The recent news about India-based IT outsourcing major Satyam and its top management’s admissions of accounting fraud bring forth shocking and desperate memories of an earlier time – when multiple US conglomerates such as Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco, etc. fell under similar circumstances, bringing down with them the careers and aspirations of thousands of employees, customers and investors. Ironically Satyam (the name means “truth” in the mother language, Sanskrit), whose management have been duping investors for several years now (by their own admission) had received the Recognition of Commitment award from the US-based Institute of Internal Auditors in 2006, and was featured in Thomas Friedman’s best-seller “The World is Flat”. Indeed, how the mighty have fallen…
As one empathizes with those affected, the key question that comes to mind is, how do we prevent another Satyam? However that line of questioning seems rather idealistic. The key question should probably be, how can IT outsourcing customers protect themselves from these kinds of fallouts? Given how flat the world is, an outsourcing vendor’s (especially one as ubiquitous as Satyam in this market) fall from grace has reverberations throughout the global IT economy - directly in the form of failed projects, and indirectly in the form of lost credibility for customer CIOs who rely on these outsourcing partners for their critical day-to-day functioning.
Having said that, here are some key precautionary measures (in an evolving order) companies can take to protect themselves and their IT operations beyond standard sane efforts such as using multiple IT partners, use of structured processes and centralized documentation/knowledge-bases.
· Move from time & material (T&M) arrangements to fixed-priced contracts
· Move from static knowledge-bases to automated standard operating procedures (SOPs)
· Own the IP associated with process automation
Let’s look at how each of these afford higher protection in situations such as the above:
· Moving from T&M arrangements to fixed price contracts - T&M contracts rarely provide incentive to the IT outsourcing vendor to bring in efficiencies and innovation. The more hours that are billed, the more revenue they make – so,where’s the motivation to reduce the manual labor? On the other hand, T&M labor makes customers vulnerable to loss of institutional knowledge and gives them little to no leverage when negotiating rates or contract renewals because switching out a vendor (especially one that holds much of the “tribal knowledge”) is easier said than done.
With fixed price contracts, the onus on ensuring quality and timely delivery is on the IT services vendor (to do so profitably requires use of as little labor as possible) and subsequently, one finds more structure (such as better documentation and process definition) and higher use of innovation and automation. All of this works in the favor of the customer and in the case of a contractor or the vendor no longer being available, makes it easier for a replacement to hit the ground running.
· Moving from static knowledge-bases to automated SOPs – It is no longer enough to have standard operating procedures documented within Sharepoint-type portals. It is crucial to automate these static run books and documented SOPs via data center automation technologies, especially newer run book automation product sets (a.k.a. IT process automation platforms) that allow definition and utilization of embedded knowledge within the process workflows. These technologies allow contractors to move static process documentation to workflows that use this environmental knowledge to actually perform the work. Thus, the current process knowledge no longer merely resides in peoples’ heads, but gets moved to a central software platform thereby mitigating loss of key contractor personnel/vendors.
· Owning the IP associated with such process automation platforms – Frequently, companies that are using outsourced services ask “why should I invest in automation software? I have already outsourced our IT work to company XYZ. They should be buying and using such software. Ultimately, we have no control over how they perform the work anyway…” The Satyam situation is a classic example of why it behooves end-customers to actually purchase and own IP related to process automation software, rather than deferring it to the IT services partner. By having process IP defined within a software platform that the customer owns, it makes it conceivable to switch contractors and/or IT services firms. If the IT services firm owns the technology deployment, the corresponding IP walks out the door with the vendor preventing the customer from getting the benefit of the embedded process knowledge.
It is advisable for the customer to have some level of control and oversight over how the work is carried out by the vendor. It is fairly commonplace for the customer to insist on use of specific tools and processes such as ticketing systems, change control mechanisms, monitoring tools and so on. The process automation engine shouldn’t be treated any different. The bottomline is, whoever has the process IP carries the biggest stick during contract renewals. If owning the technology is not feasible for the customer, at least make sure that the embedded knowledge is in a format wherein it can be retrievable and reused by the next IT services partner that replaces the current one.