Hardware Refresh and Software Upgrade

If there is one thing that distinguishes IT infrastructure services from the general IT services pool in terms of structuring the deal and the impact on (accounting) books, it is the way IT infrastructure space impacts capex decisions of CIOs. While "running the operations" draw opex budget for software services and infrastructure services, the need to refresh hardware (network gear, desktop, servers and other related gear) and upgrade software (to keep pace with OEM support or hardware compatibility) brings in the capex element which makes most long term deals interesting.

When outsourcing for infrastructure services, value being sought is not just in improving service quality, operating efficiency, running cost optimization but also to reduce and smoothen the traditional clunky outflow on account of such refresh and upgrade requirements which are mostly inevitable and a necessity in large enterprises running mission critical environments.

As different service providers come with up different models for addressing these customer imperatives, there are different approaches each provider takes. Some have their in-house financial companies which finance/lease hardware ( these service providers also want to keep such activities on a different accounting book and not let it pull down its operating margins and numbers). There are some others who do not have such options and take this as a "core value prop" pitching it as an advantage of not having any bias to any technology OEM. However with time, since the business of business is business, CIOs may like pure-play show but finally it is where the dollars are saved that they mostly end up going with as finally that's how they get their bonus worked out!

If the enterprise does not own the existing equipment, this becomes a big factor in large deals as they then do not find it attractive to add equipment to their books in the current situation. If they have the equipment on their books, already this gives them a great opportunity to build a business case to use the opportunity to outsource or change their service provider and sell their assets to the new provider.

Revenue and People Count

Look at the quarterly or annual revenue reports of offshore based IT services companies and almost all report revenues and employee count hand in hand. The unsaid association is that more the number of employees, greater the revenue. So, you read projections each year of each company targeting to hire in the upwards of 20,000 or even 30,000 or 40,000 employees each year!!!!

An interesting study would be the comparison of revenue per employee of these firms with that of their competitors who are primarily pure services non-offshore headquartered or services companies with OEM business as well. And if we want to spread the spectrum and skew the numbers further, we can include the same for software product majors. Will make for an interesting weekend study which I will do one of these days. But the relationship drawn makes one wonder where this will stop. For a $6b-$8b revenue if the employee base needs to be upwards of 150,000 employees, what happens when the firm is say $20b if there is always a linear relationship which has happened till now and firms don't seem to be talking of more value based revenue. What worked well in the past will not necessarily work in the future. As the employee base grows, focus on managing the gigantic resource pool and its aspirations will be crucial.

Increasing Remote Operations in Offshore Operations

What has probably existed for few years in the US based operations of OEM majors who are also service providers, is now catching up at offshore locations of these and other offshore players. Increasingly administrators are working from home - thanks to the improved network services which are also cheaper along with the reducing costs of a laptop and a mobile phone, not to mention the pervasiveness of chat and video conferencing.

Till 2-3 years back, such were just privileges which some of the senior folks in the offshore operations could enjoy as not everyone yet has a laptop in most offshore operations' teams which work on customer projects. Secondly, the efficiency of home networks (cost and quality) has improved several times. My home broadband has more than 99.99% uptime for the last few years I have been using it in India.

Another advantage of the home worker is the saving in office space along with reduced commute time (and cost) for the worker which motivates them to work well from home. Of course they need to ensure that they have a decent "home office" with no interruptions which is something that many struggle with as most homes are not big enough to have a study.

Other issue that many report is the inconsistent power supply in some of the cities/areas. However these days the power outages are mostly couple of hours in a stretch (as a maximum limit) which is better than the situation few years back and an air card with a laptop ensures that the worker is active even when there is no electricity for few hours at home.

So it is a win-win for the employer and employee but what about the customer? While many companies may not explicitly disclose to their clients the number of work from home workers on the account, most often the quality of service is at par with the workers working from a regular office. And most who work from home still come to the regular office once or twice a week to meet up with their supervisor and some of the face to face team meetings.

Another important "constituent" set are female employees who find it very useful to work from home in a predominantly patriarch society of most offshore countries where the woman of the house is still responsible for cooking and cleaning though it is gradually changing. Many are also able to afford domestic help with the new salaries they enjoy.

So it does  sound like a win-win-win for employer, employee and the client. Talking to some such workers - most enjoy the flexibility to handle home and work but yes they do miss the water cooler moments which technology still can't help with!

HP's Acquisition of 3Com

News that HP has acquired 3Com is news and probably went unnoticed largely. Juxtaposing it with the acquisition of EDS last year, clearly HP has a strategy where these pieces fall into place. While HP cemented its services game plan to meet the challenge from IBM with the EDS acquisition, with the acquisition of 3Com, it is meeting the challenge from Cisco.

Will be interesting to see how the integration of these companies will play out to bring value to HP's revenue and profitability.

"Yes Sir" and No "No Sir"

I was having a lunch conversation with a colleague who has moved from the IT department of an enterprise to an offshore based service provider's organization. He was sharing his frustration on the lack of assertiveness on the part of most team members in the offshore service provider's team (and in that company in general). Since he had moved from an internal IT organization to a service provider, these were frustrating for him when he was in calls with the client where his colleagues mutely accepted whatever the client asked for --- be it additional scope of work, very aggressive timeline commitments or unrealistic service expectations. They just didn't push back!!!

This is in fact a recurring sentiment I have heard from many on both sides of the table -- those who offshore work to IT service providers and those who provide such services working for offshore based IT service providers. This is in fact a very rampant behavior trait which neither party wants to discuss because one is taking advantage of it and the other is being taken advantage of. Worst, most often the team members don't even realize that there is an option to push back. I am not suggesting that the trait should be a "push back all the time and every where" attitude but there are ways to respectfully and collaboratively correct a client's expectation if they are unrealistic or may have issues which they may not be aware of. Most folks in several offshore based companies just do not acknowledge this and this seems to run through the echelons of power in such companies. I have heard of some companies where the relationship manager says " How can I say NO when the customer is asking for it? He is the after all the CUSTOMER!" for situations where what the customer is asking is just not do-able or practical. What is not understood is that in the process incorrect expectations are set and face-off is deferred to a later time when anyway the expectations will not be met or lead to consequences which are not desirable.

Now, the interesting part --- though most customers who offshore take advantage of this cultural trait ( we will delve more on how much of it cultural and how much of it is anything else), in private they acknowledge that they want partners who can challenge them and say NO when the right answer is NO. They do not want to get a submissive YES for everything because then the service provider team is not bringing value in validating what they think. If, whatever the customer think prevails, there is no check or balance to bring in perspective from similar experiences with other customers. Not just that, many even say that they actually would respect an offshore provider more if they see the teams more balanced and responsive and say NO when that is the right answer.

What is the reason for this seemingly foolhardy behavior?:

1. There is a bit of a cultural aspect to this given that such conversations happen across cultures. While at one end are customers from the western world ( mostly Americas and Europe ... and I don't want to get into which ones from these two are more aggressive!) who are more aggressive in general, at the other end is a typical Indian or some times even attributed as an Asian trait of not confronting the client directly in business situations.
2. Another reason and more plausible is also that it just is not there in the DNA of such offshore based IT services companies because they essentially grew through T&M (Time & Material) contracts contributing almost 96% of all their revenues in the last 20-25 years. In a T&M contract, the resources from the service provider works as part of the staff of a manager who is from the customer's side. So, they are essentially executing tasks assigned to them. There is little chance to be asked for opinion in that sense and whatever opportunities exist are not leveraged due to the cultural trait discussed earlier. So, over the years, the organizations have grown on a staple of T&M engagements where their staff has followed what was assigned to them not having much of a chance (or inclination) to speak up to do things differently.
3. Another reason for I have seen is the "Customer is always right" syndrome which is conveniently used as it means whatever the customers asks or says is to be followed and takes away the "burden" of finding what is better or right if that is not known.
4. Another reason, which is again highly debate-able and needs to be understood in the right context has to do with the evolution of most of the offshore based IT service providers. In the early years of their formation, the staff they mostly used were from their base countries. However the IT maturity in these base countries was not to the level of what existed in most of the western world where the customers were located. Hence, while the staff started working, they were mostly on a learning curve for some of the technologies as these were new to them. Hence, in those early years, they also lacked the confidence of knowing that they could have a point to make since they knew that the client teams had worked in these systems for a longer time in the past than them and hence they found it more convenient to follow what was being told due to lack of confidence.
5. Finally, many organizations just do not understand still of what the customer is looking for. They think that by agreeing to what the customer is asking or suggesting, they are making the customer happy and ensuring continued business.
   

However this today is not limited to traditional offshore headquartered IT services companies. Since many of the employees in the offshore units of onshore headquartered IT services companies have been hired from the offshore headquartered companies, they carry these personal traits too with them in their new organization. This has further contributed to their own challenges in meeting expectations at times in their new organization or at times led to further rifting of the great divide that exists in such companies between their offshore units and their base home units set up onshore in the Americas or Europe. That rift is probably a topic for another post though!

But before I conclude this post, I should say that these are typical traits heard from many people on both sides of the story. This however does not mean that all offshore based IT service providers or all the team members of a particular service provider demonstrate this trait. There are many who are highly appreciated and their clients will tell you how they brought value by brining in perspective that were really brilliant. However, for those who found these traits, the above is an analysis on why it possibly happens given that such a behavior does not help either party in the long run.

Tiered Infrastructure Architecture

Thanks to the recession, CIOs are busy but not to support the growing demands of business, but instead identifying how and where to save costs and bring sustained value. When the going is good, it seems to pay better to throw more hardware, software and labor at any business requirement because business is growing and someone will pay for it. Studying delta savings and incremental benefits are more of overheads, where the cost of managing them seems to outweigh the benefits accrued. Not any more in these times!

One of the things I have consistently observed is the lack of a consistent approach to a tiered infrastructure architecture. IT infrastructure is mostly set up as chunks of monolithic or patchy systems with no stratification or gradation of the infrastructure or the service quality provided on top of it. While many banking and other enterprises do have "A Class" infrastructure or service for "A Class" business applications, the rest of the applications and their underlying infrastructure is most often a mix of systems acquired over time. It is often not possible to say that we have three kinds of storage infrastructure --- A, B and C which caters to different kinds of storage requirements in terms of these metrics 1. ..... 2. .... and .. 10. ...

An efficient environment should have an enterprise divide its IT infrastructure into two or three grades. Each component (hardware, software, labor) should fall into one of these buckets. It may not be possible to have an air tight environment with no overlap but having at least 80% discipline from the current 10% (or none) will result in cost efficiencies and better manageability. It will also ensure IT is more responsive and participative in growth --- next time a project estimate is made for (say..) setting up a new back office, the project cost would be more reflective of how critical that operation is to business. IT team would first ask how critical that environment is, operational requirements, redundancy requirements etc. for all aspects of IT environment to plan for an optimal set-up instead of an one-quality-fits-all approach where that "one quality" is often an expensive service requirement.

Emerging New Players in Outsourcing Space

In the last two weeks two major acquisitions were announced in the Outsourcing services space --- Dell acquired Perot systems for $3.9b and Xerox then acquired ACS for $6.4b. These come within a year or so of HP's acquisition of EDS for $13.9b in May 2008.

While each company has its reasons to buy the acquired companies, these deals have few things in common:

• The acquiring companies are primarily hardware manufacturers and the companies acquired were services companies. Xerox or Dell did not have any services business contributing any significant amount to the revenue pie
• Both these recent deals came during the time of recession (or at least the fag end of it if we believe that is the beginning of the end of the recession). In these times if Dell and Xerox spent time, energy and money to acquire these companies, it must surely be a major event in their history. This is surely not one of those Cisco acquiring yet another technology company ( by the way they acquired Tandberg yesterday for $2.96b) where the fitment is obvious. The acquisitions by Dell and Xerox are much more aspirational than others as they aim to start a whole new service line of revenue for their companies. In fact Xerox's acquisition of ACS is even more aspirational than Dell's where the latter at least was in a related business.

Talking of aspirational acquisitions, Oracle's acquisition of Sun for $7.4b which was sure stunner for most industry pundits.

And not so back in the past, IBM had sold its hardware business (ThinkPad) to Lenovo, exiting from a product manufacturing revenue stream -- which helped it focus on services business and improve profitability in a significant way.

These deals are surely going to have some bearing in the future outsourcing services market. Dell is keen to shake off its PC-business image, whereas Xerox realizes that somewhere the printing and copying industry would head to be a sunset industry as over time people have been printing less, copying less on the whole. This will help each company jumpstart into the services space and meet the kind of companies they aspire to compete with.

Interestingly both Perot and ACS have a fair offshore presence in India. With the acquisition, both Dell and Xerox would also get access to these facilities and delivery models. It would be challenging to integrate these acquired companies and find the right kind of management team which can oversee a different business from their traditional manufacturing business.