Apply today for a FREE subscription to CIO Magazine!
Fri, Sep 7, 2007 13:49 EDT

|
Posted by: Stephanie Overby in Soapbox Topic: Partner/Vendor ManagementBlog: Talent Show
Current Rating: |
It's a common scenario: the IT service provider meets all its SLAs and holds to all the pricing models... but the customer still isn't happy. Something just isn't right. As one outsourcing advisor describes it, "You look at the dashboard and everything is green. But you still feel red."
What's the problem? In a word: innovation. Or lack thereof.
Many IT leaders enter into outsourcing arrangements with an expectation that the outsourcing provider will not only live up to the letter of the contract, but by virtue of being a Big Outsourcer, will bring something more to the table.
Is that so wrong?
Some say, yes. It's an unreasonable expectation. IBM, EDS, Wipro, Satyam -- they're IT factories, not innovators. Sure, they'll innovate internally to the extent that it advances their business. But if you're expecting them to bring ideas to the table that might somehow provide you with competitive differentiation, you're nuts.
Others say, if you can't get IT innovation from billion-dollar service providers, who can you get it from? They've got partnerships with the Oracles and Microsofts of the world. They know where technology is heading. They should be your innovation sherpa.
Philosophical arguments aside, are the big outsourcers even capable of providing innovation right now? Economics are against them.
U.S. providers are getting squeezed. If you edit out the recession of the early 90s and the short-lived reprieve of Y2K and dotcom days, outsourcing profit margins in the U.S. have been steadily declining since the mid-70s and have flat-lined at 6 percent, with just 9 percent annual revenue growth, according to research by outsourcing advisor Alsbridge.
The financial pressure on domestic vendors is the result of offshore competition, namely Indian vendors who are riding high by comparison with double-digit profits. But don’t count on them to fill the perceived innovation gap. They've always been laser-focused on repeatable processes. Some of them have set up R&D centers, but they're loss leaders intended to reel in new clients for the commoditized stuff. Besides, they have their hands full managing their own growth.
So it's safe to say that outsourcers around the globe are loathe to offer added value that might affect their ability to meet the service level obligations, and thus, their margins. Providing more value-add could have a huge upside for them, but it's risky. Alsbridge goes so far as to call the situation an innovation crisis. One CIO (who's now backsourcing due to "failures of innovation") tells me: If you really want innovation from an outsourcer, you can get it. But you’ll pay for it. Extensively.
Meantime, there's a good deal of dissatisfaction in the market right now. The biggest gap between outsourcing benefits sought and achieved exists around innovation, according to an Alsbridge survey of 300 buyers of IT services. The same company found that suppliers themselves indicated that the inability to fund and apply innovation to client requirements is their number one challenge by a four to one margin. (Not surprisingly, Alsbridge uses this data to persuade IT buyers that they need to hire an experienced outsourcing advisor to help them out. But hey, everybody's got a dog in this fight.)
Here at CIO, we conducted our own survey. Nearly a quarter of respondents were dissatisfied with the level of innovation provided by their domestic services provider and almost half were unhappy with the innovation provided by offshore outsourcers. And neither number takes into account IT leaders who, despite outsourcing marketing materials that advertise innovation, already have limited expectations.
To expect innovation from an outsourcer reveals a lack of understanding of the business model under which the industry works. An outsourcer is in business to make money out of you (nothing wrong with that, it's a business - just like yours). It is a vendor in a standard, contractual client/vendor relationship. Outsourcing makes sense when you as a customer can toss a "specifications document" (in the broad sense of the term) to a vendor and basically say "please do this for me" and then walk away (management and coordination notwithstanding).
Needless to say, innovation doesn't fall into this category. Innovative applications development requires a continuous back and forth between the business and IT - ideally in an iterative or agile mode which brings out incremental innovation at 3-6 month intervals. This approach does not lend itself to the client/vendor relationship of the outsourcing model. This can only be achieved under a shared risk/reward partnership (a real one, not a "spin" one). Internal IT departments are natural candidates for this - outsourcers are not. While the more innovative amongst them might adapt to this model (and I’ve actually worked with a few of them who are trying out new stuff), most would be incapable of shifting from their traditional client-vendor model based on contracts, SLAs and long-term commitment. As Stephanie says, these are the factories, and factories don't innovate – they produce commodities.
Oh, and btw, this is easily one of the best articles that has ever appeared on CIO.com..
Michael Gentle
Stephanie,
I am running the US operation of one of the largest Chinese outsourcing companies. We focus our efforts on software companies, and our message to our prospects is that we want to become their partner for innovation.
So needless to say, your post got my undivided attention!
First and foremost, let me say that it seems like a very questionable move to fully outsource innovation. If a company has lost its ability to innovate, I do not see how would outsourcing improve the situation. In addition, I do not believe it is the role of an outsourcing/BPO provider to innovate in lieu of their clients.
It reminds me a comment from Bill Homa, CIO of Hannaford Bros., that I read some months ago in CIO magazine. “If you are outsourcing a problem, it will still be a problem.” How true!
I recently read on Mark Hillary's blog an article “can innovation be outsourced” that describes an initiative from TCS (Tata Consulting Services) in the UK. I understand from his article that this initiative has not produced any visible output so far.
The way I understand being partner in innovation is quite different, and it is to provide our customers with all the required instrumentation and organization that will enable them to focus on and therefore accelerate innovation; in other words, to create the conditions to “commoditize” the process of creating products from their ideas and concepts.
I am not to elaborate on our recipe, but our measure of success is our customer’s ability to innovate faster and better.
This may sound painful, but expecting "innovation" is the most commonly misunderstood aspect of outsourcing.
Clients usually outsource to save money. Vendor cost cases reflect this, and the winning solution never includes an expensive annual "rethinking" of the delivered solution. Vendors implement a cost effective deal that utilizes standard toolsets and processes (the same ones they use for ALL their clients), and deliver this solution for 5-7 years.
That is the Nature of the Beast.
Innovation costs money. Vendors may invest in innovative projects silently and subsequently reap the benefits of the ROI for themselves (and they often do). Problem is, clients want the cost savings from innovation too, and therein lies the problem. The statement “I want more innovation” usually means "Why aren't you using those new efficient technologies on my account so I can save some money?"
So here it is in a nutshell: Why would the vendor invest their own money in an expensive (possibly risky) project that would likely result in lower revenue for the vendor?. They won’t, unless they are pushed hard by the client to do a specific task the client recommends. Simply put, outsourcing vendors never actively do things (much less expensive things) that would force them to lower their revenue. Never. Ever. Period. Commitments for revenue (contracts) are the Holy Grail for all outsourcers, and they will not proactively look for ways to diminish the value of those contracts.
That is The Nature of the Beast, and it has been that way from the beginning.
Clients must drive the innovation (or “architecture” to use a less spectacular word), as vendors have every incentive not to do it. Driving the innovation will always cost extra, but that is the price paid for that “low cost solution” which was signed three years earlier. These are the basic economics for all outsourcing (IT or otherwise), and this needs to be fully understood by the client prior to outsourcing.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. It is just the way it is, and relationships that recognize this are often quite successful. Expectations regarding these realities must be set early, which is often difficult as it is contrary to almost all the marketing materials which got the vendor in the door in the first place.
Adam J,
I agree with 99% of your analysis. And a year ago I would have agreed with 100% of it! But amazingly, I actually came across an outsourcer who was not only willing to differentiate itself in order to be more innovative from a customer perspective, it actually put money on the table to prove it! In short, they were willing to do what it takes to be different. With hindsight, I'd say these guys were probably the exception - or maybe not, as I've recently discovered another one warming to the same theme. So let's make that 98% instead! But still, your analysis is spot on, and easily describes the norm of outsourcers today.
Michael Gentle
So, Michael, you say you found a couple of vendors willing to differentiate themsleves from an innovation perspective and put their money where their mouths were. How did they differentiate themselves? And why were they willing to? Do you get the sense it was very situation or customer-specific or part of a larger strategy?
Stephanie Overby
Senior Editor
CIO magazine and CIO.com