Productivity gains and automation impact over the deal term is driven by environmental maturity.. To assess the potential productivity gains, a detailed analysis of number and nature of issues in the current environment is required. We would typically expect overall productivity gains as well as speed of realizing productivity gains to be higher in a legacy (1st time outsourcing) environment v/s 2nd/ 3rd Generation outsourcing deals.
The heated demand is leading to a drive for talent thereby heating up the salaries in onshore and offshore geographies – thereby increasing the cost to serve for Consulting service providers by as much as 10%-20% on a fully-loaded op-cost per FTE basis depending on the underlying technology type and resource seniority. However, enterprises remain cautious and price sensitive on consulting spend and >80% of consulting engagements have some form or fashion of line-of-sight into tangible outcomes / impact.
Currently, the preferred pricing models for S&C are fixed fee based for clearly ring-fenced scope, outcomes, timelines, and with contractual flexibility to pause and/or terminate. Enterprises are also open to risk-gain share mechanisms BUT should be tread with utmost clarity and thought on scope due-diligence, underlying assumptions, dependencies, and outcome versus risk thresholds, else can be detrimental to an already diminishing margin turf for service providers.
Since the cost to serve for S&C is expected to remain elevated in the near to medium term, this segment of business is expected to see margin pressure. A negative margin scenario is only to be expected if providers do not push for a well-defined scope or outcomes, do not size/solution the effort and staffing accurately, or undercut strategically or competitively for downstream execution-led gains. Opportunistically leveraging the perceived ‘premium and niche skills’ market can offer consulting providers with some margin-cushion at a deal-level.
There is an increased enterprise propensity in the market for committed outsourcing outcomes and the same is manifesting itself in increased instances of outcome-based pricing contracts. However, what construes as “outcome” can vary across contracts. Some points to note:
Therefore, the definition of “outcome” may vary, but the model is expected to sustain and gain momentum across contract types.
In managed services contracts, we continue to draft up and get equitable agreement for a 3.0%-3.5% global COLA i.e., applicable to the managed services delivery model incl. the underlying global delivery location portfolio agreed by both parties. The expectation is that the above 3.0-3.5% should be explicitly stated as part of the fee assumptions but needs to be pre-baked into the Y1-Y5 ACV’s i.e., no fee changes during the initial contract term. This incentivizes / encourages the provider to offset COLA against automation-led benefits in the out years, staffing mix and on-offshore mix changes during the contract term etc.
Besides the managed services component, there is typically the project rate card i.e., T&M component in the pricing exhibits. Typically, COLA is applied starting Y3 of the deal & can have higher exposure than managed services COLA i.e., in the 3-5% range depending on skill sets. COLA is subject to the benchmarking clause i.e., if either party wishes to invoke the benchmarking clause to sense-check any significant rate/market changes if the contracted COLA is unacceptable by either party when the need arises
All providers are concerned about the wage inflation, which while real for experienced/lateral hires, needs to be contextualized in the scope of a typical IT-BPS managed services delivery solution. Fact is that the entry-level salaries have remained consistent for the last many years and the same is true even now. Plus, all providers are pushing their entry-level pool to Tier2/3/4 locations and colleges to keep this entry-level cost base consistent, and this is where most providers expect to build 70-80% of their incremental seat capacity esp. with the remote model – most providers have alluded to this in recent quarterly earnings strategies as a margin retention measure. In addition, in a typical delivery AO/IO/BPO pyramid, 75%-80% of the resources are in these bottom two rungs wherein the compensation is being held steady. So, the talent war and the heated 20%-40% wage hikes for experienced hires only applies to 20%-25% of the wage pyramid i.e., 4%-10% net wage increase on a blended wage pyramid. However, wage / compensation is ~50% of a fully loaded offshore rate card (other components being real-estate, telecom/technology, consumables, SG&A, op-margins), therefore, the net offshore rate card impact of blended wage increase is halved to 2%-5%. Now, offshore is typically 80%-90% of the offshore-onshore managed services delivery. Therefore, the net service delivery impact of COLA in a global managed services contract is 2.5%-4.5% and with this rationale we manage to close the agreement at 3.0-3.5% global COLA on equitable and transparent footing.
The mega deals market (>$100M TCV) is shrinking. In general, enterprises are reconsidering large scale transformation investments, breaking down larger programs and staggering them over budget cycles based on priority or predictable RoI. Exceptions may be seen in the Telecom, Transportation, Utilities, Mining, and Energy verticals spurred by the infrastructure spending bill.
Small to mid-sized deals market ($5M – $15M ACV) will continue to see momentum driven by bite-sized initiatives, cost and operations focused mandates, and mid-cap enterprises coming out of the woodwork to sustain their business in a tightening liquidity market. Nearly 60% of new deal value is expected in this segment.
Providers will need to reevaluate their sales strategy – do they invest resources in chasing the few large deals involving long spin cycles or get better at closing smaller deals with shorter spin cycles.
One still sees so many enterprises locked in long term contracts, punitive termination penalties, proprietary technologies, and inflexible financials. Such relationships are the ones where there is seldom any innovation. The provider sees no additional gains to be made from a client stuck in one’s chair whereas the client sees no reason to invest more resources in a lopsided arrangement – and the relationship plummets.
But in an industry so interconnected and stakeholders so transient, the word gets out. Such troubled accounts become competitive targets and the provider starts losing ground. That’s the thing – a contract can have lock in, word of mouth doesn’t.
This may be a bit of memory jog as this is not about the automation BOT that has been the top of mind recall in recent times but rather the good old, Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) that is making a quiet but definitive comeback to the boardroom discussions. During the pandemic and post ‘The Great Resignation’, firms have and are continuing to de-risk their alternate service delivery models. As part of this, enterprises are increasingly assessing and executing BOT transactions. The drivers for them to do this are multifold e.g., deleveraging third-party outsourced portfolio, managing sensitivities around product development, building digital talent inhouse etc. While the classic BOT remains intact, its close variant, Virtual Captive, is increasingly gaining traction as this model offers a good balance between ‘Control’ and ‘Risk’. The supply side is becoming increasingly mature and arming their portfolios with innovative and agile ‘as-a-Service’ solutions.
Next time, when you are looking beyond Managed Services but do not just have the appetite for own captive, definitely worth adding this to the list of options. Lets you ‘test-drive’ offshore on a ‘Pay-as-you-grow’ model.
Know more about our GCC Lifecycle Advisory Services
Yes, the global growth sentiment is bearish—painful inflation, stocks nosediving, supply chain bottlenecks, war, and whatnot. Why take-on additional risks of switching vendors, reopening contracts, and teasing transformation in this climate, correct? Correct! But have you set boundaries for your comfort zone? Because, if you have not then chances are that you are blurring the lines between that of a practical bear and that of a victim.
Nearly 70% of the IT-BPS transactions that our advisors managed recently were sole-sourced or incumbency vendor renewals / rescoping. Fewer than 20% of these sole-sourced transactions rightfully became competitive when solutioning inertia, contractual impasse, or commercial impracticality was met. In the rest, the enterprises buckled. They sought refuge in notional improvements, tactical promises, and basis point benefits in the face of facts and figures.
Any relationship is worth sustaining and that applies to the contractual kind. However, if you do not set boundaries, you will never know when to rightfully step out. And that is just damaging, no matter the climate.
Maturity of outsourcing contracts on the ground has lagged the analyst talk. We have observed that service providers are incorporating elements of analyst spiel and transformative agenda as part of their pitches while their existing contract are struggling with the basic transactional issues. It is imperative that service providers need to bridge gaps in capabilities around the base or fundamental services as they look to build next gen capabilities and incorporate them as part of pursuits and solutions.
Providers can get fixated with what they consider as value differentiators instead of understanding what the client’s value definitions are. Over the contract lifecycle, the value gap only tends to increase. With the anti-incumbency trend at its peak, Providers can benefit with a neutral and holistic assessment of existing client relationships to proactively cement and expand the account
A misalignment in the value definition between Service Provider and the enterprise leads to significant gap between the value delivered by provider and value realized by client. This gap only gets amplified over the contract life cycle.
In our experience, the value gap is driven by:
