For a long while now, I have privately been concerned about the negative impact modern work culture is having on the disintegration of work ethics within many of today’s firms. Many workers, whose jobs once forced them to think and focus, have today become reactive, easily-distracted and operational.
It first dawned on me about a decade ago, when I was enjoying one of those rare “in between jobs” periods, that I was still able to spend my whole day absorbed in front of my laptop. Let’s be brutally honest here – people think they are “at work” as long as they are sitting in front of their computer screen. Peoples’ obsessions with their favorite news pages, blogs, social sites and their 3+ email accounts has disintegrated work productivity for so many.
Too many office staff today have lost their focus and analytical value to their firms
How many people reading this blog are able to turn off their email for at least an hour, so they can focus on whatever work activity they need to finish? How many workers have become mentally lazy, preferring the cerebral chewing gum of short-term attention span theater than actually having to read, learn and think? How many people have evolved from problem-solvers to passive information jockeys, doing little more than responding to emails, passing on instructions, or forwarding along information someone else produced… with little (or no) value added by themselves? And how are you supposed to focus on being good at your job when you can’t concentrate on any one activity for more than five minutes, being expected to respond to emails as soon as you receive them?
I believe it is this culture of poor productivity, of reactive corporate political environments, that has resulted in operational business functions becoming, frankly, much too operational and failing to add real analytical value to their organizations’ leaderships. And while this may not seem like a big deal today, you only have to look at some recent workforce data from the McKinsey Global Institute, to understand how much trouble our businesses are going to be in, if many of our office workers fail to improve their analytical skills. According to McKinsey’s research, US firms are already short 200,000 data scientists per year, while we will have an excess of 300,000 office support staff by 2020:
This is a wake-up call for staff worried about being “one of the 300,000”
The net result is that many of today’s businesses are over-bloated with operational staff whose modus operandi is about maintaining the status quo, as opposed to exploring new ways to advance the business. The very nature that many businesses feel the need to hire “data scientists to improve their own self-awareness and strategic direction just about sums this up; they are essentially admitting defeat in improving the analytical and innovative capabilities of their own personnel, and are looking elsewhere to re-ignite their business fortunes.
However, it’s the existing personnel within a company which knows its business the best – the quirky institutional processes, the politics, the customers and suppliers etc. The keys to success are about forcing these people to open up their minds to work with real data to understand better how to streamline existing processes, to understand better their capabilities, to pinpoint where new consumer demand may be untapped, or where existing demand is going to dwindle… right across their supply chains. As the McKinsey data shows, the data scientists simply aren’t going to be there to slot into these positions at some future moment (when it may be too late). The really effective potential scientists are the ones busily managing their Facebook contacts, in between berating their providers for failing to bring any innovation to their procure-to-pay processes.
The Bottom-line: Analytics providers can help re-orient the workforce to be more effective, but only if firms have the desire to change
This data is also a massive wakeup call to the sourcing industry: organizations and analytics providers can work together to create stronger analytics based-relationships. This means not only training existing personnel to develop their own analytical personnel, but also re-orienting the work culture to re-focus the staff. Providers can deliver armies of people with tools to add analytical capability, but they will only be effective if the provider’s resources can be utilized as an extension to the client’s team, as opposed to a factory of data gatherers.
Hence, partnering with providers can help get frustrated enterprises from A to C a lot quicker, bypassing much of their painful naval-gazing exercises, where they bemoan their lack of talent – and in a way that is far less expensive and risky than simply hiring “data scientists” who either do not exist, or are far too expensive for their meager budgets.
I truly believe savvy partnering with providers can be really effective for a business seeking urgent and dramatic change to their very work culture. “Outsourcing” (yes, I said it) strikes fear into the staff, and forces them to justify their very existence in a company. It provides a trigger to force much-needed change into businesses. “Outsourcing” gets a bad rap because it scares people worried about their jobs… hey , if you’re worried about being outsourced, then make yourself more valuable to your organization. Employees need to get the message – and get it fast – if they don’t add analytical value to their organization, their own career opportunities are going to be limited. It’s for their own good – only possessing tactical operational skills is only going to get them so far. Who wants to be part of the 300,000 excess?
Today, I have to confess to being impressed by the armies of analytics staff and tools that providers are pushing at their clients. This is where the real change is occurring in business and is also providing the true differentiation points across the provider landscape. If providers can prove they can bring genuine analytical skills to their clients, then that’s half the job done… the other half is their clients wanting to change and break out of this disturbing holding-pattern in which so many companies find themselves today.
It’s a nightmare that’s hard to contemplate. My good friend Becky Dennis, who’s worked in outsourcing for many years, was thousands of miles from home after delivering a pitch to a group of executives.
That success under her belt, she looked forward to the long trip home. Only thing is, a couple of hours later she forgot how to walk. It was too hard to talk. And she was struck by an odd series of neurological deficits that baffled her and a dozen doctors she’d eventually see over the course of 27 months.
But, as anyone who knows Becky would’ve predicted, she didn’t give up. So, here we are a few years later, and Becky is telling her remarkable story in Brain Wreck. It’s an honest, humorous account of her journey to restore her spirit and get to the bottom of her illness. I recommend it highly.
After marveling at the book, I was thrilled to have the chance to chat with Becky about her experiences.
Phil Fersht (HfS): Hi Becky – It’s so refreshing to have a good friend and colleague write such a personal book about their own life and experiences. Can you tell our readers what inspired you to put pen to paper?
Becky Dennis, author of Brain Wreck
Becky Dennis (Author, Brain Wreck): In fact, there were quite a few events that inspired me , but one in particular I’ll mention here. After suffering a serious illness in 2008 that caused encephalitis (swelling of the brain), I went down a very long path of searching for a diagnosis that fit my symptoms — 27 months to be exact. I’m hopeful that by telling my story, it might help others who suffer from similar neurological challenges to get a faster diagnosis. Encephalitis is often misdiagnosed as stroke, MS, flu or complex migraine. If I can raise awareness, along with the efforts of others, of the short- and long-term effects of the illness, doctors might consider this diagnosis earlier in the process. Very few forms of encephalitis are treatable with medication, but the encephalitis caused by the herpes virus, which most adults carry in their systems (most often causing cold sores and mouth sores) CAN be treated with Acyclovir. If those patients don’t receive Acyclovir, 80 percent die within the first week of onset.
Most medical professionals have little insight into the patient’s experience beyond the acute phase (first month). I’m grateful that the book is already circulating among leading neurologists and medical professionals across the U.S. and UK thanks to a recent event hosted by a board I’m on, Encephalitis Global, Inc. Several of the doctors who presented at our event are getting the word out among the medical community so doctors can better understand the residual effects from this sometimes undetected, misdiagnosed illness.
Most causes of encephalitis, whether bacterial, viral or auto-immune, have no protocol for treatment or therapy in the U.S. Most patients, like I was, are seen in the acute phase, then left to fend for themselves. A handful of doctors are actively working with survivors like me, Encephalitis Global and the Encephalitis Society of the UK to establish protocols so that patients diagnosed with encephalitis have a more optimal recovery through a suggested path of treatments, therapies and medications. This can happen to anyone and of the survivors I’ve met, some have been lawyers, doctors and other business professionals. None of us are immune, so it makes awareness that more critical.
Phil: What are the key messages you want people to take away from the book?
Becky: I’m hopeful that readers will be inspired to be their own advocate when it comes to rare illnesses, whether life-changing or not. Throughout my journey, I applied many strategies that I learned from my own career in outsourcing to work with the medical professionals I saw. One is that, even though someone is senior to you in the company, that colleague is not always right just because of their title. It is the same with doctors. Even though they have a medical degree, we have the option of questioning them. They don’t always have all the answers, and we must not accept a lack of answers as a closed door. They try hard, but getting multiple medical opinions is important. Find one who can help be an advocate with you in the absence of answers.
Also, dressing for the part is a trick I learned along the way. If I wore the formal business attire that I might wear to an important client meeting, doctors took me more seriously. The same effect occurred if I sent a cover letter in advance of an appointment to explain the purpose for my visit. This meant the doctor already knew my reason for being there and had given it some thought before my arrival. This made my appointments more effective, especially given a doctor’s limited time with each patient.
Additionally, very few forms of encephalitis are preventable, as seen in this year’s epidemic of the West Nile Virus in the U.S. However, for Japanese Encephalitis (JE) in Asia, which kills one in three people, a vaccination is available. I’m hopeful that more business travelers will consider their destination and inquire about the vaccinations available before traveling.
Phil:It is said that we all have one good book within us… So would you ever write another book?
Becky: You’re right, Phil. I think we all have a book in us. Everyone is so interesting in their different experiences. For me, writing has always been a passion. I definitely have others in my future, but I’m also quite focused on my career. I took time between jobs to be able to write this or otherwise I couldn’t have done both. I’m thankful that the outsourcing industry has taught me so many valuable skills that prepared me to actually survive this illness and document my journey. All of the companies I’ve worked for have offered leadership, writing, strategic planning and public speaking opportunities that have enabled me to tell the story and know how best to reach the influential medical professionals who are helping make my inspiration something that is “actionable.”
Phil:You’ve been a loyal follow of Horses for many years, is there anything else you’d like to share with our readers?
Becky: Keep a sense of humor. One of the things I like about HfS is that the content is practical and applicable. But one of the things I love is that it’s light hearted. We all work very hard and we need to balance the 24×7 demands with a sense of humor. Despite the hurdles from my illness and the demands of our industry, keeping it light is so important. And so is maintaining the right balance of family and career.
Thanks for the opportunity, Phil. I hope that readers will get at least one valuable nugget from this.
Phil: Best of luck with the book, Becky – and congratulations on being the first outsourcing executive to write a book not about outsourcing 🙂
A subtle, but decisive, shift took place in the sourcing advisory landscape today, as Alsbridge’s announced the acquisition of leading telecoms/networking sourcing advisor, Telwares.
This move firmly places Alsbridge as the main contender to ISG at the helm of the independent boutique advisor market, and follows Alsbridge’s acquisition of telecoms procurement outfit TAG, in early 2010, to place the Dallas-based firm as the lead advisor in telecoms and networking sourcing.
Ben Trowbridge is CEO, Alsbridge (click for bio)
This dovetails nicely with Albridge’s strengths in IT infrastructure sourcing consultancy and its overall competency in price-benchmarking. As CEO Ben Trowbridge told us yesterday, “Transforming the network is right at the guts of Cloud computing. This is where we intend to develop our expertise with the addition of Telwares”.
Why this matters
Loads of data. Ben Trowbridge claims he now has 385,000 datapoints for networking procurement by adding Telwares to his existing data.
Decouples the RFP process from pricing support. If you ask a legacy advisor to run a telecom deal for you, their only likely solution would be to issue an RFP to the likes of AT&T and Verizon and play them off to get you some price-points. Firstly, this will likely set you back a few hundred grand – and take weeks to complete. Secondly, the pricing is often hard to standardize and can come in all sorts of funky formats. If advisors can pull/model this data from their existing datapools, they are going to save clients a ton of time and money.
Caters for the wizening client. Most IT and procurement leads are more accustomed and becoming increasingly proficient at running more of the sourcing process themselves. They do not want to “crack a walnut with a sledgehammer” each time they need some data or advice. Advisors such as Alsbridge are adapting and catering for their changing market, which is why they have continued to grow during the tough environment of recent years, while many of their competitors have dwindled, or disappeared altogether.
Positions Alsbridge as a mid-size consulting organization, ahead of the pack of minnows. Telwares adds a further 60 consultants to the Alsbridge family, making it 175 in total, with sizeable revenues. The firm can now set itself apart from the other boutiques in the space (all of whom are struggling to break $10m in annual revenues) and can stand up aggressively to ISG in bake-offs for enterprise business – especially in the IT infrastructure and telecoms/networking domains.
Where next for Alsbridge
You only need to take a quick glance at ISG’s stock price, which recently slumped by 20% to barely a dollar a share, to understand sourcing advisory is a commodotizing business. The only way forward is to move beyond mere “RFP administration” and provide organizations with realtime data that is affordable, and does not take weeks to gather upon request. In addition, it’s about helping clients move beyond their myopic obsession with cost to understand more about the business outcomes and realistic forms of innovation they can accomplish when sourcing their business and IT processes.
Ben Trowbridge and his primary business partner, Mort Meyerson, have clearly realized that acquisition is going to provide much of their future growth in the consulting space, and have benefited well from picking up ProBenchmark, TAG, and Everest’s Outsourcing Center in recent years. Telwares represents their largest venture yet. The firm now has considerable scale and depth in the IT and telecoms domains – surely its next move has to be to bolster its presence in the process and business transformation strategy areas.
One of our great technology and business services firms is in real trouble
If you want to read another diatribe of HP’s woes, its second colossal multi-billion dollar acquisition write-down of the year, its revolving-door or leadership with very different ideas, then you’ve come to the wrong place, as we see little point dredging up the past to bemoan HP’s current predicament. And as a stark reminder of how quickly a great brand can disintegrate in the face of disruptive competition, just look at Sony, which was downgraded to junk status by Fitch. HP could soon follow down Sony’s depressing path, if a radical overhaul of its businesses doesn’t happen soon, as we have our own versions of Apple and Samsung turning the legacy enterprise services industry on its head.
It’s time to stop dwelling on the past and look to the future. In today’s commodotizing market for IT and business services, HP’s services business can only really look to defend what it still has against the encroaching competitive bite of the likes of Accenture, Cognizant, Genpact, IBM, TCS etc. Defending what you have is no solution in today’s market, or you’ll end up in the junk pile of other once-great brands such as the Sonys, the Nokias, the Unisyses…
However, there is one option that could revitalize its legacy: merge with one of the market leaders. Most great brands find new homes when the market conditions demand a change – and HP’s situation is no different. But remember, services firms are very different beasts from product firms – and HP is also very, very big: noone’s going to buy the whole thing, so it has to sell off some of its portfolio businesses that can add real value to market competitors.
Assuming that HP’s true DNA is as a technology products innovator, the logical step is to strip off its services businesses, which are still profitable, with an immense portfolio of enterprise customers on long-term contracts, and a stellar pool of talent to service them. However, wait too long, and these services business will continue this inexorable decline and much of its talent, whose CVs are currently flooding the marketplace, will have gone.
There are two jewels in HP’s services portfoilio – it’s SAP development services and BPO services businesses. Let’s focus on its BPO services today…
Why acquiring HP’s BPO Services would propel several possible suitors into a market-leadership position
While HP’s BPO revenues have been slowly declining in recent years, it’s still likely to net $2.6bn in revenues this year – a similar size to that of Accenture, and only dwarfed by the two traditional BPO pure-plays: Xerox ($6.2 bn) and ADP ($10.5 bn) . This BPO division includes a large global portfolio of horizontal services that incorporates a huge billion-dollar CRM BPO business inherited from its EDS acquisition, a solid finance and accounting business grounded on marquee clients such as P&G and Molson Coors, a large healthcare business of medicaid services supporting a multitude of US States, and a strong public sector presence in many countries. In addition, HP has renowned SAP-enablement skills, servicing a multitude of enterprise clients processing their global payrolls and accounts on SAP. There are a host of BPO providers which woud benefit significantly from HP’s global client portfolio, its onshore presence, and its client delivery talent. Acquiring this business would potentially transform the fortunes of several providers currently scrambling to tackle the BPO space head-on.
So… which providers should seriously consider buying HP’s BPO business?
The main contenders
1) IBM: Degree of fit: 9/10. Likelihood of happening: 7/4.
IBM has demonstrated, with its recent bumper CEMEX deal, that is has the appetite to bounce-back from the high-profile loss of its British Petroleum F&A contract and re-assert itself at the helm of the BPO industry. HP would be an obvious fit and would likely be a much less complex integration – both culturally and structurally, should such a merger occur. The addition of HP would not only bolster IBM’s (already) strong public sector businesses, but place IBM at the forefront of CRM BPO – an area where IBM has clear ambitions.
IBM has the capital, management experience and track record to pull this off. However, the larger issue here is that IBM would probably look to make a grander play to take on a larger portion (or all) of the HP IT services businesses, in addition to BPO. It’s hard to see Big Blue not wanting to ingest HP’s application services business, if it’s going to absorb BPO. This is probably what would slow this down, as most of the incumbent services firms are still playing a “wait and see” game with HP to explore all feasible options. Given IBM’s appetite to be either #1 or #2 in its chosen markets, HP would provide an obvious avenue for it to stamp its authority.
2) TCS: Degree of fit: 8/10. Likelihood of happening: 9/4.
A TCS-HP combo in services would make a potentially compelling and unique market proposition. Should it occur, it would also represent the first major Cowboy/Indian services combination that we have been predicting for a couple of years’ now.
While TCS has performed admirably with its vertical BPO offerings, notably in banking and insurance, its has never really gotten its horizontal BPO business off the ground. HP would give it immense horizontal capability, and a badly-needed front end of talent to work with clients and improve its notoriously weak sales and marketing capabilities. TCS could claim a market leadership position in BPO with this acquisition – and it could probably raise the capital without too much difficultly. It would also be refreshing to see one of the Indian services majors make a true global play in the space -and TCS is likely to be the most ready to pull something like this off, with its clear focus on hybrid IT-BPO services.
TCS has proven to be incredibly risk-averse with acquisitions over the years and is unlikely to change now, despite the obvious value this one would have for the firm’s ambitions. However, it has proven it has the appetite to take on really large, complex assignments when it really wants to, and surely recognizes the value in what HP would bring to its table. In addition, TCS is showing signs of starting to diversify some of its management control outside of India, and there’s nothing like a major acquisition to force through some much-needed change. A move like this would also be a massive statement intent from the Indian services industry that its leading firms intend to become truly globalize their businesses.
3) Accenture: Degree of fit: 6/10. Likelihood of happening: 11/4.
Accenture has benefitted considerably from its consulting synergies and client relationships, and its unique ability to elephant-hunt major client deals is likely to see it break the $3 billion dollar barrier with its BPO business in the coming months. Today, it has the size and scale not to need to buy new client footprints, and has persisted with an effective “tuck-in” acquisition strategy in recent years, picking up the likes of Ariba’s managed services, Zenta, and, more recently, Octagon Research Solutions, to add industry domain expertise.
Accenture would likely consider picking up some of the client contracts from HP, but is unlikely to have the appetite to buy up its whole BPO pie. There is simply too much duplication of resource and unneeded scale for this to make financial sense. Moreover, HP’s strengths are largely in horizontal processes, as opposed to industry-specific domains, which is where Accenture has openly declared it wants to grow its business.
4) Cognizant: Degree of fit: 7/10. Likelihood of happening: 10/1.
Cognizant has proven to be one of the smartest of the Indian-heritage firms when it comes to acquisitive growth and has savvy Stateside leadership unafraid to make bold moves to maintain its stellar growth trajectory. The firm has shown appetite to grow its BPO business – in patches – by picking up UBS’ captive, CoreLogic and its recent ING deal, but has not shown much desire to muscle its way into horizontal process markets, such as F&A, procurement or CRM BPO.
Cog is more likely to cast its eyes over some of the HP app services business, however, it is likely going to be out of its price range. In addition, Cognizant isn’t in a place, in its current market position today, where it needs to to anything radically different – this would represent too much of a risk for a firm which has worked to hard to get where it has so rapidly.
5) Infosys: Degree of fit: 5/10. Likelihood of happening: 12/1.
Infy is clearly at an inflection point in its growth journey as it figures out how to move beyond the old-world model of outsourcing – and it is not alone with this predicament. Like TCS, adding HP would be an incredible move for the firm, however, Infosys needs to decide what it wants to be when it grows up – a market leading BPO provider, or an IT services firms with some BPO services to support clients, when called upon. One suspects IT is really at the DNA of the firm, so this acquisition would likely be too disruptive.
Moreover, Infy is likely too consumed with ingesting its recent Lodestone acquisition, and its leadership would have to go through the unprecedented change of not having “all roads leading to Bangalore”, were it to contemplate such a massive acquisition.
6) The long shots
Xerox: 33/1. After it’s recent ingestion of ACS and workforce correction, HP’s BPO business is likely to represent a bridge too far.
CSC: 50/1. Having dabbled with ACS’ business a few years ago before Xerox swooped, it could see picking up (parts of) HP as a way to revitalize its own fortunes. HP offers some real offshore strength, BPO skills and added public sector depth, so it’s not the worst fit in the world. Likely be out of its price range.
Huawei: 50/1. Likely to reach $35 bn in revenues this year and could be the first Chinese major to make a global play into IT services. Where better to start with HP – and what a statement it would make to the rest of the world. Stranger things have happened.
Wipro: 100/1. It’s more likely we’d see HP try and buyout Wipro. Premji likes a big acquisition once in a while, but never anything on this scale.
Dell: 100/1. Having had a sniff at the filthy lucre to be had in the services business with its Perot acquisition, Michael D may see a broader services play as the Holy Grail to revitalize his flagging hardware business. In addition, Dell has hired some savvy ex-Wipro guys (Suresh and Ashutosh), which is a sign that the Austin-based outfit is serious about this business.
Fujitsu: 500/1. Has occasionally talked a big game, but have never really got further than being an “IBM for the mid-market”. However, the large Japanese dollars behind the firm mean there’s a gnat-in-hell’s chance of this one.
7) Just plain stupid, but you never know…
Genpact: 1000/1. Bain Capital may decide it has a few billion to burn and slams G and HPQ together to create a weird BPO monster.
SAP: 5000/1. The German giant may be fed up with partnering with IBM and others and opts to own its own services channel.
Deloitte: 10000/1. Paranoid of a Flat Tax being introduced, the global consulting firm decides it’s time to jump back into outsourcing.
Oracle: 50000/1. No strategic reason for this whatsoever, except Larry likes to buy stuff and occasionally surprises us with an oddball acquisition. This one’s way off even his reality scale.
US Government: 1000000/1. Having saved the US auto industry, the newly-reelected President sees his chance to save the flagging US IT industry. His unbridled confidence knows no bounds…
The Final Word: The fate of HP could reshape the whole direction of the services industry, but is anyone prepared to take a massive gamble?
As we recently discussed, the heady days of 20%+ growth are now over and we have moved from a short to a long game in the services industry. We’re finally arriving at the point where the IT services gravy train is slowing down and business transformation capability is emerging as a critical differentiator for those service providers looking to move higher up the corporate value chain. We’ve also been swimming in a pretty stagnant market since the 2008 crash, and we’re only now just seeing several enterprises begin to pull the trigger on new transformation initiatives.
The main questions here are: Is TCS the one Indian major to break the mold and really become a global force, as opposed to being rooted in India, or will we see HP become subsumed by the usual suspects? Will one of the other ambitious Indian-centric providers seize the opportunity? Or will everyone shy away, leaving HP to limp along in its seemingly-endless purgatory?
However which way we look at this, HP offers a rare jewell of potential for many providers – the likes of which will not come around again… Something has to give. Has to give…
Captain Cliff Justice and his cohorts, Lieutenant Lepeak and Wing-Commander Walker, aboard the Sourcing Enterprise (pictured left)
During Part III of our interview with KPMG’s Cliff Justice, we talked about the demise of the “O” word from our vocabulary:
Outsourcing is a term that has been abused and politicized. It doesn’t have the same meaning to the general population as it does to those who are close to it. So I would certainly propose the industry find a different term for the use of third parties to create partnerships to provide services.
Cliff Justice, Partner and U.S. Leader, Shared Services and Outsourcing Advisory, KPMG, November 2012
So, without further ado, let’s boldly go to the final frontier of our discussion where Cliff talks about how the world of “outsourcing” has changed in today’s economy…
Phil Fersht (HfS): Cliff, looking back over the last 15 years, would you say we were really playing a short game with outsourcing? Wasn’t it all about “how do we take out cost, make things happen quickly and minimize disruption”? Isn’t it a long game today, because the quick hits are no longer there. Aren’t thinking about how to develop a 5, 10 or 15 year plan?
Cliff Justice (KPMG): Phil, in the early part of the 2000s, there was a herd mentality around cost take out. There wasn’t a strategy around large-scale outsourcing. Some companies had a short-sighted view that labor arbitrage was a value driver. Labor arbitrage by definition is temporary. Many companies executed long-term changes to their business purely on labor arbitrage; those companies suffered the consequences from this strategy.
That approach has changed as clients matured and grew more knowledgeable about outsourcing and the value of sourcing. I view that change as starting on a mainstream level around 2007. At that time some leading companies had epiphanies. They were visible enough to be vocal about those changes. You started to see the service providers alter their marketing and focus more on value within a business approach to differentiate themselves.
After the financial crisis, there was a lull. But now we’re seeing companies really start to take a long view of their services organization and how they can leverage their business cross-functionally (finance, HR, IT, supply chain and procurement). How can they leverage this asset to provide information and insight back to the business? This is much more about business value creation.
However, this is only happening at the leading companies. There are still companies that take a short view. The most prominent successes we’re seeing in the market are being achieved by companies that have taken the long view; they started that approach four years ago and are seeing the benefits today. They are able to control their portfolios, enter new markets, be pragmatic and get their products to market faster because of the way they’ve organized their services organization.
Phil: How is the current economic situation impacting thinking? We’ve been in a difficult situation for four years now and uncertainly still is rife, particularly with the European situation. Do you think this is impacting how clients are handling their sourcing planning?
Cliff: Absolutely. Companies are looking at their services organization for flexibility they can’t get in another way. Companies built fixed cost and had a structure that is hard to move around. Today, with the acceptance of the cloud technology platform and the as-a-service mentality, we’re in an era that is more flexible than ever. You’re able to scale up and down. Clients are accepting a more standard set of services than they have in the past. There has been a mind shift from a cap ex structure to more of an off expense mentality. Companies are trading high levels of customization for flexible technology and services packages. We are starting to see much more one-to-many arrangements.
That’s a big change from how large-scale outsourcing agreements were done eight years ago.
Phil: And finally… when you look back at everything you have achieved and all of your career’s challenges, would you have done anything differently if you could start all over again?
Cliff: I don’t think I would have done anything different. I’m fortunate to have had the opportunities that presented themselves and the good people I met along the way. I am certainly fortunate to have worked for KPMG and have built those relationships; without the EquaTerra and KPMG integration, we wouldn’t be where we are as a consulting firm today.
Phil: Cliff this has been a great discussion and I am sure the HfS reader will really enjoy your insights. Good luck with the journey!
Cliff Justice (pictured above) is Partner and U.S. Leader, Shared Services and Outsourcing Advisory at KPMG LLP.
During Part II of our interview with Genpact’s CEO NV “Tiger” Tyagarajan, we talked about the shape and pace of change we expect to see in the sourcing industry:
It’s completely dependent upon leadership and the leadership’s ability to drive change. It’s about the confidence they have, the risk they want to take and what they have at stake.
NV “Tiger” Tyagarajan, President and CEO of Genpact, October 2012
In Part III, we ask Tiger his views of the “57%”, the percentage of enterprise customers who feel their provider does not understand their business. So back to the discussion…
NV “Tiger” Tyagarajan is President and CEO, Genpact (click for bio)
Phil Fersht (CEO, HfS Research): Tiger, we recently published data that showed 57 percent of buyers today feel their provider and their staff don’t understand their business. What we really need to understand is what percentage of buyers actually care whether they provider understands their business or not.
How important is this? Do you look at a client and think, “They will be wildly profitable for us” or do you prefer to think, “We can grow with them – they have a real vision for their future and they want to take us on that journey.”
NV “Tiger” Tyagarajan (CEO, Genpact): Phil, we’ve been debating this question over the last 24 months. This question becomes incredibly important as you grow bigger. In 2005 the BPO industry was nascent. When we came out of the blocks no one knew us. Then they looked at us and saw we were different, so they decided to try us. People took the risk; we had good success and we got known. But we grabbed everything that came our way because we were small.
We learned through that process. We saw what worked in terms of growth and value creation for the client. In one of our early engagements we did help desk work for a large global corporation on consumer technology products they sold. Very quickly we realized what they really wanted was how many cents per call; how many cents per minute. That’s all they cared about.
We explained to them their value proposition should be different. They should create customer satisfaction; that is a big wow! The goal should be to get the customer back to buy more products. We had enough examples to show them this could create value. But they wouldn’t budge. All they cared about was “finish the call fast so we don’t have to pay you much”.
Finally we said we can’t work with you. We ended the relationship.
Today we evaluate four things:
Is there real leadership buy in to drive transformation?
Does it have a connection to where the company is headed strategically? We have seen situations where the people we are dealing with are driving an agenda. They want to take all the cost out. Then we meet the senior leadership. All they are talking about is new product innovation. They don’t care about cost; this is not their focus. At some point these disconnects between agendas that are connected to the strategy of the company cause things to fall apart. We ask them to explain their agendas and how they relate to the strategy of the company.
What’s the culture of the company to drive change? We are perfectly fine if the company is slow in changing. Fifteen years into GE’s journey we are still growing. We know long-term growth and value creation is great. We are patient. The desire to get to the end and to discover a new horizon every time has to be there.
Are you going to be a partner in this journey or are you going to flip things across the wall and say, “Now you manage it and that’s it.” We don’t believe the latter will work. Because whatever we do is dependent on input we get from the organization. If we don’t have the ability to partner with the client, our ability to drive improvement and value creation is limited. Therefore, we prefer not to engage.
But it’s tough to say no to a client.
We have a process by which the senior levels evaluate every opportunity. We want to find a way to say yes or no quickly.
If we have done a good job for one client in an industry, others come to us. Pharma is a good example. It is reasonably risk averse. It is also highly regulated, so the companies are careful. They prefer to work with people who have done it before for people like them. They move as a flock.
It’s OK to say I am not going to play in this industry, geography or domain area. Deciding where you are going to play is one of the big choices you have to make. Once you make that choice, that drives your investment, your M&A, your resources and your intellectual capital. You look for the biggest leaders, the smartest people. Companies that do this well are successful.
Stay tuned for the final installment where Tiger gives his opinion regarding the branding of “outsourcing” and BPO…
NV “Tiger” Tyagarajan (pictured) is Chief Executive Officer for Genpact. You can view his full bio by clicking here
Folks – today we’re proud to announce the unveiling of what promises to be the ultimate sourcing showdown of leading enterprise buyers and providers… in Westchester County, New York, next Spring:
Following the unprecedented success of the 2012 Blueprint Sessions, 60 senior enterprise buy-side executives are being invited to represent their organizations at dreamSource, where HfS and the Sourcing Executive Council will facilitate private “buyers-only” sessions over three days of discussions, debate and networking. In addition, we will include selected executive leadership from top tier service provider organizations who are brave enough to grapple the following topics head on:
Designing and implementing the future operating framework for the global enterprise;
Aligning the workforce for global business services by developing our talent to go beyond tactical performance;
Changing the corporate mindset from cost-savings myopia to value-creation and growth;
Accomplishing innovation by improving enterprise and provider collaboration to achieve realistic business outcomes;
Leveraging analytics and technology as an enabler for smarter governance.
Here is some feedback from a few of the great contributors from the recent Boston HfS Sourcing Executive Council meeting:
“The HfS Sourcing Executive Council experience has provided a tremendous opportunity to be a part of changing the dynamics of this industry and I have no doubt that HfS’ efforts will go a long way to enhancing the value of global outsourcing. I look forward to our next session in New York”. Steven Jo, Head of Multisourcing, Silicon Valley Bank
“I have truly enjoyed the HfS Sourcing Executive Council sessions, and echo everyone else’s comment that being with the group of like-minded peers HfS has assembled is truly special. I am eagerly anticipating the next summit in the Spring. William J. Pappas, Vice President, Strategic Services & Initiatives, State Street Bank
“The HfS Sourcing Executive Council is one of a kind. Like-minded outsourcing buyers get together to discuss the key issues facing the industry, meet each other and share experiences and wisdom. This is the only place where 300+ years of deep outsourcing experience have the opportunity to meet – and that is in a very young industry. Also, it is fun to attend ;-)” Madelein Smit, VP Outsourcing, Finance and IT, CEVA Logistics
Thanks to all of you who have so passionately supported the HfS Sourcing Executive Council – we hope to see many of you back in the Spring!
There is an exclusive club developing in the Western World… “onshore” people who have experienced working for an offshore-centric provider, where all roads lead to Mumbai, or Delhi, or Chennai, or Bangalore… These folks quickly realized that this execu-life is an acquired taste – and either adapted or quickly bailed… or got fired. I personally know a multitude of executives now on their second, third, or even fourth (yes, fourth) offshore-centric firm.
What’s abundantly clear is the need to hire and develop quality onshore account management and delivery personnel is becoming the crucial differentiator in today’s ever-tightening outsourcing marketplace. Those that can win this talent war will be the ones who can truly move beyond yesterday’s flagging outsourcing model.
So who better than Deborah Kops, the doyenne of disruptive dialog herself, to expand on this topic in a way that, quite frankly, noone has dared put into print before…
Why offshore providers come up short onshore
Over the last few weeks, I must have had at least 10 calls from outsourcing talent currently looking –or being recruited for new positions–many of them by offshore providers. And that’s not counting the calls from search consultants, desperate to locate that buried diamond of a sales-accounts-or-solutions guy who can be persuaded to jump ship.
Deborah Kops, Research Fellow at HfS (click for bio)
Comparing their stories with my own recruitment experiences, it struck me that I’d been listening to a broken record. The tales were so very similar—even across a number of providers—that perhaps it’s time that someone called attention to the fact that in a war for onshore talent, offshore providers can unwittingly come up short. And that’s not good for the provider, for the talent, and certainly not for clients who increasingly demand that their providers become more globally and culturally adept.
Last week, yet another resume showed up in my email. Now, convinced that you can’t know too many smart people, I spent a few minutes with Mr. X, going over a very impressive list of qualifications: both buy-and-sell-side experience; a real track record in sales and operations; good communication skills and a great educational pedigree. When the conversation got to the stage where I was convinced that any number of providers would love to have him as part of the team, I started my usual ‘what about x? Or y?’ And then I got an emphatic “I won’t work for an offshore-legacy firm.” “Why,” I asked. “You’ve never worked for one. How do you know you can’t have a great career?” “Deborah,” he said, “Why would I work for a firm where the power structure is all overseas and doesn’t include me? And every time I’ve been recruited by an offshore firm, it’s been a waste of my time. They don’t seem to know how to run a good process. I am underwhelmed, and since recruitment is seduction, I’m not falling into bed with a firm that doesn’t know how to sell me on working with them.”
Offshore providers, please take note. With fewer and fewer good onshore sales/account management/solutions/operations guys and gals willing to switch horses, putting your best foot forward in the recruiting cycle is no different than courting a client. In fact, without the ability to attract the right onshore talent, it’s arguably impossible to grow and prosper.
What parts of the plot are offshore providers seemingly missing when they attempt to recruit onshore talent?
Onshore outsourcing talent is not fungible. Unlike talent pools in offshore locations, there may not be more than one or two really good candidates onshore, especially if that talent has an enviable track record in sales or solutions. And, as the market contracts, good talent has become more concerned about the quality of the brands they represent, paying more attention to crafting a career progression that underwrites their market worth by working for what the market sees as the “right” organizations. After all, names like Accenture and IBM on a resume act as career validation. Ask the search consultants; few candidates are calling them hankering after an introduction to an offshore player.
Onshore talent no longer sees the same risk/reward equation; the heady early days of get-in-on-the-ground-floor –and-make –a-few –million-bucks-at-IPO are over. With no new market entrants into entrenched process offerings such as finance and accounting, and more closely held offshore ownership in digital and analytics start-ups, the opportunity to make big bucks no longer justifies the perceived risk of working for an offshore provider that, quite simply, is less likely to trade career satisfaction for money. Talent now is more sensitive to finding—and staying with—the right employer, especially in light of economic uncertainty. Call it a flight to safety.
Onshore talent does not have the same linkages or ties to their employers as offshore talent Offshore providers that are not culturally savvy often forget that there is no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to managing global human resources. The employee/employer relationship that underpins offshore personnel relationships simply does not translate onshore. For example, onshore employees tend to manage their careers more independently, and do not have the same sense of family…or indebtedness…when it comes to staying with their employers. In other words, loyalty barely plays in career decisions.
The press doesn’t help In a market where seven degrees of separation is quickly reduced to two, the tales of working in a legacy offshore firm quickly become part of urban legend. Stories (rightly or wrongly) abound about cultural insensitivity: staff retreats held in India close to Christmas or on Easter weekend; cheap travel policies including coach travel at all times and sharing rooms with colleagues; and being managed by buddies of the boss who have limited experience or skill. Potential candidates who are used to certain working conditions are scared off from seriously exploring a career with an offshore provider.
What can the offshore provider do to improve its talent value proposition?
It comes down to changing approaches to market and being realistic about what talent looks for when they consider new opportunities. It’s time to stop replicating very familiar offshore talent management constructs and approaches, and start to act like a local. Let’s dig a little deeper here:
Bear in mind that the provider is the seller, and the recruit is the buyer In a market bereft of a real deep talent bench, good candidates are the sellers. Unfortunately offshore providers forget that fact, sometimes approaching the candidate with a “you’re so lucky to be talking to me” attitude. In fact, sometime this is taken to the extreme; a recent urban legend has a partner in a global firm being offered a trial 90 day position which would convert to full employment if a real deal is identified during that period. The candidate approached the meeting with a high degree of interest, but walked out with a high level of disgust when the terms shifted from employment to trial.
Have an honest strategy to move to glocal management Onshore talent consistently complain about being managed offshore and through offshore practices, resulting in what they see as lack of empowerment, disenfranchisement, cultural insensitivity and lack of trust. While moving to a true global talent management model won’t happen overnight, offshore organizations that make good faith efforts to devolve leadership and in country operations to those in the know onshore will ultimately reap a number of rewards: reputation as a provider with deep local contextual knowledge; a strong reputation as a good place to build a career for onshore talent; and a brand as a truly global player.
Adopt local HR practices What goes for best practices in India, or even the UK, does not fly in the US. HR practices must be contextual in order to be effective. An offshore company may be able to compel someone in their home company to sign away certain rights, or work under certain conditions, or sell shares on their timetable, but it won’t work in the US or other onshore locations.
Be realistic about how the brand is viewed Despite the enormous success they’ve enjoyed in the outsourcing market, offshore players need to recognize that they’re starting with a of brand deficit when it comes to recruitment. When it comes to attracting a strong team, providers who think they are on a level playing field with the industry dominants onshore are kidding themselves. Offshore companies do not yet have the same local draw that the big globals—or even some smaller local players– have. When a company’s future success depends on globalization of talent, understanding the shortcomings of its brand, and then doing something to mitigate its implications in the minds of highly desirable talent, is critical.
Acknowledge that the network influences talent attraction Whenever a recruiting process takes excessive time, or is a market outlier, or is downright disrespectful, trust me– everybody knows. In a market where one or two calls obtain the full skinny on any company, talent is already armed with strong opinions of what it’s like to be recruited by or work for any provider. Remember that any experience—good or bad—will quickly be reported on the tom toms, and act accordingly.
Be realistic; don’t require talent to do the impossible Some of the job descriptions churned out by offshore providers are unrealistic; if a candidate has the ability to walk on water and rope in $10million ACV deals at the same time, it still would not be sufficient for many providers. People with deep relationships with multi-national CEOs, Master Black Belts, a degree from Harvard with an MBA from Insead, enviable thought leadership, and viewed as all around good guy and gal willing to travel 80 percent of the time do not exist. A full complement of skills is rarely contained in one individual; unfortunately offshore providers often become parsimonious and won’t make the level of investments in the right combination of positions. Stop trying to locate one onshore savior to change the fortunes of the business, and start thinking realistically about hiring a talent ecosystem.
Run a respectful, timely, transparent process Onshore talent often complain about the lack of respect demonstrated in the hiring process. I’ve heard tales of processes that ended up taking a year because of constant cancellations, or at the last minute requiring everyone from the chairman of the board to the offshore delivery leader to weigh in on the candidate. Flying into a city to suddenly find that the first meeting is delegated to junior, non-decision making staff is offensive. Or asking senior candidates to players to spend one or two cycles interviewing with a low level person, either in HR, recruitment or sales, before the actual hiring manager is even introduced sends the wrong message. Tell the candidate what the process and timeline is, being fully mindful of the fact that, if s/he is any good, by the time the second interview is finally scheduled, he or she will have probably be off the market. Open ended processes without closure frustrate the candidate, and shut the door on future engagement..
Pay market A guy making a base of $200,000 plus a good bonus is rarely seduced by an offer of $100k plus stock…”someday.” And if he is interested, it’s either because he thinks the upside is a pretty sure thing, or he’s about to be terminated by his current employer. Offshore providers that think that the opportunity to carry their card has a value beyond market compensation are sadly mistaken. Ensuring that compensation is competitive with the market is the first step in winning the talent game. And share the wealth. If Mr. X is so important to the growth of your business, make it worth his or her while with equity to make the switch.
Stop playing the tease Many talented folk have had calls from providers who are constantly testing the talent waters. Stories abound of offshore C-suite leaders calling onshore guys quarterly, thinking they can catch them at a weak moment by flattery. And when the candidate bites, there was no real opportunity. If there’s a real job, send the candidate the job description; don’t play the flirt. There are better ways to keep good talent warm.
Don’t make undue and unusual demands Recently I heard a story about a (reluctant) candidate being asked for his W-2s and references after an introductory recruitment meeting. And about another candidate who was asked for a copy of his rolodex during the first contact. Net outcome? They ran for the hills, badmouthing the provider at every opportunity. Onshore candidates share data when they see a viable opportunity, not before.
Look at the CV first, and in context of the position How many times have candidates walked into an interview to find that neither HR nor the business unit leader ever bothered to look at their bios? Or had any idea of the scope of the job? (True confession: I was once recruited by a provider who had not seen my CV, and thought I was a Black Belt continuous improvement type). Spend the time to evaluate the candidate’s credentials in advance and in light of business needs, not because you’re on a reconnaissance mission.
Global fluency clients seek starts with hiring the right team locally. But when providers are unable to start by hiring the right onshore team, the dial does not move very far. To paraphrase a recent bestselling business book—“change the recruitment process, change the game.” Growth depends on it.
Thanks for all the tales of woe I’ve heard from candidates and search consultants alike. Hope springs eternal that change is inevitable.
Deborah Kops (pictured above) is Research Fellow and HfS Research (click here for bio)
During Part I of our interview with Genpact’s CEO NV “Tiger” Tyagarajan, we compared the metamorphosis being experienced today’s by today’s business services industry with that of manufacuring 20 years ago:
Now most manufacturers don’t make all things that go in an automobile or an iPhone. Today, Apple does the intellectual capital of the what, the how and the design. They also do sales and marketing. But not much else. I think services are going in the same direction.
NV “Tiger” Tyagarajan, President and CEO of Genpact, October 2012
In Part II, we discuss the bifurcation occurring between the sourcing approaches of small and mid-sized organizations and today’s large enterprises… and the pace of change we can expect in today’s environment. So without further ado, let’s go back to Tiger’s Tales…
NV “Tiger” Tyagarajan is President and CEO, Genpact (click for bio)
Phil Fersht (CEO, HfS Research): Tiger, do you see bifurcation happening in the sourcing industry? We have a lot of small-to-medium-sized businesses quickly evolving, where IT is in the cloud; everything is outsourced unless they actually want to keep it in house, and many are morphing into increasingly virtual environments Then there are the larger enterprises which are moving at a snail’s pace – they don’t want to change, they seem to becoming more risk-averse, if anything. When we look ten years out, we’ll clearly have have a lot of smaller, more nimble companies, but will the enterprises really have changed all that much? How does a business services company like Genpact evolve in this type of environment?
NV “Tiger” Tyagarajan (CEO, Genpact): Phil – it’s a great question. Smaller companies are able to attack larger companies because they are structured differently. We have worked with a large UK healthcare provider for seven years. Two years back they decided to come to India and set up an insurance business. They formed a JV and set up the business.
The insurance market in India was new, young and growing with very large competitors with client bases of 20-30 million people each. This company decided they wanted to grow at rocket speed. And they needed a cost advantage that is incredibly crazy.
Insurance companies take time to break even because there are a lot of upfront costs that you recover much later. They decided they wanted a variable cost from day one. They just wanted to own their sales force, their product, their consumer, their policy and their intellectual capital. That’s it.
We set up their operation from scratch. We started with two people. They did everything on the cloud. Today, we have 200 people serving them. They have a CEO and a CFO, product designers, marketing people and a sales force. That’s it.
The result: They are the fastest growing insurance company in India for the last two year by factor of two to three X. They have a cost structure radically different from everyone else. We think this is an incredibly crazy model. What is fascinating is their competitors, even in a developing market like India, have 15,000 people with a legacy system with 15 million accounts.
How can the big companies compete with these guys? I think they have a chance because they are growing 25 percent. But what about a US insurance company growing at 1.5 percent? They will have to evolve. It will be a combination of data, technology and process. Companies like us have to be the solution providers to make these companies successful.
There will still be Wells Fargo, Procter & Gamble, Unilever. We will have to pick and choose who we want to work with. Who will change? Who will move fast? Who is the most innovative? Who will take the tough action?
Phil: Do you think companies will decide overnight they’ve had enough of clunky infrastructure and operations, enough of these tired old ways of doing things; that it’s time to change. Or, do you think this is a gradual, generational shift into the new way of doing business?
Tiger: It will vary company by company, which is fascinating because it shouldn’t. It won’t even be industry by industry. In each industry we see some companies move much faster. They create a burning platform to drive change. Sometimes it’s because a new leadership team comes in and rocks the boat. Or because they get pushed to the wall. It’s completely dependent upon leadership and the leadership’s ability to drive change. It’s about the confidence they have, the risk they want to take and what they have at stake.
But it is also industry dependent. Some industries are going to get pushed far harder to change faster. Look at the pharma companies. For so long they have done nothing. And why would they? They have had 85 percent gross margins in the last three years. But even now that’s not enough. Some of them still live in a fool’s world. Their profits are rapidly declining; last year it was 70 percent. But that’s not three percent!
Our view is it’s important to understand industry dynamics and the company’s cultural dynamics. It’s important to latch on to those companies that can move rapidly.
As we look across the IT landscape, especially the mature IT landscape, some are doing so well and some aren’t. I think part of the reason is their clients. I would argue some companies have chosen to play in industry verticals and client organizations that by definition drive change faster and harder, which enables them to grow. Other companies, unfortunately, have industries and clients that are not like that. They are stuck with them. When you go through turbulent times, they don’t grow.
We are big believers in selecting your clients properly. You can help clients change when they are able to drive change hard. We watch when companies undergo leadership changes. Because often it’s the leader. They come in with a fresh view. They have no legacy. They have no fear. Often they have a mandate to change. No one will really question them.
Stay tuned for Part III, where we’ll talk about how well providers understand their clients’ businesses…
NV “Tiger” Tyagarajan (pictured) is Chief Executive Officer for Genpact. You can view his full bio by clicking here
Captain Cliff Justice in action as Partner and U.S. Leader, Shared Services and Outsourcing Advisory at KPMG (pictured center)
Welcome back to the Captain Cliff chronicles. And since Part II, we have actually witnessed Cliff speak for a whole hour at an outsourcing conference and manage not to mention the “O” word once. That’s quite a feat, so let’s find out why…
Phil Fersht (HfS): Cliff, we’ve had a lot of debate, and even conducted a survey, on whether the term “outsourcing” should be forcibly removed from business vernacular, because it doesn’t make sense anymore. Is that something you would support? Do you think it conveys the right message about the industry?
Cliff Justice (KPMG): Outsourcing is a term that has been abused and politicized. It doesn’t have the same meaning to the general population as it does to those who are close to it. So I would certainly propose the industry find a different term for the use of third parties to create partnerships to provide services.
Phil: Would it be possible to take it away? We talk about the political damage it causes but you and I have been in situations with clients where people view any type of activity which involves global resources as outsourcing. Is it going to be possible even if we make a considerable effort to get away from the political ramifications of the globalization of business?
Cliff: I think over time it will. Globalization is a reality that will add and grow in popularity. The fact is globalization isn’t going away. Companies are starting to look at their third-party partnerships as a way to improve their businesses, their images and the value to their companies and shareholders. A term is not going to make or break that trend. You have the best-respected companies in the world deploying outsourcing agreements and they are not engaged in the political wrestling that goes on.
A lot of the politicization is how a company handles the outsourcing image. You can change any politicized term to something that seems innocuous today and then that term can be politicized tomorrow.
Phil: We’ve been getting a lot of questions from our clients around their global distribution of operations. Some particularly large organizations are starting to question whether they have too many resources based out in locations such as India and the Philippines. Is that consistent with what you are hearing from companies in general or is this just a general feeling that has been going on for awhile?
Cliff: I think that’s true, especially in the manufacturing sector.
Actually, it is not location specific; it’s more about control. Some of that has to do with proximity to leadership and where the company’s innovation cluster is. In the manufacturing sector we are talking to CIOs who are focused on bringing their innovation capabilities closer to the vest. Today, if their innovation capabilities reside with third parties in remote locations, those CIOs are starting to say they need them closer to the cluster they’ve established. If that cluster is in the US, then that means bringing some of that back to the US.
As the business needs change, these portfolios are going to change. Companies that are becoming more mature in this extended enterprise model have the ability to manage these services like a portfolio; when their needs change, they shift a little bit on the portfolio.
I don’t see a radical trend to bring everything back in house or onshore. It’s going to be like adjusting your financial portfolio as your business needs change. A lot of third party service providers are able to give companies capacity they would never have otherwise. So the CIOs and CEOs are looking at their overall portfolio of capabilities and sourcing those capabilities appropriately whether it is internal or external.
Stay Tuned for Part IV, The Final Frontier…. coming soon
Cliff Justice (pictured above) is Partner and U.S. Leader, Shared Services and Outsourcing Advisory at KPMG LLP.
For a long while now, I have privately been concerned about the negative impact modern work culture is having on the disintegration of work ethics within many of today’s firms. Many workers, whose jobs once forced them to think and focus, have today become reactive, easily-distracted and operational. 
One of our great technology and business services firms is in real trouble 
