Global Sourcing Of Design Santa Clara 10 12 2009
- 1. Global Sourcing of Design
Paul Henderson
Managing Director – Clarify, LLC
October 12th, 2009
paul.henderson@ClarifyLLC.com
12/31/2010 1 © Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 2. Today’s topics
How can we decide what to outsource?
• Framing the decisions and alternatives
How do we organize to support outsourcing?
• Integral vs. ‘modular’
• ‘Outsourcing’ internally
Case example – Linux PC for developing countries
Case example – D.com: bringing in new capabilities
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 5. In-Source Outsource
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 7. How upper management wants to think about
outsourcing:
Specs,
money,
That thing those other
require-
people do
ments
plop!
Perfect Result
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 8. But the choices are more complicated:
Control sensitive IP Mature technology
Stable process Offshore Many can do it
Lower cost & time Meet country of
zone proximity origin requirements
In-source Near-shore Outsource
Low-volume, high mix Onshore Relative advantage
No one else wants it Proximity matters
See also: http://www.ventureoutsource.com/ © Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 9. The move to outsourcing follows a predictable path:
Step Motivation Characteristics
1. Capacity Supplement internal Moving the simplest, lowest risk work to
augmentation capacity to overcome partners (often with a lot of oversight and
constraints driven by hands-on help from internal resources)
peak demands
2. Pursuit of Safety valve for Belief that an outsourced model will be
lower cost pricing/cost pressures cheaper (often not the case, especially at
first)
3. Leverage Get more done with Onshore staff moves from a hands-on to a
internal owned /onshore staff project or program management role,
resources supervising the work of others outside
4. Reduce Reduce overall cost Formal adoption of an operating model
US/EU structure that maximizes the use of offshore
footprint resources and reduces or eliminates
onshore resources
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 10. Typical reasons for outsourcing design:
• Faster time-to-market
• Lower capital requirements
• Utilize headcount for higher-value activities
• Change fixed expenses to variable
• Increase presence in a target geography
• Access a new technology or unfamiliar market
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 11. The biggest reason to outsource:
Because you can
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 12. A Framework For Making Sourcing
Decisions
12 © Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 13. What to outsource?
First, break the problem down
Product into “sourceable” elements.
Large Each face of this cube is
format an interface that must
be managed
AiO
A Source-
Photo
able
Element
Low-end A
size
Pen
Paper path
ASIC
Power Supply
Service Station
W/S
Driver SW
Subsystem
Function or
lifecycle stage
Based on the work of Charlie Fine at MIT © Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 14. Interfaces are everywhere
Software
• APIs (Application Program Interfaces)
Hardware
• GEMS (Geometry, Energy, Material, Signal)
Services
• Exchanges of information & commitments
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 15. Whole subsystems
Product Example:
outsourcing a whole
Large
format subsystem
AiO
(e.g.- power supply)
Photo
Low-end A
size
Pen
Paper path
ASIC
Power Supply
Service Station
W/S
Driver SW
Based on the work of Charlie Fine at MIT © Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 16. Lifecycle phase / activity
Product
Large
format
AiO
Example:
outsourcing all
Photo
of one lifecycle
phase
Low-end A
size
(e.g.- assembly)
Pen
Pen
Paper path
ASIC
Power Supply
Service Station
W/S
Driver SW
Subsystem
Function or
lifecycle stage
Based on the work of Charlie Fine at MIT © Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 17. Whole product
Product
Large
format
AiO
Example: outsourcing a whole product
Photo
Low-end A
size
Pen
Paper path
ASIC
Power Supply
Service Station
W/S
Driver SW
Subsystem
Function or
lifecycle stage
Based on the work of Charlie Fine at MIT © Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 18. Evaluate each sourceable element:
For each candidate element, we ask the following questions:
1. Is this important to the customer (CAV)? Does it affect their
sensory experience of the product? Are its specs purchase
criteria?
2. What is this element’s clockspeed relative to the rest of the
system or industry? Does it drive the evolution of the rest of the
system?
3. What is our competitive position?
4. What is the architecture of this element? How clean are the
interfaces?
5. How many suppliers are truly capable of delivering this element?
Based on the work of Charlie Fine at MIT © Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 19. Choose a plan of action for each element
1 2 3 4 5
Customer Component Competitive Architecture? Capable Suppliers?
Value? Clockspeed? Position? None Few Many
Strong Any Invest to maintain leadership Acquire and
consolidate
Integral
Fast Invest Acquire/Take Equity strategic alliance
Weak
Invest Acquire/Take Equity Buy off the shelf
Modular
High Divest or exit
Strong maintain parity
Maintain capability
Slow Integral
Directed
Invest Joint development
Development
Weak
develop suppliers outsource / multiple- outsource
0. Start source
Modular
Here
spin out divest
Strong
Fast Integral change architecture
Weak
develop suppliers outsource
Low
Modular
spin out divest divest or exit
Strong
change architecture
Slow Integral
Weak Any outsource
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
Adapted from unpublished work by Charley Fine, www.clockspeed.com
- 20. Key points to address using this framework
Defining ‘source-able elements’ is about deciding which
interfaces you want to manage:
• Relationships between subsystems
• Relationships between lifecycle steps
• Relationships between products / product families
If the impact on customer experience is not clear, model the
result
• Savings vs. lost sales or increase in warranty cost
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 21. Interfaces are not free
Metcalfe’s law:
nConversations (nStakeholders) 2
Basic question:
“What kinds of problems do you want to manage?”
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 23. Some alternative structures for managing outsourced
design:
Coupled structure (warm bodies)
• The outside engineering team actually becomes an integrated part of the
internal team.
• They are effectively the junior members of the team and their work is
closely supervised by members of the internal team.
• Communication is about the task.
Decoupled structure (out-tasking)
• The inside design team parcels out either parts of the system for the
external teams to design or specifies tasks or parts of the process for the
outside people to do.
• The communication is at and about the interfaces.
Co-sourcing
• True collaborative development, leveraging the best of both
• Communication is about the outcomes and interfaces
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 24. Decoupled structure at HP: roles of internal,
outsourced and offshore design groups
Questions about specs and intent
Escalations that can’t Questions that relate
be resolved locally to system performance
Onshore Offshore
Offshore
Internal 20%
design
80% outsourced
design design
Subsystem responsibility, Answers to simple
coaching system questions
Specs, guidelines, coaching, answers to complex system performance questions
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 25. Thoughts on selecting an outsourced design model
Nature of the design context - maturity and separability:
• Platform vs. product
− Is this the first instance or a derivative?
− How much new technology?
− How complex the integration task?
• Modular vs. integral
− How well can the subsystems be decoupled?
• Explicit vs. implicit
− How well defined are the requirements & specs?
− How consistent are the processes?
− How well documented?
Organizational culture – need for control
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 26. Design out the failure modes
Result Because:
33% Went well Modular design and/or effective management
67% Failed or 1) Misaligned objectives between teams
went poorly -> use contingent contracts to anticipate renegotiation
2) Rivalry between partners who don’t want to source from
each other
-> use incentives for short term collaboration, award
future business based on collaboration
3) Inadequate version control – lose the ability to rebalance
inventory, leverage designs across products
-> Watch ‘tweaks’ that can torpedo your objectives
4) Cultural barriers to transparency
-> Insist on getting bad news early & reward candor
Study of 100 outsourced design projects at Fortune 1000 companies From: Disasters in Design Outsourcing – Amaral & Parker HBR Sep. 2008
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 27. PCs are easy, right?
HP’s 441 ODM program
27 © Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 28. PCs are easy, right?
1 2 3 4 5
Customer Component Competitive Architecture? Capable Suppliers?
Value? Clockspeed? Position? None Few Many
Strong Any Invest to maintain leadership Acquire and
consolidate
Integral
Fast Invest Acquire/Take Equity strategic alliance
Weak
Invest Acquire/Take Equity Buy off the shelf
Modular
High Divest or exit
Strong maintain parity
Maintain capability
Slow Integral
Directed
Invest Joint development
Development
Weak
develop suppliers outsource / multiple- outsource
0. Start source
Modular
Here
spin out divest
Strong
Fast Integral change architecture
Weak
develop suppliers outsource
Low
Modular
spin out divest divest or exit
Strong
change architecture
Slow Integral
Weak Any outsource
Adapted from unpublished work by Charley Fine, www.clockspeed.com © Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 29. 441 Linux PC for developing countries
New ODM PG processes needed for creating products to reach
developing countries
The HP Product team lacked basic PG & project management
capabilities and had no experience managing development
They had no way to evaluate the ODM’s progress and were at risk
of missing their ship date and exposure to serious functionality &
warranty issues
Lessons learned:
• Have some people on the team who had actually done product
development before, including an architect & a QA person
• Do due diligence on the partner’s true capabilities
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 30. Doing due diligence: domain competency
Look really closely at what they have done in the past:
• Is it really relevant?
• Are the people who did it still there?
Meet the people who did those projects
• Get them on your design team & make sure they are taken care of
Check for a deep understanding of your product’s context
• Your application, target geography, target customer
How do they choose their partners?
• If they outsource to others, how do they qualify their 3rd parties?
• Look at: selection criteria, quality, IP management, etc.
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 31. The second biggest reason to outsource:
Because you must
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 32. Some examples
Hospital beds with more technology than your car
Cars with more technology than consumer electronics
New combinations of technology
• e.g.- GPS & GIS, sensors, database to find open parking spaces
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 33. New capabilities – make or buy?
D.com
12/31/2010 33 © Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 34. Background: D.com
Successful reference site
Primary revenue from display
advertising
Needed to develop new
products to escape
commoditization (e.g.-
games, mobile apps, etc.)
Choice: hire in-house talent or
outsource development of
new products?
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 35. Had been outsourcing from early on
Development processes including a change management system
(JIRA) to manage ticketing, attaching all docs and requirements
This forced the discipline of being explicit about requirements
and expectations and the use of clear mechanisms for
exchanging requests and agreements
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 37. Implications for cross-generational evolution of
platforms & architectures
Outsourced provider development
• Takes several generations to get them up to speed
• Progression is from commodity design to subsystem design
to entire cost reduced products to whole products
Design +
responsibility
to suppliers Supplier
But… R1 success
+
+ Internal
• Erosion of internal capability
support
Ability to
provided
• Switching costs + switch
- B1 +
Internal
capability
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 38. Outsourcing and startups
Lots of pressure from VCs to use offshore development
Can accelerate TTM if you have the right in-house architecture
team and manage the outside team well
Can incentivize the partner w/warrants in lieu of (some) cash
But
It can affect valuation in M&A exits
Any uncertainty about IP can kill the deal
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 40. Cheaper labor is always better, right?
Kodak and digital cameras
12/31/2010 40 © Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 41. “This isn’t working…”
‘Before state’:
• No meaningful market share in digital
cameras
• Products are too expensive and
unappealing
• Customers, R&D + marketing in Rochester,
manufacturing in US Marketing
Custome
• Having a credible camera offering was rs
deemed critical to the company’s future
credibility in the digital photo space
Design Manu-
facturing
Key question: How do we configure
ourselves to be competitive?
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 43. What do we do where?
STRENGTHS: STRENGTHS: STRENGTHS:
•95% of customers •Highly capable •Growing capability in
•Existing R&D team manufacturing base manufacturing base
•Deep understanding of US •Strong camera industry •No camera industry
market & customers •Near comp. suppliers •Talent is 10% of US cost
BUT: BUT: BUT:
•Can’t design their way out •No customers •No customers
of a paper bag •No R&D team •No R&D team
•Talent is expensive •Talent costs 125% of US •IP protection is iffy
•Weak manufacturing rate
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 44. Choose a plan of action for each element
1 2 3 4 5
Customer Component Competitive Architecture? Capable Suppliers?
Value? Clockspeed? Position? None Few Many
Strong Any Invest to maintain leadership Acquire and
consolidate
Integral
Fast Invest Acquire/Take Equity strategic alliance
Weak
Invest Acquire/Take Equity Buy off the shelf
Modular
High Divest or exit
Strong maintain parity
Maintain capability
Slow Integral
Directed
Invest Joint development
Development
Weak
develop suppliers outsource / multiple- outsource
0. Start source
Modular
Here
spin out divest
Strong
Fast Integral change architecture
Weak
develop suppliers outsource
Low
Modular
spin out divest divest or exit
Strong
change architecture
Slow Integral
Weak Any outsource
Adapted from unpublished work by Charley Fine, www.clockspeed.com © Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved
- 45. Solution: Source the best talent
wherever you can find it.
Acquire
Chinon
Manu-
Market-
Design Manu- Low-end facturin
facturin
Custom ing g only g
ers
© Clarify LLC, 2009 All Rights Reserved