain with the providers. As a margin decline of 500-700 basis points would significantly disrupt any company’s financial standing, the providers would need to deploy countermeasures to mitigate this impact.

To reduce the impact on margins, service providers could use levers such as degree of offshoring and staffing pyramids. Our simulation showed that increasing offshoring by about 2-3 percent resulted in a 50 percent decline in the impact of TCV (essentially lowering the increase from 5-7 percent to 2-3 percent) for a typical three-year ADM deal. While the impact on more complex deals might not be easy to mitigate, our simulation demonstrates there is hope for service providers who play smartly and are proactive in adopting strategies to counter the potential impact of any negative reforms.

Another way service providers can drive down their costs is through automation. For example, key aspects of onshore resources’ work include coordination with offshore resources for alignment of work and managing timelines and quality objectives. If automated, these aspects could significantly nullify the impact of onshore cost increases. And with 300-400 basis points at stake, providers might finally have the motivation to adopt automation at the enterprise level, rather than as a deal- or client-specific objective.

It will be very interesting to see if service providers are able to convince the enterprises to share some of the increased cost burden. What’s your guess?

Are Rising Costs the Only Impact Immigration Reform Bills Will Have on the Services Industry? | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

When U.S. congressmen Darrel Issa and Scott Peters at the very beginning of 2017 proposed a bill that would increase H-1B visa holders’ wages to US$100,000, experts in the industry were positive that IT service providers would be able to manage it, as they were already bearing costs between US$75-85K. But less than a month later, U.S. Congressman Zoe Lofgren’s introduction of the “The High-Skilled Integrity and Fairness Act of 2017” – a bill that aims to double the minimum salaries for H-1B visa holders to minimum US$130,000 – eroded 5 percent of the Indian IT service providers’ market.

Although U.S. President Trump’s subsequent congressional speech talked about merit being the criteria for visa allotment – and many businesses rejoiced that he made no mention of minimum wage as the deciding factor – it’s fair to assume that the minimum wage might still end up near US$130,000 in a merit-based lottery system.

But cost is only one of the possible impacts of visa reforms on the parties directly and indirectly involved in the services industry. Let’s take a look.

Impacts on service providers

A landed resource might continue to be indispensable for projects when his or her role is primarily that of liaison with between the client’s business units and the provider’s offshore resources (due to time zone differences and established comfort levels) or if he or she was engaged for unique skills or insights. Landed resources serving as liaisons for business units could more easily be replaced by local resources.

H-1B visa reforms are expected to trigger a refocus on driving efficiencies through automation and digital process transformation. This will accelerate the transformation in service providers’ years’ standing talent acquisition operations and processes. The requirement for different skill sets, coupled with cannibalization of traditional revenue streams, paint a less than rosy picture on falling traditional revenues and increasing costs.

We might also see higher consolidation in the outsourcing industry, especially for mid-sized firms, as service providers may look at economies of scale and inorganic account expansion to counter slowing growth and keep cost of operations in check.

Impact on enterprises

U.S. companies might have to bear the brunt economic impact of the demand-supply mismatch. Enterprises today use H-1B resources for a variety of reasons, some to manage their GIC operations. A raise in the average wage will cause inflationary pressure on IT resource costs, restrict supply of talent, and create increased poaching of resources between companies. In other words, enterprises might be forced to hire landed resources at a cost much higher than the perceived value, or lose out on business efficiency and growth, thus creating a vicious cycle that the current administration hopes to break.

Impact on the education sector

The education sector might be most immediately impacted by any stringent visa reform going through. Enrollment of non-U.S. nationals in Master’s programs could plummet, given the likely challenge in finding jobs after graduation. This situation has already been observed in the U.K., where tight visa guidelines have compelled students to return home once they are done with their education. The rest of Europe, which has relatively less stringent visa requirements, might become a hot destination for the Indian student diaspora as demand for technical expertise increases significantly.

In India, it’s clear industry veterans and current leaders are questioning their own hiring tactics and the sustainability of the low cost model. While some have expressed that retraining their current force is difficult as people in senior and middle management are low quality, others have condemned the IT industry as a whole by accusing them of carteling to keep wages low.
This might not float well with new graduates, who increasingly look for jobs at start-ups entering the disruptive digital space. These new companies are offering higher wages and a culture more suited to millennials than do IT service providers.

While it will be wait and watch until we know what clauses in the proposed bill become law, it’s clear that any combination of the above and other impacts will force providers and enterprises to make some major decisions to remain at the top of their game.

Impacts of H-1B Visa Applications Suspension | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

There’s a new stake in the ground for H-1B visa reform. Beginning on April 3, 2017, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will temporarily suspend premium processing for all H-1B visa petitions. Large U.S. tech firms stand out as firms that will suffer disruption from the suspension, but the impact will be felt most heavily among India’s service providers, all of which typically use the premium processing option.

The announcement stated the suspension may last for six months and impacts visa applications for FY18. A premium processing fee of $1,225 expedites the normal three to six months wait for visa decisions to 15 days. While there are several potential impacts, two rise above as the most significant threats to business in the near term:

  • The suspension is more likely to affect current visa extensions than new applicants. Thus, it could cause staffing gaps, especially since there is already a large backlog of applications for visa extensions.
  • It may hinder Indian providers’ ability to obtain the large number of new visas they desire, so they are likely to rev up their applications in coming months.

Based on the current political climate with an “America First” focus, one could assume that the Trump Administration is the proponent of the suspension, but the USCIS announcement didn’t specify a reason other than the current backlog. However, visa laws are outdated and H-1B visas have been a candidate for the reform “chopping block” for several years. So, what can we glean regarding the progress of visa reform from this recent move?

I believe the suspension could usher in an ideal opportunity to revise the visa program later. Undoubtedly, another outcome that will emerge is increased media attention on Indian service providers versus US jobs, as they historically heavily exploited the visa laws. As I recently blogged, Everest Group already is seeing evidence of businesses postponing or cancelling plans to outsource work to Indian service providers.

Finally, it’s clear that visa reform is still teetering as the existing proposals have not garnered enough compromise and support in Congress. What will be the Trump effect on moving the proposals forward? I’ve watched and blogged about this important issue since May 2013 and will continue monitoring the potential impacts of proposed visa reform.

From Labor Arbitrage to Digital Arbitrage: Shareholder Value in the New IT World | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

Recently, corporate developments, such as management changes, corporate governance, and investor activism across Indian IT service providers, have bombarded the investor community. Many investors perceive the initiatives taken by these companies to be a watershed moment in their histories.

Furthermore, with next generation automation, digital services, artificial intelligence (AI), and other disruptors creating massive, requisite, and unavoidable change in the IT services industry, investors and service providers are in increasingly opposing schools of thought. However, many of the investment firms we work with struggle to correlate these developments with their investments and returns.

Given the scale of the IT industry and the pace of disruption happening in the entire ecosystem, it’s valuable to take a few minutes to dissect and analyze the situation.

Growth vs. profitability equation – digital arbitrage vs. labor arbitrage

For the past two decades, Indian IT service providers have reported a stellar net profit margin in the range of 18-25 percent. The business grew on the investments made in human resources. The players achieved impressive returns primarily due to their grip on labor arbitrage. The investor community embraced the stocks, and experienced significant returns. For instance, an investment of US$350 in one of the top Indian IT service providers in 1992 would have yielded US$377,643 in 2015!

The emerging IT services model – driven by digital disruptors – gives little emphasis to labor arbitrage or the providers’ earlier factory model, and instead focuses on innovation and value creation for enterprises that extends far beyond greater efficiency. Not many IT service providers have demonstrated a mindset aligned to these new requirements. They are still hesitant to loosen their noose on profitability, as they set investor expectations very high with their earlier business model.

What is bothering investors?

Investment firms we work with believe that most disruptive technologies will drive lower profitability for Indian IT service providers likely in the 8-15 percent net profit range. They also believe that technology disruption will not allow the same level of offshoring as before, and will further erode profitability.

As most of the Indian IT service providers have zero debt and own huge piles of cash, investors think they should receive distributions in the form of dividends. Their demand is stronger when they learn the providers are going to invest in low-margin digital businesses, as they believe they will not receive the optimal reward they are due.

A twist

Believing that the market is undervaluing their stocks, IT service providers are planning share buybacks, spinning them as a way to reward shareholders. However, they actually plan to reduce tax leakages caused by dividend distribution, as Indian tax law stipulates they pay a 15 percent Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) on dividends paid. Additionally, the share buybacks help them increase their control over the company.

What is the reality?

Both these opposing schools of thought fail to think in the long term.

Investors looking for dividends aren’t acknowledging Berkshire Hathaway’s theory of dividends. If a business can deliver promising returns in the long-run, dividends act as a negative catalyst for growth. In an attempt to pacify their investors, most of whom are technology novices, most Indian IT service companies are relabeling their old offerings as “digital.” Instead of dividends, investors need to ask IT service providers’ leadership tough questions on how they plan to use their large cash piles relative to their IP, platforms, acquisition, talent development, and client relationship strategies. How do they plan to differentiate in this crowded market? When large-scale offshore development centers fail to provide the needed competitive advantage, what does their armory contain to create shareholder value?

The way in which IT service providers are surrendering to investor pressures gives the impression that they are not willing to utilize their cash for digital technology investments. This in turn reinforces the popular opinion that Indian IT service providers are not confident enough to tide over the current transition. That some of the providers are distributing cash instead of putting the money in beneficial investments is making some market observers uncomfortable.

Furthermore, if the providers are not planning to distribute cash, they must ensure that they use the money for useful investments rather than just share buybacks. This is a win-win situation, as the providers get a boost to their topline and ability to endure the current business transition, and shareholders get maximized wealth in the long term. Net-net, firms that invest wisely are going to withstand the changeover, while those that use their cash piles to temporarily shut out investors are likely to witness a tough time.

Are these companies capable of implementing the business model?

As the adage goes, easier said than done. Although service providers are vocal about re-skilling employees opening onshore centers focused on digital services, the viability of these initiatives are questionable. The majority of these companies have amateur design thinking capabilities, and their DNA is around supplying people, not innovation and strategic partnerships. Indeed, in our recently published report “Customer (Dis) Satisfaction: Why Are Enterprises Unhappy with the Service Providers,” enterprises only gave providers a score of five out of 10 on their strategic partnering abilities.

Only time will tell whether service providers made the right move in distributing cash or investing in low-margin businesses.

How can we engage?

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

Contact Us

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