Showing posts with label Information Technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Information Technology. Show all posts

Sunday, February 3, 2008

Microsoft proposes to acquire Yahoo!

This was the most attention grabbing news that I heard this year, more than the Fed rate cut, more the the fall in the Indian markets and the rise again. This news is important because this means that Microsoft despite its claims in the market that it doesn't consider Google a threat, is wary of it. On the positive note, MS does seem to be ready to take on this challenge head on and is going to go all out to defeat its competition as it has done in the past. The huge cash coffers that it has, are certainly going to help it fight this battle. However, the interesting thing is that this battle is between two goliaths. Google is smart, nimble, innovate, understands the consumer pulse and has a lot of its own cash too to fight this battle till the end.

Does it makes sense for MS to buy Yahoo!?

I believe that it may make sense for MS to acquire Yahoo!. As listed in the letter addressed to the Board of Directors there are four benefits that MS sees:

1. Scale Economies: Online advertising industry is growing and it is growing faster than print and television. Microsoft has developed a potent tool to monetize the revenue from its online business through adCenter. To get maximum revenue, MS wants more share of online traffic and it seems that has been eluding it. Yahoo on the other hand has lot of hits and repeat online traffic but is not able to monetize it. By this acquisition, MS can make use of Yahoo! traffic and with Zero Marginal Cost start getting more revenue. This is where the scale economies will come into picture.

2. Expanded R&D Capacity: In this knowledge economy, the products are phases out even before the companies realize that the maturity is reached. Therefore, it is important that you keep innovating and provide reasons for the end customers to keep coming back. This requires some of the best minds in the industry to innovate. Yahoo, Google and MS all have a very good pool of R&D professional, PhDs to work on this. By acquiring Yahoo!, though MS can add to this capacity immediately and this additional capacity will be more than the sum of parts because it was earlier working towards innovating against MS.

3. Operational Efficiencies: This is very intuitive because if two websites offer a storage space to store photos, videos, files etc, by combining the two you add capacity and can service more customers with lesser capacity. Even the support staff that is required to monitor servers and keep the infrastructure running with 0 downtime, can be optimised.

4. Emerging User Experience: Both companies would be working on some innovations. By eliminating staff working on similar innovations or by augmenting them, better innovations can be brought to market faster. It will also help combine the two different technologies to come out with something really path breaking.

The reason that is not mentioned in the letter though is, that by combining forces with Yahoo!, MS can focus its energy completely on challenging its sole competitor - Google.  It will be much easier for MS to deal with just Google, than Google and Yahoo!.

Making this compelling offer of $31 per Yahoo! share with a premium of 62% over current Yahoo! stock price of about 19$, MS has made an offer that will be very difficult for Yahoo! to ignore. With annual profits of only $600m, the shareholders have lot of incentive to cash out at this point. Unless Yahoo! has some innovation in its stable that can change the face of the world or which is the next Big Thing, I think Yahoo! will accept this offer. With valuation of $44b dollars, Jerry Yang has definitely something to cheer about. Whether Google will be the next Netscape, that remains to be seen. I am keenly watching, are you?

Sunday, January 13, 2008

IT Infrastructure for a Manufacturing Company

To design an IT infrastructure for a manufacturing company, map the architecture to the business process.

ERP System: Obviously there will be a transaction system which will be used for order entry, financial transactions etc. Mostly, an ERP system is used to maintain these transactions. This is also the reason why most CFO's readily agree for ERP systems or sometimes they ask for implementation of ERP systems. This also provides them a single view of all transactions across all divisions and all geographies. All the transaction systems in the company connect to the ERP system to make it a system of records. Some examples of ERP systems are SAP, Oracle etc. It provides data on Engineering, Bills of Material, Scheduling, Capacity, Workflow Management, Quality Control, Cost Management, Manufacturing Process, Manufacturing Projects, Manufacturing Flow, General Ledger, Cash Management, Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivable, Fixed Assets etc

Buy Side Software: On top of an ERP sits a buy side software. This software assists the manufacturing company to buy its material from a network of suppliers. Some examples of this software are Ariba, Commerce 1.

Supply Chain Software: Supply chain software helps to maintain inventory, procurement and manufacturing. It also helps in demand planning and forecasting. Some examples of this software are i2, Manhattan Associates, Managestics.

Sell Side Software: Then there is a sell side software to connect to resellers, distributors, retailers and customers. This software is also known as CRM software.

Data Warehouse: Data warehouse takes data from all databases and consolidates it in such a form that can be easily queried. It also aggregates data from different systems, for different periods etc so that a combined query could be written on this data.

Business Intelligence: These softwares run queries on data warehouse to come out with reports that help senior management take decisions. It also come out with patterns and trends to develop strategy for a company.

Enterprise Application Integration: This set of software help one set of software to speak to the other set. e.g. it will help ERP system (SAP) to speak to DataWarehouse (Oracle). This software is becoming of less relevance because most applications provide protocols to talk to other applications and with the advent of SOA (Service Oriented Architecture).

It has been seen that there are different players who are good in one or more of each of these types of softwares. However, there is a consolidation and these players are trying to capture various segments. e.g. SAP has moved from ERP to provide buy side software also, i2 has acquires Aspect to provide buy side software, Oracle has acquired Peoplesoft etc. In the days to come, it seems the players who can either integrate all these niche softwares or who can provide a suite that provides everything and is best of breed, will win.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

IT Outsourcing - Options

IT matters! Most conglomerates are tech savvy and use IT (Information Technology) to gain a competitive advantage. Most companies are spending a substantial amount of their revenue on building IT capabilities. Big Indian IT companies termed as SWITCH (Satyam, Wipro, Infosys, TCS, Cognizant, HCL) are the “cost efficient experts” in low cost countries. These companies excelled in delivering state of the art IT solutions at low cost. However, there have been numerous changes in this industry over last few years and the business environment has become challenging. Some of the changes are:

  1. Indian IT biggies looking to move up the value chain.
  2. Global IT consulting companies like Accenture now  offer end-to-end solutions by operating in India.
  3. There is a high demand of IT professionals while the supply of labour is low. This has increased the wages dramatically and the labour arbitrage is slowly diminishing.
  4. Low availability of skilled labour has caused companies to compromise on quality.
  5. High competition has led to pressures on billing rates and the margins are decreasing even further.
  6. Companies unable to manage high growth leading to quality and security related issues.

Within buyers of IT services, there is an ongoing debate on whether to outsource or instead go the captive centre route. While outsourcing is cheaper and usually a necessary step to retain a competitive edge, there is no discretion in team selection and no visibility into the Software Development Life Cycle processes. Captive units on the other hand negate most of these disadvantages but most companies fear making the high investment commitment required to set up a captive unit in a new country. A case in point is Apple’s development centre in India, which was closed a month after it opened.

The captive unit business model will become a big threat to SWITCH companies. Most of the critical work will get assigned to the captive units and vendors will be used to compensate for spikes in business or for delivering the less critical and lower margin tasks. To compete in this changing environment, SWITCH companies should take the lead in establishing a new business model.

To accomplish its IT business, there are various options that any company can use. There are obvious advantages and disadvantages of each option. While accomplishing IT work in own premises might be most beneficial, it might not be the most optimum option. With the emergence of knowledge centers like India, which provide the similar or better services at a much lower cost, outsourcing and offshoring are becoming extremely important in any CIO’s agenda. Following are the options that a company can use to accomplish its IT business.

  1. In-house IT department
    1. Onshore Captive Unit
    2. Offshore Captive Unit
  2. Third Party Out-sourcing
    1. Near-Sourcing – location is near to incumbent’s location.
    2. Far-sourcing – location is far (e.g. American company outsourcing to India).

Within the offshoring strategy there are various options in which the IT business can be structured and accomplished. There are essentially six different offshore models. The two models at the extreme are:

  1. Captive Center – Completely owned by the company for its own use.
  2. Supplier Direct – Completely owned by a third party offshore supplier.

There are also a few more models which are lesser known but slowly and surely gaining importance. These are:

  1. Dedicated Center
  2. Joint Venture
  3. Third Party Transparent
  4. Build-Operate-Transfer

Captive Center: Under this model the company sets up its own offshore captive center. It starts from ground up, sometimes, in a totally new country where it has no earlier presence or outsourcing relationship.

Supplier Direct: In this model, the work is outsourced to a third party who provides both low cost advantage and special skills, while allowing the company itself to focus on its core business.

Dedicated Center: A dedicated center is a further extension to Supplier Direct model. This is also operated by an offshore supplier, but the staff, equipment and facilities are all exclusively dedicated to the company. This model has some shared processes, shared risk and shared ownership.

Joint Venture: In this model generally a company partners with an offshore supplier in a joint venture relationship and they share the revenue. A joint venture can also be between two or more global companies, with or without local partners, to build an offshore center with multiple owners. This way they share the cost and risk.

Third Party Transparent: In this model a third party builds and maintains the offshore presence.

Build-Operate-Transfer: In this model, a third party builds the captive center ground up, and transfers it to the company once it is operational. The time for which the third party maintains it can vary.

SWITCH companies currently operate in the Supplier Direct Model. This model became popular because of labor arbitrage available in India. With it huge pool of English speaking skilled population available at low wage rates, this model was highly successful. Most companies used Supplier Direct model to outsource their IT services work while some use hybrid models like having both a captive center and outsourcing some work to third party IT vendors.

In the long term, any company needs to invest in what it considers the core. If some work is clearly not the core and hence not of long term value it should be outsourced if it makes economic sense. On the other hand, if the work is strategic for the longer term then the continuity of the work and the people (after all, it is a knowledge economy) is required and investments have to be made. With this reasoning, some companies operate their own captive centers and outsource the low value work to third party vendors in low cost countries.

With no distinction between any two third-party IT services vendors, cost became the only distinguishing criteria. As competition heated up, there was a huge pressure on prices and the billing rates reduced dramatically. At the same time, some of the IT consulting companies like IBM and Accenture also expanded to low cost countries to make use of labor arbitrage and provide end to end services to their clients. This forced the IT biggies to rethink their strategy as the current strategy was clearly not sustainable. The Indian companies aligned their businesses along verticals and put a strong emphasis on building domain knowledge so that they could move up the value chain.

The IT businesses have expanded at a dramatic pace and some companies have not got enough time to adapt themselves to their explosive growth. The demand for labor has gone up multifold, while the supply has been more or less constant. This has affected the quality of labor and therefore the quality of work delivered. There have been a few instances of security breaches in handling sensitive data. Most companies now believe that their India strategy is very important and a lot of time is spent of formulating this strategy. IT biggies are facing a new competition from increased number of captive units being started. As more captive units come up, these companies would start losing their clients and moving up the value chain strategy would remain incomplete. There is also an additional risk of big captive centers like GE building capacity and competency to service other clients from their captive centers.

In this highly dynamic market, a new wave of IT evolution has to gain momentum. IT vendors need to rethink their strategy to survive and excel in the future. This scenario presents SWITCH companies with both an opportunity and a threat. I believe that to compete in this changing environment, the business need for these companies is to adapt quickly to this new wave and position themselves to take maximum advantage of this opportunity. In Thomas Friedman words the situation can be summarized by the lines, “Do it before it gets done to you. The change itself is inevitable”.

 

Untitled

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Saturday, December 15, 2007

IT Outsourcing

This is the continuation of my previous post about IT. To get the IT work done, a company has following choices:

1. Do it internally, or

2. Outsource it.

If the company plans to get done everything internally, then it can either:

1. Do it in a captive unit at its main location

2. Open a new captive centre in a low cost country like India.

If the company plans to get done everything externally, then it can either:

1. Go for near-sourcing (e.g. Capgemini for a company in Europe)

2. Go for far-sourcing (e.g. Infosys for a company in US)

There are advantages and disadvantages of all formats.

Indian companies operate under outsource and off-shore space. They provide the dual benefit of low cost and quality work. You would then think why would not every company go for outsourcing and offshoring? Well, it is because there are a few disadvantages too. e.g. there is a lack of control in case of outsourcing to a third party vendor. A company has no visibility into project schedules, quality of people, safety of sensitive data and risk of key employees leaving and company having no control on retaining them. The business secrets may also get lost as vendor employees move from one client to another.

To connect this thought with the one presented in the previous post, companies could spend the staying in the race or to some extent winning the race budgets in outsourcing and offshoring. The third party companies have already developed expertise in such work and there is not much strategy involved, so the risk is lesser. The innovation part of budget can be spent in-house.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Information Technology

I have been reading a lot of articles on IT off-late. Here is a summary of those articles. None of the stuff here in my research. It is all the knowledge that I borrowed by reading different articles.

In any company IT has three distinct uses:

1. Reduce operating costs by automation, reducing manpower requirement or increasing efficiency (called as "Lets you stay in the race" by some specialists). You have to do it because others have done it, and if you don't you will lose.

2. Give a strategic advantage over competition by doing something first. Also called as "Lets you win the race" by specialists. This is similar to first point, except you always pre-empt the competition and get advantage over them by capturing market share or increasing margins by improving efficiency.

3. The third and most important use of IT is to come out with innovative products, reduce time to market for those products and create such an activity system such that the competition can not find a unique factor for your success.

Most companies today spend in point 1, while some in point 2 and rare companies in point 3. The classic examples of companies spending in point 3 are Dell, WalMart etc.

An important point to note here is that companies can not choose to spend just in 1, 2 or 3. To be successful, they need to spend in all 3 categories. The experts say that companies should create a portfolio of IT spending and should manage it just like a financial portfolio. In this case, the companies should distribute their budget across the three categories, just as you would in stocks and bonds in a financial portfolio. You need some budget to maintain your usual systems like email, messaging etc, some budget to pre-empt competition and stay ahead in a game and some into innovation.

While the portfolio model sounds very simple and logical, the problem comes in the implementation part. Imagine a large conglomerate with different companies. The obvious way to maximize operational efficiency will be to have a centralized IT department, like a shared service. The problem with this model is that distance it creates between the business units and the IT staff. It also tries to commoditize IT. The workaround is to have innovation staff work closely with the business units.

On the innovation front, there are various ways in which CIOs can get new innovative ideas.

1) Work closely with venture capital firms and invest in companies where you see potential for use of technology in future.

2) Work closely with researchers, academia to get to know about the latest and cutting edge technology.

3) Form a innovation cell within the company and encourage Research and Development.

4) Pilot new technology is a small business unit and then extend it to the entire company if there is huge potential.