Abstract
Information professionals can benefit from outsourcing if the right tasks are outsourced. This article describes the process that the Knowledge Team within the Procurement & Analytic Solutions Practice of A.T. Kearney went through to build, implement and manage an outsourced research partner network. The model paved the way for the team to concentrate on more strategic, value-adding activities. The article outlines key challenges and lessons learned during the implementation of the new model.
Keywords
Introduction
Librarians and information professionals working in a corporate environment know all too well the pressures of delivering top-quality products and services while also seeing their budgets continually squeezed. In an effort to do more with less, some information departments have turned to outsourcing the more repetitive tasks so they can concentrate on value-added work that directly supports their organizations. Examples of outsourced work include cataloguing, specific desk research topics, or the production of a regular in-house newsletter.
Ten years ago, an article appeared in Information Outlook called ‘Selective Outsourcing: A Tool for Leveraging the Value of Information Professionals.’ 1 In this, the author, Cynthia Lesky, stated that there are not enough examples of information professionals who have survived and actually embraced outsourcing and thrived in the process. The situation since then has developed considerably and in this context, this article discusses how the Knowledge Team working within the Procurement & Analytic Solutions Practice of international management consulting firm, A.T. Kearney, made a strategic decision to do away with desk research activities and instead build, implement, and manage an outsourced research partner network, paving the path for the Knowledge Team to concentrate on more strategic, value-adding activities. The process we used can be leveraged by other information professionals faced with a similar decision.
Background to the step change
The purpose of A.T. Kearney’s Procurement & Analytic Solutions Practice Knowledge Team is to provide desk research on supply market issues and knowledge-sharing tools that enable our consultants to transfer the know-how and insights gained from their sourcing projects. At the time of this outsourcing initiative, the team had five full-time employees.
Holly Green stated in her 2013 Information Outlook article on the importance of planning, ‘Rather than holding on to what has made them successful so far, libraries and information centers need to explore what they can do differently to add value in today’s radically different markets’. 2 In 2009, the A.T. Kearney Knowledge Team recognized that the landscape in which it was operating was rapidly changing. We noted the arrival of SharePoint and other types of collaboration platforms, the rise of social media, and young Millennials entering the workforce with very different information-seeking and sharing habits, all coupled with the rapid growth of our practice. It became clear that we needed to rethink our operations to keep up with these changes. Key to this was to remain strategically aligned with the business unit and continue to add value.
We faced a dilemma. How could our small team continue to provide desk research and respond to the rapidly changing priorities around knowledge capture and dissemination? There just were not enough hours in the day to provide both types of service without more resources. Something had to give. The answer was to adopt an outsourcing model for desk research on supply market issues.
As we embarked on this effort to change our research model, we engaged in brainstorming sessions. Out of these sessions, we determined that we needed to address four elements (see Figure 1).
Key drivers.
People
Time is a scarce resource. Removing desk research from the team could free up time that could be put to better use improving the practice’s knowledge-sharing tools. Improving the tools would make them easier to use and would further encourage consultants to share their knowledge. Furthermore, by being able to concentrate on improving the knowledge-sharing tools, members of the Knowledge Team could develop their professional skills. When outsourcing a function within a department, there is often a concern among those affected that they are being de-skilled. However, in our case, we developed new skills in areas such as project management, information architecture, and designing and implementing a taxonomy to improve findability of knowledge and the user experience in doing so.
Resources
When researching any topic, having access to good resources in terms of both experienced researchers and reliable information is vital. The decision to build a research partner network increased our resource base in one fell swoop. It provided us with a larger team of experienced researchers with global reach and access to a range of commercial online databases and other information sources. According to Lesky, ‘Appropriate and actively managed outsourcing can enable internal staff to provide more and better services’. We have found this to be true. Our research partners give us a wider range of services, including in-depth competitive intelligence, price benchmarking, running requests for information (RFIs), and expert telephone interview skills – none of which we could offer before because of limited resources.
Strategy
When deciding what tasks to outsource, one of the most important things to bear in mind is how strategic to the business the task is. Key activities that have high strategic value to the organization should not be outsourced.
Competitive landscape
Information professionals need to regularly review the landscape in which they operate because change is ever-present. They need to ask the simple question, ‘Could I do this better?’ Over the past 20 years, secondary desk research has become commoditized. Many companies now offer research services staffed by professional researchers, with some of the larger firms based offshore in Asia. Organizations need to ask if there is a compelling business case to outsource their research to third parties.
How to construct the research model
Designing and implementing a new service offering needs good planning and execution. Building an outsourced research capability encompasses a range of actions, from identifying the right research partners and negotiating terms to agreeing on workflow and launching the service. We used a six-step process to build our outsourced research model:
Step one: The model vision
Our starting point was to work out what the research model might look like, how it might operate, and what constraints there might be. Several questions needed to be answered:
How many research partners do we need to operate our model successfully? Where should the research partners be located? Are there any constraints? How do we envision the workflow? What documentation do we need to put in place? (for example, work order and purchase order forms and a research proposal template) What is the scope of the research we will be asking our partners to undertake? Can we turn this into work products? How will we price our new research service? How will we market the new way we will offer research?
Initially, we decided to start with a small number of research partners in a network model that was scalable and did not commit us to buying volume upfront. We also agreed that it made more strategic sense to have a few partners with a range of complementary skills rather than only one partner. While using one partner might be advantageous from a pricing perspective, there are disadvantages:
The research partner might not have any capacity when needed. The research partner might not be best suited to research a specific topic. For example, it might not possess the required language skills or in-depth subject knowledge needed. The research partner’s methodology for approaching a particular piece of research might not be the most appropriate.
An interesting point that arose early in our discussions was where our research partners should be located and whether the physical location of a research partner made any difference to research results or indeed the whole outsourcing process. This made us think about the distinction between outsourcing and offshoring. Our definition of outsourcing meant giving the research task to a third party outside of our organization. This third party could be located within the same country or in another country. The term offshoring meant giving the task of research to a third party in another country.
Step two: Identifying the research partners
We started by identifying potential research partners from around the world. We did not constrain our search to any particular geographic area during the initial search. Rather, we looked at all possibilities and cast them into our net. We conducted database and Internet searches, and we leveraged professional associations and our personal connections to identify possible research partners.
Step three: Designing and executing the procurement process
With a list of potential research partners identified, the next step was to conduct a formal process for requests for information (RFI) and requests for proposals (RFP). We did this because we wanted to make sure we chose the right partners for our model. While it can be argued that this step is not always necessary, conducting an RFI and RFP process is a robust way to identify the most suitable companies if you intend to negotiate with them. The process also makes it easier to compare companies because they have to respond to the same questions so you are comparing like with like.
The first part was to conduct the RFI, which is a set of questions designed to find out more about the company than is available through secondary desk resources. The questions were sent to 15 research companies identified during the course of our research. Of these, we shortlisted 10 to participate in the detailed RFP process. It was clear from the RFI that some companies we had identified were not suitable, so these dropped out. The second part comprised running the RFP, which contains a much more detailed set of questions to find out the real capabilities of the companies and whether they can meet the requirements. The challenges of running an RFP are designing the RFP template and coming up with the evaluation criteria. Each response needs to be evaluated, scored, and weighted so that a final score can be calculated. This takes away any bias that might creep in from personal preference. Our RFP process included a conference call with each of the research partners to allow them to present their company and the services they offered. Although we did not score these calls, they provided useful information and enabled us to ask for clarification if needed.
After scoring and evaluating the 10 research companies that participated in our RFP process, we narrowed the list to five companies that we felt could meet our needs.
Step four: Putting the agreements in place
The hard work began after we had selected our research partners via the RFP process. We needed to get agreements in place and discuss how the model was going to be implemented. Our starting point was our firm’s standard agreement, which includes confidentiality, terms, and conditions. Certain changes had to be made to the standard agreement to accommodate the service offering we were putting in place; we used our firm’s internal legal counsel to help us accomplish this. We also put together a service level agreement. We shared these draft agreements with each of the research partners we wanted to engage in order to ensure that the documents met their requirements as well. It is important not to underestimate the length of time that this step can take. Build it into your timeframe, keeping in mind that it can take several rounds before each party is satisfied with the wording from a legal perspective.
Step five: Designing the workflow process
While working on the legal agreements, we spent time designing the workflow process. This involved understanding how our new research partners would want to interact with us and coming up with a process that worked for both sides. Our discussions resulted in the following process, which has been simplified for the purposes of this article (see Figure 2):
The A.T. Kearney consultant requests research support from the Knowledge Team. The Knowledge Team assesses the initial research scope, recommends the most appropriate research partner, and sets up a call with the research partner and the consultant to discuss the scope in more detail. The research partner provides their input to the Knowledge Team along with an estimate of man days. The Knowledge Team writes up a formal research proposal and sends it to the consultant. The consultant accepts or rejects the proposal. Upon acceptance, a formal work order is sent to the research partner for signature. The Knowledge Team project manages the research, ensuring that the work is carried out according to timeframe, budget, and research scope. This includes reviewing the deliverable for quality and accuracy. The Knowledge Team delivers the completed research to the consultant and requests feedback. A one-page case study is written up for marketing and communications purposes. The Knowledge Team passes the invoice to the practice’s financial controller for payment.
The workflow process.
Step six: Marketing and launching the new research model
Our planning process included compiling a marketing and communications plan. This encompassed thinking about the key messages we wanted to get across to our target audiences, the medium best suited for doing so, and the timeline we wanted to accomplish this. It also included coming up with a brand name for our model. After some debate, we settled on Advanced Supply Market Research (ASMR). For us, it was important to emphasize that our research partner network is a niche offering focusing on supply market intelligence.
In consultation with our stakeholders, we agreed to a soft launch of our new research partner network. This involved reaching out to key decision makers and influencers we had already identified to let them know about our new research offering and how it could benefit them and their project team. The most effective form of marketing is word-of-mouth, so aiming to get influencers to market the offering for us was an important part of our strategy.
To accompany the launch of our research partner network, we developed a range of marketing collateral to suit the needs of our target audiences. This included the following:
PowerPoint decks; Website content on the Knowledge Team’s internal SharePoint site; One-page case studies on each research project as soon as it was completed.
Marketing the solution became a top priority for the team. Activities included showcasing case studies in the Knowledge Team’s monthly electronic newsletter, highlighting each of our research partners in our newsletter, and holding update calls with decision makers to remind them of the benefits of our research partner network and how it could support their client work. We emphasized the additional benefits that we could now offer in terms of a wider range of research services, from producing regular industry newsletters to conducting in-depth competitive intelligence and price benchmarking.
While designing the workflow process (step five), we realized that this step gave the Knowledge Team opportunities to showcase our professional expertise and provided added value at three key points within the step:
Well-written research proposals show that we are professionals who mean business. These proposals ensure there is no miscommunication between the parties and provide a written agreement that some research yields no results, as all information professionals know sometimes happens. This can, in itself, be an answer, but in today’s information-rich world, many people find it difficult to accept that there is no information available and therefore baulk at paying for a service that has not provided them with anything to read. The Knowledge Team developed a work order template for use with the research partners. The purpose of the work order is to document the research being placed with the research partner, including scope, timeframe, and deliverables as well as a reminder that, by signing the work order, the research partner agrees to the service level agreement and all other agreements in place.
Key challenges and lessons learned
The implementation of our outsourced research model four years ago went relatively smoothly. Once launched, we saw some challenges that we had not anticipated when designing the service. The following are some of the key challenges we faced.
Time zones
Many outsourcing models are based on offshoring the work to lower-cost countries, such as India. From a pricing perspective, this may be an attractive solution, but other factors come into play, such as time zone differences. A cheap price is not an advantage if it is impossible to arrange a conference call with all the parties to scope out the research. We experienced first-hand the difficulties of setting up such conference calls a number of times. For example, one project involved setting up a call with the consultant, who was in San Francisco, while the recommended research partner was in Mumbai. Scoping a piece of research can be conducted via email, but we found that it is far better to have a conference call to discuss the scope because it enables all parties to ask questions, thus avoiding miscommunication upfront. Being able to discuss the research over the phone at reasonable times of day for each party provides the basis for superior research results, especially if the topic is complex.
Closeness to the market
While some offshore research organizations work 24/7 via a shift system to cover all time zones, sometimes it is necessary to have the research conducted in the same geographic location as the research scope. Researchers physically in one country have an advantage over researchers who are not because they are more attuned to the country and what is happening there. This is a very intangible variable, but it has influenced our recommendations of research partners on several occasions.
Splitting the research
In a number of instances, we contemplated splitting the research between two research partners because of the extremely tight timeframe in which the research was needed. Although this may seem like the best option, it has its drawbacks. Having two or more research companies working on different parts of the same project can mean different interpretations of certain information and varying approaches. For the information professional managing the project, it means even more communication and quality control to ensure compatibility. For optimum customer experience, we found that it was best not to split projects.
We continue to learn lessons from the implementation of our research partner network and adapt the model as we move forward. Figure 3 illustrates the key lessons we have learned to date.
Key learnings.
Test the model
It is not always possible to test a new model before it is implemented because of time constraints or other reasons. In our case, we did not have the option of testing the model with just one partner before signing up other partners to our network. This did not stop us from implementing our research partner network; it just meant that we had to react swiftly to any modifications we needed to make.
Refine the model
Models are not built in stone. They need to be flexible and able to adapt to change. If part of the process is not working, it needs to be changed, even if the original idea was a good one. Our workflow process had included building a complex SharePoint site for managing the workflow of all research projects from beginning to end. As we moved forward with the new model, we realized that this was not the best approach for us, so we modified our process and expectations accordingly.
Create an elevator speech
We had prepared a range of marketing materials before launching our research partner model, but we did not include a speech that could quickly and succinctly sum up our new offering. Elevator speeches are perfect for sharing with busy decision makers who have little time. We have learned our lesson and have one ready.
Changing direction: New skills for Information Professionals
When the decision was made to outsource this service to a research partner network, all members of the Knowledge Team expressed concern. What were the implications of this strategic decision on each of the team members’ roles? Would it lead to being de-skilled and ultimately out of a job? How would it impact team members from a professional perspective?
These concerns were addressed proactively and early on. Regular open dialogue ensured that each team member understood that while an area of their expertise that they liked to do was being taken away, the new model was superior because it would ultimately provide more opportunities to grow professionally. Furthermore, it would ensure that the Knowledge Team remained strategically aligned to A.T. Kearney’s Procurement & Analytic Solutions Practice.
It is always easier for teams to stay within their comfort zones, but this is not the most effective strategy in today’s ever-changing business environment. Information professionals need to read the landscape in which they operate, understand the needs of the organization they support, and change their service offerings to reflect this. While this can be challenging and uncomfortable at times, it is the only option worth pursuing.
The research partner network that we now have in place to provide supply market intelligence research services to our consulting project teams means that the Knowledge Team has time to spend developing services with more long-term strategic value and can become more involved in the growth areas of the business.
Pursuing services of strategic value
Knowledge-sharing tools
To remain competitive, sharing and transferring knowledge within an organization is essential. Our Knowledge Team now has more time to develop the Procurement & Analytic Solutions Practice’s main knowledge-sharing tools: a wiki, a podcast series, and centres of excellence. Producing podcasts has enabled members of the team to learn new skills, such as moderating a podcast with two or even three guest speakers. Even though the desk research for consulting projects is now conducted through our research partner network, our team members still tap into their research skills to explore podcast topics and develop talking points. Finally, team members practice project management skills to ensure that the podcast is produced and released according to schedule. This includes writing marketing copy to accompany the podcast that meets corporate guidelines and is optimized for search engines – yet another new skill.
Information architecture
Knowledge tools cannot function well without a robust information architecture. For the Knowledge Team, this has meant mastering the intricacies of the SharePoint 2010 environment and building and deploying a proprietary taxonomy. The taxonomy directly benefits users because it makes searches more precise and makes relevant content more findable. It has also become the standard controlled vocabulary for the practice, underpinning the client-facing technology tools that the practice has developed. Being able to leverage the taxonomy in this way has helped position the Knowledge Team members as subject matter experts in the field of information architecture and taxonomy development.
Text analytics
A strategic growth area for the Procurement & Analytics Practice is analytics, a subset of which is text analytics. Text analytics is about mining unstructured text data for meaning. Although there are software programs on the market that can analyze large volumes of unstructured text, taxonomies can improve the process of interpreting that unstructured text. The Knowledge Team is now able to participate in the practice’s text analytics work stream because it has demonstrated in-house taxonomy expertise. This development, which aligns strategically with the practice, would not have been possible if the Knowledge Team had not outsourced its research offering.
The road ahead
Information professionals must regularly review their portfolio of services and make sure that their departments or teams are strategically aligned to the goals of the organization in which they operate. If a service no longer appears to work or provides little benefit in return for the time it takes to deliver, then it should be earmarked for strategic review and potential deletion from the portfolio. Although we are operating in a challenging business environment, technological advances and new online tools such as Twitter, HootSuite, Paper.li, and Facebook combined with new ways of providing information, such as through content curation, make ours an exciting work environment.
Change is not easy, but those who make a strategic change are rewarded. Our decision to outsource our research has paid off. Each member of the Knowledge Team has developed new skills, and the team is strategically aligned with the practice that pays our salaries.