Category Archives: Outsourcing

We Need to Hasten Onshoring and Nearshoring — the Drivers Will Pound Those Who Don’t Into the Ground! Part 2

In Part 1 we noted how it was great to see a recent article on Supply Chain Dive on 6 reasons why global supply chains are shifting because the unending list of disruptions, cost pressures, and geopolitical tensions are only going to get worse.

As per the article, six major factors were influencing the decision — landed costs, tariffs and subsidies, geopolitical risk, existing supply networks, agility, and ESG goals — but these are, frankly, only half of the reasons that you should be shifting back. (And again, read the article for a detailed explanation of each factor, it is extremely well written and Part 1 only described the factors at a high level.) Today, with that article as a preamble, we are going to dive deeper into why the global outsourcing craze (thatthe doctor has been rallying against and complaining about for over 15 years, since he saw the business case begin to crumble in the late 2000s) was, and is, fundamentally wrong.

Collaboration

Yes, this would is overused, misused, and abused, but if you truly want to work with your supplier, it’s much easier to work with a nearby supplier than a far-flung supplier.

First of all, they are on a similar timezone, so at least half of a normal workday should overlap. No more 7 pm / 7am meetings in the best case (or 7 am / 3 pm / 11 pm meetings in the worst cases when you also have to dial in a partner organization in a multi-tier assembly operation).

Secondly, if you need to go on site, even if air traffic is grounded (terrorist risk, volcanic eruption, dangerous solar flares, etc.), you can get in a vehicle and drive to an on-shore site and many near-shore sites. And even in the North America / South America situation, while we still don’t have a complete Pan-American highway (as we still have the Darien Gap), we do have complete connectivity in North America and in South America, and if trade were to increase, it would make a ferry service from Panama to Colombia financially viable, and trucks could be ferried from Port Panama City to Santa Marta (and cars as well, although there is already a weekly service from Colón to Cartagena that could be expanded to operate more frequently). This means that you could get goods from any country county in South America into the US mostly by land in 2-3 weeks, or get to a supplier site by land in the same time. However, suitable partner selection could get you, or your goods, anywhere mostly by land in less than a week! (So, during normal times, imagine how fast and easy air travel will be — without racking up huge, unnecessary, overseas travel miles.)

Cultural Understanding

Most countries have a better understanding of their neighbours (unless it’s a communist/dictatorship with completely closed borders) than they do of countries half a world away, which usually makes collaborative working relationships naturally easier.

Complexity Reduction

The further away the good, the more complex the sourcing. There’s enough complexity to deal with in modern business. Why increase it? Especially since there is NO Big Red Easy Button (and Gen-AI definitely WILL NOT deliver one)!

Back to Basics

And, finally, when you onshore home-source or near-source, you’re getting back to basics. If you look at the history of trade, which was always long, risky, and costly, you traded for what you did not have locally, not what you had.

Convincing you that off-shoring was a good business decision that would save you money was one of the biggest cons, if not the biggest con, that the Big X and Mid-Sized Consultancies ever pulled off, since, in the long term, the only organizations that will make any money in the end are them*.

These Big X and Mid-Sized Consultancies charged you a lot of money to help you off-shore (which involved identifying suppliers, managing global supply networks, redesigning processes, updating inventory management, dealing with more defects and quality issues, etc.), which took you years to recoup before you started making money … which you have to give them again so they can help you re-shore, which requires identifying new suppliers (because even if your systems have data from pre-offshoring times, chances are those suppliers are out of business), redesign your supply networks (as you need different carriers, new warehouses, new partners, and new regulations to adhere to), updating inventory management, and temporarily dealing with defects and quality issues as the new suppliers evolve to support you. After all, any staff who knew how to deal with near-shoring (as well as handle trade in a time where there were few recriprocal agreements, tariffs were everywhere, logistics was a nightmare, etc. … i.e. pre 2000s, retired during / post COVID when they decided they had enough as a result of your “temporary” furloughs, forced office returns, and/or headcount rationalization in favour of new “AI” systems that don’t work.  (Hopefully this time, once you’ve recouped your investment re-shoring, you stay re-shored and instead use these organizations for the greatest value they can provide — see our piece on When Should You Use Big X?]

If you had just stuck to the basics, and instead of going half a world away for a quick win, invested in process, product (design for cost/reuse/etc.), manufacturing, inventory, and logistics optimization, chances are you’d be far ahead now while the rest of the world scrambles to catch up. (Although, we admit, it would have taken you a lot longer to get the same profit margins as that requires higher degrees of automation and quality in a high labour cost environment, and that takes time.)

* The worst part?  Most of them probably didn’t think and project far enough ahead to realize what they were actually doing, as it took decades for an over-reliance on outsourcing to bite us in the backside.
Also, today’s soundtrack: Bullet with Butterly Wings

We Need to Hasten Onshoring and Nearshoring — the Drivers Will Pound Those Who Don’t Into the Ground! Part 1

It was great to see a recent article on Supply Chain Dive on 6 reasons why global supply chains are shifting because the unending list of disruptions, cost pressures, and geopolitical tensions are only going to get worse.

According to the article, the following factors are influencing the decisions — and the doctor encourages you to read the article as he’s not going in depth into anything already written, especially when it was written very well, but instead wants to emphasize why the global outsourcing craze (that he has been rallying against and complaining about for over 15 years, since he saw the business case begin to crumble in the late 2000s) was, and is, fundamentally wrong (and emphasize even more factors you may not be considering yet).

Landed Costs

Items have become more expensive as supply constraints on certain raw materials and food stuffs have significantly increased prices across the board, tariffs and taxes from protectionist policies have heightened prices further, and then the skyrocketing logistics costs during the pandemic and now due to canal crises (Red Sea, Panama, etc.) and the lengthened shipping routes around the Capes (Horn and Agulhas) they are introducing make farshore sourcing very expensive.

Nearshoring from Mexico or Central America can take two weeks off of delivery time and reduce landed cost by up to 20% from the average. On the flip-side, sourcing from China with “trade war” tariffs (that Trump is threatening to increase) can increase landed cost by 20% (as section 301 tariffs targeting China added a 25% duty on hundreds of products).

Tariffs And Subsidies

These trade penalties and incentives are flying fast and furious both in populist-run democracies/republics/parliamentarian systems with Our-Country-First policies and communist/dictatorship countries with protectionist policies or tit-for-tat trade-war tariff and incentive policies. This makes “neutral” countries the best choices for outsourcing. See the article for a great breakdown of import value trends as a result of these changes in tariffs and incentives.

Geopolitical risk

The trade-wars were just the start. Now we have the Russia-Ukraine War, the Israeli-Palestine conflict, the war in Sudan, increasing tensions between China and Taiwan, and so on. All of these have, and will, disrupt global sourcing. The global political trade risk in multiple countries is now significantly high.

Existing Supply Networks

Even though, for North America, China came at the cost of Mexico, the trade networks still exist, and are easy to ramp up again. Similarly, multinationals already have hubs in multiple countries they sell (a lot) in and re-orienting around those hubs is easier than finding new hubs half a world away. Moreover, reducing routes increases FTL/utilization of key routes, and allows for logistics optimization.

Agility

Extended supply chains mean extended ocean shipping times, congestion at ports and warehouses, increasing labour disruptions (which is the biggest supply chain threat right now), can create lead times that stretch into months when we want to operate in a near JIT (just in time) manner, and get restocks in days (or weeks at most). Nearshoring can often allow that. Offshoring (unless it’s very small components you only need a small number of that can fit in a cargo plane and where the cost is so high you can afford the high air transit prices) can not!

ESG Goals

Shipping takes fuel. LOTS of fuel. LOTS of dirty petroleum-based fuel. Hard to make your ESG targets when ocean shipping is one of the dirtiest industries on the planet when there are still container ships on the ocean that, in one year, emit the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50 MILLION cars. (Link) Remember that 6 of the worst polluting container ships can pollute more than ALL of passenger vehicles in the US in a year. (And don’t tell me that electric cars will fix all that when the production of a single battery pack, which often requires burning dirty coal or oil, for an electric car can produce up to 16 metric tons of CO2 [Link] and charging that battery from a dirty coal power plant can result in the indirect burning of 950g of CO2 per kWH, meaning you could be producing 78kg of CO2 every time you fully charge your battery pack for a Tesla 3. This means that, in the worst case scenario where the battery and frame production was as dirty as possible, you would have to drive 1,000,000 kms for that clean car to become carbon neutral!)

And while these are most of the major reasons to consider nearshoring and onshoring (but not “friend”-shoring, but that’s a different article), there are others. And we will discuss them in Part 2.

The Big X are Pushing Operate Services … But Can They Really Offer Them? And Are They Real?

And if they are real, can anyone?

Backing up, in the beginning, there was traditional Business Process Outsourcing (BPO), which became very common in the 1980s and 1990s as the result of constant claims by the big consultancies and their ilk that the only way businesses could enhance their flexibility and agility and maximize their competitive advantage was to outsource processes they weren’t good at to the Big X Outsourcing offices. (In some cases they weren’t wrong. When the business had no competence in a function, grossly overpaying someone with reasonable competence, even if that someone was not the expert the Big X claimed, generated a good return for the business. The function was done efficiently and effectively, negating the loss the business used to suffer, and it allowed the business to focus on the functions they did well, which increased their profit even as they (often unnecessarily) forked out seven (7) and eight (8) figures to the Big X every year. (And we say unnecessarily because most of the time they could have outsourced to a smaller, niche consultancy at one third to one half of the cost and achieved the same result.)

Then, as Big X tried to steal business from their competitors and niche firms tried to break in, they upgraded to “Managed Services” which was supposed to be more than just performing the service for you cost efficiently (by supposedly reducing your costs by doing it better, and thus, cheaper) and adding value. The idea was that it didn’t just take over a point-based function, but instead provided a dedicated team that basically took over an entire department for you, just offsite, and worked exclusively on your projects. They learned your business, and improved the service offering over time to not only maximize efficiency, but maximize value. If they took over your IT department, they learned the systems you used, optimized those, learned to provide quick and effective problem resolution on the help desk, and, when you needed a new solution, helped you identify the one that would work best with the systems you had. If they took over your AP, they learned your suppliers, your payment rules, your PO formats, and implemented systems that allowed them to match POs to invoices for high-value invoices to reduce overspend. They also helped you build catalogs from suppliers that could meet your MRO / internal needs at the lowest possible cost. And so on. Over time, they not only met SLAs, but improved on all key metrics.

But now a few of the Big X are saying that Managed Services is not enough to maximize value and you need premium “Operate Services” (which come at a premium price, of course). So what’s the difference? Hard to tell. The best definition we can find is it’s a “holistic approach that is focused on delivering outcomes and spurring innovation in a model that leverages automation and data insight to generate substantial business value”. the doctor thought that was what managed services was supposed to do for you? Other definitions indicate that “operate services” differentiate by providing “on demand access to expert talent”. Isn’t that why you use a managed service, so they can identify when the team needs a new expert and add that expert? Other definitions also indicate that “operate services” are more “collaborative”. Are they saying that the managed services they provided to you in the past, where they often acted as an entire department, weren’t collaborative? WTF?

In other words, while they are presenting it as a more advanced premium service model, for which they want to charge you a premium, it really isn’t, or shouldn’t be, because if it is, they are admitting they have been ripping you off for decades!

In some consultancies, it is just a specialization of managed services for IT/IT Security, Analytics-Heavy Functions like Strategic Procurement or Network Analysis, or highly technical functions like supplier identification in direct manufacturing. And it costs more because those people, who are much rarer than experts in traditional business functions and processes, are more expensive, as are the tools that they need to secure your enterprise, analyze your global spend, analyze your supply network, or analyze potential suppliers for your electronic components. And we can see how that could be fair, as long as they aren’t using “operate services” to increase costs across the board where there is absolutely no justification for it.  (And only using it to differing a subclass of specialized services they offer, and admitting its nothing more than managed services, just applied to a new set of business functions.)

But if the consultancy is trying to pitch these “Operate Services” across the board with claims that these new services are better and more specialized for your business than any other kind of service, then they are admitting they are currently ripping you off in your managed services and you should just fire them. Because there should be no difference with the exception that the subclass of operate services we defined in the last paragraph generally require more advanced systems and more resources with a high TQ, which usually cost more. But that’s it.

So don’t blindly fall for this brand new business pitch if they try to pull it on you — simply compare what they are offering to any other firm that says they can fully meet your needs with a traditional managed services model and give the business to the firm that is the most honest among those that can meet your needs.  Now, it might be new and more in depth and more valuable, but that’s not guaranteed.

PostScript: We do believe Big X can offer a lot of value.  See this post on When You Should Use a Big X!

Low Cost Labour or Leveraged Labour — It’s Not the Same.

Organizations are always looking to cut costs to increase profits, and this goes double in tight economic times. An area that they are constantly looking at is labour, as it’s often the organization’s highest fixed cost. To reduce these costs, they try to move operations to low cost locales, low cost cities in low costs provinces and states for operations they need to keep in their home country, and they move as much labour as they can to low cost countries when they don’t have to stay at home, possibly through outsourcing.

In their minds, they are leveraging cost differentials, global opportunities, currency exchanges, and making smart investment decisions. (And, in their minds, they are doing a good deed by giving people work who might not otherwise get it, often by taking jobs away from people at home that should be doing them.) And herein lies the problem, they think they are saving money by leveraging low cost labour instead of leveraging labour for greater value. And, guess what, the labour that gives your organization more “value” is not the lowest price labour you can find, even for jobs that are traditionally seen as relatively unskilled, or low-skilled.

Let’s take the common example of a call center. Thanks to modern technology, and low cost VOIP, you can put it anywhere there are speakers in your language, often eliminating expensive landlines at the same time. When you move jobs from a $15 hour minimum wage location to an offshore location that costs you $3 an hour in comparison, that saves you 80% right? Maybe. Let us say the local resources you replaced were better educated, better trained, more familiar with your products, and resolve 80% of issues on a single call of 12 minutes or less, for an average issue resolution cost of $3. Let us say the new resources are not as well educated (average high school diploma, not college or university educated like your local resources), minimally trained (they are told how to politely answer a call, but no de-escalation training), and no familiarity with your products besides overview documents and issue resolution scripts. As a result, it will be likely that it takes them an average of three (3) calls of thirty (30) minutes each to fully resolve an issue. This means that the average cost for this “low-cost labour” to resolve an issue is $4.50. That’s 50% more than using a well-trained local resource to resolve the issue. That is not savings. Plus, some of those customers are not going to be happy that a 10 minute problem took 90 minutes of their time plus hold time plus time in between connecting to the rep. And a small percentage of those customers will switch to your competitor when it comes time for them to replace the product. That’s definitely NOT savings!

Let’s take garment production as our next example. This is a typical outsourcing industry that tries to find the lowest cost locales possible. When you go to the lowest cost locale, you end up paying significantly higher freight costs, possibly being stuck with inferior quality garments when the plant switches to lower quality fabrics, possibly ending up with garments with lower shelf life due to inferior stitching when they are manually made by lesser-skilled resources. In comparison, imagine you had a nearshore location that was low freight, used locally sourced high quality fabrics, and skilled workers who used a mix of automatic stitching machines and hand stitching, as required, for high quality production. If quality goes down, satisfaction goes down, and customers start to complain. Then brand reputation goes down and sales go down. Is that savings? Well, if the local production is $5 a garment and the outsourced production is $2 a garment, maybe. But what if the outsourced garment shop uses labour that is child labour under local laws (if not their local laws), the media gets hold of the story, it blows up, and there is a big brand backlash and sales drop 40%. Is it still savings? I’d argue not.

Let’s move upstream, to software development, which is happening more and more often due to many countries having good education systems and skilled workers who aren’t demanding the inflated IT salaries in the USA. Now, there are a lot of countries with highly educated talent who can code (like Poland, India, etc.) that are not the USA, Canada, the EU, the UK, and other countries where high tech has been traditionally clustered, and many of these, after currency conversions, have talent for 1/3 the cost or less. If they have about the same coding rate (in terms of lines of code per hour) as these first world countries, you can argue that it’s a saving. But it’s not just code lines per hour, it’s error free code lines per hour and, most importantly, it’s finishing the project on time, on budget, and to spec. Most IT projects fail and go well beyond budget and timelines and this is triply true in IT Software Development Outsourcing. (the doctor does not want to recount just how many projects he’s seen fail over the years, especially after advising companies not to outsource certain projects, which they did anyway.) Why? Because software development requires more than the ability to code, it requires understanding what the software has to do, who it has to do it for, how it has to do it, and why. If you don’t understand the domain you are developing for, the business who will be implementing the system, the culture of the user, and how they need to work — the system will be a failure even if it’s delivered mostly bug free. So while this is usually expected to be the largest area of cost savings, it’s usually the largest loss a company, especially one new to the game, ends up taking. (Outsourcing can succeed with the right, hybrid, model, but most companies have no clue what this is. Only a few figure it out.)

In other words, if you are trying to leverage low cost labour for cost savings, you’re usually looking in the wrong place. Especially if you are interested in maximizing return on investment, in whatever form that takes (lower total cost of ownership, higher sales, better brand image — which positively correlates with more profit). If you want to leverage labour or value, it’s the right labour, not the lowest cost labour. The labour that is the most productive, produces the highest quality product, gets it right the first time, and keeps your customers coming back. That’s true low-cost labour, because properly leveraged labour increases company profit, making labour costs low in comparison. Think about that the next time you try to replace talent with untrained troops.

Procurement Staff Augmentation: What’s the Approach?

While scanning the weekly news, the doctor encountered an article in the Technology section of HackRead on Strategic IT Staff Augmentation: A Roadmap for C-Level Executives, which outlined key considerations when choosing an outsourcing service provider (as all of them have pros and cons) as well as five essential steps that are required to make a good decision.

But what do you do in Procurement? Whereas there are dozens of big providers with oodles of talent sitting on a bench to help you in Tech, it’s not so in Procurement. Just like organizations struggle to find experienced and knowledgeable Procurement talent, so do consulting agencies, group purchasing organizations, and vendors who want former senior buyers and CPOs to help guide them on creating useable solutions. So if you can’t get talent, and they can’t get talent, what do you do?

It’s a damn good question, and it has a good answer, but not one you’re gonna like. Because you can’t get enough talent, you need to get better tech. The reality is that even if the market improves and your budget for headcount and technology improves, you’ll still have to do more with less because you won’t find the talent you need. So take advantage of the fact that you’re constantly expected to do more with less and set yourself up to be able to do that by getting the right tech.

More specifically, the tech that lets you:

  • automate and streamline tactical tasks
  • define your strategic processes, automate data collection, define validations, and automate standard analysis and insights retrieval
  • integrate 3rd party intelligence including, but not limited to, metrics, ratings, benchmarks, market insights, etc.
  • enable third parties to do sourcing events, negotiations, supplier development, detailed analysis, etc. on your behalf
  • allow self-serve integrations to third party tech used by third parties who do Procurement projects for you

Those last two capabilities in particular are critical for organizations who need Procurement staff augmentation because:

  • they won’t be able to hire more senior staff internally,
  • they won’t be able to secure them from consulting companies for more than short periods of time, and
  • they will only have access to shared resources on a regular basis (i.e. short term engagements from consultants who will engage to provide expertise / leadership on specific projects, short term engagements from vendor staff who will do a specific project / negotiation, etc.)

So, without the tech that will allow a third party to

  • quickly customize the process they will follow
  • automate all the tactical steps and data collection
  • automate the analysis needed for augmented insights
  • use their tools and push the appropriate data and results to the client
  • use the client tools and get the functionality and data they need

A third party cannot take on the work an organization needs it to take due to lack of experienced staff. Thus, the answer to procurement staff augmentation is one that starts with better, more modern, Procurement tech, which is quite different than IT staff augmentation, which starts with firm qualification and then resource qualification. Due to the drastically different market dynamics — an abundance of talent vs. a dearth, the approach has to be entirely different.

PostScript: Please note not ONCE did we say AI. We said better tech. That’s totally different!