Note: You are experiencing only the raw content of this site, without the intended layout and design. Either your browser has ignored the Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) files for this site, or you are using an outdated browser which does not support Web Standards. Learn more.

Home « Blogs

EDS' Next Big Thing Blog: Read and Respond to What the EDS Fellows Say About Technology

Read and respond to what the EDS Fellows have to say about the future of technology on EDS' Next Big Thing Blog on eds.com.

Getting Innovation from an Outsourcer

by Charlie Bess

I was reading an article in CIO titled What Does It Take to Get IT Outsourcers to Innovate? and it resonated well with my experience. One of the quotes pointing out an overlooked opportunity was:

“Give the outsourcer a position in your organization so that they can understand what’s going on in your business and give them the opportunity to earn that $4 million by coming up with innovative project ideas” from Ed Hansen, partner in law firm Morgan Lewis.

Many times relationships are commoditized to the point where this kind of discussion never takes place and very operationally focused people manage the relationship on both sides and real business value can be difficult to generate.

Another item discussed is the SLA trap. There needs to be some balance between innovation and operations. Granted everyone “wants it all”, but as organizations innovate there will be disruption. Operations focused personnel are reluctant to do anything that disrupts service levels. That’s where ITIL processes around change management can be used to make the implications of those changes active decisions and not passive ones. Having the outsourcer more aware and involved in the business means they’ll understand issues like: retailers don’t like to make changes between Halloween and New Years… these change window issues differ by industry and organization and the support team needs to be close enough to the problem to understand the risks.

After all, it’s what happens after the ink dries that really matters on both sides of the table. The relationship should develop into a partnership where ideas and concerns flow freely. Once it hits the slippery slope of a “vendor” relationship, it will be difficult to gain that ground back for both parties.

I’ve written about outsourcing and innovation in the past, and still thought the CIO article as useful addition.  There was also some analysis from Cutter on Multisourcing that missed some of the points made in the CIO article. Hopefully, those will be included in their future analysis.

Published Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:32 PM

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

# Posted by Charlie Bess Saturday, October 13, 2007 4:22 PM

There are a few actions that service providers have to take;

1) Find out what's important to the organization and the market they live in. It needs to be relevant to the business, not just IT.

2) Be open an honest -- if the vendor feels they are being put in a box where they can’t innovate. Talk about it.

3) Understand the culture – you can’t force innovation down someone’s throat. Tailor it to meet the needs of the organization.

4) Deliver – if you don’t deliver, no one will be interested in your innovative ideas.

EDS had a whole edition of its alliances magazine Synnovation dedicated to this topic:

http://www.eds.com/services/alliances/agility/synnovation/issues/issue4.aspx

# Posted by David Scott Lewis Saturday, October 20, 2007 2:00 AM

Innovation from an outsourcer like EDS is different than innovation from an outsourcer like Infosys, which in turn is different than innovation from an outsourcer like Startech, which is also different than innovation from a firm like a dot cn outsourcer (i.e., yet another China-based outsourcing firm).

Also, how is innovation being defined?  People like to think that they're innovative; in fact, they're usually not.  To my point:  I haven't seen anything covered in CIO magazine that I would consider as truly innovative.  Even Computerworld's emerging technologies weekly more often than not features marginally innovative technologies, not truly innovative technologies.

So, how does one really slice and dice this question?  Is there core IP being developed?  Is a technology being implemented that gives a company a sustainable competitive advantage (not just a flash in the pan advantage)?  But is a firm also reaching too far, playing in the realm of science fiction rather than technology fact?  Or, wasting time on something that doesn't have legs (e.g., Second Life)?

In other words, I'd consider SL as innovative, but totally ridiculous and a waste of time, especially for corporations.  (For IBM, SL might really be nothing more than a little experiment.  It's hardly core to IBM's business.)

Bottom line:  What is truly innovative?  Does it have core IP?  Does it provide a sustainable competitive advantage?  Is it grounded in technology fact rather than science fiction?  Has the innovation crossed the chasm or will it in the near future?  These are the questions that I'd ask.  And, of course, the most important question:  Which problem(s) is the innovation trying to solve?  Technology for its own sake might work for DARPA (actually, it does work for DARPA -- but this is basic research), but doesn't have much chance in most corporate settings.

# Posted by Charlie Bess Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:34 PM

Innovation is in the eye of the beholder. In the case off deliverying a service to a client, it's the client vote that counts.

Post a New Comment

: required  
required  
optional
required  
Please only click Submit once.

Subscribe to EDS RSS Feeds

I would like to receive the EDS Newsletter