Tag: differentiation

Multi-Channel Solutions – Defining the New Age Contact Centers | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

The customer care industry is going through myriad changes, but none as far-reaching and impactful as the rise in the adoption of non-voice channels. Recognizing this shift in customer behavior, enterprises are working to ensure their customers have a seamless experience across the channels of their choice, in order to increase customer acquisition, retention, and loyalty. This change in buyer expectations is having its effect on the global Contact Center Outsourcing (CCO) market as well.

One of the key findings in Everest Group’s Contact Center Outsourcing Annual Report 2015 is an almost 10 percent erosion between 2011 and 2014 in the voice channel’s revenue share, even though it remained the dominant channel of customer interaction. While voice has grown at a sluggish pace (3 percent CAGR between 2011 and 2014), non-voice channels have witnessed robust growth, led by email, which experienced a handsome 22 percent CAGR revenue share growth between 2011 and 2014. Chat and social media account for smaller proportions of non-voice channel revenue, but grew at 43 percent and 53 percent, respectively, in the same period.

CCO revenue across channels over time

Increasing adoption of non-voice channels has also given rise to solutions specifically targeting multi-channel requirements. Everest Group research shows inclusion of channel management as a value-added service had almost tripled from 7 percent of the contracts signed in 2008-2010 to 19 percent in 2013-2014. In fact, multi-channel solutions have become so pervasive that growth opportunities for players supporting the voice channel predominantly are diminishing rapidly. Barring contracts focused on outbound sales services, 60 percent of new contracts focused on operational or value-added services have a non-voice component.  As discussed in our recently published viewpoint, it is becoming increasingly imperative for service providers to design solutions with a portfolio that combines value-added services and non-voice channels.

As service providers make investments to augment their capabilities and build expertise in managing non-voice channels, below are some implications they should keep in mind:

  • Outlining the right shoring strategy. Our research shows a clear move towards onshore delivery as CCO clients increasingly prefer agents closer to home, especially for the voice channel. The changing channel mix will dictate the direction in which the shoring strategies evolve in the future
  • Defining the right skill-sets. Non-voice channels provide productivity gains by allowing agents the opportunity to juggle multiple channels without impacting quality. Service providers must ensure agents are upskilled through the right set of training programs and hiring requirements, which are different from those for voice
  • Leveraging analytics. Non-voice channels are more digital-friendly by definition, and are suited for use of advanced analytics tools. Close alignment of analytics solutions to derive incremental insight and information from the data generated from non-voice channels will be critical
  • Using sophisticated pricing models. Non-voice channels align well with output- and outcome-based pricing models, and have witnessed higher adoption of these pricing models than the voice channel. As they build capabilities on the non-voice front, CCO service providers must also look at how to best align their processes and metrics around non-voice channels to support clients’ desired business and customer experience outcomes. This essentially involves redefining CCO’s value proposition beyond cost savings to include business performance
  • Supporting clients through the journey. CCO clients require guidance and clarity on where to begin the non-voice channel journey, and how to move forward with it. We have already seen consulting practices within BPO firms helping clients confidently undertake this transformative journey, and could be a very critical component in the successful adoption of non-voice channels.

In a heavily commoditized market, non-voice channels give service providers an opportunity to differentiate themselves and stand out from the crowd. While some providers have taken the lead and become front-runners in the multi-channel solutions race, others have more recently started augmenting their capabilities in this space through acquisitions and partnerships. Building capabilities is a key success factor, but as highlighted earlier there are other factors for service providers to consider to ensure they make the best use of these capabilities.

Adapting to Evolving Client Needs – the New Mantra of Growth for Smaller Contact Center Service Providers | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

As a USD$70-75 billion market that has been growing steadily at 5-7 percent over the last few years, contact center outsourcing (CCO) has captured the interest of multiple non-CCO specialist service providers in the recent years. In fact, the more generalized ITO and BPO providers that have started CCO operations in the last decade have realized appreciable growth and success in recent years, some of them outdoing the market growth and growing in excess of 8 percent CAGR.

However, it’s not been an easy journey for these relatively new entrants, given their relative small scale and scope of operations compared to the incumbent players, some of which make billions in revenue through contact center services alone and have operations across all major geographies. To differentiate themselves, these new players have tried to stand out from crowd through innovation, and by tapping areas within the CCO space that have showed the maximum growth in the last few years and have emerged as value propositions for CCO clients.

Most of these high-growth players are, in fact, relatively smaller players, such as Genpact, HCL, HGS, TCS, and WNS. While many have had long-standing contact center capabilities, it has only been more recently that these firms have taken a more strategic go-to-market approach to pursuing the stand-alone CCO market. Their revenues from CCO operations are in the USD$100-450 million range, which is miniscule in size when compared to some of the bigger players such as Convergys and Teleperformance. To sustain their above market growth, these providers have adopted multiple steps to emerge as serious contenders. Instead of merely tapping the traditional CCO markets such as North America and Europe, these players have aggressively expanded their footprint in emerging buyer geographies such as Asia Pacific, Eastern Europe, and Middle East & Africa. By building their capabilities in languages specific to these areas, they have been able to cater to client demands better. They have also been making their presence felt in some of the fastest growing verticals in the CCO market, such as retail, healthcare, and travel & hospitality. Many of them have effectively leveraged their organization’s overall investments in vertical industry expertise to further enhance CCO capabilities and offerings. A key differentiator for many of these players is their ability to link the consumer interaction in the contact center with downstream industry-specific processes by delivering front-back office integrated solutions. These investments seem to have paid off well, as the revenues from these verticals have shown sharp growth for these service providers.

Our research shows that buyers are looking more towards building deeper working relationships with fewer CCO service providers. This means that buyers no longer expect service providers to just deliver on SLAs, but are looking for value beyond labor arbitrage. More contracts being signed now involve value-added processes, and include non-voice channels such as email, chat, and social media. To address these new value propositions, these high-growth players have invested in multiple technologies to build their capabilities in these domains. Most of them have leveraged their vast IT and BPO expertise to deliver solutions specific to contact center needs.

They have also made it a priority to focus on building strong relationships with their clients. They have performed quite strongly on Everest Group’s buyer satisfaction survey, and have frequently been cited for their flexibility, responsiveness, consistency, and execution. With buyers looking to consolidate their portfolio of work with fewer strategic partners, it becomes more essential to have a stronger client-service provider relationship, which the service providers can only achieve by walking that extra mile to keep clients happy with their services.

With the changing scenario in the CCO market, where the focus has shifted from improving the bottom line to adding more value to the operations and thus improving the top line for clients, scale can no longer be considered the primary metric for assessing a service provider. The focus has shifted to cost savings through process improvement and business outcomes, and this provides these relatively new generation high-growth players enough opportunity to prove their mettle in the market where they have been aligning their capabilities with changing client needs. Everest Group’s findings show that clients are taking notice and giving these providers a chance to prove themselves.


Photo credit: Flickr

FOMO (“Fear of Missing Out”) – the Service Provider’s Ebola | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

FOMO is reaching epidemic proportions among service providers. We see it particularly in the Indian firms, but it’s not confined to the Indian providers. It starts in the sales teams as they fall behind in their sales goals; then it spreads and infects the entire organization.

You can easily identify the providers infected with FOMO. In the marketplace, there is no RFP or opportunity they don’t want to contest. The FOMO infection causes them to run from client to client with the newest PowerPoint presentations of great promises. But the decks aren’t compelling and lack depth, so the buyers don’t believe the providers’ messages. The buyers aren’t infected with FOMO, so they aren’t blind enough to believe that one company can be great at everything.

Because of FOMO, the providers don’t spend enough time with the existing or potential client to be able to develop the necessary depth.

Those free of FOMO actually outperform in the market consistently and build a much more relevant perspective unique to a client because of their effort to gain a more in-depth understanding of the client.

They focus on a client’s issues rather than chasing every RFP. They only go after opportunities where they have developed a perspective. They put most of their sales resources into focusing on existing clients instead of developing go-to-market schemes for yet-uncaptured clients.

Paradoxically, not only do disciplined providers outperform other providers with their existing clients, but they also outperform in the marketplace with new clients. This is because when they do engage, they engage in a thoughtful, impactful way.

Fortunately for services buyers, FOMO hasn’t infected the entire services industry.


Photo credit: Flickr

EPAM Defies the Odds in Global Services Market | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

EPAM, a midsize, $800+ million service provider, is growing faster than the market. And it’s achieving this notable status in a mature application space where others have struggled and also in a services world that favors scale and size. What is its secret for beating the odds and seemingly defying gravity?

At first glance, EPAM shouldn’t be able to succeed. Its customer base is large enterprises with mature sourcing models. And although it has an arbitrage value proposition, it uses Eastern European resources, which are more expensive arbitrage than available in India. Yet it achieves attractive margins and is quickly growing.

EPAM succeeds because it has a highly differentiated value proposition around its talent model, client intimacy and capabilities. It’s a compelling story.

It delivers against the traditional pyramid offshore factory model with its incumbent churn. EPAM provides, instead, talent from Eastern Europe who have deep engineering skills and are more technically savvy. Once it puts a team in place, it keeps that team in place; so there is low turnover in staff. This positions EPAM as better understanding its clients and bringing a more stable, higher-productive, knowledgeable team than its competitors, with deep customer and technical knowledge. They don’t take over all the operations; they focus on highly technical applications that tend to be mission critical.

EPAM succeeds because it hits the market with the right differentiated story and a set of capabilities, messaging and business practices that align well for large, mature companies. In today’s mature market, EPAM presents a nice counterpoint to the big Indian firms. And they are taking share.

How to Stand Out in a Crowded Global Services Market | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

As industry analysts we at Everest Group listen to endless PowerPoint deck presentations from service providers. They should provide information about what separates a provider from its competitors. But in reality, they just all merge together and lose relevance. Providers need to focus on a little less talk and a lot more action. Here are several reasons why the decks become irrelevant.

Providers think they’re being clever when they bring PowerPoint presentations displaying a framework to existing or potential customers. My observance is there are three problems from a customer’s perspective:

  • It’s impolite to force a customer to put your framework to their business problem.
  • Customers and industry analysts see dozens of PowerPoint frameworks. So it’s not impactful to show them yet another framework. It’s like water trickling over a stone — it takes a long time to make an impact.
  • Most customer executives problem solve by relating to a real-life story. But it’s a very painful process to try to take a highly conceptual framework and apply it to a customer’s real-life situation.

So what’s the remedy? It’s simple: let’s make a pact and do away with frameworks. My advice to providers is to just use concrete real examples in presentations. And it will be doubly valuable because none of your competitors are doing it.


Photo credit: Steven Depolo

Is Xerox Changing Direction or Is It More of the Same? | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

I’m watching with great interest the current change in leadership at Xerox. They just announced that Lynn Blodgett will retire at the end of 2014 and Robert Zapfel will join the firm on April 1 as president of Xerox Services and EVP of the corporation, reporting to the chairman and CEO. Bob has had a distinguished career for 35 years at IBM and helped transform Big Blue’s services business to profitability. Will Xerox now use the IBM playbook?

Here’s a short version of the IBM playbook:

  • Be relentless in adjusting the cost base and disciplined in exiting businesses that can’t meet the return total.
  • Be patient and consistent in acquiring new properties that enable positioning in attractive, high-growth market segments.
  • Be very effective at utilizing the company’s broad capabilities including products and R&D to craft a differentiated position in services.

In many respects Xerox and IBM enjoy a similar position. They both have strong balance sheets with which to finance acquisitions, they both have golden brands that engender trust, and they both have R&D that is the envy of the industry. Arguably Xerox has already been walking down the IBM path to some extent. It will be interesting to see how Bob shapes the future of this proud and venerable industry leader. What do you think?


Photo credit: Derek Bruff

Cognizant Finds the Secret to Growing a Services Business Faster | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

Service providers often ask Everest Group for advice on how to grow their business faster. We usually find that their starting-point perspective has a pitfall. They fall for the seduction of new logos.

The problem with this growth strategy is that it’s very difficult to win a brand new customer without “privilege.”  Privilege is not a well-understood concept, but basically it requires that your company has an existing relationship with a customer. Where this is not the case your company will have to prove that it is credible, different from competitors and special. Specialness is the depth of understanding that you have in the uniqueness of the customer, an industry or a function. Obviously it’s easier to build this within an existing client base.

In most service industries, companies can grow three to four times faster in their existing client base than they can by adding new clients. Why? Because they already have a relationship, and the customers understand that the provider is “special.”

The master of this strategy is Cognizant. They are great at enlarging the “mine.” To do this, they sell more to their existing stakeholder groups, creating new mines in that client base. They are very adept at befriending and really understanding CIOs, CTOs and department managers’ needs where they already serve a client.

The first thing they do is look for a new mine in an existing customer. They first service HR, accounting or another stakeholder group and learn how best to service them. Based on the depth of understanding of industry or function they get from serving that stakeholder group, they are more credible in the open marketplace than their competitors. By growing fast and broadly in their existing client base, they build a richness of how to service clients and what each client’s real issues are. And they build real stories that make them much more credible. It’s that experience and credibility that make them special.

Cognizant also organizes its business around this methodology. For example, they put more people into their customer accounts than many other providers. Why? It’s their growth strategy:

  • They have more people at the customer location to help outsell their competition.
  • When they go to start a new mine, they can move in people who already know the customer rather than bringing in people from the outside.
  • When they go to get a new logo outside their customer base, they are able to bring in people with direct experience. And they don’t violate the existing customer’s need for consistency because they have a surplus of people in the account. So the customer doesn’t lose key people; they lose one of three key people, not the one key person.

Our advice is that your company’s growth strategy should follow the Cognizant model. Deemphasize new logos and instead focus on growing business with existing accounts. As you build depth, experience and credibility from these experiences the new logos will be much easier. Besides being a proven strategy, the good news is that your cost of sales will be lower if you adopt this strategy.

The Biggest Losers in the Service Provider World | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

I talked recently with one of the biggest losers among service providers. They had just been through a competitive RFP process as the incumbent provider. They worked tirelessly to martial the firm’s resources to get both the external and internal sale and get executives lined up. Their sales team was engaged. There were a lot of hidden costs, plus significant travel costs and deals to be brokered. And there was some relationship strain from the customer forcing them to be more competitive in their bid.

Then came the news that they came in second — the biggest loser.

Unlike the TV program where the biggest loser is a winner and receives a reward for huge weight loss, all there is for a bidding provider that comes in second place is a chest wound in the form of several million dollars in pursuit costs with no return.

What can be done to avoid being the biggest loser? That’s a question service providers ask us, and we work with them on becoming more competitive. I think there are several ways to approach this.

1. Is your company qualified? 

First of all, if you want to win, don’t pursue situations where your company is not likely to win. That sounds like a no-brainer. But how do you know if it’s qualified? Here are some of the main aspects to consider:

  • Does your company have a preferred relationship with the customer? Does the customer already know you? Are they unhappy with the incumbent provider? (Don’t kid yourself; there’s always an incumbent.)
  • Did you help shape the problem? Or are you responding to someone else’s shaping of the problem?
  • Do you know if your bid will be compelling? Do you know if you’re high priced? So many providers bid, knowing that others have a lower price, and go through the process of trying to persuade the customer that the higher price is because they’re better. That’s hard to do. There’s a higher probability of losing in that scenario.
  • Is your company distinctive? Are your capabilities and offerings differentiated? Will the customer recognize your company’s difference and care about it? Is your company’s specialness worth a premium?

2. Do you have a surplus of opportunities?

It’s tempting to run to every RFP or opportunity, but my advice is not to do this. Your company must be very disciplined not to run toward all opportunities, no matter how much they sparkle. It’s hard to pass them up, particularly in the face of an industry experiencing slow growth.

Marvin Bower, who was the guiding influence at McKinsey from 1933 – 2003, counseled that you can’t be selective about customers unless you have a surplus of opportunities.

If you’re not sitting in the midst of a surplus, then you won’t benefit by reading the rest of this blog. Basically, your company must compete on every opportunity, so you may as well resign yourself to the fact that for an uncomfortable amount of time your company will be the biggest loser and come in second.

But if you can generate a surplus of opportunities, my advice is first to categorize your opportunities and then rig the playing field.

3. Categorize your opportunities

You need to sort your opportunities into two categories: those that you’re not likely to win and those where you realistically have a good chance to win. From the first day you begin talking with the potential or existing customer, you must be ruthless in qualifying how serious the chances of winning are. Once you recognize the opportunity is one your company is not likely to win, you need to step away.

You have to be ruthless in being willing to do this. And the sooner you make this decision the better off you’ll be.

4. Rig the playing field

My observation is that the majority of the work for the best providers comes from privileged environments where they either don’t compete or they “cheat” — that is, they make sure they compete on an unfair playing field where they get to run downhill and downwind against the competitors trying to dislodge them from opportunities.

There’s a famous sports adage attributed to several famous athletes: If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying. In the case of opportunity bids, the cheating isn’t bad. You simply rig the playing field so that your company appears to be special among the competitors. Perhaps you own IP, for instance. Or perhaps you have an existing relationship with the customer. The best way to cheat is to make sure the work never goes to the open market for bids. How do you do that? Make sure the customer sole sources it.

So here’s the formula for not being the biggest loser: make sure your company is distinctive and that the customer can recognize it, make sure you have a surplus of opportunities, qualify the opportunities all the way through the discussions and be disciplined in walking away from those where you don’t have a clear chance of winning and then rig the playing field.

Happy bidding!

The World Doesn’t Need Another White Paper | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

Would you maintain a marketing strategy that has shifted to a disadvantage? The answer seems like a no-brainer, but the reality is many providers in the global services market are indeed marching forward with a disadvantaged strategy.

In the increasingly competitive services marketplace, providers are running to thought leadership as a differentiation. That’s great. But here’s the problem: they use white papers to present their thought leadership but, frankly speaking, the world doesn’t need another white paper.

Nearly every provider has dozens of white papers; some have hundreds. Hoping to get past purchasing and get access to more senior people and business stakeholders, providers write white papers with the hope that they will percolate new business.

But the papers are not compelling enough to help increase their customer bases. They don’t differentiate in the area of thought leadership, because most of the providers are talking about the same topics or angles. The strategy might have worked when the topics were new; but that’s no longer the case. White papers usually sit on people’s desks and don’t get read. Even if they are read, they don’t make a strong impression and rarely result in new customers or serving an existing customer better.

For a white paper to work, it has to be different. It needs to be simple, profound and short. Buyers are looking for a practical vision of how to improve their business — they want something different than another paper about the capabilities of some tool or process. The paper won’t be remembered if it just tells the reader how to use a tool or process to do something.

Instead, a white paper with an effective message must ask penetrating questions. The right five questions will open the door.

IBM’s is doing this very well. So is Accenture. Think of their paper that gives an illustration of how a company saved $1 billion. The message is simple, clear, and leaves the potential customer asking questions. It invites a conversation between the buyer and the provider.

Webinars are similarly not effective. Like white papers, everybody is doing webinars and talking about the same thing. There is nothing compelling.

So you’re probably asking: Why is Everest Group doing webinars?

The audience for our webinars is a group of people who have subscribed to our content agenda on certain topics. In the webinars we effectively have a conversation with an intimate group invited to that conversation based on their expressed interest in it. We don’t attempt to evangelize through webinars; instead, we attempt to advance the knowledge of people who tell us they want to learn more about a topic and what’s going on in a particular space. Then we seek to move past the webinars to personal interactions and conversation with individuals.

It’s not that white papers or webinars are wrong in today’s marketing maneuvers. They have their place. It’s just that they are bad vehicles for projecting and demonstrating thought leadership to new people. They tend to be not insightful, all providers have them and the intended audience for the papers and webinars aren’t reading them or attending.

In the global services world marketing leaders depending on white papers or webinars to convey their message need to reinvent their strategy.

What Is the Investment Profile of Your Service Provider? | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

Like many financial investors over the past decade, my portfolio resembles a buoy floating on ocean swells. Most of the “ups” have been offset by painful “downs,” and the real growth has come simply from saving more money. At this point, I often wonder if I am actually investing, or just riding out a storm and hoping for the best. I fear the same is true of many organizations and the relationships they are continuing with their service providers.

Those of you who attended last week’s Market Vista webinar will recall that we spent some time looking at the service provider landscape in banking applications outsourcing. One of the key takeaways from our assessment of this competitive landscape (one of the largest outsourcing markets, with over US$6 billion in annual revenue) is that the players most improving relative to their peers have targeted their investments on technology (e.g., HCL with Capital Stream, Polaris with Intellect, and TCS with Bancs).

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the market must find ways of creating more value beyond just labor arbitrage. First, yesterdays or today’s successes get no credit next year – competitive pressures require moving forward. Second, the arbitrage-centric model is okay, but not great. Maintaining satisfaction – let alone improving it – is elusive. Quite simply, it is too dependent upon too many people, and people are not as reliable and consistent as we would like to believe. Think about it: do you prefer a switchboard operator or your personal contacts directory in your smart phone?

My strong, strong belief is that users of third-party outsourcing services need to pay increasingly close attention to the investments their service providers are making, and re-align their relationships accordingly. This applies primarily to technology-related capabilities, but also to other areas such of geographic scope, domain knowledge, partnerships, and others.

But haven’t we been investing already?

While there have been some investments, many of the hard-dollar investments to date have really just been in creating fungible scale – seating, recruiting pipelines, sales organizations, and training for resources that could be used in multiple ways. They were largely about how to expand the existing business into new, but roughly similar markets. Few of the “investments” were hard choices between one or more options to create meaningfully different and new types of value. For example, having a building for employees to work in is only a question of estimating demand and therefore size of the space, not whether a building is required.

Other than a few acquisitions of Global In-house Centers (GICs or captives), such as Citi’s by TCS and UBS’ by Cognizant, there have been few larger scale bets on enhancing capabilities. Many service providers have been incrementally optimizing capabilities with an extra million dollars here and there. Occasionally, a firm has bought a technology capability for tens of millions of dollars. HCL’s acquisition of Axon, (£440 million), is the largest capability expansion that comes to mind in the past five years – and it was a bet on combining two different, but seemingly complementary, types of value propositions (Note: I consider HP’s mammoth acquisition of EDS to be industry consolidation, not fundamental capability enhancement. The pending US$2.6 billion acquisition of Logica by CGI is both consolidation and capability enhancement).

Overall, the investments have been very tightly aligned to expected revenue streams that could create fairly quick pay-off, and often just mimicking what others were already doing rather than boldly breaking the mold or venturing into truly unknown territory.

What can break the mold, and how it changes everything

If service providers continue to largely mirror each other’s capabilities, we will continue to end up with 10, 20, or more service providers that largely do the same thing, and are not particularly differentiated. To create true and sustainable differentiation, an organization must be able to do things that others simply can’t do (i.e., it’s not a question of “getting the right team”).

Technology is the strongest lever for creating defensible differentiation, but it tends to be a big and sustained bet. Done correctly, leveraging investments in technology across multiple clients generates powerful economic returns not only for a service provider but also for its clients who can ride a rising tide of capability as network effects take hold and more investment is added to the solution.

I don’t want to suggest that big bets on technology will be appropriate in all areas. However, technology investments in areas in which they will make a difference will in turn drive a radical alteration in the service provider landscape. So instead of 10 or 20 service providers, we’ll be down to two or five – far fewer of these types of investments will be able to create a positive ROI, so there will be fewer providers that try, and fewer that are successful. Quite simply, the world does not need 20 service providers building and maintaining a core banking platform or 10 running a global payroll system. Further, when considering big bets on technology, the world suddenly breaks into hundreds of possibilities, and no service provider can afford to pursue and sustain more than a handful of them.

The implications of technology investments for clients will be that some of their service providers will look increasingly dissimilar, and no longer considered interchangeable. This is both a good and a bad thing. Clients will be able to gain greater value and have more types of solution models to choose from, but they will have fewer choices within the higher value solution models. The fundamental economics of investments dictate that any high investment service will naturally restrict the service provider landscape.

Client implication #1: be thorough in your understanding of how service providers are investing, and in what type of solution you want now and ideally in the future.

Client implication #2: implication #1 applies both to your existing service providers and others you may not be using – are you aligned with the providers investing in the direction in which you want to go for your priority services?

Client implication #3: implication #1 also applies to your existing providers’ service delivery areas that you are not currently using – is your industry or function receiving priority investment, or is it an after-thought?

If you want the extra value, it will require extra investment by service providers; and that will lead to less choice within a particular solution type. This means we will move from a sea of service provider options to lots of smaller ponds tightly organized around well-defined service delivery capabilities.

Have a question?

Please let us know how we can help you.

Contact us

Email us

How can we engage?

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