Outsourcing

A-1 Technology provides Outsourcing to India for Clients and the revolutionary services that cut your cost by more then half. This comprehensive set of online e-commerce technology is designed to help you make the most of your new or existing business

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

IT job turnaround could spell strategic change for outsourcing providers

The outsourcing sector has been one of a very few bright spots in the IT industry over the past two years, showing slow growth while the rest of the market continued a prolonged tailspin. New projections on IT employment, however, suggest that the tailspin might soon level off.

According to research published last week by the AEA, formerly known as the American Electronics Association, the free-fall of IT industry employment is finally slowing. After losing some 540,000 jobs between 2001 and 2002, the AEA projects that 2003 job losses will be around 234,000, approximately 57% fewer than the year before

What's more, AEA researchers are predicting that the IT industry is gearing up for a turnaround. There is a strong possibility that the sector will actually add jobs in the second half of 2004, they said.

The AEA's predictions are supported by other researchers. IDC is projecting that IT spending in the U.S. will increase 1.5% this year over last year to $372 billion. Over the next five years, spending is expected to increase at a slow compound annual growth rate of 4.9%, reaching $467 billion by 2007, the research firm said.

For outsourcing providers, the slowdown in IT job losses is both good news and bad news. The good news is that IT spending is slowly coming around, and that there will be more funds available for IT projects in the coming months, many of which will be out-tasked to third parties.

The bad news is that it may not be long before companies begin to staff up their internal IT organizations again. Thanks to the economic slump, there is a large pool of unemployed skills on the market, and enterprises that loosen their purse strings can expect to get top-flight talent at a reasonable price. Many of the skills offered by outsourcing providers can now be found on the wide-open employment market.

How will outsourcing providers respond to the resurgence in internal IT employment? Many will look for ways to hold onto current clients, either by renegotiating their terms or by building closer relationships with the IT departments they serve. If an enterprise is happy with its IT performance, and the way its operation works, it will be less likely to seek a return to an internally-staffed model.

Some outsourcing providers will look to re-establish their role as strategic consultants, rather than operational manpower. Before the downturn, many outsourcing providers were called in to help with transitional projects - consolidation of applications, deployment of new technology, or re-engineering of business processes - rather than substitute for internal operations staff. If the internal staffing problem becomes less of an issue, then outsourcing providers can move back to helping with strategic projects.

Finally, some outsourcing providers will look to provide a less expensive alternative to internal staffing. Much has been said recently about offshore IT outsourcing, and this trend is not likely to slow down. If outsourcing providers can deliver lower-cost IT services by shipping them overseas, then many enterprises will take advantage of them, possibly to the detriment of unemployed IT workers in the U.S.

Whatever the impact of the IT hiring turnaround, it is clear that the outsourcing market will look very different by the end of 2004 than it does today. The key for outsourcing providers will be to monitor the shift and respond in ways that will enable them to continue to grow, even as the internal IT organization grows.

Source:http://www.nwfusion.com

Friday, March 26, 2004

Globalization drives logistics outsourcing

With globalization, companies set up operations in as many countries as possible thus creating logistics requirements to integrate their local subsidiaries.

This requirement has spawned a niche market in the outsourced services industry, creating business for specialized logistics and supply chain companies whose work is to untangle logistical nightmares and simplify things for large conglomerates.

Traditional service providers like UPS and FedEx have long dominated this market. But over time, the requirement has become complex and service providers have learned to specialize in services like package delivery, freight transport, moving, IT services, accounting, and consulting.

Interestingly, according to a report, those poised to make a killing in this business are also conglomerates that have set up subsidiaries that offer logistics services.

The likes of IBM, GE and EDS which have either created or acquired smaller companies that already offer these services.

Currently, these subsidiaries contribute only a fraction of their parent company's bottomline. But with globalization strengthening, logistics could be a significant source of revenues in the future.

Thursday, March 25, 2004

The States and Outsourcing


The emergence of John Kerry as frontrunner for the Democratic nomination suggests that free trade might be off the table in 2004, at least as a national issue. It's certain to come up, however, in a number of congressional, senatorial, and gubernatorial campaigns. And, of course, as long as Lou Dobbs is still kicking at CNN, we'll continue to hear nightly nativist tirades against the loss of manufacturing jobs, the off-shoring of tech jobs, immigration, and general alarmism about the "outsourcing of America."

The truth, of course, is a bit more complicated than the simplistic picture painted by protectionists. The United States is still far and away the world's leading exporter of services. Direct corporate investment in India -- generally the target of protectionist rants on tech jobs -- actually declined from 2001 to 2003. As for manufacturing jobs, sure, it's likely that free trade agreements played a part in the loss of jobs in the last five years, but so too did a host of other factors, including exchange rates, changing consumer preferences, upgrades in technology and equipment, the recession, and new federal regulations. Michigan's Mackinac Center for Public Policy, to cite just one example, estimated in 2002 that a federal appeals court ruling favoring procedural matters over hard science in federal environmental regulatory policy could cost the state as much as $2.6 billion, or about 10,000 jobs.

Which brings us to state policy. Time and again, when we look at the states attracting and retaining jobs, and we compare them to the states losing jobs, we find that the states doing well are those with tax and regulatory schemes most friendly to business. It's only when the cost of staying local becomes too burdensome that companies pick up and relocate elsewhere. Perhaps that's not surprising. But just how strongly the data shakes out might be.

For example, according to the Economic Policy Institute, the five states losing the most jobs between 1993 and 2000 were, in order, California, New York, Michigan, Texas and Ohio. According to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Massachusetts also rank near the bottom, particularly when you take jobs as a percentage of population. The left-leaning EPI blames these losses chiefly on NAFTA, and perhaps that's partially the case. But aggressive tax and regulatory climates play a pretty big role, too.

Each year, CFO magazine asks financial executives to assess the business-friendliness of tax policy in their respective states, which the magazine then compiles and ranks. Ranking in the bottom 10? California, New York, Michigan, Texas, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Massachusetts -- the very states that seem to be bleeding jobs. The most recent unemployment figures from the Labor Department put California, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan all in the bottom 10 there, too, all with unemployment rates at 7.0 percent or higher.

The Small Business Survival Committee also puts out a report ranking the states on business-friendly public policy. In the SBSC report, Ohio ranks 39th, New York 45th and California 46th. Oregon, also with one of the country's highest unemployment rates, ranks 41st.

A 2003 ranking by the Tax Foundation focusing mainly on tax policy and business tells the same story. It puts California 49th, Ohio 47th, and New York 44th.

Only Texas and Michigan score relatively well on the Tax Foundation and SBSC reports, suggesting that at least in these two states, free trade may have played a more significant role in job loss than poor public policy (and when you think about what Michigan manufactures, and where Texas is located, that makes some sense).

The Cato Institute's Alan Reynolds wrote recently about San Jose, California, a city that lost about 120,000 jobs over two years. Reynolds points out that despite the debacle in San Jose, the communities of San Diego, Riverside, and Orange County actually added almost as many jobs over the same span of time.

San Jose was one of the first jurisdictions in the area to implement a so-called "living wage" ordinance, mandating that businesses contracting with the city pay their lowest-paid workers around $11 per hour, more than double the federal minimum wage. Of course, a living wage law in and of itself won't wipe out 120,000 tech jobs, but it's certainly indicative of the sort of "progressive" anti-corporate sentiment that might cause local businesses to pick up and spill out into friendlier communities.

Protectionists often bring up Ohio as the prototype of a hard-working, breadbasket state whose manufacturing sector has fallen victim to free trade. But Ohio is also a case study in how a state government hostile to business pushes jobs to more hospitable locales. You've read the numbers above. But additionally, in the last few years, Ohio legislators have begun to feel the hangover caused by big spending habits fomented back in the freewheeling 1990s. As of 2003, the state faced a $720 million deficit. Ohio governor Bob Taft has promised to shrink the deficit not with cuts in state spending, but with new taxes, tax hikes, and new fees, as well as rollbacks of promised tax breaks. Taft's tax-happy policy earned the Republican condemnation from the Club for Growth's Steve Moore, who called Taft one of the "worst governors in America."

The Buckeye Institute, an Ohio free market think tank, reports that Ohio's aggressive pro-labor policies cost the state jobs even during the relatively strong economic period of 1982-1998. Zeroing in on the effect of mandatory union memberships on state economies, the Institute emphasizes that during that 16-year period, states that mandated union membership in the manufacturing sector lost a net 996,000 jobs, while "right to work states" gained 493,000.

Let's look at the flip side. How well are states with business-friendly public policy doing at attracting and retaining jobs? The anecdotal evidence suggests they're doing pretty well.

According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, the only state that actually gained net manufacturing jobs from 2000 to 2003 was Nevada. It ranks 2nd on the SBSC's business-friendly list. It ranks 3rd on the Tax Foundation list. It ranks in the top four of CFO's list. Alaska lost only 900 manufacturing jobs over those same four years, which is likely due to its population. Still, Alaska too ranked in the top four on the CFO list. Virginia made a big push in the late 1990s to attract tech firms to its D.C. suburbs and the Dulles corridor. Despite the tech bust, Virginia still has one of the lowest state unemployment rates in the country and, perhaps not coincidentally, ranks 14th on the SBSC list (and would likely rank higher were it not for Gov. Mark Warner's recent promise to raise taxes). South Dakota, which ranks number one on the SBSC list, also has one of the four lowest unemployment rates in the country (as of December 2003).

On its face, this cursory look at the data makes a lot of sense. For all the talk of off-shoring, the cost of packing up a domestic plant and moving it overseas is pretty significant. Even outsourcing tech support and programming doesn't always make economic sense. American workers are still far more productive than, for example, Indian workers, even when you factor in the lower wages. It's only when the onus of complying with federal, state, and local tax laws and regulations becomes overly burdensome that it makes economic sense for a corporation to shop jurisdictions for a better deal.

So the next time a local politician (or news anchor) blasts NAFTA or greedy corporatism for the loss of local jobs, it might not hurt to take a look at just how friendly that politician's state or city taxes, regulatory and labor policies are toward business. Check where his state ranks on the Tax Foundation, SBSC or CFO lists. If he's a governor, see how he did on the Cato Institute's Governor's Report Card. If relocation really is the cause of the job hemorrhage he's complaining about (and often it isn't), it's likely that same politician's policies are a big reason those jobs left.


by Radley Balko
TechCentralStation,

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

Outsourcing Security

Deciding to outsource network security is difficult. The stakes are high, so it’s no wonder that paralysis is a common reaction when contemplating whether to outsource or not:

1.The promised benefits of outsourced security are so attractive. The potential to significantly increase network security without hiring half a dozen people or spending a fortune is impossible to ignore.

2.The potential risks of outsourcing are considerable. Stories of managed security companies going out of business, and bad experiences with outsourcing other areas of IT, show that selecting the wrong outsourcer can be a costly mistake.

If deciding whether to outsource security is difficult, deciding what to outsource and to whom seems impossible. Over the past few years, we’ve seen many different companies offering different capabilities under the general category of “managed security services.” The field is so confusing that even the industry analysts can’t agree on how to categorize the services offered. This company manages firewalls. That company offers periodic vulnerability scans. Another offers to manage security policies, or monitor the network, or install the IDS, or host the computers. Some of these businesses make sense, and some of them don’t. Some will survive; some won’t.

What to outsource
Companies won’t outsource everything, because some things just don’t outsource well. Either they’re too close to the business, or they’re too expensive for an outsourcing company to deliver efficiently, or they simply don’t scale well. Knowing what to outsource is key.

Medical care is a prime example of outsourcing that works well. Everyone outsources healthcare; we don’t act as our own doctor. More to the point, no one hires a private personal doctor. And we all know what aspects of medical care we like: the ambulance arrives in seconds and rushes us to the hospital, a team of medical experts spares no expense in running tests to figure out what’s wrong and in doing whatever it takes to cure us, and (for many people) the insurance company pays (all or most of) the bill. We all also know what aspects we don’t like: ill-equipped and ill-staffed hospitals, HMOs telling us that we can’t have that particular test or that a specialist isn’t warranted, and getting stuck with an outrageous bill.

The aspects of outsourced healthcare we like involve immediate access to experts. Any medical emergency requires experts, and the faster they can pay attention to us the better off we’ll be. The aspects of outsourced healthcare we don’t like involve management. Our healthcare is our responsibility, and we don’t want someone else making life and death decisions about us.

Network security is no different. Companies should outsource expert assistance: vulnerability scanning, monitoring, consulting, and forensics, for example. But they should not outsource management.

The industry has already proven this point. Salinas Network Services was the largest firewall management company. Earlier this year, it disappeared. There just wasn’t a profitable business in managing firewalls for other companies. Firewall management is simply too central—companies outsourcing to Salinas had no choice but to treat their Salinas contractors as employees. And, for the money they were willing to pay, the companies demanded too much individual attention. Another example: Pilot Network Services offered secure network management. Its business was to host computers securely, manage all security devices, and test applications before putting them up on the network, effectively becoming the security management group. They’re gone now too—same problem.

Companies should outsource expert assistance: vulnerability scanning, monitoring, consulting, and forensics, for example. But they should not outsource management.

Some consulting companies are doing well and some are not. This is primarily a function of the quality of the service they offer. Consulting is, and always will be, a profitable business. Outsourcing occasional requirements for expertise transcends any single area. The outsourced security companies that are doing well offer clearly defined services organizations need. For example:

1.Consulting companies (such as VeriSign, @Stake, Foundstone) provide expert advice and assistance: strategic security consulting, penetration testing, forensics, and so forth.
2.Security Value-Added Resellers (VARs) provide product installation and configuration.
3.TruSecure provides certification and expert assistance.
4.Qualsys has an automatic vulnerability scanning service.
5.Counterpane provides network security monitoring.
In all of these cases, the company buying the security services retains management and ultimate control. Conversely, by not demanding a management role, the security providers offer useful, effective, and scalable services. Both win.

Why outsource security
The primary argument for outsourcing is financial: a company can get the security expertise it needs much more cheaply by hiring someone else to provide it. Take monitoring, for example. The key to successful security monitoring is vigilance: attacks can happen at any time of the day, any day of the year. While it is possible for companies to build detection and response services for their own networks, it’s rarely cost-effective.

Staffing for security expertise 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, requires five full-time employees—more when you include supervisors and backup personnel with specialized skills. Even if an organization could find the budget for all of these people, it would be very difficult to hire them in today’s job market.

Retaining them would be even harder. Security monitoring is inherently erratic: six weeks of boredom followed by eight hours of panic, then seven weeks of boredom followed by six hours of panic. Attacks against a single organization don’t happen often enough to keep a team of this caliber engaged and interested.

This is why outsourcing is the only cost-effective way to satisfy the requirements. Think about healthcare again. I might only need a doctor twice in the coming year, but when I need one I might need him immediately, and I might need specialists. Out of a hundred possible specialties, I might need two of them—and I have no idea beforehand which ones. I would never consider hiring a team of doctors to wait around until I happen to get sick. I outsource my medical needs to my clinic, my emergency room, my hospital. Similarly, companies will outsource network security monitoring.

Security monitoring is inherently erratic: six weeks of boredom followed by eight hours of panic, then seven weeks of boredom followed by six hours of panic.
Aside from the aggregation of expertise, an outsourced monitoring service has other economies of scale. It can more easily hire and train personnel, simply because it needs more employees. And it can build an infrastructure to support them. Vigilant monitoring means keeping up to date on new vulnerabilities, new hacker tools, new security products, and new software releases. Outsourced security companies can spread these costs across all customers.

An outsource company also has a much broader view of the Internet. It can learn from attacks against one customer, and use that knowledge to protect all its customers. It also faces attacks much more frequently. No matter how wealthy we are, we don’t hire a doctor to sit in our living room, waiting for us to get sick. We get better medical care from a doctor who sees patient after patient, learning from each one. To an outsource security company, network attacks are everyday occurrences; its experts know exactly how to respond to any given attack, because in all likelihood they have already seen it many times before.

How to choose an outsourcer
It is difficult to choose an outsourcer because it’s hard to tell the difference between good and bad computer security. By the same token, it’s hard to tell the difference between good and bad medical care. Because most of us aren’t healthcare experts, we can sometimes be led astray by bad doctors who appear to be good. So how do we choose a doctor or a hospital? I choose one by asking around, getting recommendations, and going with the best I can find. Medical care involves trust; I need to be able to trust my doctor.

Security outsourcing is no different; companies should choose an outsourcer they trust. Talking with others and asking industry analysts will reveal the best security service providers. Go with the industry leader. In both security and medical care, you don’t want a little-known maverick.

Companies buying security services should also avoid outsourcers that have conflicts of interest. Some outsourcers offer security management and monitoring. This worries me. If the outsourcer finds a security problem with my network, will the company tell me or try to fix it quietly? Companies that both sell and manage security products have the same conflict of interest. Consulting companies that offer periodic vulnerability scans, or network monitoring, have a different conflict of interest: they see the managed services as a way to sell consulting services. (There’s a reason companies hire outside auditors: it keeps everyone honest.) Outsourcers offering combined management and monitoring services will be among the next to disappear, I believe. If a company outsources security device management, it is essential that it outsource its monitoring to a different company.

In any outsourcing decision requiring an ongoing relationship, the financial health of the outsourcer is critical. The last thing anyone wants is to embark on a long-term medical treatment plan only to have the hospital go out of business midstream. Similarly, organizations that entrusted their security management to Salinas and Pilot were left stranded when those companies went out of business.

Modern society is built around specialization; more tasks are outsourced today then ever before. We outsource fire and police services, government (that’s what a representative democracy is), and food preparation. Businesses commonly outsource tax preparation, payroll, and cleaning services. Companies also outsource security: all buildings hire another company to put guards in their lobbies, and every bank hires another company to drive its money around town.

In general, we outsource things that have one of three characteristics: they’re complex, important, or distasteful. Computer security is all three. Its distastefulness comes from the difficulty, the drudgery, and the 3 a.m. alarms. Its complexity comes out of the intricacies of modern networks, the rate at which threats change and attacks improve, and ever-evolving network services. Its importance comes from this fact of today’s business world: companies have no choice but to open their networks to the Internet.

Doctors and hospitals are the only way to get adequate medical care. Similarly, outsourcing is the only way to get adequate security for today’s networks.

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

THE VALUE OF OUTSOURCING

Companies large and small, public and private, and across a wide variety of industries have embraced the practice of outsourcing within virtually all disciplines, including information technology - the sector which leads the trend.

In fact, within the past five to eight years, outsourcing has evolved from a purely tactical option - often of last resort - to an ongoing, standard business practice and strategic management tool. But what explains this dramatic evolution in such a relatively short period of time?

Weighing the Pros and Cons

For many, the decision to outsource begins with exercise of weighing the time and expense of doing it yourself against your desired outcome. For example, if you decide to add a patio to your home, you have two basic options. You can either take on the entire job yourself - designing the space, securing the permits, purchasing the materials, and building it yourself. Or you could hire an experienced contractor to handle everything for you.

Your investment for the first option is largely in materials and a significant amount of your time, particularly if you are squeezing the patio project into a busy schedule that already includes work and family responsibilities. But how long will it take you to complete the job? What quality assurances will you have, especially if you've never tackled anything like this before? What might the short- and long-term consequences of the do-it-yourself approach be?

On the other hand, what could a professional contractor bring to the table? While the financial investment might be slightly higher to cover labor costs with an experienced builder, the completion time is likely to be much shorter and you can hold the project to agreed-upon quality guarantees.

Focus on Core Competencies

An oversimplified example? Not really. Like many business outsourcing decisions, it comes down to this: What's your core capability or service? Where is your time most highly leveraged? And what's the opportunity cost of adding another area of responsibility or of being distracted from your core capability?

Reducing and controlling operational costs remain key goals, and savvy managers increasingly look to outsourcing to improve business focus and strengthen core capabilities. A successful outsourcing relationship can help achieve this by enabling companies to focus their people and resources - which are sometimes scarce - on the areas that are mission critical to their operations. It also gives these companies access to the top talent in an outsourced discipline - talent that the client company doesn't have to recruit, train, pay benefits to or struggle to retain, thereby freeing up personnel dollars and time. In addition, companies can expect service levels in their outsourced functions to rise because, as part of forming the outsourcing agreement, they can determine specific quality standards for the provider. The agreement then serves as a quality control system that may not have existed otherwise had the company not decided to outsource.

Making the Right Decision

While the benefits of outsourcing may seem clear, sometimes the biggest challenge for managers is how much operational control of the outsourced function they are willing to relinquish. However, if their expectations are clear from the outset, outsourcing typically offers a higher level of control than in-house solutions. By getting "out of the trenches" of day-to-day operations, management gains a much better look at the big picture.

Here are several questions to ask when considering an outsourcing arrangement:

What are the primary objectives of the department or organization?
How do they relate to, support and/or add value to the organization's core services?
What are the primary processes involved to support the objectives?
Are you considering an outsourcer for short-term projects or long-term processes?
What kind of talent do you need for the job? If the situation requires a very specific skill set with tight deadlines, outsourcing is likely to be the answer, as it enables a company to avoid the timely and costly process of recruiting, interviewing and training.
How can the outsourcer improve performance?
What is this function currently costing the organization?


IT - The Most Popular Outsourced Function


IT was one of the first sectors to experience significant levels of outsourcing, and continues to be the functional area where most outsourcing dollars are spent. As the largest independent provider of multivendor technology support services in North America, DecisionOne can attest to the popularity of this trend - particularly in the following five market sectors.
OEMs - hardware, software and consumer electronics
Channel - resellers, retailers and warranty administrators
Communications - RBOC, ILEC, CLEC, cable, satellite
Service Aggregators - outsourcers, system integrators, application service providers
Commercial and Government Users - Fortune 1000 corporations, midsize companies and government agencies


While providers like DecisionOne tailor precise solutions to answer their users' exact IT and business objectives, the reasons these companies explore outsourcing in the first place are often strikingly similar. In fact, what these five sectors generally have in common when seeking outsourcing are:
A need for direct technology support for employees or customers, and/or
A desire to expand their service portfolio through an outsourcing partnership that enables them to offer additional technology services to their customers.


The Value of Direct Support

For those companies looking to enhance direct support for their employees and customers, there are a series of ways that a provider such as DecisionOne can add value to the service equation.
Focus on Core Capabilities - By leveraging a provider's infrastructures and proven processes for service and support, clients can be more effective in bringing their products to market and growing their businesses. They can focus on core capabilities and concentrate corporate resources on product development, marketing, sales and operations.
Avoid Service Infrastructure Investments and Planning - With an experienced provider's personnel, systems and fixed assets, companies can grow their businesses more quickly without the planning and investment that's often needed in personnel resources, support systems and capital assets to scale their infrastructure for quality service and support delivery.
Enhance Product Brand - Quality service and support are important buying criterion in the technology marketplace. A client's product brand is enhanced by providing top-shelf service offerings through an outsourcer with a reputation for quality services delivery.
Eliminate Competitive Conflicts of Interest - It's important for companies to look for independent service providers like DecisionOne that focus solely on support and infrastructure services for the technology industry and do not sell hardware or software. This helps eliminate possible competitive threats and reduce revenues to competitors.
Manage Service Subcontractors Effectively - To minimize the time, effort and cost of managing multiple services subcontractors, clients should use their outsourcer as the single point of contact for all technology-based infrastructure services. Providers such as DecisionOne also provide clients with streamlined, proven systems for on-line service information. This approach ensures quality services are delivered to the client's customers.
Preserve Investment of Technology Inventory - Clients should seek an outsourcer that offers service options designed to extend the useful life of their technology and reduce the need for investment in new equipment purchases. These options are offered through cost effective after-warranty service plans that lengthen the lifetime of systems and maintain high service levels.
Speed to Deploy Technology Solutions- By augmenting a client's IT organization with selective skills or technicians in remote locations, technology solutions are implemented faster, which allows clients to realize their benefits earlier.
Manage the IT Skills Shortage by Augmenting Internal IT Staff - Clients find that contracting for service delivery instead of investing in personnel for a support function provides cost effective coverage that reduces management issues of recruiting, training and maintaining certified, skilled support staff.


Expanding Service Portfolios

Outsourcing not only benefits internal technology operations, but it can also provide real revenue-building opportunities for companies who resell services.
Expand Revenues through New Service Offerings - Clients gain the flexibility to sell more than basic support for their technology platforms by reselling the service capabilities of providers like DecisionOne. This not only opens up additional revenue opportunities for resellers, retailers and warranty administers, but also strengthens their competitive positions in the market by offering their customers complete solutions. An outsourcer's capabilities should be integrated to provide a total infrastructure support solution from initial deployment to ongoing support, from call center to onsite dispatch, from centrally managed systems to networks and desktops.
Lower Cost of Sales through Service Packages and Bid Desk - An outsourcer should make it easy for clients to sell these additional service offerings through predefined packages and quick turnaround bid desk processes for custom service proposals.
Enhance Product Brand - Quality service and support are important buying criterion in the technology marketplace. A client's product brand is enhanced by providing top-shelf service offerings through an outsourcer with a reputation for quality services delivery.
Offer Quality Corporate Service Offerings - Clients should be confident that the services for their projects can meet the requirements of a corporate customer. Make sure an outsourcer understands the special requirements of the corporate environment. DecisionOne, for example, has experience in providing quality service for half of the Fortune 1000.


Summary

As competitive pressures and customer and shareholder expectations continue to increase, the value of outsourcing is likely to steadily rise, as well. Many companies presently outsourcing various business functions are actively searching for additional outsourcing opportunities in other areas.

On the IT front, that trend will translate into additional reliance on complete, integrated service solutions that are carefully tailored to the specific requirements and business objectives of various technology customer segments. Whether a company is motivated by speeding time to market, decreasing investment in infrastructures, making service and/or subcontractor management more effective, or enhancing their corporate and product brand, an expert technology support provider should help them stretch their capital and improve their customer service, both internally and externally.

Monday, March 22, 2004

Outsourcing + Insourcing Key to Smartsourcing


In today's high-speed global business environment, every organization is out to maximize its profits, enlarge its market share, and above all, put a check on ever-increasing costs. Management gurus are undertaking every effort and every possible mantra is being applied to re-think and re-adopt new processes, especially the buzzwords "outsourcing" and "insourcing."

Outsourcing is the process of procuring services or products from an external service provider with a view to curb costs, replace in-house capabilities, and thereby reduce the time period of projects. Outsourcing is thus a full transfer or delegation of an organization's facility management functions to an external firm. Outsourcing has emerged as an effective tool to revamp the strategies and benefits of business in a financially viable and pro-active manner.

Fundamentally speaking, outsourcing may be classified into two types: traditional outsourcing and Greenfield outsourcing.

a. Traditional outsourcing means that the staff of the organization does not perform the same jobs or tasks. Here, tasks to be performed are identified and the service provider usually hires the staff. For instance, IT outsourcing may include a transfer of responsibility for management of data centers and networks. In the field of facility management, the people working as property managers might become the staff of a facility management company.

b. Greenfield outsourcing, on the other hand, means that the organization can change its business processes without any hiring of staff by the service provider. The organization, for instance, may hire an up-and-coming company to provide a new service such as wireless remote computing, which was not previously handled internally.

Insourcing Challenges
Insourcing is a common approach where facility management officials reach out to external facility management firms as process experts. Here, the organization hires the professional help of an external service provider as a consultant to measure the scale of its operations levels and recommend necessary improvement measures. The internal staff, from this point onward, implements the suggested recommendations.

Today's IT and HR managers face several hard realities. In the first place there is an acute shortage of suitably qualified candidates to fill the available vacant positions. As a matter of fact, at any given time, according to reports, 10 to 15 percent of all IT positions are unstaffed and the growth rate of job openings exceeds the growth rate of the labor force in the IT industry. The US government alone estimates a shortfall of 1.3 million workers over the next 10 years.

The second factor involves economics. The cost of acquiring high-tech experts is growing, thereby maintaining consistency in the law of supply and demand. For instance, salaries of IT workers are increasing by as much as five times the rate of salaries of non-technical staff!

Insourcing has been instrumental in creating a viable supply of IT workers -- in fact, a better quality workforce combining both technical and business skills. Moreover, there has been a reduction in the cost of recruiting as well as the cost of integrating IT workers into the corporate culture. Above all, it has been helpful in stabilizing salaries and, finally, has resulted in an upswing in retention.

Outsourcing: The Perfect Motivator
Curbing costs and saving money have always been the perfect motivator for organizations to consider outsourcing options. Outsourcing revenues in the financial services sector are likely to soar to $30 billion by 2006, with companies in North America and Europe leading the way, estimates Boston-based research firm Celent Communications.

IT outsourcing is a fast-growing industry since it provides firms access to state-of-the-art technologies and is accompanied by the overall guidance of experts, thus curtailing the need to open up expensive in-house departments.

According to a report by IDC, global spending on IT services will soar to $700.3 billion by 2005, an increase from $439.9 billion. Many factors have converged to prompt firms to outsource.

The need to cut costs, globalization, and the increase in the number of ever-demanding clients mean that investment managers must revamp their operations, and thus outsourcing is high on their priority list.

Yet another trend is the emergence of offshore outsourcing and using organizations from developing countries to write code and develop applications. These organizations mainly perform mainframe programming for their clients and some related maintenance work. This practice is proving to be very cost effective. For any organization, IT involves huge costs, and by outsourcing these functions, internal IT staff can be deployed on new projects.

Organizations today are looking at outsourcing as an important option for leveraging resources and cutting costs, and the focus is on strategic and value-added services. Numerous countries have substantially well-trained IT professionals and clerical staff who have lower salary expectations compared to their US counterparts. Global outsourcing has thus become a small but rapidly growing sector in the overall outsourcing market.

Outsourcing - a New Surge

Recent trends clearly indicate that companies are generally avoiding traditional outsourcing risks and forming a deeper relationship with their offshore partners by setting up dedicated centers. A dedicated center is an extension of an organization abroad.

The dedicated center devotes all its efforts to the host organization and, to maintain consistence with the organization's standards, it follows their culture and methodologies to produce immediate results. The center enhances overall productivity, and more importantly, it results in considerable long-term cost savings.

Countries like China, India, Israel, and Russia, which possess highly skilled labor forces as well as outsourcing capabilities, have been the major gainers. Despite the fact that each of these countries has its own advantages or drawbacks, there has been a sudden upsurge of dedicated centers in these countries.

Smartsourcing: The Next Stopover?

Outsourcing and insourcing can be thought of as two sides of the same coin. Many analysts believe that if companies judiciously mix both outsourcing and insourcing properly, they will be the key to the next buzzword: smartsourcing. Today, numerous chip design companies are setting up developmental centers in India, striking the right balance between outsourcing and insourcing by designing and developing chips in-house while outsourcing the actual manufacturing of the chips.

Smartsourcing is yet another substitute for the basic challenge of outsourcing as a management technique. Smartsourcing can best be explained as the tactical use of specialized external resources to perform core and non-core SAP Basis activities, which were originally carried out by internal staff and resources. Smartsourcing provides the best available technology, services, and management to optimize network availability, performance, and reliability on a subscription basis. For those customers who want to out-task the design, management, and ongoing maintenance of their networks instead of relying on in-house network support resources, smartsourcing is perhaps the most lucrative option.

IT managers today are faced with increasingly complex technology, dwindling resources, and limited budgets. They are constantly on the lookout for alternative solutions for the success and growth of their business. Perhaps the answer lies in a delicate combination of outsourcing and insourcing, leading to the perfect solution: smartsourcing!

By Sabyasachi Bardoloi, Pinnacle Research Group, Pinnacle Systems, Inc.

Sunday, March 21, 2004

Consultants Find Goldmine in Outsourcing

Management consultants, rev up your horses. Roll up your sleeves and get ready with the client pitch. A little bit of attention on countries like India and the Philippines won’t hurt either.

As more and more companies realize the benefits of outsourcing, CEOs are predicted to tap consultants in mapping out their strategies.

According to the recent Wired magazine article about outsourcing to India, the surge in outsourcing means good business for consulting firms.

No wonder even giant tech firms like IBM (remember the acquisition of Price Waterhouse Coopers?) and HP are now beefing up their consultancy services and closing outsourcing deals as well.

IBM and HP recently sealed long-term multi-million dollar deals with manufacturing giant Procter and Gamble.

But independent consultancy firms need not be intimidated. According to Kennedy Information, spending on consultancy services is expected to jump up to 10% in the next two years, driven by the need for advice on sending tech jobs abroad.

US companies are expected to ship more than 200,000 services offshore in the near-term. With annual salaries of programmers in countries like India a mere fraction of their US counterparts ($8,000 versus $70,000), it makes business sense of to try outsourcing.

Outsourcing, however, is never downright simple and like any business decision, involves a lot of risks. For some efficiency, CEOs call upon management consultants.

In the last few years, the study also noted that major consultancy firms have all beefed up their outsourcing divisions. For consultants, outsourcing makes business sense as well.

Thursday, March 18, 2004

Competition Leads to Higher-Value Outsourced
Services


The rise of outsourcing has led to increased competition among service providers in India, which not only have to compete among themselves but with counterparts from other countries now slowly catching up.

Competition, however, has spurred Indian companies to assess their current capabilities and develop or acquire further skills that will lead to higher value work.

According to a comment posted in an industry opinion portal, wages from software development work in India has gone down to about $10-$20 per hour from $50-$70 per hour three years ago. Blame it on the number of service providers which has mushroomed over the past several years.

In an effort to stand out, some companies have evolved from software encoding to being large-scale solution providers like maintaining software applications remotely for a client (under what is generally called BPO) or remote maintenance hardware systems.

Because of mission-critical systems that run 24 x 7, companies in the US for example are tapping IT guys from India to do the task for them at salaries more than half of their American counterparts. Clients don't even have to pay night differential since work is done halfway around the globe.

While CEOs sleep soundly at night, the guys in India make sure that the systems that power corporate America are up and running.

Wednesday, March 17, 2004

Outsourcing: Staying Afloat in the Transition Process

What it takes to avoid the rocks when moving some or all of an in-house manufacturing process to a contract manufacturer.

There is a popular quality management analogy that goes like this: A boat is attempting to navigate a body of water full of submerged rocks. The water is lowered very slowly, so the largest rocks beneath the surface are gradually exposed. After the boat passes those rocks, the water is again slowly lowered to expose the next set of rocks, which are then dealt with. This process continues until all rocks have been revealed and the conditions are safe for the boat to travel.

In this analogy, the water represents the manufacturing process and the rocks are quality problems or inefficient production steps. And of course, the boat represents the manufacturer.

If the process of transferring a production line to a contract manufacturer (CM) followed this cautious, incremental process, there would seldom be a problem. Unfortunately, outsourcing is more often analogous to dropping the water level all at once. When a primary manufacturer suddenly begins relying entirely on a CM for its product, rocks that went undetected prior to the transfer abruptly jut from the water, endangering the success of the outsourcing initiative. Extensive planning and preparation is required to avoid hitting those rocks.

Medical device and diagnostics manufacturers (henceforth "primaries") have outsourced the manufacturing of certain relatively simple products for a number of years. But three new trends have become increasingly evident over the past few years. The first is that primaries are outsourcing more products than ever, and as a result are forming more relationships with CMs. The second and more important trend is that CMs are upgrading their technical and supply chain capabilities. Whereas in the past they may have been limited to simple operations—such as assembling tubing sets—they are now developing the capabilities to manage entire supply chains, and to assemble or even help engineer more-complex products. Finally, there is the sheer growth of contract manufacturing capacity. Some medical device CMs are expanding their operations in excess of 20% per year.

The increase in manufacturing outsourcing is driven by reduced margins in the industry, strategic focus, and the search for growth in new markets around the world. Some primaries are concluding that their strengths reside in design and marketing, making selective manufacturing outsourcing a logical move. Others are realizing that their core competencies lie in certain technical manufacturing capabilities, and so they outsource other parts of the production process.

For example, a medical device maker might decide to outsource some of its older, more stable products so it can focus its operations on newer, more technically complex products with higher margins.

A primary contemplating manufacturing outsourcing must consider which operations it will outsource and which it will retain, how the relationship with the CM will be managed, the incentives to put in place to obtain the desired behaviors from the CM, and how the outsourcing will affect future product changes and improvements.

Because medical device and diagnostics enterprises are ultimately responsible for any product they sell, regardless of whether it was manufactured by a CM, quality assurance and legal liability issues also come prominently into play. How tight and reliable are the CM's quality systems? How well did its operations fare in its last FDA audit? How does the CM manage suppliers, inspections, labeling, and sterilization?

Once the production-line transfer to a CM has started, there is often little or no time to respond to unforeseen issues, such as quality problems, supplier shortages, or inflexible regulatory lead times around the world. It is therefore crucial to have identified and worked around the rocks before the water level plunges.

The remainder of this article will examine what it takes to avoid the rocks in moving an in-house medical device manufacturing operation to a contract manufacturer. The observations and advice are based on a long record of success in planning and implementing successful production-line transitions for medical device and diagnostics firms.

PREPARATION AND PARTNER SELECTION CHECKLIST

Define purpose for outsourcing—cost, strategic focus, access to new markets.
Define the scope of what will be outsourced (e.g., which products, quality and supply chain functions, manufacturing operations, etc.).
Enlist senior management support.
Build a cross-functional core team that will manage the selection and transfer process.
Identify potential contract manufacturing partners.
Narrow potential partner field down to a few semifinalists.
Develop a detailed request for proposals (RFP) and submit to semifinalists.
Conduct contract manufacturer reviews, including detailed site visits and reference checks.
Evaluate RFP responses and findings from contract manufacturer reviews (keep in mind the purpose for outsourcing defined above).
Select contract manufacturing partner.



PREPARATION AND PARTNER SELECTION

First and foremost, the primary must clearly define for itself what it intends to gain from the outsourcing relationship, be it lower cost, access to new markets, technology or scale advantages, or the ability to tighten its strategic focus.

The second key to success is the selection of an appropriate CM partner. The winnowing process should be handled by a small, cross-functional team that performs progressively more-detailed due diligence as the pool of candidates is narrowed. This due diligence should include site visits, reference checks, and detailed requests for information from all prospective candidates.

What are the company's key criteria for a successful relationship with a CM? Is lowest cost of prime importance? How important are the partner's engineering or technical capabilities? How important is the CM's location?

If the outsourcing strategy includes gaining inexpensive access to new markets and the technical capabilities required of the CM are moderate, then the partner's location might be the most important consideration. A number of medical device companies with significant markets in the Far East have product manufactured in the region to avoid trans-Pacific distribution costs.

Organizational compatibility is another important issue. Primaries should meet with managers at various levels within the CM's company to get a reading on organizational fit, compatible styles of communication, and so on. Is the fit close enough that the CM under consideration could become a partner in the planning process?

Define the Operational Scope. The first step in successfully transitioning operations to a CM is deciding which manufacturing operations will be outsourced and over what time frame. Will every part of the manufacturing process be outsourced at once, or should the outsourcing be accomplished in logically time-phased stages? Which support operations—planning, sourcing, or distribution—will be outsourced, and which will remain with the primary? How, for example, will postmanufacturing operations such as sterilization and distribution be handled? Which company will procure components and take responsibility for component quality (supplier audits, annual inspections, etc.)? How much flexibility will the CM have in setting its own manufacturing schedule? These are all questions that must be asked—and answered.

Manufacturers must start thinking early about the organization within their company that will manage the CM partnership after the transition is complete. If at all possible, the same people who are responsible for managing the transfer at both the primary and the CM should be responsible for the ongoing relationship after the transfer is made.

Define Operating Rules and Responsibilities. It is critical to work through, in advance, how all of the elements of the product's supply chain—production planning, materials and components sourcing, manufacturing, product sterilization, and distribution—will work, both during and after the transition. Pay special attention to the specific operations that are going to change, which will obviously include manufacturing-line and distribution operations. Who will be responsible for sourcing components, providing suppliers with forecasts, and qualifying or auditing suppliers?

One way to ensure that all operations have been thoroughly reviewed is to map the supply chain processes. Manufacturing operations are relatively easy to map, since they are usually embodied in the primary's standard operating procedures (SOPs), but it is equally important to map the processes for managing planning, sourcing, and distribution.

In addition to a formal contract, primaries should write a joint service agreement (JSA) that clarifies how the joint operations will work. This is to make doubly sure that both parties clearly understand their roles and responsibilities before the transition begins. A primary's written contract with a CM tends to be a static document that focuses on launching the relationship—and on dissolving it, should that prove necessary. It does not usually focus on how the relationship will work, how difficulties will be redressed, or how the relationship can be strengthened and expanded over time if all goes well. The JSA is the ideal instrument for addressing those issues.

Plan Customer Supply. Determining how the transition team will handle product supply to customers during the transition is vital in avoiding one of the most dangerous rocks. Customers will not accept service interruptions of any kind. Furthermore, any supply problem, whatever its nature, will be blamed on the primary's "obviously ill-considered" decision to move to a CM.

Essentially, there are two options for keeping customers properly supplied during a production-line transition. One is to build extra manufacturing capacity pretransfer, so that sufficient manufacturing capacity will be available at any time to unfailingly meet customer demand. The second option is to stock extra inventory in advance of the transfer in order to cover any supply shortfall that might occur while the manufacturing lines are down during transfer.

The choice depends on the cost and time required to build and qualify new production equipment, the level of excess capacity of current production operations, and the product shelf life (versus the planned transition time). Creativ- ity in combining the choices can have significant benefits, both in terms of reduced capital outlays and increased transition speed.

For example, during a manufacturing transfer operation, a set of transfer "waves" could be established, in which the CM deploys limited staff among just the critical receiving and validation operations. This would effectively allow the primary to transfer multiple sets of operations in parallel, rather than serially, potentially speeding the transfer by months.

It is important to remember that the supply of components going into production (whether from the primary or the CM) also has to support the selected transfer strategy.

Also, if multiple production lines are going to be transferred, primaries should work through how the waves of transfer will be scheduled and how they interrelate. For example, if the transfer of one line is late, will it affect the transfer of the next? If so, how? Whatever plan is developed for transitioning, the product supply needs to be robust enough to absorb delays in the transition and to cover sudden increases in consumer demand.

Moving the first production line is rarely a gradual process. Once the first line moves, the company is suddenly and conspicuously vulnerable to demand spikes. Planning must be thorough before each production line is moved.

THE TRANSITION PROCESS

Staff the Transition Team. Appropriately staffing the core outsourcing transition team is critical to locating the rocks before the water level plunges. The team should be cross-functionally staffed with people whose schedules allow them to commit for the duration of the transition project. The transition team leader should expect to devote 100% of his or her time to the project, and most of the core team members should plan on devoting at least half of their time.

The team should include members from both the primary and the CM, as well as members from all of the internal operations that will be affected by the transition, including IT, finance, and marketing. Even though they are not directly involved in transferring production lines, IT and finance will need to change their processes to support the transferred operations. It is obviously important for marketing personnel to understand the transition's operational details and timing so that they can confidently answer questions from concerned customers.

If at all possible, each team member on the primary side should have a peer at the CM company. These "peer pairs" can work out how their respective operations will function during and following the transition, and then report their solutions to the core team at large.

The transition team must be empowered by senior management to manage all aspects of the transition, including its timing, the sequence of moves (if multiple lines are being moved), and the development of protocols for line validations, to name just a few aspects.

In addition, the team will almost certainly discover in the course of the transition that some operations are not fully defined in terms of how they will work during or after the transition. In order to avoid slowing the transition process, the team should be empowered to make these operational decisions as they arise. For example, if improvements were planned for the products to be outsourced, the transition team may need to decide whether to complete those improvements before transitioning the production line or after the transition, or to postpone the improvements until a more operationally stable time.

Manage the Transition. Regular and frequent core team meetings are important in tracking the progress of the manufacturing transfer and quickly resolving problems as they emerge.

The detailed master plan created at the start of the project should include all the major steps performed by all the functions in the transition process. Most any project-management software will do for creating such a master plan. Enough detail should be incorporated so that the plan reflects all of the operations that need to be performed, especially the interdependencies among the operations involved.

The entire core team should review this plan until everyone's "buy-in" is secured, and then review and update the plan regularly throughout the transfer project. If any tasks are slipping, or if management decides to speed up or slow down the transfer for some reason, this plan is the first place to look in determining how the transfer, and the interdependent operations, will be affected. Reviewing the master plan at each core team meeting is a good idea as the transition proceeds.

Make "Go/No-Go" Decisions. The object of go/no-go decision meetings is to determine if the team is truly ready to move the first production line, or if additional work needs to be done before the line is transferred. Appropriate senior representatives from the key functions should attend, as well as the entire transfer team. The topics at these meetings should include not just the status and details of transition planning, but also supply planning and risk-mitigation planning.

Setting fixed dates for go/no-go decision meetings—and sticking to them—can be a forcing function that keeps the team on schedule. If the transition team has done its work effectively and has adhered to schedule, no-go decisions will be rare.

Ideally, the core transition team should report to a steering committee made up of representatives from both the primary and the CM. This way, there is assurance not only that the primary is ready to transfer the production line, but also that the CM is ready to receive it. If multiple lines are being transferred in waves or phases, a go/no-go meeting should be held before each line is transferred.

BUILD A PARTNERSHIP FROM THE START

Both the primary and the CM need to view their relationship as a partnership from the outset. The sides must treat each other as equals, as they will win or lose equally. There must be no holding back of relevant manufacturing or supply chain information. The CM must fully understand the operation it is taking over, and know where the potential problems lurk. Early on, the primary and the CM should structure a gain-sharing agreement that addresses such issues as how the two parties will split the gains from reengineered production operations, and how they will deal with—and who will absorb—any component cost increases, should they occur. A good gain-sharing agreement is extremely important to forging a successful relationship.

Both the transition to contract manufacturing and the posttransition period should be monitored using a set of performance metrics. Metrics help ensure that everyone agrees on what is important to track and measure. When properly employed, metrics maintain the momentum of progress toward well-defined goals, and expose problems as early as possible so that corrective action can be taken. Metrics typically monitored in the course of a manufacturing outsourcing project include finished-goods inventory levels, production rates, product quality and yield, actual versus planned ramp-up schedules, transition dates for production lines, and capital, operating, and transition costs.

One idea is to build a scorecard that depicts the critical transfer metrics in graphical form. Each graphic depicts a specific goal or target versus the actual performance toward that target to date, giving managers a quick and clear picture of how the transfer is proceeding in critical terms.

CONCLUSION

Moving a production line to a CM without negative impacts on product supply or quality requires diligent planning and careful management. Every party involved in the transition, whether on the primary manufacturer or contract manufacturer side, must understand that no one is succeeding if anyone else is failing. With the right frame of mind, the right management processes, the right staffing, and the right planning, the rocks that are bound to emerge during transition can be spotted and avoided, with time to spare.
Outsourcing: Staying Afloat in the Transition Process

What it takes to avoid the rocks when moving some or all of an in-house manufacturing process to a contract manufacturer.


There is a popular quality management analogy that goes like this: A boat is attempting to navigate a body of water full of submerged rocks. The water is lowered very slowly, so the largest rocks beneath the surface are gradually exposed. After the boat passes those rocks, the water is again slowly lowered to expose the next set of rocks, which are then dealt with. This process continues until all rocks have been revealed and the conditions are safe for the boat to travel.

In this analogy, the water represents the manufacturing process and the rocks are quality problems or inefficient production steps. And of course, the boat represents the manufacturer.

If the process of transferring a production line to a contract manufacturer (CM) followed this cautious, incremental process, there would seldom be a problem. Unfortunately, outsourcing is more often analogous to dropping the water level all at once. When a primary manufacturer suddenly begins relying entirely on a CM for its product, rocks that went undetected prior to the transfer abruptly jut from the water, endangering the success of the outsourcing initiative. Extensive planning and preparation is required to avoid hitting those rocks.

Medical device and diagnostics manufacturers (henceforth "primaries") have outsourced the manufacturing of certain relatively simple products for a number of years. But three new trends have become increasingly evident over the past few years. The first is that primaries are outsourcing more products than ever, and as a result are forming more relationships with CMs. The second and more important trend is that CMs are upgrading their technical and supply chain capabilities. Whereas in the past they may have been limited to simple operations—such as assembling tubing sets—they are now developing the capabilities to manage entire supply chains, and to assemble or even help engineer more-complex products. Finally, there is the sheer growth of contract manufacturing capacity. Some medical device CMs are expanding their operations in excess of 20% per year.

The increase in manufacturing outsourcing is driven by reduced margins in the industry, strategic focus, and the search for growth in new markets around the world. Some primaries are concluding that their strengths reside in design and marketing, making selective manufacturing outsourcing a logical move. Others are realizing that their core competencies lie in certain technical manufacturing capabilities, and so they outsource other parts of the production process.

For example, a medical device maker might decide to outsource some of its older, more stable products so it can focus its operations on newer, more technically complex products with higher margins.

A primary contemplating manufacturing outsourcing must consider which operations it will outsource and which it will retain, how the relationship with the CM will be managed, the incentives to put in place to obtain the desired behaviors from the CM, and how the outsourcing will affect future product changes and improvements.

Because medical device and diagnostics enterprises are ultimately responsible for any product they sell, regardless of whether it was manufactured by a CM, quality assurance and legal liability issues also come prominently into play. How tight and reliable are the CM's quality systems? How well did its operations fare in its last FDA audit? How does the CM manage suppliers, inspections, labeling, and sterilization?

Once the production-line transfer to a CM has started, there is often little or no time to respond to unforeseen issues, such as quality problems, supplier shortages, or inflexible regulatory lead times around the world. It is therefore crucial to have identified and worked around the rocks before the water level plunges.

The remainder of this article will examine what it takes to avoid the rocks in moving an in-house medical device manufacturing operation to a contract manufacturer. The observations and advice are based on a long record of success in planning and implementing successful production-line transitions for medical device and diagnostics firms.

PREPARATION AND PARTNER SELECTION CHECKLIST

Define purpose for outsourcing—cost, strategic focus, access to new markets.
Define the scope of what will be outsourced (e.g., which products, quality and supply chain functions, manufacturing operations, etc.).
Enlist senior management support.
Build a cross-functional core team that will manage the selection and transfer process.
Identify potential contract manufacturing partners.
Narrow potential partner field down to a few semifinalists.
Develop a detailed request for proposals (RFP) and submit to semifinalists.
Conduct contract manufacturer reviews, including detailed site visits and reference checks.
Evaluate RFP responses and findings from contract manufacturer reviews (keep in mind the purpose for outsourcing defined above).
Select contract manufacturing partner.



PREPARATION AND PARTNER SELECTION

First and foremost, the primary must clearly define for itself what it intends to gain from the outsourcing relationship, be it lower cost, access to new markets, technology or scale advantages, or the ability to tighten its strategic focus.

The second key to success is the selection of an appropriate CM partner. The winnowing process should be handled by a small, cross-functional team that performs progressively more-detailed due diligence as the pool of candidates is narrowed. This due diligence should include site visits, reference checks, and detailed requests for information from all prospective candidates.

What are the company's key criteria for a successful relationship with a CM? Is lowest cost of prime importance? How important are the partner's engineering or technical capabilities? How important is the CM's location?

If the outsourcing strategy includes gaining inexpensive access to new markets and the technical capabilities required of the CM are moderate, then the partner's location might be the most important consideration. A number of medical device companies with significant markets in the Far East have product manufactured in the region to avoid trans-Pacific distribution costs.

Organizational compatibility is another important issue. Primaries should meet with managers at various levels within the CM's company to get a reading on organizational fit, compatible styles of communication, and so on. Is the fit close enough that the CM under consideration could become a partner in the planning process?

Define the Operational Scope. The first step in successfully transitioning operations to a CM is deciding which manufacturing operations will be outsourced and over what time frame. Will every part of the manufacturing process be outsourced at once, or should the outsourcing be accomplished in logically time-phased stages? Which support operations—planning, sourcing, or distribution—will be outsourced, and which will remain with the primary? How, for example, will postmanufacturing operations such as sterilization and distribution be handled? Which company will procure components and take responsibility for component quality (supplier audits, annual inspections, etc.)? How much flexibility will the CM have in setting its own manufacturing schedule? These are all questions that must be asked—and answered.

Manufacturers must start thinking early about the organization within their company that will manage the CM partnership after the transition is complete. If at all possible, the same people who are responsible for managing the transfer at both the primary and the CM should be responsible for the ongoing relationship after the transfer is made.

Define Operating Rules and Responsibilities. It is critical to work through, in advance, how all of the elements of the product's supply chain—production planning, materials and components sourcing, manufacturing, product sterilization, and distribution—will work, both during and after the transition. Pay special attention to the specific operations that are going to change, which will obviously include manufacturing-line and distribution operations. Who will be responsible for sourcing components, providing suppliers with forecasts, and qualifying or auditing suppliers?

One way to ensure that all operations have been thoroughly reviewed is to map the supply chain processes. Manufacturing operations are relatively easy to map, since they are usually embodied in the primary's standard operating procedures (SOPs), but it is equally important to map the processes for managing planning, sourcing, and distribution.

In addition to a formal contract, primaries should write a joint service agreement (JSA) that clarifies how the joint operations will work. This is to make doubly sure that both parties clearly understand their roles and responsibilities before the transition begins. A primary's written contract with a CM tends to be a static document that focuses on launching the relationship—and on dissolving it, should that prove necessary. It does not usually focus on how the relationship will work, how difficulties will be redressed, or how the relationship can be strengthened and expanded over time if all goes well. The JSA is the ideal instrument for addressing those issues.

Plan Customer Supply. Determining how the transition team will handle product supply to customers during the transition is vital in avoiding one of the most dangerous rocks. Customers will not accept service interruptions of any kind. Furthermore, any supply problem, whatever its nature, will be blamed on the primary's "obviously ill-considered" decision to move to a CM.

Essentially, there are two options for keeping customers properly supplied during a production-line transition. One is to build extra manufacturing capacity pretransfer, so that sufficient manufacturing capacity will be available at any time to unfailingly meet customer demand. The second option is to stock extra inventory in advance of the transfer in order to cover any supply shortfall that might occur while the manufacturing lines are down during transfer.

The choice depends on the cost and time required to build and qualify new production equipment, the level of excess capacity of current production operations, and the product shelf life (versus the planned transition time). Creativ- ity in combining the choices can have significant benefits, both in terms of reduced capital outlays and increased transition speed.

For example, during a manufacturing transfer operation, a set of transfer "waves" could be established, in which the CM deploys limited staff among just the critical receiving and validation operations. This would effectively allow the primary to transfer multiple sets of operations in parallel, rather than serially, potentially speeding the transfer by months.

It is important to remember that the supply of components going into production (whether from the primary or the CM) also has to support the selected transfer strategy.

Also, if multiple production lines are going to be transferred, primaries should work through how the waves of transfer will be scheduled and how they interrelate. For example, if the transfer of one line is late, will it affect the transfer of the next? If so, how? Whatever plan is developed for transitioning, the product supply needs to be robust enough to absorb delays in the transition and to cover sudden increases in consumer demand.

Moving the first production line is rarely a gradual process. Once the first line moves, the company is suddenly and conspicuously vulnerable to demand spikes. Planning must be thorough before each production line is moved.

THE TRANSITION PROCESS


Staff the Transition Team. Appropriately staffing the core outsourcing transition team is critical to locating the rocks before the water level plunges. The team should be cross-functionally staffed with people whose schedules allow them to commit for the duration of the transition project. The transition team leader should expect to devote 100% of his or her time to the project, and most of the core team members should plan on devoting at least half of their time.

The team should include members from both the primary and the CM, as well as members from all of the internal operations that will be affected by the transition, including IT, finance, and marketing. Even though they are not directly involved in transferring production lines, IT and finance will need to change their processes to support the transferred operations. It is obviously important for marketing personnel to understand the transition's operational details and timing so that they can confidently answer questions from concerned customers.

If at all possible, each team member on the primary side should have a peer at the CM company. These "peer pairs" can work out how their respective operations will function during and following the transition, and then report their solutions to the core team at large.

The transition team must be empowered by senior management to manage all aspects of the transition, including its timing, the sequence of moves (if multiple lines are being moved), and the development of protocols for line validations, to name just a few aspects.

In addition, the team will almost certainly discover in the course of the transition that some operations are not fully defined in terms of how they will work during or after the transition. In order to avoid slowing the transition process, the team should be empowered to make these operational decisions as they arise. For example, if improvements were planned for the products to be outsourced, the transition team may need to decide whether to complete those improvements before transitioning the production line or after the transition, or to postpone the improvements until a more operationally stable time.

Manage the Transition. Regular and frequent core team meetings are important in tracking the progress of the manufacturing transfer and quickly resolving problems as they emerge.

The detailed master plan created at the start of the project should include all the major steps performed by all the functions in the transition process. Most any project-management software will do for creating such a master plan. Enough detail should be incorporated so that the plan reflects all of the operations that need to be performed, especially the interdependencies among the operations involved.

The entire core team should review this plan until everyone's "buy-in" is secured, and then review and update the plan regularly throughout the transfer project. If any tasks are slipping, or if management decides to speed up or slow down the transfer for some reason, this plan is the first place to look in determining how the transfer, and the interdependent operations, will be affected. Reviewing the master plan at each core team meeting is a good idea as the transition proceeds.

Make "Go/No-Go" Decisions. The object of go/no-go decision meetings is to determine if the team is truly ready to move the first production line, or if additional work needs to be done before the line is transferred. Appropriate senior representatives from the key functions should attend, as well as the entire transfer team. The topics at these meetings should include not just the status and details of transition planning, but also supply planning and risk-mitigation planning.

Setting fixed dates for go/no-go decision meetings—and sticking to them—can be a forcing function that keeps the team on schedule. If the transition team has done its work effectively and has adhered to schedule, no-go decisions will be rare.

Ideally, the core transition team should report to a steering committee made up of representatives from both the primary and the CM. This way, there is assurance not only that the primary is ready to transfer the production line, but also that the CM is ready to receive it. If multiple lines are being transferred in waves or phases, a go/no-go meeting should be held before each line is transferred.

BUILD A PARTNERSHIP FROM THE START

Both the primary and the CM need to view their relationship as a partnership from the outset. The sides must treat each other as equals, as they will win or lose equally. There must be no holding back of relevant manufacturing or supply chain information. The CM must fully understand the operation it is taking over, and know where the potential problems lurk. Early on, the primary and the CM should structure a gain-sharing agreement that addresses such issues as how the two parties will split the gains from reengineered production operations, and how they will deal with—and who will absorb—any component cost increases, should they occur. A good gain-sharing agreement is extremely important to forging a successful relationship.

Both the transition to contract manufacturing and the posttransition period should be monitored using a set of performance metrics. Metrics help ensure that everyone agrees on what is important to track and measure. When properly employed, metrics maintain the momentum of progress toward well-defined goals, and expose problems as early as possible so that corrective action can be taken. Metrics typically monitored in the course of a manufacturing outsourcing project include finished-goods inventory levels, production rates, product quality and yield, actual versus planned ramp-up schedules, transition dates for production lines, and capital, operating, and transition costs.

One idea is to build a scorecard that depicts the critical transfer metrics in graphical form. Each graphic depicts a specific goal or target versus the actual performance toward that target to date, giving managers a quick and clear picture of how the transfer is proceeding in critical terms.

CONCLUSION

Moving a production line to a CM without negative impacts on product supply or quality requires diligent planning and careful management. Every party involved in the transition, whether on the primary manufacturer or contract manufacturer side, must understand that no one is succeeding if anyone else is failing. With the right frame of mind, the right management processes, the right staffing, and the right planning, the rocks that are bound to emerge during transition can be spotted and avoided, with time to spare.


by:Larry Strauss
Devicelink.com

Tuesday, March 16, 2004

Giving Consumers a Choice About Offshoring

Amid the hot political and economic debate on outsourcing, sometimes it pays to ask parties directly affected by it – the consumers.

A US loan company called E-Loan did just that and found out that most of its customers do not really care whether the service is done locally or in India as long as they remain satisfied with the service.

86 percent of customers chose to ship their loans abroad for speedier service. Home equity loans processed in India close two days faster than those that stay in the US, according to E-Loan.

But that’s not to say that workers in India are superior to their counterparts in the US.

The reason loans close faster when outsourced is because the company can utilize the 24-hour time clock. There's about a 12-hour time difference between the US and India and that enables outsourced loans to be processed while American workers are sleeping

Critics of outsourcing often raise privacy issues especially involving sensitive information like, in E-Loan’s case, a customer’s financial background.

E-Loan’s CEO Cris Larsen did point out the fact that some lenders do not disclose to customers about outsourcing projects offshore, primarily due to the mounting backlash against outsourcing.

But he believes those companies that try to hide the fact that they are outsourcing certain processes and functions only contribute to the negative backlash associated with the trend.

The wisest thing to do then is to choose a good partner that offers the highest levels of privacy and security. In E-Loan’s case, it chose Wipro - already one of the biggest names in the business.

Monday, March 15, 2004

White Collar Jobs Become Hot Target for Outsourcing

Largely due to outsourcing, a college graduate in a Third World country need not go elsewhere to look for that proverbial greener pasture.

In fact, even those with MAs or Ph.Ds need not to. The past year saw the start of a growing trend which saw Western companies outsourcing high-value knowledge jobs to countries like India and China at lower cost.

According to a McKinsey report, at least 600,000 white-collar jobs from the US, Europe and Japan will probably be outsourced to countries like India, China or Malaysia.

Initially, low-value routine work like software encoding or call center work, otherwise referred to as “non-core processes”, was farmed out to Third World countries.

But as early as last year, a Businessweek report already noted lucrative careers for engineers, financial analysts and even architects – filled up by people outside of the US.

In the financial sector, for example, a recent New York Times article made quite revelation in noting that accounting firms in the US are outsourcing tax returns to India.

According to the article, even prominent auditing firms like Ernst and Young have set up branches in India that serve as back-end help.

It is, however, not an entirely new thing. Procter and Gamble, for example, has an office in the Philippines which process tax returns for the entire company.

But the use of a third-party to accomplish the same task carries with it issues, mainly security. Because tax returns contain sensitive information about the taxpayer, issues pertaining to security arise.

This goes to show why, according to the article, some accounting firms are hesitant in telling their clients about people from thousands of miles away poring through their tax details.

India and the Philippines represent a ready pool of talents given the large number of graduates produced annually in these countries.

The best thing about it is that there are more of them in other countries as well waiting to be hired.

Sunday, March 14, 2004

Real Estate Booms with Outsourcing in Developing Countries

Real estate companies are in for a heyday as service providers scramble for office space to meet the huge demand for outsourced services.

According to a Reuters report, the demand for office space in India will double this year as service providers continue to expand.

Multinational firms are also joining the mad dash for office space as more of them migrate offices in Bangalore, Bombay and New Delhi. Investment banks, for one, are moving their research offices to India and hiring Indian analysts.

India is not yet as modern and cosmopolitan like Singapore or Hongkong. But apparently it is the low rent that lures companies to go there. The annual rent in India is one-fifth of that in Singapore.

The property sector in Singapore, Hongkong and even Tokyo is already feeling the crunch. According to a study,building owners in these cities are forced to cut down on rent or be creative on how to make income out of vacant space.

The Philippines, too, is experiencing a boom in real estate.

According to a local report, the number of government-declared economic zones in the country are growing by an average of three a year since about four years ago when the Philippines was first hit by the outsourcing wave.

Economic zones offer incentives like tax cuts to foreign investors. The Philippine government is busy making sure that these ecozones carry the most modern communications infrastructure to attract would-be foreign investors.

The government is also looking at creating ecozones outside of the capital city of Manila, encouraged by investors themselves primarily call centers.

In next few years, expect more skyscrapers in Mumbai and Manila when the outsourcing trend continues.

Friday, March 12, 2004

Outsourcing as a Tool in Exiting a Failing Business: National Australia Bank's Acquisition of Shares in Rival AMP Ltd.

Outsourcing can provide a unique benefit in preserving the value of a declining line of business. Consider an industry where many major players are suffering operating losses, where "ill-timed" acquisitions have resulted in write-offs and loss of shareholder value, and where there are no buyers or where the assets impaired by recent losses cannot be sold for what has been the historical valuation. In such cases, outsourcing offers to management the "breathing room" to maintain a customer base while waiting for either a recapture of the same outsourced business in a future up-market. This principle applies to international as well as domestic markets.

We take a case study in the financial services industry in Australia and the United Kingdom as the backdrop for some "lessons learned" in the use of outsourcing as a tool for exiting, or preserving value, in a failing line of business. The case involves National Australia Bank and AMP Ltd. (formerly named Australia Mutual Provident). The lessons apply to any business that has been challenged by recession or by failed over expansion through failed acquisitions.

Background. AMP Ltd. and National Australia Bank are both Australian financial services companies that entered into the UK life insurance market as part of a diversification strategy. They compete in Australasian banking and insurance markets as their principal markets. Both concentrate on insurance and funds management services. AMP has about A$235 billion in funds under management, compared to NAB's A$65 billion, as of August 2003. AMP's crown jewel is its network of about 1,900 financial planners in Australia.

AMP and Its Demerger Strategy for Unlocking Shareholder Value in a Declining Market. AMP, whose shares are owned by about 1 million Australians, experienced financial troubles and a steep decline in the price of its stock from 1999 to 2003. In response, in late 2002, the company adopted retrenchment measures, including closures of certain lines of business, a new board of directors, reductions in costs and in risks and a demerger, announced on May 1, 2003, that it would "demerge" its UK and Australasian businesses. The demerger announcement asserted that each new entity would benefit by having distinctive strategies, customer bases and growth prospects, and would operate in simpler, more transparent structures. As restructured, AMP Banking will focus on Australian markets for mortgages, retail deposits and retail financial planning services.

NAB and its Rolling Acquisition Strategy. National Australia Bank operates in 15 countries and is one of the 50 largest banks in the world by revenue. NAB made an informal offer in 1999 to purchase AMP for A$21 a share, less than one third the A$6 per share that it offered in August 2003. On August 28, 2003, NAB announced that it was offering to acquired a small 5.4% stake in AMP for A$6.00 per share. When NAB "waded in" to make an initial purchase, AMP was trading at A$5.40 per share. While NAB's 2003 share purchase did not involve a tender offer for control, it clearly put AMP's shares "in play" for a potential tender offer, which would give NAB a dominant position in the Australian funds management industry.

Role of Outsourcing for Both Financial Institutions. Outsourcing played a role in the business strategy of one of the two financial services institutions. Both experienced hard times from one of the worst bear markets in UK history. Their strategies differed. AMP sought a split-off, or demerger, of the UK and Australasian lines of business. NAB decided to continue in both markets as a distributor of third-party services, rather than as an integrated seller of life insurance.

Outsourcing by NAB. NAB used outsourcing to drop losing lines of business without losing customer goodwill and without losing the opportunity to cross-sell customers using service products that it did not "own" or produce directly. By outsourcing, NAB positioned itself to retain customers and, one may presume, the legal right, on expiration of the outsourcing agreement, to recapture the outsourced services or find another service provider. After the outsourcings, NAB can now focus on distribution and customer relationship management.

Outsourcing of Life Insurance Underwriting. Facing tough competition and an economic downturn in England, in early August 2003, NAB closed down its life insurance underwriting business in the United Kingdom and appointed Legal & General Group as its "alliance partner" to underwrite life insurance for retail customers of NAB's three UK bank subsidiaries. NAB's announcements in the press did not specify any material details. In a bid to persuade its retail customers that a brand name was better than an affiliated "house" name, NAB praised Legal & General's status as a leading life insurance underwriter. The Australian Financial Review called this an "outsourcing deal."

Outsourcing of Insurance Administration Services. NAB also formed an "alliance" with Junction, a part of the UK's Budget Group of Companies, to provide product and administration services for its home and motor vehicle insurance operations.

Outsourcing by AMP. AMP used outsourcing to drop its own losing lines of business, but only as a means of termination and liquidation of a dying business.

Insurance Business. As part of its cost cutting, AMP discontinued its reinsurance and direct insurance businesses. AMP hired another insurance services company, Cobalt, to "manage the runoff," or claims processing for the eventual expiration of all pending policies written by such AMP lines of business.

Investment Operations Outsourcing Services. AMP was apparently in such dire straits in 2002 that it had to sell off a crown jewel, its Cogent subsidiary in the UK, to BNP Paribas Securities Services. For BNP Paribas, which had extensive operations in serving mutual funds and providing custodian banking, AMP's sale was an opportunity to relaunch its position in the United Kingdom by expanding further into outsourced support for mutual funds and private equity funds.

Legal Issues in the Acquisition Strategy. Use of an outsourcing strategy to reduce corporate capital investment in operations and accelerate an acquisition campaign poses legal hurdles. The "big payoff" will not be available if the acquisition violates antitrust or competition rules. But the outsourcing strategy pays off anyway because it deals with an inherent problem instead of closing out a business.

Lessons for Corporate Strategists, Investment Bankers and Shareholders. When a company hires an outsourcing services company, the engagement can signal an exit in the line of business. In the case of AMP, it signaled a total exit for the closed lines of business. For NAB, it signaled a chance to retain customer loyalty while shifting to Legal & General Group the business of managing a life insurance underwriting operation.

From a corporate strategist's viewpoint, we think outsourcing (or some variation such as "strategic alliances" or subcontracting) can provide significant advantages in different types of markets. In this case, the markets had suffered significant declines in customer purchases. The loss of gross revenues in 2001 opened opportunities for creative strategic responses using outsourcing techniques

Outsourcing as a "Least-Worst" Alternative to Closing a Line of Business. Outsourcing can be a viable exit strategy for a line of business. When a business is closed, its assets are lost. By preserving the semblance of continued operations, the goodwill associated with the line of business can be preserved. The goodwill can continue to generate shareholder value without permanent impairment. Even where the business is actually closed, hiring someone else to manage the "runoff" of expiring business obligations (in this case, life insurance policies) allows an immediate closeout of the business operations, thereby allowing management to focus on other business needs.


Outsourcing as a Tool for Cost Containment. Outsourcing can contain costs. The extent and predictability of such cost containment depends on how the outsourcing is structured and managed by the enterprise customer. In the case of NAB, the "strategic alliance" dramatically reduced the costs of the UK bank subsidiaries for valuable products.


Outsourcing as a Tool for Customer Retention Strategy. Outsourcing can increase customer retention for services and products that the enterprise cannot viably deliver at competitive prices or terms. By shifting from a proprietary service suite to an outsourced service suite, NAB's UK bank subsidiaries can argue that they have improved the quality of service by a "strategic alliance" with a "best of breed" life insurer. In the process, NAB retained the full line of service, so that customers will continue to view it as a "full-line" service provider in its field, financial services. And NAB can be seen as a distribution company, retaining goodwill.


Outsourcing as a Tool for Risk Mitigation. Outsourcing can mitigate the risks of continuing a business in a highly challenged marketplace.


Outsourcing as a Tool for Nimbleness in Mergers and Acquisitions. Outsourcing can allow management the time to focus on strategic mergers and acquisitions. In Australia, NAB had already offloaded the underwriting function to Legal & General Group and could easily integrate and expand that outsourcing to accommodate the AMP UK life insurance business as well, if NAB were to acquire or merge with AMP. In doing so, NAB position its self to either swallow AMP as a "full fledged fish" with a poorly performing life insurance underwriting business, or it could elect to offer only to acquire the crown jewels of AMP, its financial management services business.


Outsourcing for Renewed Focus in a Down Market
. As management guru Peter Drucker once said, companies have two purposes: to innovate and to market. By outsourcing effectively to avoid loss of market share, NAB is able to focus on its core business and contemplate the possibility of acquiring its chief rival in Australia. If it acquires AMP, NAB will reportedly have a 52% market share above that of its nearest rival, Commonwealth Bank, in the institutional investment funds management industry.


Failure to Outsource. In selling its Cogent subsidiary in 2002, AMP chose to sell a line of business rather than outsource it and keep the customer relationships. One may second-guess this decision as a precursor to a financial and strategic restructuring of AMP. In making "sell vs. outsource" decisions, management should consider both. If management has to raise cash to pay off debt, the "sell vs. outsource" decision becomes skewed towards a simple sale.

By:Bierce & Kenerson, P.C.


Thursday, March 11, 2004

SPOTLIGHT INDIA: US drug makers turn to India to help lower costs

Pharmaceutical companies in the US are now looking at India in an attempt to help bring down the price of drugs.

According to an article from the Hindu Business Line, US drug makers could save at least 60% in producing new drugs by outsourcing R&D and other services to India.

The benefit from partnering with Indian companies is not only in reducing costs but in the time it takes to produce these drugs.

According to another report, India has a good shot at cornering at least one-fifth of outsourcing opportunity in the global pharmaceutical industry worth $48 billion.

Indian drug companies have strengthened their manufacturing processes over the years. While in the early days Indian companies imitate their Western counterparts, they now do work for the likes of Pfizer and GlaxoSmith Kline.

Recently, Matrix Laboratories and three other drug companies have been tapped by a US Foundation to supply low-cost anti-AIDS drugs to AIDS-stricken regions like Africa.

India providing outsourced services is not just about allowing theri customers to save large sums of money. From a larger perspective, it's about helping to make this world a better place.

Wednesday, March 10, 2004

Legal Compliance in Outsourcing

When is the Service Provider Liable for its Customer's Compliance with Laws, including Payment of Fines and Penalties for Non-Compliance? When is the service provider liable for its customer's compliance with laws, including payment of fines and penalties for non-compliance? Most outsourcing agreements require each party to comply with applicable laws. However, as business process outsourcing ("BPO") services move up the value chain, legal compliance obligations can get somewhat tricky. Consider the scenario where the service provider's services substitute for the enterprise customer's normal compliance with laws governing the enterprise customer's operations. If you are a candidate for public office, your consultant might just be liable for your compliance, fines and penalties. If you stay out of politics, you can still learn about a critical BPO contracting issue that played out in a New York City election campaign.

Context: Compliance with Election Laws. If you are a candidate for public office, your consultant might just be liable for your compliance, fines and penalties. While laws vary, it is instructive to consider the liability of a political consultant. The consultant's client, a New York City political candidate, failed to timely respond to the Campaign Finance Board's draft audit report and filed late four disclosure statements. The consultant acknowledged its office failures. It offered two excuses. First, its failures were due to its own disorganization (and not its client's). Second, the candidate's records were on a computer affected by a computer virus. This is hardly a case involving the usual due diligence, site visits and other critical infrastructure offered by the usual "big ticket" outsourcing. But the case illustrates what happens in case of "worst practices."

Statutory Liability. The particular statute imposes liability on "agents" as well as the political candidates. Under the New York City Administrative Code, §3-711(1), an "agent" includes individuals and entities who have undertaken the responsibility for campaign law compliance.

The Service Agreement. The political consultant claimed that it had developed computerized systems designed to keep its clients' political campaigns in compliance with the campaign finance regulations. The agreement provided that the service provider would complete all filings with the regulatory agency and explain to the candidate and monitor all rules and regulations applicable to the political campaign.

The Course of Dealing. The political consultant actually performed as promised, at least to the degree sufficient to be designated as an "agent" liable under the regulations for compliance. The candidate's Candidate Certification listed the service provider as the mailing address for notices from the regulatory agency. The service provider's employee represented to the regulatory agency that she represented the committee for the candidate's election with respect to compliance. The candidate's disclosure statements were generally delivered by hand by the service provider's messenger. The service provider's contacts with the regulators outnumbered those of other representatives of the candidate's election committee.

Implications for Enforcement of Other Types of Regulatory Legislation. This decision represents an enforcement action by the governmental agency responsible for administering a regulatory law. The regulators targeted enforcement action directly against the "BPO service provider" by reason of its contractual undertakings, its actions for compliance and its direct communications with the agency. The same analysis might not apply to non-delegable compliance duties, such as these of the CEO and the CFO under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Equitable Estoppel. In this case, the court, without setting forth a theory of law, concluded that it would be inappropriate to allow a service provider to act as agent and not have the liability of an agent.

To allow any entity, that has agreed to fulfill the compliance requirements of behalf of a candidate to shoulder the blame for a candidate's non-compliance, and then to allow that same entity to escape liability because it claims it is not an "agent" of the candidate, would not serve the purpose of the Campaign Finance Act. To accept [the service provider's] argument would defeat the policy behind the Campaign Finance Act.

As a result, the court found that it was not "arbitrary and capricious" to impose the candidate's penalty on the consultant, and that such an imposition did not lack a rational basis.

Lessons Learned. By assuring compliance with laws, the service provider agrees to guarantee the result. Unlike a commitment to use "best efforts" or some other type of "efforts," a BPO service provider's guarantee of results implies an agreement to shoulder the fines and penalties imposed on the service provider's customer by reason of any failure to comply.

By:Bierce & Kenerson, P.C.
Source:outsourcing-law.com

Tuesday, March 09, 2004

Look out, outsourcers - e-commerce is making a comeback

With the burst of the dot-com bubble and the souring of Internet technology investors, large enterprises are no longer working on e-commerce projects, right?

Wrong, according to Evans Data. The research firm last week published a study which shows that e-commerce is now the No. 1 priority among IT project planners for the coming year

According to Evans’ new Enterprise Development Management Issues survey of 400 IT executives, planned projects for business-to-business e-commerce have increased 40% in the last six months, moving B2B projects from 11th place to first on enterprise priority lists. Business-to-consumer projects also showed strong gains, with developers now planning 20% more B2C projects for next year than they had planned six months ago.

"We're seeing a resurgence in e-commerce deployments, but this isn't a revival of the so-called 'dot-com' frenzy by any means," said Joe McKendrick, Evans' enterprise analyst. "Rather, many companies are extending relevant portions of their applications and data to supply-chain partners. With growing adoption of Web services and other standards, such connectivity is now possible with little additional investment. In fact, we’re finding that developers are getting more comfortable with Web services, and therefore directing more efforts beyond their firewalls, to business-to-business interaction."

While the dot-com bubble may not be re-inflated, the Evans survey clearly suggests there will be opportunities for outsourcing service providers to help enterprises on several fronts.

The first is Web services, where many enterprises have programming skills but little experience in implementation of a multi-organization application environment. Outsourcing providers should be able to serve effectively as neutral parties in these implementations, offering Web services technology expertise while helping to arbitrate disputes between partners on how to deploy B2B technology.

Secondly, the renewed interest in B2B projects presents an opportunity for outsourcing providers to re-launch their supply chain technology services, which have been largely in hiding since the economic downturn. As with Web services, an outsourcing company can serve particularly well in supply chain environments that involve many partners, because it adds technology expertise, business process expertise, and a level of objectivity to the effort.

Finally, outsourcing providers can offer assistance in development of Web site content and infrastructure that can scale to thousands of customers. This assistance is important in enterprises that do not have a great deal of B2C project experience - homegrown Web content is often untested and may be poorly received by potential online customers. A third-party audit of the content and the infrastructure that supports it can make the difference between success and failure in online sales.

Interestingly, the Evans survey suggests that while e-commerce projects present new opportunities for outsourcing providers, outsourcing of IT projects is on its way down again. Fifty-six percent of enterprises are currently outsourcing some of their IT tasks, down from 71% a year ago, the research firm said. Only 7% of companies are outsourcing a majority of their projects, down from 12% a year ago.

Like the e-commerce data, Evans’ outsourcing data indicates that the budget crunch on IT may be lessening. IT organizations are increasingly looking toward outsourcing providers for expertise, rather than manpower, which suggests that IT organizations are increasingly able to hire their own people to do the work. It’s possible that the outsourcing market is on its way back to its form of a few years ago, when outsourcers were sought more for brains than brawn.

By :Tim Wilson
Source:nwfusion.com

Monday, March 08, 2004

Low costs let the offshore outsourcing genie out of the bottle

I caught a segment on "60 Minutes" the other week that really opened my eyes. The segment, titled "Out of India," was about the growing trend for American companies to outsource various services to companies in places like India and China. You've probably read about this trend as "offshore outsourcing," and it's usually in the context of customer service, technical support or software programming. Until I watched this show, I didn't give much thought to how deeply the practice of offshore outsourcing is going to affect American business and consumers, now and in the future.

Like you, I've been reading the news stories about various U.S. companies setting up software development shops or call centers in India and other low-wage countries. Perhaps your own company has even explored outsourcing some aspect of customer service to an offshore agency. The cost savings can be enormous - sometimes as much as 50%. Figures like these are very compelling to American companies that are looking for every way to become more competitive in a global economy.

Thanks to the information technology revolution of the past two decades, geography has become irrelevant when it comes to performing many white collar jobs. You don't need to sit in Silicon Valley to write code. You don't need to be in the American Heartland to answer a technical question over the phone. You don't have to be anywhere near U.S. soil to process an American citizen's federal income tax return. All you need is a computer and a good telecommunications system, and you can work from anywhere.

Employers are waking up to that fact, as well as to the eye-popping report that offshore workers will work for wages that are one-tenth that of typical U.S. wages. In India, a call center employee can earn $3,000 to $5,000 annually, in a nation where per capita income is closer to $500. This means that workers are clamoring to take the call center jobs, unlike in the U.S. where such jobs usually have high turnover.

To entice more companies to set up shop in India, private investors have built a solid infrastructure to ensure high availability of services. For example, private companies have built generation plants to supply energy to call center complexes the size of multiple football fields. They put in massive satellite communication systems to ensure that the phone will always work. What's more, the "people pipeline" ensures highly educated workers will always be ready to take the jobs. India churns out more than a million college graduates a year, many of whom speak English fluently and are ready to service consumers all around the globe.

The offshore outsourcing trend is in the infancy stage right now, but it's guaranteed to grow; the economics are just too compelling to ignore. Forrester Research says that 40% of the Fortune 1000 firms have jumped on the bandwagon, and another 25% are in the experimentation phase.

But those experiments don't always work. British firm Shop Direct recently announced it is bringing back in-house 250 jobs that had been outsourced to an Indian call center. Labor unions and outsourcing experts in Britain speculate that the move is a result of customer complaints over Indian accents being hard to understand. A Shop Direct spokesman said the outsourcing contract had been "only a trial, and we have decided to wind up the overseas operation following peak Christmas trading activity." Similarly, Dell brought back some overseas technical support jobs because major corporate customers complained about the quality of support.

As the offshore outsourcing trend grows, IT jobs such as phone-based technical support, software development, and applications testing are particularly vulnerable. Analysts predict that upwards of 2 million IT-related jobs - perhaps even yours - will move offshore within the next decade.

We'll be reading a lot more about the offshoring of IT jobs in the coming years. After years of increasing globalization and free trade, significant improvements in IT and communication infrastructures, and tremendous pressure for companies to cut cots, this genie is out of the bottle for good.

By:Linda Musthaler


Best Countries For Outsourcing

Outsourcing generally refers to the practice of farming out jobs from their home base to other countries, largely in an effort to cut costs. Many American companies are now transferring technology development, customer service, financial and administrative jobs to international markets. The move parallels the dramatic shift of manufacturing jobs outside U.S. borders.

India is the leading recipient of the outsourcing of information technology functions like software development and maintenance, and also business process outsourcing. The latter includes back-office functions like accounting, human resources, call centers and data analysis.

Features that make India Best for Outsourcing:

Labor Pool: India has many prestigious technical universities, but the Indian Institute of Technology stands apart as one of the world's best. India produces 75,000 IT graduates and 2 million English-speaking graduates annually.
Costs: Labor costs have crept upward over the years but have been offset by falling telecom rates. Typical salaries range from $5,000 to $12,000 for technical staff, while back-office salaries range from $3,500 to $7,500.
Government: Outsourcing is so ingrained in the fabric here that the Indian government has a national minister specifically for IT. The government favors IT foreign ownership and imposes no export taxes.
Infrastructure: With redundant telecom and utility infrastructure, there is very good reliability within India's special IT parks. Reliability can be spotty outside the parks or in more remote areas.
Expertise: Application development, maintenance, call centers, financial processing. Experts see India becoming a hotbed for more critical analytical jobs.
Major U.S. Customers: Citigroup, GE Capital and American Express have a very large presence and have set up their own centers here.

Friday, March 05, 2004

Cyndi Joiner had been responsible for GMAC's Corporate Real Estate and Facilities Management group for three months when she faced a major challenge: The large support operation appeared to be at a crossroads. The division needed to cut costs, manage suppliers' performance better, and clean up the chaos engendered by a lack of internal controls, standards, and up-to-date technology.

Joiner presented top management with three options: continue the present course, reengineer the division, or outsource the entire operation. Management selected "Door No. 3," Joiner says, primarily to reduce head count and improve processes quickly. But Joiner got more than she bargained for: GMAC executives were so excited by outsourcing's potential cost savings and apparent ease of execution that they decided to shrink the standard timeline. Whereas many firms would have allotted more than six months to complete an initiative of this magnitude, GMAC executives asked Joiner to do it in six weeks.

In spite of notable obstacles, Joiner met the challenge. In doing so, she and GMAC learned valuable lessons about launching an outsourcing initiative.

The decision to outsource
Companies outsource noncore business functions to third-party providers for various reasons: to reduce head count, to cut expenses, and to improve service. In GMAC's case, the company believed it could not only trim personnel and other costs during a tough economic time but also might better fulfill its core purpose: ensuring that customers have a positive home-ownership experience. That meant focusing more on selling mortgages and properties. Thus, the real estate and facilities-management arm of the business became an ideal candidate for outsourcing. "The talent pool in our core competencies," Joiner says, "was much greater than in this other function. We needed a deeper 'bench' in facilities management, and outsourcing would let us get that."

Selecting an outsourcing partner
As a first step in selecting an outsourcing partner, Joiner recommends canvassing your industry to come up with a handful of candidates. GMAC hired a consulting firm to handle the search, owing to the accelerated timetable. The consultants served as advisers on several levels:

Suggesting potential partners
Helping GMAC develop a picture of what the new organization should look like after the outsourcing was complete
Offering recommendations for defining the partnerships
Assisting GMAC in interviewing potential partners' former and current customers
Then look at each company's standing in the industry, its flexibility, and its track record with firms similar to yours. "Look for companies that make a good cultural match with your own," she adds. "Find out what you can about their portfolio of talent. Make sure they're willing to explain the reasons behind both their successes and failures."
Savings and speed
In proposing an outsourcing initiative to senior executives, managers need to do more than just stress the potential cost savings. Why? "Savings come in three forms," Joiner says. "Immediate dollars on the P&L, eventual improvements in processes, and avoidance of costs. You won't see all the savings show up immediately on your P&L, and some of them will always be hard to quantify."

Moreover, overemphasizing the financial benefits of outsourcing can cause firms to set too short a timetable. A rapid execution has pros and cons. As Joiner discovered, speed enables a company to get through the most painful part of the change process quickly and minimizes friction created by resisters. It also forces people to adapt quickly. As Joiner puts it, "You can't know till you jump in the middle that you don't know how to swim. But you learn how—really fast."

On the other hand, speedy implementation can deprive the organization and third-party provider of that all-important "courting" stage before the "marriage." Joiner is hard-pressed to say whether she would aim again for a six-week implementation. In some ways, "six weeks felt too short," she says. "We were trying for too much radical change at one time." Joiner speculates that it may have been better if the process had unfolded in stages rather than all at once; for example, facilities management first, then lease administration, and finally property management. Still, she concludes, "As the owner of an initiative, I'll take all my pain in six weeks rather than have it drawn out over a longer period."

Getting past culture shock
GMAC's outsourcing initiative reduced staff by 85 percent in the company's real estate and facilities-management function and saved $6.74 million in the first year. "No doubt, the staff reduction was painful," says Joiner, "not only for those who left but for those who remained."

The staff who found the layoffs the most difficult were often from other parts of the firm and hadn't known the affected workers well. In contrast, teammates of the laid-off workers were more aware of the division's lack of "bench strength," and they presented Joiner with an opportunity to manage the staff reduction's impact on morale. "This is all about change management," she says. "As fast as possible, you have to mesh the newly shaped organization with the old assets still at hand. If you immediately make the survivors see the benefits of the change and the reasons behind it, they'll become champions of the effort."

Joiner also advises constant communication with both the workforce and upper management about the program's goal and every aspect of its implementation. "Tell everyone about what's going well—and what isn't going well. Own up to your mistakes and missteps," she urges.

Communication helps to combat the human tendency to blame outsiders for our own problems, Joiner says. At GMAC, this tendency was exacerbated by the unpleasant experiences many employees had had with previous outsourcing efforts. But no outsourcing initiative can work, Joiner says, unless the company as a whole accepts the third-party provider's role.

To deflect unwarranted blame away from GMAC's providers, Joiner continually communicated her own role in the new initiative through as many channels—and to as many recipients—as possible. When functional managers complained about being asked to take on budget accountability for expenses that used to show up in the corporate income statement, Joiner made sure to point out that it was she who had initiated the chargebacks.

In communicating about an outsourcing initiative, patience is as vital as consistency. "The real benefits of outsourcing take time," Joiner says. "And before they kick in, things are going to get painful, ugly, and chaotic." Though it's easy to generate a "big bang" early in the execution of the initiative, "enduring change is harder and takes longer. People need to understand that."

Finally, Joiner recommends involving "power users" from the outset in outsourcing-implementation decisions. For example, the regional managers of the more than 300 leased properties owned by GMAC's retail organization were hugely affected by the initiative and had valuable input into its implementation. Though the speed of the effort's execution prevented Joiner from gathering these managers' input before the program rolled into action, she made sure to incorporate changes based on their insights during the execution phase.

Coalitions and champions
Joiner's handling of regional managers, employees, and top executives shows the importance of building supportive coalitions. You also need a strong executive champion, she says. To cultivate champions, Joiner suggests meeting with key people frequently; telling them about "the good, the bad, and the ugly"; and laying out the short- and long-term benefits and costs of the program.

"And even after you've 'sold' the idea of the outsourcing, keep going back to touch base. Let your champions know that you're still there and still very involved."

As Joiner's experience shows, outsourcing requires top-notch change-management skills as well as the ability to select the right partners and build positive, enduring relationships with them. Managers who are charged with the outsourcing effort will increasingly need to hone their awareness of these complex challenges. Understanding that outsourcing is a journey, not a one-time event with an instant payoff, is an important first step

By: Lauren Keller Johnson
Source: http://hbswk.hbs.edu

Thursday, March 04, 2004

US medical billing major shifting BPO to India

The recent spate of anti-outsourcing outbursts in the US notwithstanding, a US medical billing major is planning to shift bulk of its back office operations to India in a phased manner. Alpha Thought, which already has about 175 live seats operating from NEPZ, Noida hopes to add another 250 people hiring 30 people per month by December 2003. This is expected to go up to 900 seats by the end 2004-05.

Meanwhile, the companys operations in the US would be scaled down to only the front office- liaison with the medical profession and the scanning of documents. Ken Staten, Head of India Operations, stated that the company would incur savings to the tune of over 25 percent by shifting operations to India. Staten stated that his major advantage in having a center in India is the availability of manpower. Not only is the cost lower in India, but we have also found the workforce to be more stable here than in our US operations, he added.

Alpha Thought has five centers in different states in the US and the major issue for the company is finding a stable workforce. Although, the attrition in the ITES sector in India is also very high, it is nothing like the rates in US, assures Staten. He said that the attrition rate for his center which has been in operation for the past two years is negligible because the work is basically data based.

Alpha Thought’s Noida center is in the business of providing billing services to patients on behalf of medical practitioners in the US and then processing and collecting the same on their behalf. Medical billing is a complicated procedure in the US as there is a huge premium in healthcare services, what with the insurance companies having made an aggressive foray into the domain.

Alpha Thought is the second largest billing company in the US after Per-Se Technologies with a turnover of over $40 million. The company also provides billing services to third party users.

Alpha Thought’s strategic move assumes significance in the light of the recent Shirley Turner Bill introduced in the New Jersey State Senate which seeks to ban government outsourcing jobs to places like India. Although the Bill has been put on hold for certain amendments, the Bill has started a trend among other US states. Nasscom and other industry watchers, including the US industry, believe that this is just a flash in the pan and that economic sense would over-rule patriotic feelings.

In the early 80s and the 90s, the US auto industry also had to shift their manufacturing base to cheaper destinations in order to remain competitive. Although there were protests then, it died down eventually as the economic needs prevailed.

Source:Globaloutsourcing.org

Wednesday, March 03, 2004

Demonstrating to corporate executives the importance of building offshore plans with a long-term strategy in mind, Bill Frech, Vice President and Business Process Outsourcing Service Line Leader, discussed the present and future of business process outsourcing and offshoring with executives attending “The 2004 GCI Offshoring Summit”.

In a panel discussion on offshoring, Mr. Frech said that outsourcing could reduce operational costs by 20-30%, sometimes more. He continued to say that many companies already view offshore as a key aspect to their business strategy because the economics are so compelling. However, factors such as cultural issues and hidden costs are making companies consider a long-term view when contemplating moving their operations offshore.

“With offshoring, it is important to choose an outsourcer that can provide flexibility and delivery operations as labor markets change and business needs evolve,” said Frech. “Companies are able to invest cost savings from outsourcing into strategic growth areas and also react to changing business dynamics faster and smarter by being able to scale up or down as business needs evolve.”

Frech encouraged corporate executives to consider factors beyond cost when developing an outsourcing strategy. For example, it is important to understand infrastructure issues, business continuity and cultural issues when evaluating a strategy. Frech discussed CGE&Y’s RightShore™ outsourcing model, a customized blend of onshore, nearshore and/or offshore capabilities, tailored and coordinated to meet a company’s specific business goals. RightShore leverages capacity, capabilities, cost reduction, and competencies across geographies to achieve optimal customer satisfaction. To effectively validate CGE&Y methodology/philosophy, Frech highlighted case studies that proved the value of how offshore outsourcing strategies have worked for past clients.

By:John J.Patterson
Source:us.cgey.com

Tuesday, March 02, 2004

COMMENTARY--Few topics are as controversial as outsourcing. This is understandable. To state the obvious, jobs are a fundamental part of our ability to lead a happy and productive life.

Unfortunately, jobs exists within the context of volatile global markets. The growth of outsourcing is the result of developing nations reaching a point in their economic evolution where they have the skills to compete in higher-skill domains traditionally served by rich country workers. The same cost advantages offered to lower-level manufacturing are now being brought up the value chain to software development.

In the United States, a number of congressmen have proposed bills which would protect American IT workers from foreign labor competition. Furthermore, though few are as overtly anti-trade as Dick Gephardt or Dennis Kucinich, it is increasingly clear that Democratic party contenders for the U.S. presidency view foreign competition as a potential winning issue in the 2004 race.

don’t deny that Western IT workers will have to make adjustments to accommodate the new global reality. However, as I explain in this article, outsourcing is not the jobs catastrophe its opponents make it out to be. Furthermore, there are a number of practical reasons to maintain an open market position which have ramifications for the future health of Western economies. In short, like it or not, Western nations need outsourcing.

Don’t overestimate the threat
My first job as a programmer was with Price Waterhouse. My memory of that time includes a frightening amount of airplane food, as I made weekly round-trip flights to client destinations from my home "base" (at the time, Dallas, Texas).

The reason for this was that Price Waterhouse assisted clients in creating custom software--and this required close interaction with the client. Whole teams of developers would be flown to the site to gather requirements, generate prototypes and write code. Real world custom development is often a trial and error process, something that works best when developers on-site can respond instantly.

Maintenance work, however, does not require such close interaction since the broad outlines of the application have already been laid out. This development was often performed off-site, therefore, saving the client airfare and housing costs.

Custom software, even under the best conditions, often must contend with "fuzzy" requirements. Likewise, most software is of the ad-hoc variety, and often is "temporary" in that the actual code written has a short life span. This means that most software will need the kind of close client interactions Price Waterhouse provided to its customers. Such interaction can’t occur when the consultants are sitting in an office in Hyderabad.

Furthermore, the people best qualified to work with American or European clients will be other Americans or Europeans, given the shared cultural context co-nationals share with their fellow citizens. In other words, most custom development will call upon local citizens, because their ingrained "skill" at dealing with local clients cannot be replicated.

Maintenance, however, can be performed off-site, including at offshore locations. This was central to the arguments made by Rahul Sood and George Gilbert in their recent article. They noted that one of the best way to use outsourced labor is as a place to offload maintenance tasks, freeing up the domestic labor force for higher-value new software development.

Even so, this doesn’t mean that domestic IT staff won’t face jobs pressure. In the long term, however, it pays not to underestimate the power of the software industry to create new jobs.

The rise in demand for software developers in the 1990s was the result of the industry’s attempt to digest the changes introduced by the spread of the Internet. Technology continues to advance, however, and it is my opinion that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg in terms of the integration of computing power into our daily lives. I spoke of the software opportunities created by the adoption of RFID technology in a previous article, but also consider the advent of smart phone technology, or even the growth of wearable processing power (SPOT watches being a good example) to be areas for future growth and jobs.

Technological advances in these and other areas will drive demand for new categories of software, and that demand will pick up any slack that results from the expansion of the global pool of developers to include citizens of developing nations.

Lastly, large economies are often their own biggest markets. Exports account for 10 percent of GDP in the United States (which is currently the world’s largest economy), compared to 43 percent in South Korea and Switzerland, 36 percent in New Zealand and 28 percent in France. This position is mostly a function of America’s size, at 300 million people, and its wealth, with a GDP of 10 trillion. As China’s 1.3 billion citizens grow in affluence, Chinese companies are bound to find that China is its biggest market.

As Asian economies grow, programmers are going to be too busy serving their own markets to offer much competition for American or European software projects. It is in the interest of Western programmers, therefore, that Asian economies develop as fast as possible.

Company competitiveness matters.
Many who oppose outsourcing offer no alternative means to make up for the cost savings missed by a refusal to outsource. This matters, because modern companies compete on a global stage. Unless every company in the world decides to forego use of lower-cost software developers, companies that fail to outsource will make themselves less competitive.

Furthermore, consider the importance of software within modern business. Software is critical to the efficiency of even small companies, irrespective of industry. By forcing companies to pay more for Information Technology solutions, countries make their companies that much weaker.

One of the problems with America’s recent steel tariffs (now removed) was that it benefited 0.5 percent of the economy (steel production industries) at the expense of 13.1 percent (steel consuming industries, such as automobile manufacturing). The cost of forcing companies to pay more for software would be even greater, as far more industry uses software than consumes steel. This leads to a weaker economy that produces fewer jobs overall.

In short, preventing companies from outsourcing merely impoverishes the many to benefit the few.

China and India are the markets of the future
The United States and Europe have been the largest and most important markets for the last 100 years. That status provides tremendous advantages to companies based in these regions, as young companies often rely on their local market for business, and residents have special knowledge of their home markets which can’t be replicated by a foreigner.

Though the United States and Europe will always be important markets, the status of most important will pass to others as 2.3 billion potential consumers (China and India combined) enter the ranks of developed nations. American and European companies are tripping over themselves to place a stake in the Chinese market, and for good reason. China is already a bigger market for personal computers than the United States, and they have managed this with a population whose average per capita GDP is $900 (though in purchasing power parity terms, the figure is closer to $3900). Imagine how much product can be sold to the Chinese when that average merely doubles, as is likely in less than 10 years?

The people who best understand that market, as discussed in a previous section, are those who actually live there. There is a lot of value, therefore, in employing developers in those markets. Such developers would apply their "special knowledge" of local market conditions to help American and European companies build products that better meet the needs of Asian consumers.

Likewise, note that foreign software is more expensive in developing countries, both as a percentage of the average income (developing world citizens earn less) and due to weaker currencies. By using lower-cost workers, Western companies build products that are more affordable in developing markets, enabling these companies to grow larger and hire more workers at home.

Local creation of software would help prevent future protectionist tendencies in these important markets. This was one of the motivations behind the decision by Japanese automakers to "outsource" manufacturing to locations around the United States. China will be as important to the health of Western economies as American and European markets are currently to the health of the Chinese economy. If Western nations take a "me first" attitude at the height of their economic power, why should we expect China or India to do anything different when their economies surpass, in terms of size, our own?

Rich nations have the chance to shape the future of economic relations by example. If we set a bad example, the economic leaders of the future are likely to follow it.

Building a globally-competitive workforce
You don’t make a champion runner by limiting with whom he trains in order to avoid stressing him too much. Similarly, you don’t make a rich nation IT workforce capable of facing foreign competition head-on by hiding them behind protective barriers.

Programmers in India and China cost less. Closing borders won't make those workers any less competitive, nor change the benefits companies derive from outsourcing to such locations.

There are ways for more expensive programmers to justify their existence, some of which Berlind mentioned in a recent article on the subject. They can move up the value chain by managing outsourced development tasks. They can spend more time in design work, as design is something that will always be kept domestic simply because requirements gathering is a very people-oriented task. And as mentioned, there will ALWAYS be a demand for local programmers to service custom domestic software needs.

What CANNOT change is the reality that exists in China and India. Rich-nation workers MUST face that reality, however painful the adjustment might prove. Failure to do so now merely harms Western businesses and forces future generations to pay more for our reluctance to face the pain of transition now.

Remember the "Big Picture"
Bill Joy, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems, generated a lot of controversy when he warned in a Wired magazine article of the dangerous potential posed by nanotechnology, genetic engineering and robotics. We'll be able to change our environment, and ourselves, by altering DNA. We will build resources molecule by molecule at practically no cost (so much for non-proliferation treaties).

Such power, as Bill Joy noted, can lead to catastrophe if used improperly. Given recent events, there seems to be large numbers of people with an interest in engaging in such improper use. In what kind of world do you feel safer, one where you have a majority of poor and desperate people crushed under totalitarian regimes and aching for a decent share of global resources, or one where most of the world had decent incomes and democratic governments?

Both South Korea and Taiwan were military dictatorships until relatively recently. What changed, for the most part, is that people in both countries reached a sufficient level of affluence as to have time to pay attention to how they were ruled. No government can long face down the will of its people, and nothing boosts the will to be free than to grow accustomed to being free in one’s economic life.

Obviously, outsourcing by itself won’t make or break third world development. However, as part of a general willingness to trade with developing nations (a willingness which would be undermined by special protections for "white collar" IT workers), its part is not inconsiderable. People need to keep an eye on the bigger picture. Think globally if you truly want to create a safer future.

By:John Caroll
Source:zdnet.com

Monday, March 01, 2004

IT managers demand that their outsourcing vendors help them innovate and make strategic changes, not just run the back office
When Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts inked a 10-year, $320 million outsourcing deal with EDS in December, CIO Carl Ascenzo made it clear he wanted the service provider to do more than just keep his servers running and his help desk humming. The health insurer was looking to automate key administrative services--such as member-eligibility verification--and deliver more of the self-serve applications that benefits recipients demand. "EDS has to help us deliver value to our customers so that we maintain our business competitiveness," Ascenzo says.
Businesses for years have farmed out IT and routine back-office functions such as payroll processing and call-center operations. More and more, CIOs and department heads say they want outsourcers that can help them drive strategic change throughout their companies. They want to achieve goals such as giving customers real-time information and self-service. Businesses need to respond to more-agile global competitors on budgets that have grown little since the economic downturn, and that's why this year will bring more growth in IT and business-process-outsourcing services.

To respond, vendors are pitching richer offerings that combine IT, back-office, and business-consulting expertise--services that some label business-transformation outsourcing.

Sales of business-process-outsourcing services will increase 8% this year to reach $131 billion, research firm Gartner predicts, and they're expected to hit $173 billion in 2007. The demanding business environment is driving that growth, says Gartner analyst Linda Cohen. "The whole idea is to transfer ownership of assets and get access to a capability I don't have today," she says. InformationWeek Research's first-quarter Priorities survey of 400 business-technology executives finds 35% say their companies will spend more on IT consulting and outsourcing services this year, while 15% expect to spend less. Three in 10 say they'll engage in some form of business-process outsourcing.

As part of its broad outsourcing agreement with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, EDS will implement its MetaVance health-care enterprise system. The software automates payer processes such as claims processing and provider management. What's most important to Ascenzo is that it will help his company keep pace with changes in the health-care industry, such as the nascent trend of individuals doing more to manage their own health-care spending. As that grows, so will the need for more individualized access to information. "In the future, members will become much more involved in determining the course of their own health care," he says. "MetaVance gives us a core data structure that allows us to meet those very personalized individual needs as the market evolves."

EDS won Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts' business as much on its health-care expertise as on its IT skills. "Outsourcing relationships are becoming more about strategic partnering, and as we go forward, we need to align with someone who brings not just computing scale but who understands our business," Ascenzo says.

EDS will roll out more services that combine IT and business-process knowledge, because savvy IT execs are demanding them, says Dave Clementz, EDS's executive VP of service delivery. "You can drive a lot of cost savings through outsourcing, but if that's all you get, then shame on you because you've left a lot of value on the table," says the former CIO at ChevronTexaco Corp. "Once you've streamlined and standardized your infrastructure, you then have an opportunity to rethink how work flows through the organization and how you connect with suppliers and customers."

CIOs are more willing to engage in strategic outsourcing deals that go well beyond technology, says Stuart Clements, a partner at consulting and outsourcing firm Accenture. "They've been in a difficult situation because they can't get the budget or operational space to make the changes that they know are needed," he says. "With [business-transformation outsourcing], they can reduce infrastructure costs and then reinvest that in modernization of other areas of the business."

Rick Hamilton, senior VP and CIO at DFS Group Ltd., which operates luxury retail outlets at airports worldwide, says that the outsourcing deals he approves increasingly will be strategic rather than tactical as the company adapts to a harsher travel market. "After 9/11, we looked down the barrel of having to transform the way we run our business. We're continuing to look to outsourcing as a means to do that," he says.

Outsourcing isn't going to have a transformational impact if it's isolated in the CIO's office. Karen Rueff, VP for executive resources at Lincoln Financial Group, and CIO Jason Glazier worked together to find a way to move more of the human-resources administration to a Web-based, self-service platform so HR staff could focus more on talent-management and -retention strategies and less on day-to-day operations. After consulting with Glazier and other executives, Rueff hired IBM to redesign and run a number of Lincoln's HR systems. "This isn't just a matter of moving the same work from one vendor to another but really creating a totally different solution so that the way we deliver HR support is different," Rueff says.

Glazier expects IBM to improve as well as run operations. "This is about business transformation for us," he says. Business-process outsourcing "is taking existing processes and letting someone else do them. This deal is significantly upgrading our process."

Under a 10-year "business-transformation-outsourcing" contract, IBM will build and deliver a number of self-service human-resources tools for Lincoln, including a portal that employees can use to access all HR, payroll, and benefits services. Some components of the project will become operational early this year.
As more technology-driven business processes are delivered by third parties, CIOs expect to spend more time crafting and monitoring outsourcing deals, applying the skills they've learned managing internal projects. "The IT organizations of the future are going to be less doers than vendor managers, supply-and-demand managers, and facilitators. Those are the skill sets," says Paul Donovan, CIO at ING U.S. Financial Services. Donovan struck a seven-year, $600 million outsourcing contract with IBM last month. Among other things, Donovan will grade IBM's performance on its ability to help ING explore new service offerings such as wireless account access for customers. "The contract won't be a success if we just do IT services," Donovan says.

CIOs can play a critical role in providing a big-picture view: making sure line-of-business executives don't construct outsourcing agreements for their branch that crimp business operations elsewhere in the company. "Technology has done more outsourcing than most areas, so we're very familiar with the terms you want to have to protect [yourself]," says Lincoln Financial CIO Glazier. In hammering out the IBM contract, Glazier worked closely with Rueff on details such as service-level agreements, the frequency of software upgrades, application-development costs, and other parts of the deal heavily related to IT. He also had to make sure the plan wouldn't disrupt Lincoln's internally run networks and applications.

DFS Group CIO Hamilton says increased outsourcing at his company means that he's more often managing project groups consisting wholly of IT professionals employed by third parties. To make it work, DFS Group has called the "cops." That is, the company places outside contractors into "Community Of Practice" groups that are required to meet and conduct business as though they were internal DFS Group employees. "That way we can be sure that the people who handle our networking are out in front of our application-development contractors in terms of supporting the changes they're going to be making," Hamilton says.

As part of its efforts to control costs when the travel market was decimated following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, DFS turned to offshore provider Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. to build a single inventory-management application that can be pushed to product managers worldwide. It replaces several legacy applications that ran in different regions that were expensive to maintain and couldn't communicate with each other. DFS also plans to use Cognizant for a more-advanced redesign of its business applications that could eventually have the company using Web services to tap into the supply chains of suppliers such as Louis Vuitton Malletier and Gucci Group N.V.

The emergence of offshore providers that can deliver advanced services is another force spurring growth in the outsourcing market. Hamilton says Cognizant's use of low-cost, highly skilled Indian labor lets him consider projects that might otherwise be difficult to justify. "Offshoring brings a resource pool that I couldn't possibly replicate here," he says. "They provide skills on demand, which is essential because we're an organization that is shooting in one direction one day and another on the next day." In December, Cognizant disclosed plans to add 600,000 square feet of office space in India this year to meet booming demand for its services.

Lincoln Financial also uses foreign outsourcing to help make the numbers work on its HR project with IBM. IBM will operate an employee help desk for Lincoln from Edmonton, Alberta. The center offers a cost structure that's less than a U.S. operation but more than one located in India or another emerging market. As the company gains a comfort level with IBM's operations, the help desk may be moved to a location in a lower-cost, more-distant country, Glazier says. "There was an offshore option that would have been cheaper, but we didn't want to go there right now," he says. "That implies a lot of change. But if we make changes to the offshoring mix at a later date, we will reap the benefits. That's a key thing I put into the contract."

As more Indian IT firms develop strong business-process expertise, more of this advanced outsourcing will move offshore as the cost falls. Corporate spending on offshore business-process outsourcing will grow from $1.8 billion in 2003 to in excess of $26 billion by 2007, Gartner predicts. Operations in India are expected to capture about half of those sales.

Whether through domestic or offshore partnering, more technology and business executives are looking for providers that can offer IT, business-process, and consulting services in a single contract. Creating that sort of busi- ness-transformation capability is what drove IBM's purchase of PricewaterhouseCoopers' consulting arm in 2002. "It wasn't until we acquired them that we could provide a credible offering," says Bill Matson, general manager for HR business-transformation outsourcing at IBM.

IBM's strategy going forward will be to seek deals that require both its infrastructure and consulting services, Mat- son says. "If a customer says, 'We just want you to run payroll the way we've always run it,' we typically wouldn't be interested in that kind of deal," he contends. Matson sees no shortage of demand for such "higher-order services" because support organizations "are being told to cut costs by 10% to 15% while improving services. You run out of solutions when you try do it all by yourself

By Paul McDougall
Source:http://www.informationweek.com