Showing posts with label External. Show all posts
Showing posts with label External. Show all posts

Saturday, 13 August 2011

Choosing an IT Cloud Services Provider - Internal Or External - Top Executive Considerations


Whether you are an executive of a global enterprise or a business owner with a small IT team of at least 2 people, the pressure is on. Your organization needs to cut costs and boost service levels. You want to be a champion for your team -- to be a leader in maximizing rewards and minimizing risks. To do so, you must be thoughtful about focusing your internal resources on core competencies - the key drivers that most greatly differentiate your organization from others in your industry. And, you must be honest about when and where it makes sense to apply leverage using outside resources and/or new technologies or processes to give your organization the greatest advantages - the best foundation for supporting your core competencies.

Once you accept this mission, how do you execute it successfully?

The following brief presumes you have already identified suspect activities that merit further scrutiny regarding considering internal and/or external service providers. After this shortlist is identified, it is time to consider alternatives for the scope of services that you may want from service providers.

Preparing services scope alternatives

The extent of services and their comprising activities that are to be included in providers' proposals are called the scope of work, or scope. Consider that there are many alternatives, ranging from all-encompassing holistic scope down to scope which is highly sub-divided into key activities and/or augmentations. Key variables to consider are:

o Who is Responsible? Which provider has primary, secondary and/or tertiary responsibilities for each activity, depending on the degree of contribution and/or impact of their actions?

o Support Frequencies? How often will services be required? For example: One-time, Periodic (Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Annually), and/or Stream (on-going)

o Where Operated? At which site(s) will services be provided? Internal Site(s); Vendor Site(s); 3rd party Site(s)

o Key Service Levels? What are the key performance and/or timeliness metrics that will govern the services? Are remedies (including penalties) expected if actual results fall below agreed levels? Are incentives available for over-achieving targets? Remember to keep a good balance -- as few and as simple metrics as possible to allow assuring performance and enabling flexibility.

o Burdened adders? External service providers must effectively include costs in their proposals that may have been missed by internal service providers in their proposals. Due to such oversights, significant benefits have been lost in leveraging external resources. For successful comparisons, you must look beyond only employee salaries. Be complete in considering all burdened cost adders that will impact your organization, such as: overtime, benefits, management, training, support, facilities, furniture, computers, communications, administration, corporate allocations and other important operating and/or capital costs. Consider where to 'move' burdens when thinking about services scope alternatives, to place these to maximize your organization's advantages.

You can easily see how providers' proposal costs will vary dramatically depending on these and other key variables. Ideally, your cost accounting should align in a manner allowing clear and equitable comparisons. This will save you lots of time in the long run. You also need to be thoughtful in comparing service providers' proposals to assure you understand these nuances for each proposal.

Prudent, knowledgeable service providers will shy away from scope alternatives where they cannot execute effectively or efficiently enough to assure success, and/or only agree to 'reasonable efforts' towards service level targets until they have time to understand the environment and apply their value to it.

Service providers will also shy away from scope alternatives that have too much risk for expending unplanned resources to deal with problems originating from scope beyond their responsibilities -- even if there are seemingly clear terms for charging for additional time and materials. The big challenge here is in view of technology, process and people inter-dependencies. In the real world, it can take much time and expense to successfully diagnose problems and attribute responsibilities. As a result, experienced service providers may avoid such scope alternatives entirely. Be mindful of service providers who are not cautious about this, since it may indicate their proposals contain higher levels of risks for you.

From a risk assessment and mitigation standpoint, thoroughly think through your services scope alternatives presuming finger-pointing scenarios could occur between providers. Which scope alternatives avoid or minimize the chance of these scenarios? Which scope alternatives minimize and/or quickly resolve unwanted impacts and costs if finger-pointing does occur?

Another area requiring thought is identifying volume drivers that closely correlate to activity costs. All good service providers - internal or external - must have identified the key variables or drivers for managing and charging for the resources they deliver. Forecasts for these volumes will need to be agreed upon, ideally in a manner that aligns with your organization's business growth scenarios. Billing and/or charge-back plans will most likely depend on these estimates.

As you prepare your scope alternatives, also consider the timing of what is needed. What scope do you envision needing in the next 3- to 12-months, and beyond? What scope additions or subtractions may be required in the future -- say in the next 12- to 36-months?

Explore what is happening in industry via industry associations, your network of colleagues, benchmarking and/or consultants. These are among the strategies for gaining and/or confirming the good and not-so-good outcomes before you act.

After completing all the work described above, you will be better positioned to understand and communicate the scope of work alternatives being considered, and to more easily and quickly compare internal and external service providers' proposals.

In this business era, an important approach towards achieving significant benefits is by working with internal and/or external service providers who are embracing Cloud Computing concepts. If they are not being proactive about Cloud Computing, then will they be prepared for the dynamic changes that have already started?

Cloud Computing - Why the Hype?

A good definition of and introduction to Cloud Computing is provided by Wikipedia. Just type "Cloud Computing".

My view of Cloud Computing is that it is a paradigm for intrinsically incorporating hardware + software + communications + operations + other technologies together as an integrated holistic solution.

Typically, the following benefits are expected with Cloud Computing:

o Dramatic CapEx and OpEx savings & quick ROI versus more 'traditional' approaches -- much less spend

o Dramatically better scalability, flexibility, accessibility, performance, etc -- much better "bang"

o Dramatic alignment of service levels & related costs to user-groups -- better alignment & control

I have observed all these benefits, including conservative savings as high as 55%. The perceived savings may have been even higher if the comparisons were truly equitable. With 30% to 55% savings... plus much-enhanced service levels and alignment... Cloud Computing solutions easily command executives' attention. Hence, there is a lot of focus and discussion about cloud-based solutions.

The challenge with Cloud Computing is there are many inter-dependencies and nuances that must be considered with these approaches. Different vendors are taking different paths, as they evolve their existing offerings to be increasingly cloud-oriented. Some of these offerings are still relatively immature. Industry associations are working to establish standards and common vernaculars regarding technologies and processes - I'd say the telecommunications industry is leading in this regard. However, some changes that are occurring across all industries are still quite dramatic and sometimes not without bugs. Prudent executives are cautious about making investments where there are higher chances for change and therefore where risks or mis-investments are greater.

However, there are very practical (low-risk) opportunities enabling executives to act now with strong ROI and service level advantages -- either via internal providers leveraging cloud-based technologies and/or with the help of external providers.

Are you prepared to compare internal and external providers?

Do you understand your organization's:

o Top suspect activities to be scrutinized?

o Scope Alternatives?

o Accurate costs - and related volumes and forecasts?

o Target benefits?

o Possible added costs and risks?

If you have this understanding, then you are ready to engage in comparing internal and/or external service providers.

The high degree of complexity, extreme cost competitiveness, expectation of high service levels and dynamic change is forcing key transformations to occur. For you to be successful, as your organization's champion, you must apply leverage - taking advantage of scale and expertise -- when and where it makes sense. However, there are many providers from which to choose. How will you compare these internal and external providers?

A Trusted Provider - Look for their 'Deeds to Speak'

Like the old adage, "deeds speak louder than words", whether it's an internal or external provider, it's up to you to see through the marketing, sales, good intentions and other less-well-intended smoke to focus on their deeds -- their behaviors.

Of course, tangible savings are a large part of your decision. Most executives look for at least a 20% reduction in overall related expenses per annum. I have personally led selling services projects which delivered as much as 30% and upwards of 55% savings in expenses during the first year alone -- while also delivering significant service level advantages. I'd say that huge competitive advantages were delivered. My clients were able to re-mix internal resources to focus on core competencies that drove greater client-visible differentiations. Also, clients avoided adding resources and/or saved their existing high-contributor resources from leaving or cracking under the huge pressure being endured as incremental pressures had built-up over time. By the way, high levels of overtime and/or increasing frequencies and magnitude of service level impacts are key indicators of burn-out conditions, and these are important quantitative costs to consider as well.

However, what about the 'intangible' parts of your decision? There are vital clues about the relationship cost you may experience with your internal or external service provider. These are important aspects to consider - certainly pertaining to risk mitigation and which may sooner or later significantly impact tangible results. This is especially important when the quantitative aspects of different service providers' proposals match up in a similar manner.

What follows is a brief sketch of intangible qualities - the key behaviors -- to consider and compare.

The key objective - assess your prospective providers. Are they trustworthy for delivering game-changing advantages for today, tomorrow and beyond? Key indicators are described below.

A continuous commitment to excellence -- including integrity, best value, flexibility and responsiveness / proactivity. What is the provider's corporate conscience? Several key behaviors to observe are:

o Do their deeds consistently match their words?

o Do they demonstrate a consultative approach?

o Do they offer proof points of proactive industry leadership?

Thought Leadership. Does the provider demonstrate that they grasp the direction of business and technology? In the cloud computing era, if they are not focused on the future, how will they continue to be at least competitive and at best industry-leading in the coming months and years as dynamic changes occur? Several key behaviors to observe are:

o Solid understanding of current and emerging concepts.

o Do they have cross-silo (hardware, software, communications, services, etc) connections with industry leaders?

o Connection with industry changes. What are their perspectives?

Practical Leadership. Even more important than thought leadership, how well does the provider execute? Do they deliver practical excellence in savings and service levels - today? Are they proactive, or only respond when challenged? Several key behaviors to observe are:

o Multiple IT vendors are supported (hardware, software, communications, services)

o Breadth of services and depth of functional know-how that they deliver.

o Security and aligned segregation of duties and/or information.

o Current clients in the same disciplines you are considering. Or, in cases of new offerings, what is their track record for other clients? Ideally, client referrals. Ideally, from well-recognized, notable clients.

o Industry recognition for performance and/or support.

o Quick and disciplined processes that incorporate quality assurance.

Quickness and ease of doing business. An important sub-set of practical leadership is how quick and easy is it to do business with the provider and/or for the provider to adapt to changing needs and/or competition. Several key behaviors to observe are:

o Flexible scope options: support frequency, who runs the infrastructure, where does the infrastructure reside. o Flexible support options (worldwide, country, region, local)

o Flexible Quality of Services that align with your user groups' requirements.

o Flexible menus and charges.

o Consistent governance and billing / charge-backs.

o Attentiveness that you will receive. What percentage of the provider's business would this project represent? o Transitions - Time and Costs - during both start-up and wind-down phases.

Key Personnel. If the provider's key people are not strong in exhibiting good behaviors, then how will their team continue to stay the course in delivering a competitive edge? Assess the following people:

o Leadership Management

o Solution champion ('seller')

o Architect / Solution Designer

o Account Executive / Delivery Executive

o Consultants and Delivery Specialists

o Project Manager

There are many behaviors to observe. Those that are described above are only a short list. In general, any warning signs that pop up of course merits additional exploration. On the other hand, providers who demonstrate good behaviors in all these areas deserve additional consideration. As a top executive, you will have to apply thoughtful judgment for weighting the quantitative and qualitative characteristics in a manner that best suits your organization's goals.

It's time for you to take action

In the cloud computing era, you must evaluate how to optimize and best align your organization to differentiate its offerings to clients while taking the best advantage of leveraging internal and external service providers' scale and expertise. To be most successful, you need to consider more than quantitative savings - as vital as these are. You need to also consider how your organization's providers' will perform over time.

The most successful internal and/or external service providers for today and tomorrow will likely be those who demonstrate key qualitative behaviors. The behaviors that should resonate through their leaders, key personnel and throughout their whole team include: commitment to excellence, thought leadership, practical leadership, and ease of doing business. These behaviors are described more fully in the above brief. As the executive champion for your organization, observing these behaviors will give you a vital edge in thoughtfully comparing service provider alternatives and in facilitating the best decisions.

About The Author:




Lance Gattoni invites enterprising executives who are interested in his services to send an email to: lance.gattoni@gmail.com

His services include consulting engagements and/or where the alignment is strong he is currently available for fulfilling a key career position on your team. Either way, by adding him to complement your team, you will be the sponsor for quickly driving collaborative innovations and achievements that make a difference.





This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Friday, 8 July 2011

Business Exit Strategies - Internal Transfers Versus External Transfers


Most business owners believe that an 'external' sale of their business is their only (or at least best) Exit Alternative. Typically this is because business owners know that their employees and/or fellow family members don't have the type of money required to secure a successful exit plan for them. So often times, business owners approach (view or see) the topic of Exiting a business as meaning that they need to sell their business to an outside buyer with enough money to pay them what they want.

So while an 'external' sale is intuitively appealing, it's my experience that an understanding of 'internal' transfers will help open up a very good dialogue with a business owner so that they can understand all their options and make a well informed decision. In fact, analysis of an 'internal' transfer of the business can be a powerful alternative to a business owner looking for an Exit Strategy. And, depending upon the business owner's motives, it may be the best alternative available.

'Internal' transfers of ownership in a business are often times overlooked because they are not intuitively understood by the business owner and/or the business owner's advisors. So let's examine some of the 'internal' transfer methods that are available to a business owner to illustrate the benefit of a well-conceived Exit Strategy.

'Internal' transfer methods include Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP) Transfers, Management Buyouts (Sales to Family and Management), Gifting Strategies, Private Annuities, Family Limited Partnerships, and Charitable Transfer Strategies. The three (3) primary differences between these 'internal' transfer alternatives versus (and the) 'external' transfer alternatives are:


the corporate assets, including future cash flows, are leveraged to achieve these strategies;
the driving force behind these 'engineered' strategies is a business owner's motive of passing the business to someone other than an outside buyer, and;
the business owners will frequently be considering tax planning and estate planning along with their Exit Strategies. 'Internal' transfers, as a general rule, allow for more flexibility in these areas than 'external' transfers.
A business owner considering an 'internal' transfer can set the price and terms for the transfer and say to their family and/or management team, "Here is what I want/need for my business". For this reason, 'internal' transfers are often referred to as 'controlled' transactions because the business owner is working with 'assets' that they already possess in structuring their Exit from the business. So if those 'assets' are sufficient to achieve that business owners' goals (based on their motives), then it is worthwhile to examine an 'internal' transfer.

This is in sharp contrast to a business owner attempting an 'external' transfer because they are often subject to a process that includes outsiders investigating their potential investment in the 'Target Company' and then telling the business owners, "Here is what we are willing to give you for your business". So, the Exiting business owner can expect to lose quite a bit of control over the process. And, because many business owners possess a unique psychological mix of independence, intelligence and control orientation, losing control to an outside buyer often leads to 'choppiness' in a deal.

Mergers and Acquisitions professionals will often advise business owners that if the business owner wants to set the price for the deal, then the outside buyer will be setting the terms for the deal. A deal is struck when each party is 'equally happy'. Or, as one dealmaker said, every successful 'external' deal is a "little miracle".

So, one will naturally ask, "What's the downside of an 'internal' transfer versus an 'external' transfer"? Quite simply, negotiating with family members and key employees can be inherently dangerous. These individuals (and their advisors) will require detailed and confidential information from the business owner in order to fully understand all the risks inherent in owning the business - really no different than the 'external' buyer. And of course, most business owners are not anxious to share all their information with their employees; it goes against the nature of the relationship amongst workers and owners.

So then, how does one go about negotiating an 'internal' transfer? The answer is "very carefully". And, the most cautious first step that a business owner can take is to engage an intermediary - which can be any one of the existing advisors to that business - to assist with the transaction. Having trusted advisors involved in the process raises the level of objectivity and lowers the level of emotions when negotiating the transfer.

Because, after all, if the 'internal' transfer does not work out, it will not add a lot of Value to the business to have [further] frustrated employees due to that business owner's own doing. It's easier to place blame for a failed transaction with a third party advisor so that all parties involved can amicably return to the business of running [and not transferring] the business.

Yet another downside to an 'internal' transfer is the loss of potential for extraordinary gain on the transfer. As a general rule, 'external' buyers for businesses include 'Strategic' (or industry) buyers and 'Financial' (such as Private Equity Groups) buyers.

A Strategic Buyer of a business stands to offer the selling business owner the highest total Value in buying the business because that buyer can apply 'synergies' to the valuation of the deal. In other words, a buyer who is already in the same business as the seller, can eliminate duplicate expenses and acquire new customers for their existing products. These 'synergies' help raise the Value of the transaction to the Industry buyer, and a good M&A intermediary will argue for the sharing of those synergies with the selling business owner. This synergistic value is likely not available with an 'internal' transfer.

So to summarize my original point, a business owner who wants to Exit their business should be aware of the various methods by which an Exit can be directed. Thereafter, consideration should be given to that business owner's motives. In other words, what is most important to that Exiting business owner and how can it best be accomplished?

An Exit Strategy is defined as 'The written goals for the succession of a businesses' ownership and control, derived from a well thought out and properly timed plan that considers all factors, all interested parties, and the personal goals of the owners in a manner and time period that is accommodative to the business, its shareholders, and potential buyers.' Accordingly, knowing the pros and cons of 'internal' and 'external' transfers is a critical step in establishing an Exit Strategy.

Exit Strategies are hard to design and even harder to properly execute. I am pleased that you are pursuing a pro-active interest in Exit Strategies because a pro-active approach to an Exit Strategy is the only approach to a successful Exit Strategy.

© 2007 John M. Leonetti




Specializing in Business Exit Strategies, John M. Leonetti, Esq., M.S. Finance, CM&AA founded Pinnacle Equity Solutions to provide exit strategy planning services to business owners as well as education and training programs for professionsal advisors. To learn more about John's Exit Strategy Services and his recently published book, "Exiting Your Business, Protecting Your Wealth", visit ExitingYourBusiness.com



This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.