Outsourcing - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 42
About This Presentation
Title:

Outsourcing

Description:

Outsourcing – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:134
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 43
Provided by: ieh4
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Outsourcing


1
Outsourcing
  • An easy way to increase profits
  • Nike, Cisco, Apple outsource most of their
    manufacturing
  • Each could focus on research, marketing
  • Each has gotten into trouble
  • 2001 Nike reported unexpected profit shortfalls
    due to inventory problems
  • 2000 Cisco had to write down billions in
    obsolete inventory
  • 1999 Apple was unable to meet customer demand
    for new products

2
Outsourcing Benefits and Risks
  • Benefits
  • Economies of scale reduce manufacturing costs
  • Risk pooling demand uncertainties are
    transferred
  • Reduced capital investment
  • Focus on core competencies
  • Increased flexibility
  • Risks
  • Loss of competitive knowledge
  • Conflicting objectives
  • Flexibility vs. long-term, stable commitments,
    etc.
  • Consider the IBM PC example.

3
A Framework for Outsourcing
  • Reasons for outsourcing
  • Dependency on capacity
  • Dependency on knowledge
  • Product architecture
  • Integral products components are tightly
    related
  • Designed as a system
  • Not off-the-shelf components
  • Evaluated based on system performance
  • Modular products independent components

4
A Framework for Outsourcing (Fine Whitney)
5
The Move to B2B Commerce
6
B2B is Huge...
Source Forrester Research, Inc.
7
FreeMarkets Online
  • FreeMarkets is an online market making firm that
    enabled industrial buyers to link up with their
    potential suppliers in a live electronic bidding
  • The end result of such interaction among a
    network of suppliers was procurement cost savings
    of about 15 for the buyers
  • The company was founded in 1995 and was on the
    verge of breaking even in 1998
  • It was expecting to receive commissions and fees
    of nearly 6 million for arranging procurement of
    200 million worth of industrial components and
    parts

8
The company went public in 12/99...
Freemarkets Stock Price
9
Where is FreeMarkets today?
  • For the three months ended in 3/31/01
  • Revenue totaled 33M
  • Net loss totaled 43.7M
  • For the three months ended in 12/31/01
  • Revenue totaled 44.8M
  • Net loss totaled 2.8M

10
Highly Fragmented
  • Most product categories are highly fragmented,
    with numerous suppliers each offering different
    level of quality, service and pricing options
  • Buyers incur significant cost in the actual
    purchase process
  • A buyer must invest internal resources to manage
    the process of collecting, analyzing and acting
    upon all the information in the market
  • In addition to purchase price companies spend
    over 10 in additional procurement costs
  • On the suppliers side, there are significant
    costs in using the manufacturing reps
  • These commissions range from 4 to 7 of purchase
    price

11
How Does FreeMarkets Online Create Value for its
Customers?
  • Consulting/Purchase outsourcing
  • Putting together specs, drawings, lot sizes,
    documentation and RFQs
  • Identifying potential savings opportunities
  • Identifying and qualifying suppliers
  • Educating and training buyers
  • Conducting the Competitive Bidding Event (CBE)
  • Providing post bid analysis and support

12
How Does FreeMarkets Online Create Value for its
Customers?
  • Consulting/Purchase outsourcing
  • Distribution Intermediary

13
Traditional B2B Trading Exchanges
14
Internet Based B2B Trading Exchanges
15
How Does FreeMarkets Online Create Value for its
Customers?
  • Consulting/Purchase outsourcing
  • Distribution Intermediary
  • Network Enabler/Software Provider

16
What are the Barriers for the buyers?
  • Elimination of established relationships with the
    suppliers and their representatives
  • Elimination of manufacturing reps could result in
    loss of convenience

17
What is the value to the suppliers?
  • Less value for the suppliers
  • Commission costs fell from 7 to 2.5
  • Table 7.5 implies reduction in commission by
    174M(4.5)8M
  • Table 7.5 also shows 35M drop in revenue for the
    suppliers
  • Suppliers could benefit from lower sales,
    marketing and distribution costs and better
    utilization of capacity

18
The Revenue Model
  • A hybrid of service fees and sales commissions
  • FreeMarkets charged monthly fee from the buyer
    based on the size of the market making team
    dedicated to the event
  • Winning supplier paid sales commissions this was
    paid in installments as suppliers shipped
    products

19
Problems with the revenue model
  • Buyer side
  • FreeMarkets invests substantially in a project
  • Consulting revenue is independent of the value
    created
  • Does not lead to another intensive purchasing
    study for the customer
  • Gross margin on consulting is about 22
  • Doesnt scale well
  • Supplier side
  • FreeMarkets does not represent the supplier
  • FreeMarkets success depends on their ability to
    identify many potential suppliers
  • Suppliers pay commissions to the company that
    reduced their margins

20
Vertical vs Horizontal Focus?
  • Vertical
  • Advantage FreeMarkets can capitalize on its deep
    knowledge of supplier industries
  • Disadvantage Hard to scale-up
  • Horizontal
  • Advantage Ability to generate multiple contracts
    from one buyers
  • Disadvantage FreeMarkets does not bring much
    expertise to the transaction

21
How about licensing the technology?
  • Are buyers capable of using the technology by
    themselves?
  • If not, how will this hurt?
  • If they are, where is revenue going to come from?
  • How can these problems be addressed?

22
By the end of 1998
  • FreeMarkets was pursuing the horizontal market
    expansion
  • In 2000, the company started licensing its
    software

23
E-Marketplaces The Initial (95-99) business model
  • The e-marketplace concept started as a new way to
    procure products, particularly non-production
    items. E-marketplaces
  • Expand everyones market reach
  • Generate lower price for the buyers
  • Cut operational costs for buyers and suppliers
  • Automating the procurement process will reduce
    processing cost per order from as high as 150 to
    as low as 5 per order
  • Focus on liquidity
  • Transaction fee paid by the suppliers
  • Serve as a virtual distributor

24
Problems with this Business Model
  • Sellers resist paying a fee to the company whose
    main objective is to reduce the purchase price
  • Buyers resist paying a fee
  • The revenue model needs to be flexible
  • Sometimes the wrong party is charged
  • Low barriers to entry created a fragmented
    industry flooded with participants
  • Just in the chemical industry there were about 30
    e-markets

25
Continuous evolution of the business model
  • Transaction fees (typically paid by the sellers)
  • Sometimes the wrong party is charged
  • Buyers and suppliers resist paying
  • Subscription fees (typically paid by the buyer)
  • Depends on a number of dimensions
  • Licensing the software

26
Evolving Market Types
  • Value-added independent e-markets
  • They are expanding their offering to include
    inventory management and financial services
    (Zoho) supply chain planning (Covisint, e2open,
    Converge, TheSupply)

27
A Framework for eProcurement
  • Type of Component
  • Strategic Components
  • Part of the finished product
  • Not industry specific company specific
  • Examples PC motherboard and chassis
  • Commodity Products
  • Can be purchased from a large number of suppliers
  • Price is determined by market forces
  • Examples Memory unit in a PC
  • Indirect Material
  • MRO

28
A Framework for eProcurement
  • Level of Risk
  • Uncertain Demand (Inventory risk)
  • Volatile market price (Price Risk)
  • Component availability (Shortage Risk)

29
Risk Commodity Products
  • Can be purchased either
  • in the open market through on-line auction, or
  • through the use of long term contracts
  • Long term contracts guarantee certain level of
    supply but may be risky for the buyer
  • Inventory risk, shortage risk or price risk

30
A Framework for eProcurement
  • Indirect Material
  • Typically low risk and hence the focus is on
    content based hubs.
  • The objective is to use an MRO-hub that
    specializes in unifying catalogs from many
    suppliers
  • Examples MRO.com, Grainger on-line catalogs

31
Grainger
  • W. W. Grainger has been selling industrial
    supplies for 72 years
  • In 1995 Grainger established Grainger.com, an
    on-line catalogue for more than 220,000 products
    from 12,000 suppliers
  • In 1999, Grainger experienced revenue growth of
    102M through its internet channel
  • The MRO supply industry is growing at a rate of
    3-4 a year. From 1996 to 1999 Grainger internet
    sales grew 32 a year and 20 in offline due to
    customers that were lured to Grainger from the
    web site

32
A Framework for eProcurement
  • Strategic Components
  • Typically high risk components that can be
    purchased from a small number of suppliers
  • The objective is to use private or
    consortia-based e-marketplace.
  • The focus is on an e-marketplace that allow
    collaboration with the suppliers

33
Consortia or Private?
  • Transaction volume
  • Number of suppliers
  • Cost of building and maintaining the site
  • The importance of protecting proprietary business
    practices
  • Technology and product life cycles

34
A Framework for eProcurement
  • Commodity Products
  • Products go directly into finished goods
  • High risk
  • Many potential options to choose from
  • Long Term Contracts
  • Buyer and supplier commit to certain volume
    (called the commitment level)
  • Supplier guarantees a level of supply for a
    committed price
  • Flexible, or Option Contracts
  • Buyer pre-pay a relatively small fraction of the
    product price up-front, in return for a
    commitment from the supplier to satisfy demand up
    to a certain level (called the option level)
  • The buyer can purchase any amount up to the
    option level by paying additional price for each
    unit purchased
  • Spot Purchasing

35
A Framework for eProcurement A Portfolio Approach

Option Level
H L
N/A
Inventory Risk (Supplier)
Inventory Risk (Buyer)
Price, Shortage Risks (Buyer)
Commitment Level
L H
36
B2B Software Vendors
  • Oracle (Indirect and Direct)
  • i2 Technologies and Manugistics (Direct)
  • Ariba (Indirect and Direct)
  • Commerce One (Indirect and Direct)
  • Agile (Direct)
  • VerticalNet (Indirect)

37
E-Procurement The reality
  • Companies conducting greater than 20 of
    procurement transactions online have reduced
    their transaction processing cost by nearly a
    third (Hackett Benchmarking)
  • Product savings and process cost improvements
    effect operating cost by 10 (Credit Suisse First
    Boston Technology Group)

38
E-Procurement The reality
  • To capture this benefits purchasing organization
    needs to invest heavily in
  • Changing internal procurement processes
  • Integrating e-marketplaces in internal systems
  • Purchasing B2B applications, and
  • Paying e-marketplace transaction fee/subscription
    fee

Source Forrester Research
39
Positive Aspects of Trading Exchanges (Companies
who use exchanges)
  • Reduce costs or labor (31)
  • Better access to products/vendors (24)
  • Increase speed or efficiency (29)
  • Access to more customers (21)

Source AMR Research
40
Positive Aspects of Trading Exchanges (Companies
who plan to use exchanges)
  • Reduce costs or labor (43)
  • Better access to products/vendors (26)
  • Increase speed or efficiency (23)
  • Access to more customers (10)

Source AMR Research
41
Negative Aspects of Trading Exchanges (Companies
use exchanges)
  • Security trust (17)
  • Start Up cost (5)
  • Loss of face-to-face relationships (12)
  • Lack of standards (5)
  • Immature technology (5)
  • Integration issues (7)

Source AMR Research
42
Negative Aspects of Trading Exchanges (Companies
who plan to use exchanges)
  • Security trust (16)
  • Start Up cost (15)
  • Loss of face-to-face relationships (11)
  • Lack of standards (6)
  • Immature technology (6)
  • Integration issues (4)
  • Pricing pressure (6)

Source AMR Research
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com