Free Newsletters

   All InfoWorld Newsletters
Reality Check | Ephraim Schwartz » Can't get no outsourcing satisfaction?

February 19, 2008 | Comments: (0)

Can't get no outsourcing satisfaction?

Cost-conscious outsourcing could cripple your business for years if you don't hammer out innovation expectations up front

Can you hear me now?An important survey of major companies using outsourcing services shows a deep dissatisfaction with the outsourcing experience despite the fact that these same companies say they achieved as much as a 25 percent ROI.

The survey, "Why Settle for Less," put together by Deloitte Consulting, has what many similar surveys lack: a convincing substructure.

Rather than talking to a dozen top executives at Fortune 500 companies, as lesser surveys do, Deloitte talked to 300 CEOs, CIOs, CTOs, and directors at companies that spend a minimum of $50 million on outsourcing or $30 million annually on BPO, as well as organizations that invest more than $1 billion in what is typically called Very Large Scale IT Outsourcing Services.

Also included in the survey were conversations with senior executives at 31 outsourcing service providers.

Thirty-nine percent of the 300 respondents said they had terminated an outsourcing deal and went to another vendor or brought the function back in-house. In addition, 61 percent of those who said they were dissatisfied said they had to escalate the problem to senior management in the first year of a contract, with 53 percent of those escalating yet again in the second year.

The key reasons for dissatisfaction? Underestimated project scopes; "higher-than-expected" costs; and poor communication, service, and reporting on the part of the service provider.

Deloitte partner Peter Lowes, who headed up the report, admits to being surprised by the results, which included the firing of suppliers on a wholesale basis, more than you would think appropriate for a typical business arrangement.

"There’s a great deal of tension," between the two sides, says Lowes, who is the national service line leader for Deloitte's outsourcing advisory services group.

Cost savings remain the motivation behind these outsourcing deals, and the savings are real. But the problem is that there are other expectations, such as innovation, process improvement, time to market, and customer service, where the outsource providers fall down.

"In most cases, expectations exist and are discussed, but it is swept under the carpet so the plan on how this will be achieved is being overlooked," Lowes says.

Companies are too often overly hungry for cost savings, and because sales is motivated to get the deal signed, everyone decides they will sort out the details later. And guess what? There's no real follow through.

But dissatisfaction is more than just a thorn in the company's side. These long-term relationships -- typically three to seven years, with the bigger deals extended out to 10 years -- can put a company at a competitive disadvantage, according to Lowes.

Over the length of the contract, the service provider is expected to continually innovate. Respondents, however, were consistently disappointed in this aspect of the outsourcing arrangement. They felt that, at the conclusion of the outsourcing deal, they had fallen behind in their respective market. This was identified as a chronic problem.

And here is the real danger.

"The longer you outsource something, the more you fall behind," Lowes says.

The solution seems obvious, but let's put it down on screen, so to speak.

Services should be broken up into smaller pieces for shorter durations. Rather than a single $1 billion deal, sign smaller deals focused on smaller services. Outsource your desktops to one provider, servers to another, and your network to a third.

"Do a three-year deal instead of five years, or a seven-year deal instead of 10," advises Lowes.

Also, by breaking up the scope into more discretely defined pieces, you will find service providers who have deeper expertise.

It is also important to define an innovation plan going in and agree on how it will be delivered.

Be prepared, however, to drive that innovation with additional capital every couple of years. You can't just go to the lowest bidder. You have to make it worthwhile for the service provider.

Lowes says that past Deloitte surveys indicate the more profitable the relationship for the outsourcer, the happier the customer is, because the service provider has an incentive to do a better job.

Although it sounds like a no-brainer, many companies never think to align their outsourcing strategy with their business strategy. Blinded perhaps by the allure of cutting IT overhead by 25 percent or more, companies fail to do their homework, thinking all it takes is a financial business case to justify jumping into an outsourcing deal.

Posted by Ephraim Schwartz on February 19, 2008 03:00 AM


RATE THIS ARTICLE:





 

  •  
  • COMMENTS




Tonka Toys of Minnetonka Mn is a prime example of outsourcing. they moved their toy trucks production to Mexico many years ago and the quality of Tonka toys went down the toilet. Tonka was forced to return to the USA because the lack of quality control in Mexico was not to Tonka and their consumers wanting to buy Tonka toys. The consumer showed Tonka which way the wind was blowing

Posted by: chip at February 19, 2008 01:49 PM

"Also, by breaking up the scope into more discreetly defined pieces, you will find service providers who have deeper expertise."

d-i-s-c-r-e-t-e-l-y, unless you're having an affair with your outsourcing company.

Posted by: Rob McMillin at February 19, 2008 02:04 PM

What all these companies forget is there is a difference between efficiency and effectiveness. All the outsourcing deals I've examined go for efficiency (usually measured in how many dollars can I save). What you want is effectiveness

Posted by: Robert Rosen at February 20, 2008 11:08 AM

I'm reminded of another Infoworld columnist' saying - "optimizing the pieces does not necessarily optimize the whole." By optimizing one piece - the IT budget, you sub-optimize IT support to the organization. It's possible to improve the IT budget and the support for the organization at the same time - but only if the people you have aren't qualified to do the job you need OR are so hamstrung by inefficient processes and overhead that they can't do the job they want to do. By that, I mean that few folks come to work with the intention of not doing the best they can with what they have. I could go on with the cause for both of the above, but I don't think I have to.

Posted by: ed at February 20, 2008 11:30 AM

The allure of significant savings was built on a false premise: that the quality of service would be as good (or even better) -- which could not be checked in the real world with a launch. Thus they blindly took the leap. Ed's post has it right: companies do not understand what optimize means.

The quality was awful (in my experience as an end-user in a number of situations). I am sure the people on the other end are educated and good people but that is not the same as being able to deliver a service, which takes incredible understanding down to cultural understanding of how small businesses operate in the U.S.

It would only be just if the big corporations would suffer to the end of their contracts, but often their competition took the leap too, so its America that truly suffers.

Posted by: David Carlson at February 20, 2008 08:35 PM

Technology White Papers

 

InfoWorld Technology Marketplace

» Technology White Papers Library

Technology White Papers by Topic

Technology White Papers E-mail Alert

Find out when the latest white paper is available:
 
 
» BUY A LINK NOW

Sponsored Technology Links