Tag: opportunities

Outsourcing Success

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

After four decades of outsourcing in many functions and industries, it is clear that success requires more than leverage.  Outsourcing success requires a compelling rationale, a clear and flexible framework and positive personal relationships.

The rationale for outsourcing is based upon core competencies, provider capabilities, economics, strategy and fit.

  1. Buyer core competencies can not be outsourced.  The provider must deliver the outsourced function as a true core competency, not just a low price.  The provider is able to own responsibility for the outsourced function.  The provider has world-class skills and invests in improvements.  The provider is well-capitalized and experienced in the customer’s industry.  There is no beta site or learning by doing dimension.
  2. The provider has the skills and culture to be a third-party provider, including a customer service mentality, flexibility, creativity and change management skills wrapped around professional competence.
  3. The contract allows the buyer and provider to both win financially.  The provider is capable of reducing unit costs each year.  The provider’s initial bid and investment make economic sense.  The provider can justify a fully qualified account manager dedicated to making this contract work.
  4. The buyer has a clear strategic reason for outsourcing and has structured the deal to ensure its delivery.  This can be cost, quality, capacity, service, delivery time, risk management, creativity, technology, systems or intellectual property access.
  5. The hand-off from buyer to provider is a good fit.  Either the function can be very well-defined and delegated cleanly or the function is inherently virtual and both firms thrive in a matrix environment.  The buyer emphasizes product innovation or customer intimacy and the provider delivers operational excellence (or some other clear division).  The provider is able to perform in the buyer’s steady state or high growth and change environment.  The provider is comfortable with the buyer’s status in the Fortune 100, Fortune 1000 or middle market world.

 

The framework for an outsourcing agreement is well-defined, flexible, empowering, balanced and aligned.

  1. The contract is detailed, comprehensive and robust and meets the needs of finance, legal and operations.  The strategic objectives and measures of success are clearly defined.
  2. The contract is a model of world-class delegation.  Important results are defined, but the means to achieving them is left to the provider.  Micromanagement and administrivia is avoided like the plague. 
  3. The relationship between single agents for the buyer and provider is clearly defined.  The provider account manager is welcomed as a full business partner on the buyer’s staff.  A competent buyer rep is assigned to manage the contract, with his career depending upon its success.  The two reps are given the authority and flexibility to manage day-to-day issues.  A dispute resolution framework, including billing, is defined.  The contract supports a wide range of operating conditions and triggers for re-opening negotiations.
  4. The provider has adequate capacity and power in the agreement to succeed.  The minimum and maximum volumes are reasonable.  The provider has a fair economic deal and leverage to negotiate as required.
  5. Contract incentives align the interests of the buyer and provider.  The contract provides time for the provider to digest start-up costs and benefit from learning curve effects.  Each side benefits from greatly increased service volume.

 

The relationship between the buyer and provider reflects a true partnership, shared resources, trust, opportunities and planning.

  1. The partnership anoints the provider as the sole provider of services in their category.  The contract gives the provider reasonable security and expectations of ongoing business unless someone clearly outbids them.  The business is not re-bid based upon opportunities.  The business is not divided by high and low margin components.
  2. The buyer and provider work together to find every opportunity to leverage their skills, suppliers and knowledge.  Terms reflect the firm with the lower cost of capital.  Transaction and billing costs are minimized, assuming good faith.  Everything learned in the bidding process is incorporated into the contract.  The contract recognizes that there are inherent trade-offs between costs and services.
  3. A trusting relationship is developed.  The provider is on-site, attends meetings and communicates with the buyer daily.  The provider has a quality management system that provides confidence.  The provider is transparent in sharing information and risks, including competitive intelligence. 
  4. Both parties actively promote win/win opportunities.  The buyer is an active reference for the provider.  The buyer seeks new products, services and applications from the provider at list price. 
  5. The provider is involved in the planning process.  They attend strategic planning meetings.  They get 90 day notice of annual budget targets.  Both parties negotiate annual changes in good faith.

 

Buyers tend to have greater leverage in outsourcing services.  To achieve the best long-term results, they need to negotiate long-term win/win deals with providers.

Building an Integrated Planning and Control System

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

In the process revolution since WWII, we have seen every business function discover that input-process-output descriptions of activities followed by a “say what you do, do what you say, be able to tell the difference” feedback structure are the key to long-run success.  Firms need to evaluate and consolidate these planning and control systems into a single fully integrated system, since they are all attempting to reach the same goals using the same tools.  There are at least five different sets of systems independently active in most firms today.

Strategic planning systems operate at the highest organizational level, attempting to evaluate the situation, set direction, identify critical success factors, define strategies and key performance indicators, and approve major investments and projects.  More evolved frameworks, like the balanced scorecard, attempt to link strategic goals to operational performance.  Many firms have learned to link strategy to measures and projects.

Modern financial planning and control systems have evolved for more than 100 years.  Strategic plans are translated into long-term financial plans to guide borrowing, investment, operations and risk analysis decisions.  The financial plan is translated into a negotiated annual budget.   A financial performance management system evaluates managers against business unit, department, product, customer and project goals.  The key transaction processes are defined and monitored.

Risk management has evolved to become a separate discipline apart from classic P&L management.  Regulatory compliance and external financial reporting have become more technical and legal.  Internal controls have moved to secondary and tertiary levels of safety with an emphasis on “defensible positions”.  Emergency preparedness and disaster recovery have developed into new disciplines.  Risk management tools have evolved from insurance policies to include hedges, contracts and outsourcing.

Human resources systems have grown to become parallel factors.  The regulatory side has greatly increased the emphasis on compliance and risk reduction.  HR performance management systems have become linked to business performance through SMART goals.  HR has been charged with helping managers professionally address frequent change management issues.  HR has also become a senior management partner in attempting to create cultural alignment.

The process or quality systems approach has been the greatest innovator.  At the highest level, a management or total quality management system attempts to incorporate all activities.  The quality approach requires clearly defined customer goals.  All processes must be defined and documented at the staff and system level.  Operations measures are defined to provide simple and direct feedback.  Quality goals are set and quality improvement is defined as a separate goal.  Processes are defined within the generic framework of product, sales and delivery.  IT systems are positioned as facilitators, requiring technical and user documentation.  Individual application systems become more complex, incorporating best practices, but allowing many exceptions.  Change management becomes a sub-discipline, with growing project management expertise.  Process changes are driven by re-engineering, kaizen and continuous process improvement efforts.

Ideally, a firm defines and operates a single planning and control system which integrates the strategic, financial, risk, human resources and quality management dimensions.  Failure to integrate these components leads to added costs, political conflicts, waste and missed opportunities.  A performance management cross-team with representatives from sales, product management, finance, HR and operations is needed to coordinate this effort.

There ARE many components.  We need to overcome the desire to have a fully integrated system that encompasses all possible components as exhibited by the US military in their Afghanistan plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/world/27powerpoint.html