Roundtable - Shared Services & Outsourcing in Latin America

It might not yet have the same profile as South Asia or Eastern Europe, but Latin America is becoming an increasingly popular destination for organizations looking to establish shared service centers, either serving domestic markets or as part of regional or even global shared services strategies. Furthermore, along with this growth in the captive sector Latin America has become the focus of growing interest on the part of major outsourcing providers whose entry into the market has had knock-on consequences across the board. Throw into this already-volatile mix the current economic instability and it's easy to see why the region's activity is making waves across and beyond the shared services and outsourcing space in 2009.

We convened a panel representing practitioners, providers and advisors to take a look at the current level of maturity of the Latin American market and to examine how - and if - the economic malaise affecting much of the rest of the global economy is impacting upon operations in the region.

Attending were:

Laura Bao Castro

CR FSSC Controller

Intel Corporation

Esteban Carril

Director, Latin America Finance Operations

EMC Corporation

Mauro Mezzano

Partner

Vantaz Group Consulting

Ricardo Neves

PwC Global Sourcing Leader for South America

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Q: I think the first question we should look at is: is it right to talk of "Latin American shared services" at all? Latin America is a very big region geographically and in terms of population; it's got a smaller linguistic diversity than, for example, Europe, but there are still very big differences between, say, Brazil and Costa Rica. To what extent is it actually possible for organizations - captive or BPO - to take a truly regional approach in Latin America? Is it impossible to avoid having significant resources in individual countries?

Ricardo Neves: This is a region different from other regions in the world. If you talk about intra-region services, you're talking about two major languages which are, in some ways, close to each other; you have also a closeness of overall culture; and usually what you see with multinational or regional operations here is that the larger countries like Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Chile correspond to a significant size of the operations. Usually if you look at most of the global or multinational companies in the region, they have 50% or even 75% of their operations carried out in two or three countries at most - and then 10, 12 other countries where they do have operations but which make up only 25% or less of their business.

This gives a challenge when setting up a regional center, because there is a scale for the larger countries which is not present in the smaller ones - and what I've seen here is a mix between totally centrally run shared services and a lesser local presence in smaller countries to make sure the right scale is achieved and the right support is done at the regional level. There are companies based in Brazil that I've seen who have regional shared services - like the brewer AmBev, now connected with InBev and AnhauserBusch, which has a very large regional shared services based in Sao Paulo serving not just operations in the region, but also the firm's operations in Canada for the Labatt operations. Unilever has also set up an HR shared services - and has just sold its finance shared services to Capgemini in the region.

In sum, from those large operations that I've seen, as I said I've seen a mix of some centralised services and some small countries with local services combined.

Esteban Carril: We're serving Argentina, Chile, Peru, Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, and Brazil. My team is divided into three functional areas, in two countries. One team is working in Sao Paulo, Brazil; the other two functional teams are working here in Argentina. We run accounts payable, accounts receivable, credit and collections, billing, cash applications, payroll, commissions and bonuses. It's actually not divided linguistically: we found we already had some good skills in Brazil to develop the credit and collections department there, so we decided to leave the existing group providing services there in Brazil, to provide services for the rest of the Latin American countries. We wanted to have three functional groups, but we wanted to try to keep the same skilled people working and we didn't want to have to move them from one country to another.

Laura Bao Castro: We're part of a global strategy. We have currently two pretty large financial shared services centers in Intel. One is located in Malaysia and the other one is located here in Costa Rica; the markets that are supported from Costa Rica are Canada, the US, Costa Rica, and Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Chile, Argentina and Brazil.

Q: Laura and Esteban, you both come from big global organizations with significant worldwide presence. Do you think it's still the biggest companies who are setting up shared services in Latin America or are the smaller, or maybe mid-market, organizations also getting involved?

Laura Bao Castro: I think the mid-market is coming up. I was able to go to [a Latin AMerican shared services event in] Chile last year, and also participated in [a] conference in Mexico City, and I was very surprised by the number of Latin American multinationals that have already moved into this journey, or are in the process of doing so - especially in Mexico where I think a lot of companies are looking into it, even having shared services within Mexico itself. The concept is right there; they know they can reduce costs and produce more quality with shared services, and even within Mexico itself companies are developing shared service centers.

Mauro Mezzano: Actually we've been seeing this shift since two or three years ago. At the start of the decade many multinationals began establishing shared services in the region, but when I went to conferences in Miami and Orlando there weren't many Latin American-owned companies present. Then in 2004, 2005, bigger local companies and groups started with the concept. Now smaller and smaller companies are doing it; some of them don't really implement what we would call shared services but they do centralize and they do take a few concepts from shared service centers, and perhaps redesign a process. The influence of shared services is spreading out through many more companies than before.

Ricardo Neves: I've seen an increase in interest: among mid-market companies it's less regional. What I've seen is among large companies, they've done a lot of rationalization in each of their countries of operation, and a lot of discussion about regional shared services. What I've seen in the mid-market, specifically in Brazil, are still questions on "in-country" shared services if you know what I mean. It's more making sure that they leverage their local operations, and then as a second step - especially with some of the systems work done - it's something of a done deal to set up something regional: when you have a regional systems platform, for example.

Q: Let's shift focus slightly and take a look at the outsourcing market in Latin America. Over the past couple of years we've seen the entry into the region of some of the big global players - in particular some of the big Indian providers. What impact has that had on the market - and on firms that are running shared services?

Esteban Carril: In my experience in leading a shared service centre I have been trying to find different ways to do things, and finding vendors who can provide services in a more efficient and economical way than us doing it ourselves. When it comes to the outsourcing sector, I find that in Latin America things are still in development. When it comes to outsourcing it's important to see how well-organized companies are, and how well they provide services in multiple countries - and I see the challenge for many of the big firms is that they are still working as independent companies in each country, and not really regionally organized in order to provide services to multi-country shared service centers.

I think that's one of the key points that I've been finding. Another key point is that some companies are regionalized but unfortunately they might not have presence in all markets, so that becomes a problem in terms of finding a single regional outsourcing solution to meet our needs.

Laura Bao Castro: About five years ago companies providing outsource service arrived to Costa Rica. Since then, these companies have grown , for example HP has now close to 8,000 employees. While I can't be specific about their services or regions they serve, these companies look for people speaking Spanish, English, Portuguese, French, Italian - even Chinese. We do not work specifically with an outsource vendor at this moment - but periodically we reassess our current strategy.

Ricardo Neves: One of the features that I've noticed, one of the movements in the outsourcing space in Latin America, is that there's been a lot of currency fluctuation between the dollar and the real, and the dollar and other currencies, and I've seen some discussions on contract review - especially for service providers - from both sides: if the clients want to take advantage of that, or even discuss relocation of some work; or if the providers are saying that an increasing cost is related to currency fluctuation putting added pressure on their margins. Definitely currency fluctuations have been one of the biggest topics of discussion in the region.

Q: OK, let's move on and address the big issue of the moment and, perhaps, of many moments to come: the financial crisis and global economic downturn, and their impact upon shared services and the sourcing sector in the region. Ricardo, what do you see as having been the main changes in the space since the beginning of the main phase of the crisis in October?

Ricardo Neves: What I've seen is basically a larger interest in discussing measures to reduce costs. Some of the plans that were lined up to be rolled out in the future have now become more interesting for discussion now; specifically, if they can help reduce costs. The mood, the willingness to do something now has increased. Organizations today want to do something bolder than they were willing to do even six months ago. We used to hear things from the business like "don't disrupt my growth", "don't rock the boat"; now executives are coming and saying "hey, where can we make this boat more nimble? How can we rock the boat but at the same time make us leaner and more prepared?"

I've seen this happening in a couple of ways. One is, clients coming to us looking for an overall assessment of cost reduction - which usually includes the theme of shared services. Secondly, we're also having a lot of discussions on reviewing outsourcing contracts - or even making those contracts broader, in order to ensure they are capturing all the value they could based on the relationship. So overall what I'm seeing is an increased willingness to take bold measures to ensure cost reduction.

Q: Do firms still have money to spend on big implementations, or is it about making changes as cheap as possible?

Ricardo Neves: I think a lot of it is, as you say, to make things as cheap as possible, as fast as possible. But I've seen some room to say "if I need to spend that to get that back, then let me hear what you have to say". Again, I think firms are more willing to do things than they were before - but no-one's saying they've got a big pile of money to reduce their costs. What they need to do is support the investment through the cost reduction itself.

Q: Moving over to the practitioners: Laura and Esteban, how have you been responding to the crisis? Has it had a big impact on your business and are you looking at operations in a different way?

Laura Bao Castro: Intel Corporation has been, over the past 2.5 years, on a restructuring and efficiency program that has resulted in run-rate savings of greater than three billion dollars, CapEx avoidance in excess of one billion dollars, and a reduction of twenty thousand employees from our peak in 2006. We as part of the Corporation are taking actions to contribute in this process. We are doing a big effort to reduce discretionary spending and one example is travel. We are also increasing the number of meetings over the phone and are focusing on productivity and efficiencies so we can do more with the same.

Esteban Carril: Laura mentions the travel and entertainment reduction, and this is clearly an area where we have tried to pay close attention - but as a matter of fact I think that there is no doubt that the economic crisis will bring new opportunities for shared services here in Latin America. I think this might now be a great time to demonstrate that Latin America is a reliable region, especially for global shared services. As we speak my company is looking for new opportunities in emerging markets. Right now we are looking for a shared service center for sales operations here in Latin America; this might be a great opportunity for consolidation and cost efficiency.

Like Laura we have accelerated process improvements and efficiencies, and tightened our controls over expenses; we are also now implementing new tools to give us better visibility of customer usage patterns and people's performance, in order to drive customers to more efficient services. Those services that may be high-cost and are not being used by our customers are the ones that we would like to either outsource or discontinue. We have also identified other opportunities to expand our scope of services by leveraging our shared services to serve new internal customers, and redirecting our services to areas where they can add more value... [Regarding discretionary spending] As Laura mentioned, we have to do more with the same; in my case I'm trying to engage people from my shared services to lead some of these projects. On other cases we will prioritize those projects where we see there is a clear benefit in costs in the short term.

Mauro Mezzano: What I would say is, working in shared services implementations in 2000, 2001, everybody was looking towards cost reductions. Then moving through 2005, 2006, 2007 and last year - up to October, of course! - I had, as a consultant, many customers who were very focused on growing, so they were very interested in preparing for big growth rates. Now, after October last year, once again I'm getting many calls from people looking for cost reductions, and being very proactive in implementing projects with quick results. I think it's come back to that, and I think as Esteban was saying, in our region some countries become even more interesting for multinationals to do medium-to-long-term cost reductions because the labor costs are under what they can see in other regions.

Something which is different from the 2000 period, in 2008, 2009, 2010, I think the offshoring/BPO providers are really appearing here in Latin America, and this could be a very interesting moment to potentiate that outsourcing and offshoring business.

Q: Have you been seeing clients are coming to you with the need to do more with the same amount of money, or reduced budgets?

Mauro Mezzano: I've been seeing both. Some of the clients that were working here during 2008 in shared services have come to me and said "Sorry, I cannot come anymore with this budget because my company is in a crisis"; but at the same time I've been having new calls from customers who weren't working with us previously, but who really want to work with us because they've got a new approach to shared services. The market is still very open and diverse, but I think it's going to narrow down into cost reductions during March and onwards.

Q: Obviously globally over the last few years one very big question has been how to attract and retain talent. Recently however as the economy has worsened there has been the feeling in other parts of the world that talent acquisition and retention isn't going to be such an issue over the foreseeable future, because people aren't going to be willing to move out of secure jobs. Is this mirrored in what's happening in Latin America right now?

Laura Bao Castro: You know, Costa Rica is behaving very differently from other markets, specifically in the service industry. This year is no different; and the projection is 3,500 new jobs, so we actually have a pretty hot market. Talent retention is critical for our success.

In terms of our sourcing strategy, we work very closely with the technical schools - particularly the accounting technical schools - and the public university that provides accounting professionals. We provide internship programs for technical school graduates and a student program for university students: we bring those people while they're still studying to work part-time for us - some of them in an internship mode, some as what we call "student workers" - and by the time they graduate, and if we feel that they have delivered to our expectations - we offer them full-time jobs. That has been a very successful strategy that we implemented about six years ago, and we have a conversion rate of 95%.

In addition we provide English classes to those employees to ensure that by the time they get converted they have reached the level of English that we require to do our jobs, because we offer services to the North American market and a lot of our jobs will require a certain level of English capability. So that's a sourcing strategy that I think has proven to be very successful for us, and it gives a continuous pipeline of new employees coming in.

In the area of talent retention, Intel is a company that believes in flexibility and we do provide a lot of flexibility to our employees. I don't know if you're familiar with the term "Generation Y" for people born after 1980; 80% of the population that I manage are Generation Y, young people with very different mentalities - they have a different chip in their minds from mine, for example - and they value flexibility very much, so we have programs like what we call "telecommuting" where they're able to work from home up to two days a week. They have different start and ending times - some of these employee are going to school so they need flexibility to continue their studies - we have found through the surveys and questionnaires that flexibility is one of the main reasons why they choose to stay with us. We provide portable computers to all our employees which they can take home - and this generation are technology-growers, of course, so they love that.

These two things have really been proven to help us retain employees - in addition to the career development of course. One of the beauties of shared services is that you manage different functions, you manage different groups, and if someone wants to start a career they will have the opportunity to move into these different groups and become a rounded professional.

Q: Esteban, how are you finding the employment market - and has there been a shift in your acquisition and retention strategies as a result of the economic crisis?

Esteban Carril: In our case - and I would say that this applies for every other shared services in Latin America - turnover rate is one of the most challenging areas for shared services. We have been doing several things to retain our talent. We have been cross training - so, for example, when an employee comes to work in one department we offer them some exposure to other areas of operations, to other processes, so they can learn other activities and processes which as Laura pointed out adds more value to their own career.

This year we are also offering a new service inside shared services which is that we loan employees to other areas, so for example if a business area needs an extra person because someone goes on maternity leave, or even leaves the company, we provide them with people as a service. If our people are trained in other systems and other processes we can add value by moving those people to other areas where they can spend two or three months. We're offering that as another service from our shared service centre.

Another area is flexible time. The nature of our business is, 70% of our business takes place within the last three weeks of the quarter so we really need to be flexible with our people. We let them do some telecommuting, we offer flexible time, because - as Laura pointed out - you should give them some kind of freedom inside the company. We provide English and Portuguese classes as well.

The key here is that we've signed some agreements with universities through which we bring new people on board; we usually train them in those areas which are more transactional, so they gain experience - and then we move them around, not only inside shared services but also outside, offering them now career opportunities in the business, in different countries, in our local finance team. So we offer them several routes to success inside our company.

Q: Are you thinking that turnover is still going to be an issue for you in a worsening economy and a consequently tightening job market?

Esteban Carril: I think right now, there are several companies that are letting people go, and I think the labor market will be better for us. However, inflation is still a problem - particularly in Argentina - so when it comes to retention we would expect to be reactive in terms of salary adjustments, to ensure competitive salaries. So in general terms I think the market's going to be quieter; however, we should always keep an eye on the need for salary adjustments - especially with the inflation fluctuations we may see in coming years.

Q: Ricardo, what's your take on the job market and the pressures on talent management at the moment? Have things changed as a result of October's events?

Ricardo Neves: Some of the clients I support have said the pressure on them has increased to deliver a good service at a lower cost, and the best way to do that is with good people. So I think the search for good people, and the importance of retaining them, and working the talent market, is still a big challenge as we go into crisis mode. Even though when you think about it there might be a little more availability of resources on the market, when you look at the example we've heard of Costa Rica - or even Brazil, where companies are going more into the interior of the country and looking at other cities inside Brazil to be able to retain a good flow of people coming out of universities, and have been growing very fast throughout the country - shared services and new organizations coming in are going after talent very fast, wherever it is; so I don't believe it will be an easier time managing talent for shared services during the crisis we have now.

Q: And have you noticed - or are you forecasting - a drop in attrition rates over the next few months?

Ricardo Neves: Not at this point; considering what I've both from clients and from providers with whom I've been working closely I have not seen any significant change in those rates at this point, in Brazil particularly.

Q: And will the increased operation of big BPO providers have an impact here?

Ricardo Neves: I think so. I have not seen a slowdown in any way in the growth of the shared service centers either from providers or companies going after it. So even if there is any increase in supply I don't think demand will decrease; actually, I think demand will increase from both existing shared services and from new companies coming into the market. I don't foresee an easier time on turnover rates or talent retention.

More Articles: Want to receive more articles like this? Have a tip, learning or case study you want to share? Join our growing community of shared services and outsourcing professionals.

Sign up to our eNewsletters and ensure you receive the latest news, articles and features from our growing global community... Find out more at http://www.ssonetwork.com or email enquire@ssonetwork.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.

Roundtable - The Crisis and Shared Services - An Asian Perspective

As 2008 draws to an end, the signs for the global economy in 2009 are, to say the least, inauspicious. But this downturn won't affect all geographies equally - and this holds true for the shared services and outsourcing space as much as for the wider economy. In order to get a better-defined picture of how different parts of the world are reacting differently to the biggest shock to the financial system since the Wall Street Crash, we convened a series of regional roundtable debates. The first - getting the view from Asia - took place at the end of November and was chaired by Deloitte's Hugo Walkinshaw; as the transcript shows, for mature SSOs at least while the impact of the crisis has yet to play itself out fully, there are certainly opportunities strewn amongst the challenges...

Attending were:

Hugo Walkinshaw (chair)

Principal Shared Services Asia Leader

Deloitte

Chen Theng Aik

SVP & Head Asia Pacific Operations

DHL

Rodrigo Martins

General Manager GBS Asia

General Electric

Erik Moller Nielsen

GM Global Service Centres (Philippines)

Maersk

Hugo Walkinshaw: In terms of how specifically your SSC is adding value - and I'd like to ask Rodrigo to kick us off on this one - what differences are you seeing as a result of the current climate in terms of new things you're being asked to tackle, or things that were going a little slowly or were not so pronounced that are suddenly coming to the surface?

Rodrigo Martins: We are actually seeing an increased interest from businesses in joining our shared services organization. In challenging times like these, the value that a shared services group brings to the table is even more evident. From all angles you look at our group there is value - from the high quality of being an organization specialized in processes that are critical to running a business (no less important under the current economic conditions, by the way), from a cost savings standpoint given the scale in which we operate, and from our ability to provide services utilizing our infrastructure of people, processes and platforms already in place.

For all of these reasons I see a general increase in demand for our services. It is also important to notice that we are constantly concerned with productivity, constantly looking for improving quality and efficiency in everything we do, and in times like this it is even more important. On a more tactical level, we have been providing our businesses with more and more tools and analysis that make it easier for them to control and better manage their cost base. From our perspective we are helping our customers, the GE businesses, and from their perspective this is a value-added service that they are receiving from us.

Hugo Walkinshaw: So most of that is essentially focusing more, and putting greater emphasis, on things that are already current. Maybe there are a few conversations there around should this business unit, or this process, come in or go out, and the current conditions are basically forcing the pace on those decisions?

Rodrigo Martins: Exactly that; more of the same, at least for our organization. I believe businesses see the value in what we are doing so they want to come on board more and more. They see that we have scale and that we are capable of rendering good service at a competitive cost and that is good value for them at the end of the day.

Hugo Walkinshaw: And in terms of being asked to provide wholly new things, or to go in new directions: are you seeing any of that yet?

Rodrigo Martins: I don't see that in GE. Probably because being an established shared service organization we already have most, if not all, typical shared services offerings. We do have one service, which is relatively new to our group in Asia, Customs. This service helps businesses deal with imports and exports around the world. But the service is not new; it was introduced a few years ago in the Americas and is now being rolled out globally.

Chen Theng Aik: Because of the state we're at now, we're still contemplating our migration of activities to the SSCs in the higher-cost Asian countries. Our officers have been told to watch headcount, and headcount replacement, very carefully, and it's getting tougher for the business units, so there is a lot more interest for two reasons. One is, pure wage arbitrage and our ability to continue to leverage that, so there's increased interest in moving more activities over to us, and what was traditionally considered taboo - not to be transferred over to shared services - could now all be on the table. With our SSC in Malaysia, there's a large wage arbitrage from the higher-cost Asian countries.

Point number two is that because things for the businesses are getting tougher and tougher, their headcount is being looked at very carefully, so any volume increase, or even replacement after resignations, is also getting tougher and tougher. When they have their own headcount freeze, or headcount restrictions, it becomes more attractive to migrate over to us. We end up being asked to do more work which would traditionally have been carried out within their home-country organizations.

Hugo Walkinshaw: So a bit more of a burning platform for country MDs to have to deal with, to accelerate the transition timetable.

Erik Moller Nielsen: I'd like to echo what Chen just said, and actually Hugo you just used the words we use: it's a "burning platform". We're looking at anything and everything, and we see a widening of the scope and depth of what we're being asked to handle. For example in the back-office support for SAP, we are increasing the percentage of the end-to-end finance process that we're handling in the service center, and we have a Six Sigma project going on now to take it up to 70 per cent. But we're also being asked to look at almost more things that we can handle at the moment from claims settlement to quite sophisticated KPO work, so we're moving up the value ladder, for sure, at the moment. We definitely see more offshoring coming our way.

Hugo Walkinshaw: Well it's definitely good news that at least someone's busy in these times... The only things I'd add to what you guys have said is that, firstly, specifically within our shared services environment - and this plays a little bit towards Rodrigo's point initially - we are making much greater and more frequent use of the SSC for almost daily operational data, as everything is moving so fast and swinging so hard in terms of decision-making around recruitment, costs and so on. We're putting a lot more emphasis on the basis of ad hoc management information coming out of the center. I've noticed that we're partnering much better with the center and that they're being forced to be much more reactive and responsive about producing data.

Secondly, looking at companies that haven't gone to shared services yet, I think we've initiated five new shared services feasibility studies in the last eight weeks, so I get a sense that out there those companies who haven't yet taken the plunge - or who have taken the plunge and now have European or US centers - are now looking to Asia as an offshoring location, with a real sense of urgency and momentum. We're also seeing a lot of interest from large local companies who are, I guess, cash-rich and who are looking to make this kind of reorganization and structural investment while things are slowing down and they've got time on their hands. So even for the people who aren't in shared services there's definitely the sense that this is the way to go as a response around control and cost.

Q: It seems as though there's a bit of a cross-section of the space here: on the one hand we've got Rodrigo who's doing a great deal more of the same sort of thing, and on the other we've got Erik who's actually instituting a whole load of new processes. Hugo, to what extent are the companies approaching you to investigate launching new shared services initiatives planning a broader, wider shared services than might have been the norm over the last few years?

Hugo Walkinshaw: I think it's people who've been sitting on the fence about even starting shared services, and have been going down the route of "our culture is not to do that, and not to offshore, and not to make redundancies" and I think they've been forced off the fence by the economic conditions. I think it's people taking the plunge and realising they need to do some desperate measures, rather than a move towards a broader, more sophisticated footprint. I think the reason there's been a bit of disparity thus far on the panel is a reflection of where we all are on the shared services journey. My takeaway actually is that what's keeping us busy is doing things we were expecting to do, and hoping to do, had planned to do, or were already doing a little bit - but doing them at a much greater pace. I don't think there are a lot of brand new initiatives - yet - coming up in the shared services space.

Erik Moller Nielsen: I would absolutely echo that. I think this is the push that has come lately, to push in the development that was happening slowly anyway. Some people in the organization (and we have a mature SSO, about eight to ten years and six sites in operation) were looking at the SSCs at having been set up to provide maybe rather basic processes, and being maybe a nice-to-use but not a need-to-use, but in the current climate with business volumes going down this is a resource they want to tap into, if not for anything else other than the labor arbitrage initially - but then we know that once it's been shifted over to us we can optimize the process down the road. We're being asked now to look at data mining, market analysis, and we're going to be setting up a group of fifteen in January just to look at that, and there are many many other things coming our way, so it's all positive - and keeps us really busy.

Hugo Walkinshaw: Those particular bits at the end - the data mining and market analysis - are not things which your everyday shared service center traditionally does, so I think your comment about going up the value chain is spot-on. You may, I suppose, already have had that in your sights on the value-chain, though, and this is just accelerating your decision rather than being a brand new idea that's come about as a result of the crisis. So let's move on, then: in terms of priorities for the next six months, can everybody name their top one or two? Erik, what's going to be your main focus for the next two quarters?

Erik Moller Nielsen: It will be on the talent side, because now we are looking for different people on some of these issues; for example with the claims settlement we're looking at, we need to find people with a legal background. Initially it's an HR challenge; secondly it's about site-capacity and site planning (and we're well into that). Thirdly - and going with the site capacity - it's workstation utilization: how can we push it up so that we use each desk more than once, maybe even more than twice every 24 hours? In that connection, our challenge is that most of our work is really time-sensitive and urgent, with turn-times down to half an hour, but we are hoping that we can convince our internal customer that he can save a lot of money if we can extend the turn-times on some of this work and therefore do it at night - it means we save costs and don't have to expand the sites.

Hugo Walkinshaw: That's an interesting dynamic; if you've got unutilized capacity at certain times of the day or night, then obviously it's a more cost-effective solution to use that rather than adding floors and increasing the overall cost. I guess you're in the right part of the world to be running 24/7 shifts.

Chen Theng Aik: I think our big focus will be on two areas. One will be on getting our unit costs down even further; in the past, our internal business partners were pretty happy with our unit costs because of the big wage arbitrage, but now things are getting pushed further and further they're saying "we've got this great wage arbitrage and we're pleased with that but - can you get costs down even further?" So that's getting a lot of focus - not that it didn't before, but now it's with even greater intensity.

The other thing is that we're now moving into a lot more customer-facing activity than before, so all the collection activity, the customer query activity, dealing activity that traditionally we haven't touched too much on any great scale; now we're moving more and more into that domain, and in some countries which haven't fully tapped into shared services yet, we need to look for a different talent pool and train more because previously it was traditional accounting we were looking for.

Hugo Walkinshaw: Just on the cost-reduction: it's interesting that you say that, because that was one of the first responses from management here: "it's great - a good service - now more please - can you do it cheaper?" So we're kind of suffering under the same burden. Practically - and I don't want to get into too much detail - when I look at it I'm stuck with a facility cost that I can't really negotiate around, I'm stuck with an IT infrastructure that's got a sunk cost that's depreciating; the only flexibility I've got on reducing cost is around greater efficiency and, not cutting wages but swapping people out and bringing in more junior people. Which is quite radical. I just wonder, in terms of those sorts of areas, are you going through a similar thought-process? Are those the kind of things you're looking at for cost-control?

Chen Theng Aik: For us one big area that we're looking at is to increase our span of control for our team leaders, our managers, and so forth, because there is a huge disparity still between the wage levels of team leaders and managers and what we call the associate level. So the increase in the number of associates that is needed is great, and we're going to increase the span of control - so for the same number of team leaders and the same number of managers, can we lead bigger teams? I think that's where the fixed costs get spread out and hence the unit cost comes down. That's what the business partner is looking at. The other area is that we do currently use an external consultant for some project migration work and we're now reducing our reliance on this external source and bringing more and more of our own resources into the project migration effort.

Hugo Walkinshaw: Absolutely: reduce those pesky consulting fees... The organizational span of control issue is a good one. I think we've seen where we have one or two more senior, experienced people moving on and taking bigger roles in new shared service centers we've ended up pushing more junior people up the pipe to give them more opportunity to reduce the cost of the role rather than shopping around for new people who might be as expensive or more expensive than the originals. Span of control is a good angle.

Rodrigo Martins: The question here is whether or not priorities have changed, and the answer for us is that they haven't. From an operational standpoint, the priority for us is to continue consolidating activities into regional centres; one way of reducing costs is through scale and we have been going down the path of consolidating our activities in the regional hubs that we have here in Asia for quite some time. Another operational priority is automation and standardization of our processes. So what is not automated or standardized is being marked for action. Our ultimate goal is obviously productivity and quality in everything we do.

Hugo Walkinshaw: So you still see opportunities around automation and IT optimization?

Rodrigo Martins: Absolutely. As a matter of fact we are currently implementing a new version of Oracle, and we are taking advantage of that to convert some of our legacy IT platforms into one financial platform across all of our shared services in Asia. So by itself this generates the opportunity for a lot of standardization and productivity gains for us.

Hugo Walkinshaw: And I would say that reflects the nature of your business as you've grown hugely by acquisition, so you've picked up a very diverse portfolio of businesses and I suspect you've got a reasonably diverse patchwork of ERPs around the place.

Rodrigo Martins: Yes - but it's interesting because this Oracle implementation I'm referring to is only within our own shared services organization. Having said that, some of the other businesses that need a more robust platform may want to use our system. It's quite a unique situation; maybe specific to GE.

Hugo Walkinshaw: That is an interesting one - but it sounds like it might be a debate in itself!

Erik Moller Nielsen: Before we move on: like Chen we're also looking at the span of control. Right now we have ten associates per team leader but in some experimental places we've moved to 15. We're going to see if we can do that everywhere. And the organization will also roll out in the first quarter a new and flatter structure, so that in each department we will accept only three layers, from the departmental head or the process head to the associates. Then on cost-savings, because we've had quite huge productivity gains through process optimization this year, we've decided the extra capacity we have gained from that means that we can close one of our six sites, so we're closing the site in China and from February/March next year we'll only have five sites in Asia instead of six.

Hugo Walkinshaw: So, along the lines of Rodrigo's comment about consolidation and getting more scale into a smaller number of locations - which is actually helping the span of control.

Erik Moller Nielsen: Yes, and the 700-plus people we have now in Guangzhou will be replaced in our other five centers that have a lower FTE cost and can handle things just as efficiently.

Hugo Walkinshaw: OK. Let's move on to look at talent and people: what do you see happening with the economic climate in terms of your ability to find and retain the people that you need?

Chen Theng Aik: I think much like any other location that's popular for shared services, Malaysia is no different in that what happens is, our more experienced guys tend to be poached quite often: that will continue to be a challenge. As we train people up and they get two or three years of good, solid experience, we always run the risk of losing them to new centers that open up and grow quickly and come looking for experienced hires. So that emphasis is always there, to continue either to do a lot of job rotation or increase their scope so they can have their internal career progression without needing to look elsewhere.

The other area is linked to a point I made earlier: we have traditionally been focused on the more standard accounting processes, but now we are moving into the more customer facing side: the billings, the queries, and the collections, so we do need to develop that kind of talent pool that can handle customers, take calls, do credit collections. Those will be my two main areas of focus in terms of talent over the next few months.

Hugo Walkinshaw: That's really interesting for me, because the initial assumption when you look at this topic is that - given the crisis and the fact that people are losing their jobs around the world - you'd think that maybe there'd be a bigger pool available on the market because, perhaps, university leavers might have less opportunity within industry and we might have more access, and other people might not want to jump ship if they're with a company that can offer stability given the circumstances that we have now. So my initial reaction was that talent would be a slightly easier problem to deal with.

However, having spoken with a few people, and now having just heard that from Chen, it actually sounds like it's business as usual: that there are more players coming into the shared services space and actually it's just going to carry on being a competition for the talent.

Erik Moller Nielsen: There is still competition for talent - but we think we can manage reasonably well here in the Philippines. We see high attrition in India - and that's not unusual there - but this year we are below our target of 15 per cent in Manila, and we don't see this as a challenge for the entry-level positions we're hiring for, even over a two- or three-year horizon. We find that also - given a bit more time - we can hire for the more specialized positions, having just hired a Black Belt candidate and so on. It's not a major issue - it's certainly not stopping our expansion, let's say.

Rodrigo Martins: The focus for us related to people is to retain and to develop. One of my priorities for next year is to put further structure into our career plans: make sure that we heavily promote our folks into GE businesses. Obviously I agree with your point that in crisis situations you tend to have an increased outside talent pool available, but you've really got to take care of the people you have in-house first.

Hugo Walkinshaw: You're right: you've got homegrown talent and it's about trying to keep them, and I think the instability of the current environment is going to influence a few people over the next three to six months, but at some point the recovery will start and it'll be slow but once people start seeing that recovery and that there are other organizations out there putting shared services in, they'll be coming for your best people again. So I think there may be a small window of people sitting tight because they're feeling more secure in any port in the storm, but I don't think it'll last very long, and I think that's where focusing on development and retention will be crucial.

...

Let's talk a little bit about outsourcing... I imagine all of us to some extent, somewhere, somehow are using some kind of third-party outsourced services. I'm interested in two points of view here. One is, how do you see in the short term your strategy around using outsourcers changing, if at all; and the second one is, do you think there'll be any impact for the outsourcing industry based on what's happening right now?

Rodrigo Martins: Looking at the outsourcing that we do, the focus is to assess the value of what you are getting for the money that you are paying, taking special consideration to quality, not only cost. Placing higher scrutiny on the services that are being provided and the prices that are being charged by the outsourcing firms: this is what we have been doing all along but I believe that in tough times the scrutiny tends to increase. Also we give a lot of importance to strong partnerships, which in times of hardship are expected to help.

Although this is may not be generally the case for our group, I would suspect that some companies would now prefer more variable capacity, as opposed to fixed capacity, and thus will be looking for opportunities to outsource rather than develop capacity in-house.

Hugo Walkinshaw: My initial response also was to think that people will be wanting to use outsourcing more for exactly that reason. They'll be saying "right, it's much easier to make a cost-reduction, so I want to get another 20 per cent cost-down, and I want to make it somebody else's problem so I'll give it to a third party because also I get the variability".

Erik Moller Nielsen: We're not working with a hybrid model of outsourcing any further; the third-party outsourcing is done straight from our business units - but I'm sure that the current climate we're facing now will lead to an acceleration of that. Usually we get a chance to bid for it, but sometimes it's just going straight to a third party. I know third-party providers are knocking on the door of head office! We have an interesting benchmarking exercise ongoing at the moment, and we'll get the results soon, where we've been benchmarking three of our centers against third-party BPO providers to make sure that we're not off-line, and that we're competitive on services and cost-levels.

Chen Theng Aik: I think my situation is quite similar to Erik's in that we're mostly captive; once in a while from the business there is the opportunity to try some outsourcing.

Hugo Walkinshaw: I have another thought on outsourcing which you can take away, which is: I've always been interested in some of the outsourcers - particularly the larger ones - regarding their funding model, in terms of how they actually manage to take on some of the contracts. They sign the deal and then go through a period of anything from six to eighteen months in transition, and very often their fee-income doesn't start until they go live, so they actually have to fund a large amount of the design and implementation - and I'm interested as to whether those outsourcers still have access to the same amount of funding and credit that they used to considering the worries of the banking industry. Are the deep pockets going to continue to support this kind of funding model?

But let's move on: finally, in terms of the here-and-now, what are the things that shared services leaders should be looking out for in terms of quick wins, and immediate priorities? What are the two or three areas to watch out for, for the other shared services leaders out there?

Chen Theng Aik: I think it's all about getting to the next level and not being complacent and saying things like "yeah, we run a pretty good show, with a pretty good cost-base, and we don't do anything else". I think all the things that we've said here today need to be taken up to the next level of intensity in terms of cost-downs, in terms of business process improvements, in terms of increasing span of control: I think it all has to be all-guns-firing on all those points. At times like these no-one can afford to stand still.

Erik Moller Nielsen: I'm not sure about quick wins, but I think key focus areas right now would be to maintain a truly low-cost operation, to keep the third-party outsourcers at bay; and secondly to keep your key talent that you have - without that, it's very hard to run the process and optimize it. And you need to keep maximum agility, whether it's shrinking the organization, or increasing rapidly: I think to stay nimble is the key right now.

Hugo Walkinshaw: I think again I can see those thoughts being at the forefront of almost every business unit's mind, and the interesting thing for me is that from a shared services perspective we're probably the nimblest part of the business. Our day-to-day trade is being nimble, being a service provider, and it's a challenge we wrestle with in all business environments, so I feel actually that shared services is better suited to this kind of environment than almost any other part of the business.

Rodrigo Martins: I fully agree with you. And I would add to that: remember why you exist in the first place... Just because we're in the middle of an economic crisis now, there's no need to reinvent everything. Remember why you exist and keep focused - of course, be aware of what's going on with the crisis, but don't get distracted by it. Focus on the day-to-day execution of your goals; and manage what is in your control.

Hugo Walkinshaw: I think it's actually a tremendous opportunity. I know it's difficult at the moment to see too many bright lights and rosy pictures, but actually almost all SSCs must be feeling a lot more empowered; there's a lot more focus on people turning to them for help with the business, there's expansion of scope, there's new opportunity: the only situation I can see where it'd be a problem being in shared services is if you're in a place where your organization actually completely fails, and then frankly you're in real trouble. But I would say it looks like you're in a massive high if you're in a shared service center as long as your organization's still going. We had a bit of a discussion internally around this and we think it's a good place to be right now. It's time to shine.

More Articles: Want to receive more articles like this? Have a tip, learning or case study you want to share?

Join our growing community of shared services and outsourcing professionals.

Sign up to our eNewsletters and ensure you receive the latest news, articles and features from our growing global community... Find out more at http://www.ssonetwork.com or email enquire@ssonetwork.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.

SSON Roundtable Debate - UK Public Sector Shared Services - Where Now and Where Next?

Sharing services has risen up the agendas of the UK's national and local governments in recent years, propelled by political and financial trends as well as by more concrete factors such as Sir Peter Gershon's 2004-5 Efficiency Review and Sir David Varney's report on transformational government. In an attempt to throw some light on recent developments and to examine where shared services may be headed in future, SSON convened a roundtable debate involving a group of practitioners and advisors at local and national level, chaired by SSON's online editor Jamie Liddell. The results were, indeed, illuminating...

Attending were:

Tony Isaacs

Programme Manager

Warwickshire Direct Partnership

The Warwickshire Direct Partnership is a shared services programme comprising all six local authorities in the county of Warwickshire: North Warwickshire Borough Council; Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council; Rugby Borough Council; Stratford District Council; Warwick District Council; Warwickshire County Council; and three private-sector partners in Steria, MacFarlane Telesystems and Northgate Information Systems.

Dominic Swift

Head of Shared Services

Browne Jacobson

Browne Jacobson is one of the largest law firms in the Midlands with offices in Nottingham, Birmingham and London. The firm acts for over 100 local authorities, either directly or through their insurers. It recently published its Shared Services Survey '08, one of the most comprehensive surveys ever carried out into shared services in the UK.

Peter Telford

Chief Executive Officer

Research Councils UK Shared Services Centre

Research Councils UK (RCUK) is a strategic partnership between the seven UK Research Councils. RCUK was established in 2002 to enable the Councils to work together more effectively to enhance the overall impact and effectiveness of their research, training and innovation activities, contributing to the delivery of the Government's objectives for science and innovation.

Ray Tomkinson

Local Government Improvement Specialist and Shared Services Author

Ray Tomkinson is the author of Shared Services in Local Government: Improving Service Delivery (Gower, 2007). Ray managed the Welland Partnership shared services project and currently operates as a consultant.

SSON: Peter, you're at the head of one of the more prominent national shared services centres [SSCs]. Can you explain a little about the drivers behind the move in your organisation?

Peter Telford: Behind the Research Council's business case are benefits focusing on what are seen as financial gains which will be passed back to research and the research community, but probably more importantly in the early stages is the feeling that we can secure better effectiveness in business support to that research community by aggregating the seven Research Councils' services onto one common platform, and transforming them. The business case started with an outline about two years ago. There was a lot of work done on certain parts of the shared service model even before that, but the activity's really come together in the last two years. The full business case was accepted by the Research Councils in line with CSR07 [Comprehensive Spending Review 2007] in August last year, and the intention at the moment is that we will go live on the platform at the beginning of next year. We already have some services live in the IT and strategic sourcing areas.

SSON: Tony, your project's been going for rather longer than that. Would you say that the drivers behind the Warwickshire Direct Partnership are similar?

Tony Isaacs: I think ours were slightly different in that when we started off in 2002/3 the driver behind that was, basically, to capitalise on the money that was available from central government at the time. We made a bid as the Warwickshire Online Partnership, and set up that particular group specifically to bid for that money: a total of £2m. We identified a number of different projects that we would attempt to procure and implement with that money, not least of which was the joint procurement by all six authorities in Warwickshire of a CRM [citizen-relationship management] system and associated telephony systems. We got the full £2m and since then we have actually implemented it; we jointly went to procurement and we've ended up with the Northgate front office CRM system.

Now I don't think the goalposts have changed, but the drivers have. I think the drivers have changed in that there is no money available now; it's exactly the opposite insofar as before there was money splashing about, if you will, from central government, and now it's the opposite insofar as with CSR07, with all the efficiencies and demands that there are on local authorities to save, there is an overriding need to make things more effective and more efficient, and shared services is seen as being one key method of doing that - with the consequence that we are in a position now where our chief executives, our leaders, are very keen in looking at what can be done. And based upon that - or around all this - is the whole area of the two-tier structure within Warwickshire, and the drive that the government may want to push - and seems to be pushing - with regards to unitaries. But Warwickshire is very clear that it wants to retain its two-tier organisational structure and will do so by sharing services.

Dominic Swift: Tony, I just want to follow something through on that, because it's a theme that emerged when we did our research on shared services [Browne Jacobson's Shared Services Survey '08] that certainly efficiency savings and improvements in the way services are delivered are key drivers, but what you've identified as a lack of money was one of the real inhibitors, because in order to deliver shared services there is a considerable cost: You've already mentioned telephony which was obviously put in as part of the grant, and one of the problems that people seemed to face was the immediate increase in costs to deliver a shared services stream before any efficiency savings could actually be delivered.

Tony Isaacs: You're absolutely right insofar as there's a need to spend in order to deliver efficiencies, and what we're seeking to do is to build up good, strong, powerful business cases that maybe looking over a five-year spread, so that while there is a recognition that to begin with you may need to spend money, over the period following that it's anticipated that there will be savings. And Warwickshire may be different, but we don't necessarily regard it just as pounds saved: it could be efficiencies. So it's non-financial benefits as well as financial ones.

SSON: Ray, do you see many differences between the drivers for local and national shared services?

Ray Tomkinson: Yes I think there's one big difference, which is the issue of government compulsion, as it were. There's no doubt about it: central government departments recognise that they really don't have much alternative at the moment to creating some element of shared services - because the Treasury makes sure that they do, because the Treasury controls the purse strings. It's less clear that in local government every council is going to have to go down the shared services road.

As was being made abundantly clear a minute or two ago, local authorities have different ways of approaching their financial restrictions or their political considerations, one of which is the unitary agenda - or the two-tier agenda in other councils. So some councils are going to have to go down the shared services route because it's the only way organisationally that they're going to function. Other councils don't have that imperative at the moment and I'm working with one group of four councils which are looking at sharing services but not because of financial pressures. They're looking at it because they want to make service improvements, to improve resilience of services, and also give opportunities to create new services. So it's a very different agenda between the two.

SSON: Peter, from a national perspective are you seeing an increased pressure from government to implement?

Peter Telford: Yes. Historically I've been in shared services in the private sector, local authority and now central government so I suppose I can absolutely empathise with the previous comments. I think the compulsion from central government is largely fiscal although there is a feeling that the transformational agenda that sits behind it is also very prominent. I think the other difference in central government is it is easier to identify and reach a critical mass where you can actually effect a transformation and deliver efficiency and effectiveness. At the local government level, it is more difficult to create critical mass - which then makes the funding routes and the benefits probably more difficult to determine in the early stages.

SSON: OK. There's been a lot of talk about what advantages other than cost savings can be delivered through shared services. And this brings us on to the issue of benchmarking. When it comes to savings you can obviously benchmark against what you're saving and how much you've saved against previous budgets, for example. But when it comes to service-delivery, how can one establish exactly what you're benchmarking, and against what and against whom? Is there a common thread here in terms of where you go for benchmarking?

Dominic Swift: I think benchmarking's so different, for different projects, is the long and the short of it. What we've seen through our research is that there's a very wide range of different projects - we've already talked about the drivers, and it really depends on what you want out of your project. One of the frustrations that we heard at the national launches that we did of our review, was that there wasn't enough benchmarking of the actual outcomes. And a lot of people said to me "how do we judge whether this has been a success?"

One of the problems is that if you produce a much more efficient service, which is more attractive to the general public (if it is a front-facing service, which more and more are) is that it will actually be used more. And as a result you're getting better value, in terms of hits, but the cost of the service may actually go up. So it is quite a complicated job to benchmark and I think it requires some very clear outputs to be identified at the outset, and to look for comparable projects.

SSON: Tony, you've got a wide variety of services you need to benchmark...

Tony Isaacs: Yes, that's right. I can concentrate really around the CRM system, because all the information we've got is via customer services, and improvements we've made to that around the CRM system. What we've done is take benchmarking as a very serious exercise in its own right, and what we've sought to do is to get customer insight by using different databases, information from the CRM, information from MacFarlane - the telephony system - and pool all that information among all the partners. And what we've done then is to say "ok, concentrate on the areas that we want to concentrate on" and to make sure that we do improve the services that we are seeking to improve. We have got what we call an Improvement Forum, which is a relatively recent creation and which is proving to be very successful as well. And that's looking at the way in which the CRM in particular can add value to the whole process of improving customer services.

We are concentrating as well on a variety of different access channels, so we've got the CRM system, we've got telephone contact obviously, face-to-face via our one-stop-shops - we've got eight of them at the moment, with another eight planned for next year. We've got kiosks as well. But also I think most significantly, in the next few months or so what we're looking to do is drive ourselves forward with web self-serve, and look to try to move people more towards that means of accessing services. And I think that will be a double win because the customer will benefit greatly from that in terms of speed of service, but also we will, because we'll drive down the unit costs, and that quite clearly is a key method of making savings.

SSON: In the private sector a great deal of benchmarking goes on between individual companies and organisations, and as a result you have the idea of world-class et cetera. Is it a pipedream to suggest you might be able to get similar systems set up in the public sector, in which every region and every locality has its own pressures?

Peter Telford: I don't think it is and I think the benefit of the public sector is, by and large we're not competing with each other, and therefore people are much more willing to share information and the assumptions that sit under that information to try to help each other along. And I'm quite heartened by that kind of culture. I think the difficulty with the private sector is that it's usually wrapped in commercial connotations and costings as well, which makes it very difficult to unpick to ensure you are comparing like with like. Albeit that said, the difference is that there is much more evidence when you can find it and it's much more prescriptive in terms of service levels than I would suggest you would find in the public sector.

Dominic Swift: I'm very interested to see whether there can be some sort of worldwide benching or benchmarking which really does define the success of projects. I'd be very interested in understanding more of what Tony's doing and how the measurement takes place, capture of information and then the dissemination of that, to actually judge how that service is being delivered and where the successes are - and where perhaps the challenges are. And also what sort of services you're comparing that with. Because as I see it, shared services range across such a vast array of the different public sector areas - we were talking earlier on about this being local authorities but clearly it goes to health and other public sector bodies as well - and from that point of view the real problem you'll have it seems to me is comparing apples with apples.

Tony Isaacs: I can give you a fairly high-level description of what we're doing, and that is that we're using some software you may be familiar with - Mosaic Data - and we've populated a lot of databases according to the information that we've gleaned from there, and that's proving to be very much the benchmarking process that we're going to go through. And there are certain authorities out of the partnership that are leading on this.

For each of the projects that we have, we have lead authorities who volunteer to lead on particular projects. We've got Nuneaton for example to lead on one, as well as the county, and the county has information that it uses from its observatory, and there's a pooling of information, and there's an agreement via the Improvement Forum for example whereby they do concentrate on specific areas with the data they've accumulated - whether it's county-wide or just individual authority-wide. But basically they work together as best they can to provide these benchmarking criteria. It's not a quick process by any means. But over time we build up that data and then we can use it from year to year to do comparisons to see how things are improving.

In addition to that I don't know if you're familiar with NI14, the latest government key indicator which has just come out, which is to do with avoidable contact with clients - customers - with local authorities. And we'll be using the CRM to glean quite a lot of information via the CRM system. But it is a corporate-wide key indicator, so you will have other services, other departments, feeding in this information as well. That information is supposed to be started in October of this year and it will be used year-on-year to gauge how we're doing, in terms of avoiding avoidable contact, and looking to improve that.

Peter Telford: I think it's fair to say whilst we have not yet built the longevity of data that Tony describes - and I absolutely agree with him that building a profile and a trajectory is invaluable as a benchmark - we haven't really got to the point yet where we are able to benchmark our service delivery over a period of time; what we are doing is assessing our performance as we transfer services. We've got a baseline against some services from the Research Councils and from my own experience and from talking with others in the public sector we will then aggregate what we believe will be appropriate targets for the Research Councils against their baseline. But I'm with Dominic: initially it is very difficult to compare apples with apples and ensure you've got a representative benchmark.

Dominic Swift: Peter, it's very interesting from my point of view. I quite agree with you about the "apples with apples" thing. I think what's been said about the public sector is very true: it's much more transparent, there's much more desire to learn from each other. One of the things I'm doing tomorrow actually is go down to sit in in Kettering where they've been running a shared services project for many years - well, well before Gershon and Varney and the rest. And that's very interesting because people are open about what's happening in shared services and happy to learn from each other. The difficulty seems to be that they range over such a wide area, the danger is that unless people come to some common terminology about what outputs are going to be defined for particular services it may be possible to benchmark over time as Tony's doing, but actually benchmarking across different projects will be very difficult.

Ray Tomkinson: I think that's very valid. One of the issues is that there is no commonality across authorities as to what constitutes a service. So what you tend to find is that people dive for a process - and even when they dive for a process it doesn't tell you an awful lot about the service that you're trying to share. And there's often a real difficulty in stopping trying to find the trees when you're trying to fight your way through the forest. So from that point of view I think benchmarking has on occasion got a very bad name because people use it as an excuse for not doing anything; and it's only in the past couple of years where I think people have been much more prepared to be open about the fact they need to consider sharing as an option and sometimes benchmarking isn't used as a blockage.

SSON: Let's move on from benchmarking. We were talking a little about the private sector a minute ago - are we of the opinion that the private sector is an absolute necessity within UK public sector shared services, and to what extent is it a foregone conclusion that this is going to result in a degree of privatisation of services?

Dominic Swift: This is a question we asked in our survey: the sort of view that we had was that of course the private sector is an important potential partner in shared services, but there were just as many opportunities for the public sector to work together without the private sector. So, yes, it's part of the picture but it certainly isn't necessarily the whole of it. And I don't think that privatisation is an inevitability from shared services: where we saw the private sector coming in, and the survey really highlighted this, links back to the funding issues we discussed earlier on.

Where you needed some sort of IT facility and commonality across a number of authorities and participants, quite often the private sector partner was someone who could deliver that in order to relieve some of the initial cost difficulties of setting up a shared service which frankly couldn't be borne by some of the participating authorities.

SSON: Tony, that's certainly what you were saying about the initial start-up of Warwickshire, isn't it?

Tony Isaacs: Yes certainly: and it's ongoing because we've just finished the renewal of the CRM contract and the telephony contract, so from the beginning of next year we will actually be embarking on new five-year contracts replacing the existing ones. And that's the position of the CRM, the telephony, the ICT systems around it - so yes, it's inevitable that we have to go down that route. We've had good - very good - negotiations with the private sector on this and I'd like to think that all of us have come to a very good, fair new contract.

Ray Tomkinson: I think actually the point that was made about investment is a very good one. There is actually no reason why local authorities can't do sharing on their own without the private sector, and there are lots of examples around now where groups of councils are trying to do public-public partnerships. But I do agree: where there is a real need for investment - particularly around IT - then that's where the problems start for local authorities, and that's why they often do resort to the private sector.

But I do think that it's worthwhile pointing out that as much as there are needs for investment, particularly in IT, there are lots of services which do not need that investment, and I'm thinking of professional services like planning, or building controls are another good example, or environmental health is another good example, where simply you're dealing with people. One of the problems though that local authorities do find in that area is the scarcity of professional planners, environmental health officers, building control officers. And often they have to partner with the private sector simply for that reason.

Peter Telford: We need to get back to the point that I think Dominic made earlier which is in analysing what you're trying to achieve with your SSC you then start to look at how you're going to do it. And how you're going to do it may or may not include the private sector. If you do seek investment from the private sector, they will seek a return on that investment; you just have to recognise that. They may indeed want a profit which may erode the efficiency savings you seek to make.

I think another thing that the private sector brings is experience and expertise in the sorts of change and benchmarking data which you may need. That said, I think the blend of public and private sector in trying to get to a shared service centre is the right one and the transfer of risk to the private sector through doing this is always pretty key in terms of what you want to get out against your project.

Tony Isaacs: I was just going to pick up on the point that if you can go for joint procurement as opposed to individual authority procurement, you can really reap the benefits, and the bottom line will be that you do make considerable savings - not so much a profit will result, but it will produce efficiencies in savings. We found that with our negotiations latterly with Northgate and MacFarlane, and also more significantly during the course of the contract that we've just had, when we as a partnership stuck together and wanted to get individual things out of Northgate, and/or MacFarlane, by standing firm we could really apply the screws to them, and they were forthcoming; so we could really achieve quite significant savings on different aspects of procurement that we did during the course of the four years we've had the system.

In terms of profit, I'm not sure whether profit's the right word as I just mentioned; what we're looking for are savings and efficiencies and I choose to use those terms rather than profit. In essence we can justify what we're doing now: adding value, making sure we are getting the market rate or better, and we can quite happily and justifiably tell our chief officers and members based on the business cases that we've produced that we are getting best value, we are making savings and efficiencies on the basis of this joint procurement exercise.

SSON: Moving on: the future form and structure of shared services in the UK is, it appears, going to be determined in large part by competition between authorities, in a lot of areas. How do you see local shared services existing in the UK in, say, two or three governments' time?

Ray Tomkinson: Two or three governments' time, that's interesting. So that'll be two Conservative and one Labour... I suppose my thinking goes like this: I think that in 15 to 20 years' time you will see a patchwork quilt across - certainly the local government sector; I'm not quite so sure about the central government sector. And what I mean by that is you will have a group of statutory authorities that are all geographically based - whether that's a county or a district - there will be differences across the country.

Secondly they will have different types of shared services in different areas. There will be some that will be public-public; some that will be public-private; and some that will be public-public in terms of different sectors: health will have joined in; the police will have joined in. Because the pressures of the CAA regime coming from the Audit Commission mean that all public sector organisations in geographical areas have got to think whether it's better to work together than to work separately. And as a result of that I think you'll get a really different appreciation across, and in some areas there will be very heavy private involvement and in other areas probably none.

Dominic Swift: Basically I think it'll depend a little bit on the nature of the shared service, to be honest. Sorry - I keep coming back to that point really. It struck us during the course of the work we did that there are two different forms of shared service: the ones which perhaps have been more prevalent to date, which have been the sort of back-office, IT function - ICT-reliant functions - and then the front-office function. Now they have very different possibilities in terms of partners. If you look at the front office it is a locally-delivered service and therefore your partners are chosen by geography, and geography alone: they can't be chosen by much else, other than if you go to some sort of call-centre arrangement. But the other services can actually be amalgamated a lot more and with less sensitivity to geography.

So I think there are going to be some quite different groupings and possibly some legal authorities who particularly drive the delivery of a good service who perhaps sell to a very wide range of local authorities: health, via police, all of these are potential customers for them. And then on the local basis it's going to be a lot more down to politics and the dynamics between the politicians as to how well their shared services are going to be run, and I think some of the political difficulties we have in Nottinghamshire, where I'm based, may make it quite challenging to get some of those local shared services off the ground.

SSON: Tony, I know this is something you've been thinking about, and obviously as quite a successful service provider it must be on the agenda. So let's put you on the spot: do you think you will be at the forefront of a successful selling of services in the next couple of years?

Tony Isaacs: Yes I think I do in the next couple of years, but if you're talking longer-term than that I think - and I hasten to add that this is my own personal view - the likelihood is that there will be an increase in unitaries. And there could well be in Warwickshire as well. I can put forward a very rosy picture in some ways - but at the same time you've got nagging at the back of your mind all the time the difficulty that there is in actually creating successful shared services - and I think that's from a political point of view as well as the straightforward business-case point of view.

I think there will be more and more unitary authorities, to be honest. And I wouldn't be surprised if even Warwickshire eventually ended up with two unitary authorities rather than the six authorities we've got now. I think it's almost inevitable, and I think the government will continue to apply the screws, demand more and more savings year upon year, and the consequences will be that it'll almost be inevitable that there will be more.

Peter Telford: I think this is too early in our development path to consider and I think building a stable service with reference-ability is key before we could go there. The wider central government agenda is pretty clear in terms of convergence of effort and activity onto some of the core shared services in the bigger departments. That's already starting to come because of the requirements laid down by the Cabinet Office. And you can see the agenda already moving to: how do you ensure that there's a commonality of solution and agreement on service levels that are given to customers? How do you allocate customer benefit across a broader-based shared service? How do you prioritise how you would offer services to customers? Those are debates which I think are becoming more prevalent and therefore indicative of activities and departments coming together on shared service platforms.

More Articles: Want to receive more articles like this? Have a tip, learning or case study you want to share? Join our growing community of shared services and outsourcing professionals. Sign up to our eNewsletters and ensure you receive the latest news, articles and features from our growing global community. For more information email enquire@ssonetwork.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.