Rants
Questions
Soapbox
Best Practices
Apply today for a FREE subscription to CIO Magazine!
Wed, Apr 2, 2008 20:13 EDT

|
Posted by: Stephanie Overby in News Topic: Partner/Vendor ManagementBlog: Talent Show
Current Rating: |
EDS's billion-dollar deal with Royal Dutch Shell marks a milestone in the IT service provider's attempt to market itself as a manager of other outsourcers – a capo di tutti capi, if you will.
At least, that is, according to some IT services industry watchers.
Outsourcing observers – and Shell employees – had speculated for months about who would get the multinational oil giant’s more than $4 billion worth of IT business (and nearly 3,000 IT workers). AT&T, EDS and T-Systems were all rumored to have made the short list. And in the end, executives at Shell sliced up the IT services pie, giving each contender a piece.
The deal has EDS managing desktop, service desk, on-site services, back-up/disaster recovery, mobile information protection, and managed messaging; AT&T delivering WAN and LAN, voice services, managed security solutions, mobility services and VPN support; and T-Systems taking over infrastructure and data centers.
EDS's portion is worth $1 billion over five years. But what may be most valuable to the Dallas-based outsourcing provider is its stated role as operational integrator "collaborating closely with Shell's other key IT suppliers," according to the press release.
That makes EDS a "high-profile example of an IT services firm acting as a service integrator… for a multi-sourcing, multi-supplier IT contract," says Ovum Research Director John Madden. Actual implementations of such a model are hard to find, says Madden, but interest is increasing: "One goal in this model is for a service integrator to reduce the overall complexity of managing multiple IT service suppliers, and to take some of the pressure off a customer's internal in-house team to do so."
Customers may view an EDS or an IBM as better equipped to manage multiple outsourcers than their own staff. Of course, that's a compromise that's chock full of potential conflicts of interest.
As the signing of new single-source, multi-billion dollar deals has slowed and interest in the multi-sourcing model increased, EDS certainly hasn't been shy about positioning itself as the big outsourcer on campus and master of this new domain. It will be interesting to watch the ménage-a-trois at Shell to see how it shakes out. Will it be the wave of the future or a flash in the pan?
Meanwhile, this high-profile deal begs the question: which fox (if any) do you trust to guard your henhouse?
Stephanie Overby
Senior Editor
CIO magazine | CIO.com
Stephanie
I couldn’t help smile when I read the footnote to the blog entry: which fox (if any) do you trust to guard your henhouse? This alone summarizes a unique aspect of the deal.
Though the scale of the deal is bound to make more than a few heads turn and also the fact that one of the vendors is responsible for oversight and integration, it is not a very unique scenario given the larger scale multi-sourcing initiatives’ we are increasingly seeing.
Hi Mohan--
So how does it work out in reality -- either for the service provider being managed by a competitor or the outsourcing provider doing the oversight and integration? How does Infosys, for example, deal with potential conflicts of interest in these multi-sourced deals when one vendor is put in charge?
Stephanie Overby
Senior Editor
CIO magazine and CIO.com
Stephanie,
Most service firms would like to have a bigger share of the pie, if not the whole pie but most of us also recognize that multisourcing is a reality; and that one of the firms may get oversight and/or integration responsibility.
Most of these situations work out well as long as the SLAs, OLAs and governance models are well defined. It also comes down to having the right people who are focused on the customer’s goals more than just the firm’s.
This is merely an evolutionary step for IT and Service Providers. Increasingly, CIO's (those at the top of the pyramid) are being asked to "justify" that budget component called "operations". To do that, they have to look at themselves from a business perspective - not from a support perspective - are internal IT staff equipped for this "shift"? No. And that same CIO is seeing his "budget" get parsed out into the greater organizations - allowing Business Units to spend those discretionary funds (which is really the "innovation" fund).
Now, if as a CIO, I have to justify my current operations budget, and go get the discretionary budget back from the BU Executives - I don't have time to "teach" my staff to be more "business-like". I have to lean on organizations that are in the business today (think IBM, EDS, CSC, Logica, etc.). I'm making a critical assumption that these companies (and their staff) already think like a business and help me get there.
Reality Check: This type of service is only for the Biggest organizations in the world. That's why this is a very niche oriented service offering -- because there are probably only 200 to 300 organizations in the world that have this specific problem (Big, Global, Dispersed, with lots of worries around compliance - locally and globally). Once again, it's an evolution for companies like EDS to get into this business, there is nothing revolutionary about it. And as far as the Fox and Hen house is concerned -- the CIO is more concerned with the Wolves (BU Execs), they've already befriended the Fox.