And a little book called Moneyball
Following up from my last post, I gave my second blog a little time to think itself through. For some reason, I kept thinking about this book while I was listening to Professor Fader's ideas. That set me off on another line of thought. What is marketing research all about? The professor kept talking about the value of conventional wisdom and using information more effectively. Perhaps a few innovators in baseball have hit upon the answer. So, without much further ado, let me introduce the reader to the book using the omnipresent Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=438445). Here you can find a pretty succinct summary of the book. The core of the book to me, however, is the essence of innovative marketing research.
Every industry has its own conventional wisdom. Take, for instance, the motion picture industry. Traditional wisdom says that movies should be released on Fridays so that they can benefit from the weekend crowd. While this might have held true in times when the average movie-goer went to work 5 days a week and looked for some Friday night entertainment, but will this theory change if we had flexible working hours? Is the pre-release on Wednesdays and Thursdays an attempt to get an early edge? Is it the reflection of an extended weekend? Do these rules apply equally in the summer? I don't have a definitive answer, but I just know that the new trend certainly isn't conventional wisdom.
Baseball, too, suffers from its multitude of opinions. What Billy Beane and his crew did was to challenge opinions using statistically-backed stats. For example, they found that a college player's chance of making it in the big leagues is way greater than a high school player's odds. This flies in the face of traditional baseball thinking - but is validated by research! This allowed a middle of the pack team like the A's (when it came to budget) to run with organizations like the cash-rich Yankees or the Red Sox who in the past have simply shelled out exorbitant cash for the best established players.
I am sure marketing researchers at this point are smiling to themselves. Haven't we all faced some brand manager who seems to believe that her brand is premium despite all evidence to the contrary? Or that TV advertising still generates 15% incremental sales for a mature CPG product?
To me, the professor's theories, the book and the current state of marketing research all point in the same direction. Research is useless if it is only used to validate conventional wisdom. True value in research is driven by finding previously undiscovered nuggets - and not by doing the tried and tested.
Wading Through A Deluge of Recession Pricing Advice
Over the past year or so a lot of advice has come out from business thought leaders about recessionary pricing strategies. Below are three articles from what are considered to be well-regarded sources:
INSEAD: When to push the panic button?
Harvard Business School: Marketing Your Way Through a Recession
McKinsey: Pricing in an inflationary downturn
Although there's a lot of valuable advice in these perspectives, it is surprising that some of these studies propose a one-size-fits-all approach to recessionary pricing.
Sorry to burst the bubble, but the consumer decision process is not that simple. For instance the INSEAD article proposes that consumers are not more price sensitive during a recession, the extra sensitiveness shown during recessionary times is attributed to income smoothing and advices firms to focus on share of customer wallet rather than share of market. Good advice, but while it is great to focus on share of wallet, share of market ultimately determines the financial performance corporate stakeholders will be evaluated on. Share of wallet as a metric is focused on retention(up-selling and cross-selling). While retention is critical, acquisition is important too in driving growth. Market-share is a more wholesome metric that takes into account performance of both retention and acquisition activities, especially if the firm is in a growing category, where acquisition could be a greater determinant of performance than retention. On the other hand for mature industries, retention would certainly be more important. This highlights the perils of subscribing to generic strategies.
Another frequent advice I have come across is to not take a perceived increase in price sensitiveness during economic downturns as a signal to aggressive pricing strategies that may lead to unprofitable price wars. That is all good, but game theory suggests that in multi-competitor industries, you will always have a player that will try to increase their payoff by defecting and using aggressive pricing strategies to garner market shares. In this case should you take the higher road and trust in your customer loyalty or protect your market-share?
The Harvard article scores on a few points, for instance Advice #6 is to "Adjust Pricing Tactics"- some good nuggets of wisdom here, but #3 "Maintain Marketing Spending" is no all that realistic. Margin pressures inevitably result in budget cuts.
The McKinsey article actually has some pretty good advice on how research steps that can help fine tune pricing strategy, without actually trying to generalize findings. I especially liked these:
Monitor customer-level profitability
Update price sensitivity research
Monitor your industry’s microeconomics
Consumers reaction to pricing in recessions is not generic across all of their purchases. For instance, if a Brand is in a category with relatively low product differentiation, price discounting could forever forfeit brand premium, while Brands in categories with higher product differentiation can actually leverage pricing without damaging longer term equity. Also for service-based industries, brands can drive longer-term market-share by lowering price and locking in customers over a longer-period. Ultimately the key thing to remember is that when it comes to pricing strategy- one size certainly doesn't fit all.
INSEAD: When to push the panic button?
Harvard Business School: Marketing Your Way Through a Recession
McKinsey: Pricing in an inflationary downturn
Although there's a lot of valuable advice in these perspectives, it is surprising that some of these studies propose a one-size-fits-all approach to recessionary pricing.
Sorry to burst the bubble, but the consumer decision process is not that simple. For instance the INSEAD article proposes that consumers are not more price sensitive during a recession, the extra sensitiveness shown during recessionary times is attributed to income smoothing and advices firms to focus on share of customer wallet rather than share of market. Good advice, but while it is great to focus on share of wallet, share of market ultimately determines the financial performance corporate stakeholders will be evaluated on. Share of wallet as a metric is focused on retention(up-selling and cross-selling). While retention is critical, acquisition is important too in driving growth. Market-share is a more wholesome metric that takes into account performance of both retention and acquisition activities, especially if the firm is in a growing category, where acquisition could be a greater determinant of performance than retention. On the other hand for mature industries, retention would certainly be more important. This highlights the perils of subscribing to generic strategies.
Another frequent advice I have come across is to not take a perceived increase in price sensitiveness during economic downturns as a signal to aggressive pricing strategies that may lead to unprofitable price wars. That is all good, but game theory suggests that in multi-competitor industries, you will always have a player that will try to increase their payoff by defecting and using aggressive pricing strategies to garner market shares. In this case should you take the higher road and trust in your customer loyalty or protect your market-share?
The Harvard article scores on a few points, for instance Advice #6 is to "Adjust Pricing Tactics"- some good nuggets of wisdom here, but #3 "Maintain Marketing Spending" is no all that realistic. Margin pressures inevitably result in budget cuts.
The McKinsey article actually has some pretty good advice on how research steps that can help fine tune pricing strategy, without actually trying to generalize findings. I especially liked these:
Monitor customer-level profitability
Update price sensitivity research
Monitor your industry’s microeconomics
Consumers reaction to pricing in recessions is not generic across all of their purchases. For instance, if a Brand is in a category with relatively low product differentiation, price discounting could forever forfeit brand premium, while Brands in categories with higher product differentiation can actually leverage pricing without damaging longer term equity. Also for service-based industries, brands can drive longer-term market-share by lowering price and locking in customers over a longer-period. Ultimately the key thing to remember is that when it comes to pricing strategy- one size certainly doesn't fit all.
U.S. Economic Outlook: Bottom In Sight or Double-Dip Recession?
A quick survey of key economic indicators for the U.S. Economy may indicate that some of the downward drivers may be paring back more than expected, which could either indicate a reversal may be in the offing or we are on the brink of a double dip recession.
Durable Goods Orders: Durable Goods orders are to be released on June 24th and the consensus average is a -0.5% change. Durable Goods orders for April released on 5/28 was an upside surprise (new Orders expected 0.0% change vs. Actual 1.9%), and in April released for March were an upside surprise too (declined less than expected). If the underlying trend in Durable Goods is less negative than what economists are expecting, it may suggest that industrial production and capital spending situation may be a little bit better than expected coming up into the close of the second quarter of 2009.
Consumer Confidence & Consumer Sentiment: Both Consumer Confidence (Conference Board) and Consumer Sentiment (University of Michigan) where upside surprises (upside surprise in April too). Consumer spending is the heart of the U.S. Economy, representing 2/3rd of the economy.
Retail Sales: Although overall Retail sales were slightly below consensus, Retail Sales ex-Auto was slightly better than expected.
Inflation: May Headline Inflation rate was lower than expected, while Core Inflation came in right on the mark.
Employment: May Non Farm Employment was less negative than expected, while the Unemployment rate was slightly higher than expected. Numbers released in May for April also showed a better than expected Non-Farm Payroll situation.
Given the fact that First Quarter GDP was a little worse than Consensus expectation, the overall economic scenario painted by these indicators may suggest that a bottom could be in sight. It is too early to call a turnaround since GDP still has a negative trend, although the trend seems to be decelerating. At the very least we can expect overall 2Q to perform better than 1Q. This seems to align with Prof. Nouriel Roubini’s January prediction (first quarter 2009: -5%; second quarter 2009: -4%; third quarter 2009: -2.5%; fourth quarter 2009: -1%--adding up to a yearly real GDP growth of -3.4% for the U.S. in 2009). Although now "Dr. Doom" Roubini is raising the prospect of a Double-Dip recession, as he thinks that not everything is in alignment for a significant reversal of the recovery trend. Hopefully he is underestimating the impact of all that stimulus money or overestimating the fallout of the public debt burden, because if we are indeed looking at a Double-Dip recession, it will get a lot worse before it gets better.
Durable Goods Orders: Durable Goods orders are to be released on June 24th and the consensus average is a -0.5% change. Durable Goods orders for April released on 5/28 was an upside surprise (new Orders expected 0.0% change vs. Actual 1.9%), and in April released for March were an upside surprise too (declined less than expected). If the underlying trend in Durable Goods is less negative than what economists are expecting, it may suggest that industrial production and capital spending situation may be a little bit better than expected coming up into the close of the second quarter of 2009.
Consumer Confidence & Consumer Sentiment: Both Consumer Confidence (Conference Board) and Consumer Sentiment (University of Michigan) where upside surprises (upside surprise in April too). Consumer spending is the heart of the U.S. Economy, representing 2/3rd of the economy.
Retail Sales: Although overall Retail sales were slightly below consensus, Retail Sales ex-Auto was slightly better than expected.
Inflation: May Headline Inflation rate was lower than expected, while Core Inflation came in right on the mark.
Employment: May Non Farm Employment was less negative than expected, while the Unemployment rate was slightly higher than expected. Numbers released in May for April also showed a better than expected Non-Farm Payroll situation.
Given the fact that First Quarter GDP was a little worse than Consensus expectation, the overall economic scenario painted by these indicators may suggest that a bottom could be in sight. It is too early to call a turnaround since GDP still has a negative trend, although the trend seems to be decelerating. At the very least we can expect overall 2Q to perform better than 1Q. This seems to align with Prof. Nouriel Roubini’s January prediction (first quarter 2009: -5%; second quarter 2009: -4%; third quarter 2009: -2.5%; fourth quarter 2009: -1%--adding up to a yearly real GDP growth of -3.4% for the U.S. in 2009). Although now "Dr. Doom" Roubini is raising the prospect of a Double-Dip recession, as he thinks that not everything is in alignment for a significant reversal of the recovery trend. Hopefully he is underestimating the impact of all that stimulus money or overestimating the fallout of the public debt burden, because if we are indeed looking at a Double-Dip recession, it will get a lot worse before it gets better.
Global Warming, U.S. Economy and the GM Bailout
Why do I have these three themes in one sentence? That is because I think these could shape each other’s future with a little foresight.
Transportation is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and accounts for a third of all carbon dioxide emission in the U.S. and Canada. Governments the world over are awakening to the fact that irreversible damage is being done to the environment on a global scale, with fossil fuels one of the key culprits. If there is one line item that you are going to find in the budgets of most rational governments the world over, it is investments in clean energy including reducing auto emissions.
President Obama has already made his stance on this clear by saying he hopes to see 1 million plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles on the road by 2015. Many have called this optimistic, but I don’t think so, only that I think President Obama is being myopic in his definition of “road”. I think the U.S. can take a leadership position in the global Hybrid car industry, not just the U.S., by bringing together likeminded Governments that would like to see a reduced consumption of fossil fuels. He said “"The nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it." And I agree, but I think “$4 billion in guaranteed loans and tax credits to help U.S. automakers retool for more fuel-efficient cars and to develop batteries for plug-in hybrids that get up to 150 mpg”, is taking a passive stance on the subject. If one American revolutionized the Global Auto Industry with the Model T, no reason why another cannot shape it’s future with making Hybrid technology affordable.
The combination of increased global concern on climate change, public opinion focused on a faltering economy and the current turmoil in the U.S. auto industry provides an alignment that the President should leverage. Especially opportune is the U.S. Government’s investment resulting in controlling interest in General Motors. I have not been fond of bailouts in general, as I favor natural evolution and survival of the fittest, but in this case it could be a good thing. GM is a company that has already made significant investments in hybrid technology (although cars like the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS with a V-8 engine bring into question the GM's product development strategy and Bob Lutz's commitment to the longer term). With the might of U.S. Tax payer dollars behind it and a more active rather than a passive Taxpayer role in the Board, this company can take a global leadership role in making U.S. hybrid technology the prevailing currency across the world over the next 5-10 years. This will require the U.S. Government to evolve GM into a largely hybrid car manufacturer. From a macro perspective, this could provide a significant boost to exports in the longer term, balancing the worsening Trade Gap (sales recorded by the global hybrid vehicles market are expected to surge at a CAGR of around 12% during 2008-2015 and focusing on this growth should only enhance Taxpayers’ Return on Investment on GM).
I know from an economic perspective, to make this a profitable venture will require a lot of work. Currently hybrid technology is far from affordable- the GM Volt, which plugs into a household electric socket to charge, is slated to retail for $40,000, nearly the same price as a conventionally fueled Mercedes C Class. As technology improves, this dynamic should change significantly- just look at the Notebook computer industry. And then again this is not just about profits- developing a potentially successful U.S. Hybrid Car Industry has ramifications that will reverberate for more than a hundred years to come, in a global climate that will finally begin the healing process from generations of big-cylinder, gas-guzzling monster cars spewing CO2 into the air.
So is the Government bailout of GM a smart move? Yes- only if President Obama was serious when he was talking about “Change”. If he really is as imaginative a leader as I think he is, he will take this opportunity and score a big touchdown on all three fronts: Global Warming, U.S. Economy and the General Motors.
Transportation is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and accounts for a third of all carbon dioxide emission in the U.S. and Canada. Governments the world over are awakening to the fact that irreversible damage is being done to the environment on a global scale, with fossil fuels one of the key culprits. If there is one line item that you are going to find in the budgets of most rational governments the world over, it is investments in clean energy including reducing auto emissions.
President Obama has already made his stance on this clear by saying he hopes to see 1 million plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles on the road by 2015. Many have called this optimistic, but I don’t think so, only that I think President Obama is being myopic in his definition of “road”. I think the U.S. can take a leadership position in the global Hybrid car industry, not just the U.S., by bringing together likeminded Governments that would like to see a reduced consumption of fossil fuels. He said “"The nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it." And I agree, but I think “$4 billion in guaranteed loans and tax credits to help U.S. automakers retool for more fuel-efficient cars and to develop batteries for plug-in hybrids that get up to 150 mpg”, is taking a passive stance on the subject. If one American revolutionized the Global Auto Industry with the Model T, no reason why another cannot shape it’s future with making Hybrid technology affordable.
The combination of increased global concern on climate change, public opinion focused on a faltering economy and the current turmoil in the U.S. auto industry provides an alignment that the President should leverage. Especially opportune is the U.S. Government’s investment resulting in controlling interest in General Motors. I have not been fond of bailouts in general, as I favor natural evolution and survival of the fittest, but in this case it could be a good thing. GM is a company that has already made significant investments in hybrid technology (although cars like the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS with a V-8 engine bring into question the GM's product development strategy and Bob Lutz's commitment to the longer term). With the might of U.S. Tax payer dollars behind it and a more active rather than a passive Taxpayer role in the Board, this company can take a global leadership role in making U.S. hybrid technology the prevailing currency across the world over the next 5-10 years. This will require the U.S. Government to evolve GM into a largely hybrid car manufacturer. From a macro perspective, this could provide a significant boost to exports in the longer term, balancing the worsening Trade Gap (sales recorded by the global hybrid vehicles market are expected to surge at a CAGR of around 12% during 2008-2015 and focusing on this growth should only enhance Taxpayers’ Return on Investment on GM).
I know from an economic perspective, to make this a profitable venture will require a lot of work. Currently hybrid technology is far from affordable- the GM Volt, which plugs into a household electric socket to charge, is slated to retail for $40,000, nearly the same price as a conventionally fueled Mercedes C Class. As technology improves, this dynamic should change significantly- just look at the Notebook computer industry. And then again this is not just about profits- developing a potentially successful U.S. Hybrid Car Industry has ramifications that will reverberate for more than a hundred years to come, in a global climate that will finally begin the healing process from generations of big-cylinder, gas-guzzling monster cars spewing CO2 into the air.
So is the Government bailout of GM a smart move? Yes- only if President Obama was serious when he was talking about “Change”. If he really is as imaginative a leader as I think he is, he will take this opportunity and score a big touchdown on all three fronts: Global Warming, U.S. Economy and the General Motors.
Riding out the Recession with Lean Business Strategies
Businesses in the present economy are under pressure as the pace of revenue growth slows down to a crawl, compressing profit margins as revenues barely exceed fixed costs. Of course you can still drive growth through share gains and lower costs by targeting jobs for elimination, but when industry growth is nonexistent, your competitors will protect market-share fighting tooth and nail. Also there’s only so many jobs that can be eliminated without cutting into the core of the organization. Here are some measures that can be taken to tighten the organizational belt and drive austerity within the organization- some old ideas and some new.
Internal Impact: Reinforce your core and increase operational agility
Drive Operational Efficiency:
Leverage matrix relationships and pool resources across functional groups. Also evaluate the opportunity of creating smaller multifunctional “SWAT” teams that can rapidly deployed to tackle complex one-time assignments across the organization. Protect cash reserves to compensate for credit paucity during recessions- don’t over-leverage. Acquisitions may seem very attractive during recessions as valuations are low, but acquisitions add a lot of burden on the company in the integration process during a time when corporate energy needs to be conserved- bite only as much as you can chew!
Focus on competitive advantage:
Every firm at some point started with some competitive advantage that enabled them to enter a market effectively and when times get tough, it becomes critical to leverage this inherent expertise. This also offers the surest opportunity for growth- by simply taking your competitive advantage to newer markets, rather than trying to get into markets where you have peripheral or no expertise. Bring the game to where you have an advantage.
Streamline your Product Portfolio:
Innovation is critical to growth, but depending upon the industry, only about 30% of all innovations have the ability to drive incremental growth (without cannibalizing core business). New product trials to identify successful innovations consume precious resources that are critical to corporate health during tough economic times. Plants are masters at evolving through tough environmental conditions and provide us a valuable lesson in growth- you can only grow if you survive. In bad weather, plants conserve resources and do not produce flowers, fruits or seeds. These are critical for it’s proliferation, but consume precious energy in producing, which is better used in staying alive. Take a realistic look at your innovation portfolio, rank them by short-term probability of success and take the top 25% or fewer to trial.
Enhance existing product features:
Leverage customer data and market research to understand what product features are the most valuable to customers and enhance core portfolio. Remember when resources are scarce then innovation needs to be efficient.
External Impact
Maximize Customer Value Proposition
Understand what customer need your product serves and try to maximize the product’s ability to serve that need. This goal determines the focus of internal impacts 2, 3 and 4 above. For instance if functional benefits are the primary need your product serves then minimize packaging and other peripheral costs and increase the functional offering. If quality not quantity is the key benefit your customer derives out of your product, then quantity not quality is what needs to be adjusted to protect margins.
Retention rather than acquisition focus
In most industries, acquisition costs are very high and there is a net negative cash flow of replacing an existing customer with a new customer when factoring these acquisition costs. If there is a moderate to high degree of customer turnover, your marketing dollars are better spent on retention rather than acquisition.
Protect core market
Your core market segment and is what drives your main cash flow and your core customers are the most loyal. It is easy to take this for granted as corporate leaders focus on making their mark on newer areas of growth, but when faced with economically challenging times, the castle needs to be protected from competitive incursions. This is also your most familiar grounds from which to weather out economic storms.
Satisfy broader range of existing customer needs
This is probably the lowest hanging fruit and also the most important in all of your external opportunities available. During economic hardships every single of your customers are trying to stretch their dollars and if there are innovation opportunities available to fulfill multiple customer needs with fewer products, these should be capitalized.
Internal Impact: Reinforce your core and increase operational agility
Drive Operational Efficiency:
Leverage matrix relationships and pool resources across functional groups. Also evaluate the opportunity of creating smaller multifunctional “SWAT” teams that can rapidly deployed to tackle complex one-time assignments across the organization. Protect cash reserves to compensate for credit paucity during recessions- don’t over-leverage. Acquisitions may seem very attractive during recessions as valuations are low, but acquisitions add a lot of burden on the company in the integration process during a time when corporate energy needs to be conserved- bite only as much as you can chew!
Focus on competitive advantage:
Every firm at some point started with some competitive advantage that enabled them to enter a market effectively and when times get tough, it becomes critical to leverage this inherent expertise. This also offers the surest opportunity for growth- by simply taking your competitive advantage to newer markets, rather than trying to get into markets where you have peripheral or no expertise. Bring the game to where you have an advantage.
Streamline your Product Portfolio:
Innovation is critical to growth, but depending upon the industry, only about 30% of all innovations have the ability to drive incremental growth (without cannibalizing core business). New product trials to identify successful innovations consume precious resources that are critical to corporate health during tough economic times. Plants are masters at evolving through tough environmental conditions and provide us a valuable lesson in growth- you can only grow if you survive. In bad weather, plants conserve resources and do not produce flowers, fruits or seeds. These are critical for it’s proliferation, but consume precious energy in producing, which is better used in staying alive. Take a realistic look at your innovation portfolio, rank them by short-term probability of success and take the top 25% or fewer to trial.
Enhance existing product features:
Leverage customer data and market research to understand what product features are the most valuable to customers and enhance core portfolio. Remember when resources are scarce then innovation needs to be efficient.
External Impact
Maximize Customer Value Proposition
Understand what customer need your product serves and try to maximize the product’s ability to serve that need. This goal determines the focus of internal impacts 2, 3 and 4 above. For instance if functional benefits are the primary need your product serves then minimize packaging and other peripheral costs and increase the functional offering. If quality not quantity is the key benefit your customer derives out of your product, then quantity not quality is what needs to be adjusted to protect margins.
Retention rather than acquisition focus
In most industries, acquisition costs are very high and there is a net negative cash flow of replacing an existing customer with a new customer when factoring these acquisition costs. If there is a moderate to high degree of customer turnover, your marketing dollars are better spent on retention rather than acquisition.
Protect core market
Your core market segment and is what drives your main cash flow and your core customers are the most loyal. It is easy to take this for granted as corporate leaders focus on making their mark on newer areas of growth, but when faced with economically challenging times, the castle needs to be protected from competitive incursions. This is also your most familiar grounds from which to weather out economic storms.
Satisfy broader range of existing customer needs
This is probably the lowest hanging fruit and also the most important in all of your external opportunities available. During economic hardships every single of your customers are trying to stretch their dollars and if there are innovation opportunities available to fulfill multiple customer needs with fewer products, these should be capitalized.
"Wal-Mart-esq" Marketing Strategy at Hyundai Motors?
I just saw the Hyundai ad that offers to buy back your new Hyundai if within a year of purchase you lose your job- talk about making best out of the situation! They were already pushing the best value for your money line- but this is quite a bold move that for the time-being stands head and shoulders above the rest of the "economic downturn? we are here to rescue" pitches. If it doesn't burn a hole in their pockets, this should bode well for their brand equity. On the flip-side, Hyundai taking back my new car will ease the pressure of making payments, but now I will not only be jobless but also car-less.
Honda, Toyota: this is your opportunity to outdo those smarty-pants at Hyundai Marketing- make a counter-offer of also throwing in a free loaner for those job interviews (you can thank me in cash for this free tip).
Honda, Toyota: this is your opportunity to outdo those smarty-pants at Hyundai Marketing- make a counter-offer of also throwing in a free loaner for those job interviews (you can thank me in cash for this free tip).
KDnuggets: Analytic Outsourcing Review: Dude, Where's My Analysis?
[Published on KDNuggets on Dec 6, 2008: https://www.kdnuggets.com/news/2008/n23/21i.html]
Analytic outsourcing has come into prominence in recent years with the growing independence of the KPO (Knowledge Process Outsourcing) segment of the BPO (Business Process Outsourcing) market as an independent sector of its own right. The multi-billion dollar KPO market in India is dominated by both established names in consulting and outsourcing as well as some newer players. Firms like Evalueserve (www.evalueserve.com), Genpact (www.genpact.com), McKinsey & Co (mckinsey.com) and Accenture (accenture.com) are leading the pack in this sector, while traditional BPO companies like TCS, Wipro, Infosys, WNS and EXL are also making a push into this sector, driven by the higher margins in KPO projects. Other countries such as China, Russia, Poland, the Philippines and Hungary are also ambitiously pursuing KPO opportunities, but India still has the lion's share of the global KPO market.
With the prolific outsourcing of more and more analytic functions to external vendors, it becomes important to understand the ramifications of the decision to outsource analytics to onshore or offshore units (either captive or independent) for companies vs. conducting it in-house. Let's first of all understand why this decision is very different from other types of outsourcing.
Differentiating a Business Process vs. Knowledge Process from an Outsourcing Perspective
Business Process Outsourcing entails taking a routine business process that is consistently repeatable, follows standard industry procedures and doesn't require client-vendor interaction on a regular basis and outsourcing it to an external entity. Knowledge Process Outsourcing on the other hand entails processes that are not consistently repeatable, do not necessarily have standard industry norms of execution, require more frequent client-vendor interaction and require a high degree of custom expertise that doesn't necessarily form the curriculum of standard business education. An additional point of difference is that BPO projects contain modules that can be separated and assigned to different entities with much more ease than KPO projects, especially analytic projects where modules are exponentially more integrated. KPO projects also have higher visibility within C-level stakeholders at end-clients than BPO projects.
Is Analytic Outsourcing For You?
There are several factors to be considered in evaluating the decision to outsource analytics vs. retaining it in-house:
- Access to or ability to assimilate analytic talent in-house
- Ability to constantly update in-house talent with latest analytic developments and techniques
- Availability of necessary data in-house and capability to organize it
- Financial Cost vs. benefit of conducting analytic research in-house
- Risks from outsourcing research function
- Advantage of third-party unbiased opinion and access to industry best-practices available to external vendors
With all the opportunities for efficiency, there are a few strategic disadvantages being overlooked by several business organizations that have outsourced a significant amount of their analytics to offshore entities. For instance, analytic projects often have the tendency to yield corollary business insights that may not have been the original goal of the analysis. The persons and entities within the organization may be the most qualified to identify and leverage such opportunities, compared to external vendors. This is especially important to firms where innovation is a critical part of the business model.
Long-term Outlook
The proliferation of analytic outsourcing is inevitable in the long-term, as firms try to focus on their core competitive advantage and leverage comparable yet cheaper talent in offshore markets. At the same time active firms that do not outsource the entire analytic process but manage to retain insight generation at a strategic level should prove to have somewhat of an edge over passive firms that outsource the entire analytic insight generation process. This will especially be an advantage during turning-points in industry and shifts in economic cycles and trends, which will require a deep understanding of all facets of the business and a rapid development and execution of appropriate strategic changes. Also the best KPO firms to partner with will be the ones that do not follow a "black-box" approach to analytics, but are willing to allow some level of scrutiny to their process (of course within the limits of Intellectual Property protection constraints)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)