Tag: sourcing

Sourcing Professionals Have a Tough Job | 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.

Capital Markets BPO: Provider Selection Pricing Considerations | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

Capital markets BPO (Business Process Outsourcing) is one of the fastest growing industry-specific verticals within the BFSI segment, with a market size of over $2 billion in 2016. Investment banking is the largest line of business within the capital markets BPO. Asset management, custody and fund administration, and brokerage are the other key lines of business in this space.

Enterprises typically look to partner with third-party pureplay service providers such as Cognizant, EXL, Genpact, Infosys, and TCS to remain competitive in the marketplace, and simultaneously manage their regulatory, risk, and cost concerns. But the BPO majors are facing stiff competition from specialist capital markets BPO providers such as Avaloq, eClerx, and Xchanging, which are more focused and have deeper domain expertise.

Against this backdrop, what pricing considerations should enterprises take into account when selecting a specialist or a pureplay Business Process Outsourcing provider?

What to consider when selecting a Business Process Outsourcing provider

  • Specialists come at a premium: Specialist providers typically charge a premium price. The premium is nominal for low complexity processes such as static and dynamic data management, client onboarding, low value reconciliations, trade capture, and exception matching. Yet, it rises considerably for high complexity capital markets BPO processes such as OTC derivatives, syndicated loans, and alternative investments. Specialist capitalist providers’ expertise in niche and complex services gives them significant pricing power leverage over pureplay BPO providers.
    BPO-Business-Process-Outsourcing
  • Pureplay BPO providers on the move: However, pureplay BPO providers over the last couple of years have moved swiftly, and gained meaningful ground in terms of building competence in high value services. This increased, more head-on competition has reduced the pricing differential to some extent.
  • Pricing model induced rate differential: FTE-based pricing is most common in capital markets BPO contracts, closely followed by the transaction-based model. Typically, contracts with transaction pricing have a higher Annual Contract Value (ACV) per FTE, as the service provider agrees to share some of the buyer’s risk, and thus bakes the risk premium into the pricing. Additionally, the scope of work for capital markets BPO deals with transaction-based pricing is usually higher value and more complex, pushing up the average ACV per FTE further.

Pureplay BPO providers VS. specialists

Net-net, specialist providers, which at least as of today handle more high-value services, come at a higher price than their pureplay BPO peers. And, at least as of today, buyers appear ready and willing to pay this premium.

Enterprises in this space typically tend to value and favor specialists when it comes to finding a partner for their capital markets BPO operations. And they tend to be particularly selective, as most service providers –  both pureplay and specialist— do not play in all the segments, but instead focus on building deep capabilities around one or two of the four key business lines.

Are you working with a pureplay or specialist provider in the capital markets BPO space? To what extent did pricing play into your provider selection? Do you think specialists have an edge over pureplay BPO providers in terms of capabilities?

 

Reimagining Global Engineering Services – a Hierarchy of Needs | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

The engineering services industry is one of the most interesting segments in the global services landscape today.

Compared to IT and business process services, the global engineering services market is much smaller, at approximately US$ 90 billion. It is also growing much faster, at approximately 15 percent per year.

The bulk of the growth is going to be driven by a need to reimagine global sourcing of engineering services, in line with the progression of enterprise digitalization strategies.

Everest Group believes there are four distinct objectives behind digital engineering strategies:

Hierarchy of Digital Engineering Services Demand

Global Sourcing of Digital Engineering Services

  1. Crushing spend: Arguably, there’s nothing new about leveraging a global sourcing model to reduce spend. However, the optimization levers go well beyond arbitrage, extending into the realms of analytics, the IoT, and automation. We are beginning to see enterprises contracting not just for cost savings, but for specific details around how cost savings are being achieved (e.g., success of automation projects, and ongoing commitment for automation.) Digitalization can often achieve breakthrough spend reduction outcomes (e.g., maintenance of oil refineries leveraging IoT technologies), well beyond the traditional arbitrage levers.
  2. Transforming experience in plants or mines: The experience is typically optimized across a bunch of typical considerations such as safety and accessibility, speed, and convenience. For instance, using design thinking principles in plant assembly line design, IoT implementation in mines for health and safety related use cases and medical device companies are using digitally reimagined techniques to create improved patient care outcomes.
  3. Accelerating product innovation: Sophisticated enterprises realize they can’t do it well enough or fast enough unless they embrace a broader innovation ecosystem. Globalization is a major driver of demand, as is the need to accelerate and contextualize cross-industry innovation. For instance, automotive OEMs realize they need to embrace a broader ecosystem of talent and technology providers to create differentiated infotainment offerings.</>li
  4. Disrupting the business model: Business model disruption comes about as a natural progression through the first three levels of the hierarchy, coupled with a disruptive idea. For instance, automotive companies the world over are waking up to the potential of a new business model that is built on asset sharing as opposed to asset ownership. Utility companies are creating parallel energy sharing models using blockchain. Medical diagnostic companies are reimagining their business model by experimenting to service-led, as-a-service models.

Everest Group recommends enterprises follow a “3E” approach to shaping their engineering services global sourcing strategy:

  • Evaluate the current state of your digital engineering journey against the strategic objectives of efficiency, experience, innovation, or disruption. The way you measure success in the short term should derive from where you are, and your longer-term strategy should stem from a broader industry vision.
  • Evolve the ER&D sourcing model in line with your aspirations. If you are trying to drive strategic business impact at the higher reaches of digital engineering maturity, you should be able to use objective data to benchmark the impact on business processes. For instance, your ER&D sourcing models should be linked with improvements in supply chain metrics, experience, accelerated time to market, or an increase in digital-led revenues.
  • Enrich the sources of engineering and R&D innovation by engaging with service providers, start-ups, academia, designers, social scientists, etc. Such an ecosystem should transcend the traditional enterprise-partner model, and requires a central orchestration function for scalability.

Visit our engineering services page for more insights on engineering services global sourcing strategies.

Innovation Tax for Service Providers: Pay Up or Go Belly Up! | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

“The Times They Are a-Changin” is an appropriate idiom to borrow from the great (and now Nobel Laureate) musician Bob Dylan to describe a conversation I had just a few days ago with a senior executive who leads sourcing for one of the largest pharmaceutical firms in the U.S.

Context: As you see in my most recent blog, I have been very cynical of the innovation strategies adopted by both service providers and enterprises. I have accused service providers of digital and cognitive “washing” that just pays lip service to innovation, and enterprises of resting in comfort zones where commodity and arbitrage still rule the roost.

I had no reason to tweak my view, until the discussion with this senior executive.

He was picking my brain on how to infuse innovation into his company’s existing application services engagements. He has been struggling to do so with some of the best-known names in the service provider world. When he asked, “Is there something I can do to make the service providers change?,” I responded:

  • Change is difficult in a business environment in which service providers must play both the arbitrage and digital games
  • The “arbitrage-first” service providers will push for traditional models if you blink
  • And “digital-first” providers will proactively offer innovative solutions even though they keep their arbitrage strengths handy

IT Innovation Maturity in Applications Services

IT Innovation Strategies in Application Services

The challenge is, there are more of the former than the latter, and the incentives for falling for arbitrage-driven models are still high for both procurement and service providers, irrespective of which of the above categories they belong to.

Hence, unless sourcing executives do the following, innovation will be difficult to come by.

  • Anchor: Define an innovation roadmap
  • Organize: Contract with service providers on a formal innovation program
  • Seek co-investments: Ask service providers to co-invest (put a financial stake) in your innovation roadmap

At this point, the senior pharma executive had an epiphany, and stated, “Aha. I don’t want to put it this way, but if I have to make my vendors change, I must institute an “Innovation Tax.”

There, my friends, is the sign of things to come. Enterprise sourcing executives are increasingly feeling compelled to show business value. If service providers refuse to bring value to the table, they will have to be ready for an “Innovation Tax.”

By the way, these recommendations are not a bunch of my opinions. The above was validated through a survey of 100 senior enterprise executives Everest Group conducted in late 2016.

See our reports, “How to innovate – A Comprehensive Guide to Innovation in Application Services,” and “Cracking the IT Innovation Code” for more details on how to infuse innovation into your existing and future sourcing contracts.

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.