Recently I met a friend whose company had signed a strategic outsourcing
deal a few years back with much fanfare and was talked about as one of the
first in his industry. His company made news in restricted industry circles and
the vendor gained good leverage out of the deal. The long-term deal was
expected to create efficiency which were acknowledged by the Management and
the Board. The teams were excited with the prospects of the new engagement and
the benefits outlined.
From initial discussion to closure of the deal, it had taken a lot of
groundwork between both the teams who toiled for over a year. Setting the
baseline was the most rigorous task which required everyone to agree to the
“as-is” scenario; number of assets, age and residual life, upgrade and
replacement norms, scale-up of the business operations, revenue growth targets,
additions to workforce, industry outlook; everything was required to be put in
writing to ensure that the contract survives the signatories.
I asked him on how it was going; after going down the journey for close
to three years, had they started seeing the benefit of their decision ? How was
the service delivery and how had the users taken the change ? What would be his
advice to others who may want to go down the same path ? After all not many had signed long-term deals
in recent times. He looked at me hard as if trying to understand why I was
asking him all that. Seeing no ulterior motive in my query, he responded:
We have decided to
terminate the deal; it is not working out. Our problems started during service
transition. The team misinterpreted almost every clause and intent; we had to
involve the pre-sales team and escalate across layers to get to the shared
understanding that went into the contracting. The people on the ground had
skills deficit and were unable to come up to the same level of service pre
outsourcing. In every review meeting they promised improvements and then
nothing changed.
The commercials were
based on certain assumptions of growth and efficiency. They were expected to
make upfront investments on tools and technologies which took longer than
committed to materialize. Business had also started slowing down and the cost
was beginning to hurt. The vendor was unwilling to accept this and review terms
of engagement even though one of the primary benchmarks, cost as percentage of
revenue, was broken and going north instead of the promised south.
After much discussion,
escalation and negotiation, small tweaks were done to the model which survived
a stormy year. When business growth eluded us as per original plan and required
deferral of certain initiatives and hardware refresh, the dialogue was not very
encouraging. All the spreadsheets that made lot of sense prior to commencement
now appeared to be work of fiction. The contract did not allow significant
change downward while it captured the upside. Short of suing each other the
only recourse was termination.
In recent times there have been many outsourcing contracts that have run
into rough weather; what seemed like a great idea in the late 90s and turn of
the century have lost charm. Back then everyone was racing to outsource; now it
seems that everyone is in a race to find a way out. Most contracts that are
coming up for renewal are finding favor with neither incumbent vendor nor new
partners. Have the outsourcing benefits suddenly disappeared ? What has changed
that suddenly makes enterprises shy away ?
It is evident that for many who outsourced with large long-term deals
with big service providers have not gained the promised benefits. Where did it
fall short ? Sales organizations did a great job of painting a rosy picture while
the delivery and execution team ran out of color red. The gap between intent
and execution and the inability to adapt to variability of business has
resulted in both sides feeling shortchanged.
The advent of newer services and scenarios like RIMS and BYOD has anyway
changed the game.
One of the models that I have found survive over others is a deal where
service parameters and expectations are reset every year. It requires IT,
business and the vendor to work on the same side of the table. I have observed many
successful deals that survived multiple challenges; they had clearly defined
ownership. When you outsource, you still are accountable and responsible; it is
not abdication of responsibility. New models of outcome based engagements are
appearing on the horizon, their efficacy is yet to be experienced.
Hi Arun,
ReplyDeleteGreat post, as an vendor in the IT Outsourcing domain, I understand and relate to most of the points. Any outsourcing deal depends strongly on the clear communication and agreement on the ownership, ROI and intent of the outsourcing deal.
Regards,
Sandhya Shukla
Head - Global Business Development @ Shriya Innovative Solutions