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

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Funny Video

This is not to suggest anything...it's plain funny...

Monday, December 24, 2007

Solstice

We had the 5th Solstice this weekend. Solstice is the annual ISB Alumni Reunion. It was a good chance for the current students to meet with alums given there is no overlap of two batches this being a one year course. It was also a good chance for alums to meet their own batch mates. This weekend was full of masti, partying and networking - last and most important alum gyan sessions.

On the party front, the new events lounge was inaugurated. We also had a concert by Indian Ocean. To be frank, I had not heard of this band earlier, but I liked the music yesterday. I think I am going to follow this band in the future. Some of the songs were really cool.

Met with a few alums and got a lot of gyan. I think it will help. It came right in time for placements. I could get the resume reviewed, get tips on prep and how to approach companies. Overall, a fun filled experience this weekend. However, now I need to catch up with my schedule and prepare for the exams coming up in 6 days smile_sad

Leaving you with a picture of Indian Ocean.

DSC_1929

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Interesting Link on Global Consumption and Wastage

Story of Stuff

Marketing Notes - Should you reduce prices to counter competition?

Let's take a scenario where you join a new firm and are asked to manage a brand. The brand is not doing well right now and you need to prove that you made an impact. You obviously have a limited marketing budget. After a lot of introspection you come out with two choices:

1. Spend budget on advertising

2. Spend budget on price promotion.

What would you choose?

You evaluate the two options and here is the analysis:

1. Price promotion because it will introduce trial.

2. Price promotion because it will attract switchers.

3. Price promotion because it is offensive strategy while advertising is a defensive strategy.

4. Price promotion because big impact expected immediately while advertising will be a long term investment.

5. Advertising because it will influence perception.

6. Advertising because it will create loyalists.

7. Advertising because it increases perception of quality.

8. Advertising because it will build brand image.

Now you also know that in the short run even you don't advertise for a month your sales might not be affected much. e.g. say if coca-cola stopped advertising today, would you stop drinking coke?

I am sure you will go the price promotion route. This is what most managers will do. It seems sensible. However, there is a pitfall in this strategy. It leads you to a vicious cycle.

As you drop prices, you are at par with the other low price products. There are more low price products that high price products. So, the consideration set for the consumers increases. Given a larger consideration set, the consumer becomes more sensitive to price as there is very little differentiation. The product becomes a commodity and you end up with lower margins. Lower margins mean, less cash available for advertising or adding product differentiation by virtue of R&D. So, how do you sell more product - Reduce Prices. And you are back to where you started with. The path of no return!

Here comes another bubble

A hilarious video I found...

Friday, December 21, 2007

Marketing Notes - Slow Death of the Brand

Disclaimer: The end of the story is very grim. This real story can cause you to get a feeling of déjà vu.

This story starts in a happy world. Our Brand, called "Hit", is a high quality, high price brand in a growing market with over 30% market share. There is another competitor, with slightly inferior product and about the same market share, and the rest 40% divided between some 100 small competitors, with inferior products. Our brand was enjoying good premiums and everyone in the firm was happy.

Good time do not last forever, and enter a new competitor. The person feels there is a vacuum in the market and there is a place for a Low Price Brand. He positions his product in a low but acceptable quality and low price. This brand gains 1% market share. Hit is still enjoying life and doesn't care about a newbie. Time passed and the new brand keeps gaining the market share continuously. People start seeing the value for a low price brand the brand reaches a 10% market share. Now Mr.Hit take notice and after hours of meeting come out with a killer strategy. They can not reduce price because the brand premium will go away. So, to compete with the new product, they launch a new product called Mr. Fighter, a flanker brand. This is a neat strategy. The brand image or Mr. Hit will not be hit and the firm will be able to capture additional market share from the competitor.

Mr. Fighter does a good job and takes share from other 100 competitors and some from Mr. Hit and some from the new competitor. Now the competitor has to make the next move. Competitor already had lowest prices, wafer thin margins, so he obviously can not cut prices further. So, it decides to go to the retailers and gives them the proposition to go private label. Retailers will be happy to do that. They can squeeze the manufacturer further. Now, the ball is back to Mr.Hit's court.

Mr. Hit, now thinks that they can either let competition take the market share, because the retailer owns the shelf space, or go private label themselves. Now, Mr.Hit is both manufacturing private label and also providing trade incentives to the retailer for shelf space for the flagship brand. The margins goes down. So, Mr.Hit outsources the manufacturing and designing and is left with only the brand name.

Retailers are happy by squeezing both the hit brand and competitor. The private label products are gaining popularity because people are slowly realizing that its the same product after all and at a lower cost. In the whole value chain, retailer has the highest margins. Now, our dear Mr.Hit has also lost the design capability. The ODMs (Original Design Manufacturers) on the other hand give a proposal to retailers to manufacture multiple brands for them. They don't have their own brand to begin with and their main capability is manufacturing and operations.

So, now the retailer has high margins and also a good, better, best strategy to have various brands at all levels, i.e. entry level low quality - low price product, middle level medium quality - medium price product and also a premium brand positioned next to Mr.Hit's brand commanding high price for the high quality. With brand being the only thing left and no margins to innovate, the demise of Mr.Hit is evident. It's only a matter of how long can it take the losses, while the retailer makes merry!

That's the end of Mr.Hit! Now, the question arises that while this story is so distressing yet so true, what could have Mr.Hit done differently to stop this eminent death? While there are no straight answers to this question, one thing is clear - Mr.Hit can be saved only by differentiation and by being ahead of competition ALWAYS! It has to constantly innovate if it has to remain alive. It has to create a pull from the customers forcing the retailers to provide shelf space to this product.