Outsourcing Performance 2017 - Sogeti.nl · © GIARTE TIMING Feb –Apr Online data collection Apr - June Analysis and reporting July –Sep Client interviews Sep - Oct Presentations

OUTSOURCING PERFORMANCE 2017

Presentation - 18th of September

© GIARTE

TIMING

Feb – Apr Online data collection

Apr - June Analysis and reporting

July – Sep Client interviews

Sep - Oct Presentations

OUTSOURCING PERFORMANCE 2017

| Outsourcing Performance 2017 | SogetiSlide 2

PARTICIPATION 2017 - OVERALL

822 Respondents

631 Organizations

928 Unique relations evaluated

PARTICIPATION 2017 – Sogeti (29 organizations)

28 Application Management

9 Infrastructure Management

7 End User Management

PARTICIPATION 2016 - Sogeti

21 Application Management

PARTICIPATION 2016 - OVERALL

717 Respondents

645 Organizations

916 Unique relations evaluated

© GIARTE

ASKED ONCE PER PROVIDER

Value as a Partner

Trust Scores

Cloud competence

Customer Effort Score

(non-standard services)

Satisfaction with services

Relationship Development

Value of Services Provided

OUTSOURCING PERFORMANCE 2017 | RESEARCH DESIGN QUESTIONNAIRE


Commercial Value

ORS

Share of wallet

Reletting

© GIARTE

Commercial Value

ORS

Share of wallet

Reletting

Value as a Partner

Trust Scores

Cloud competence








ASKED ONCE PER DOMAIN

© GIARTE

Commercial Value

ORS

Share of wallet

Reletting

Value as a Partner

Trust Scores

Cloud competence








ASKED ONCE PER SERVICE

© GIARTE

NUMBER OF SERVICE PROVIDERS WITH SEVEN OR MORE EVALUATIONS

Slide 6

APPLICATION MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT END USER MANAGEMENT

| Outsourcing Performance 2017 | Sogeti

14 13

1917

23

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

21 22

25

29

32

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1012

1517

23

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

© GIARTE

NUMBER OF SERVICE PROVIDERS WITH SEVEN OR MORE EVALUATIONS

Slide 7

APPLICATION MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT END USER MANAGEMENT


14 13

1917

23

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

21 22

25

29

32

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1012

1517

23

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

+ NEH Group

+ PeopleWare

+ RAM Infotechnology

+ Sogeti

- Broad Horizon

+ Cognizant

+ DXC Technology

+ Fujitsu

+ NEH Group

+ Sentia

+ Solvinity

+ Axians

+ Macaw

+ NEH Group

+ PeopleWare

+ RAM Infotechnology

+ Schuberg Philis

+ Sogeti

- Broad Horizon

© GIARTE

DOMAINS IN WHICH SERVICE PROVIDERS RECEIVE A SATISFACTION SCORE


Application Management

AccentureCognizant

EndavaLevi9

Tata Consultancy Services (TCS)

Wipro

Infrastructure Management

End User Management

BT

IBM

Proact

T-Systems

CGI

Ctac

myBrand

Ordina

SentiaAxians

Cegeka

Detron

OGD

Open Line

PeopleWare

Pink Elephant

RAM Infotechnology

Simac

Valid

Xcellent

Atos

Capgemini

Centric

Conclusion

DXC Technology

Fujitsu

KPN

Macaw

NEH Group

Schuberg Philis

Sogeti

Solvinity

© GIARTE

Endava Proact

Levi9 RAM Infotechnology

Macaw Sentia

myBrand Simac

NEH Group Solvinity

Open Line Valid

PeopleWare Xcellent

Pink Elephant

Peer Group IIMedium Size

Peer Group ILarge Size

PEER GROUPS | BASED ON ANNUAL REVENUE

Slide 9

Annual revenue between 45M and 55M Euros: choice for Peer Group up to Service Provider


ANNUAL REVENUEMedium Size

Annual Revenue < 45M Euros

Large SizeAnnual Revenue > 55M Euros

Accenture Detron

Atos DXC Technology

Axians Fujitsu

BT IBM

Capgemini KPN

Cegeka OGD

Centric Ordina

CGI Schuberg Philis

Cognizant Sogeti

Conclusion Tata Consultancy Services (TCS)

Ctac T-Systems

Wipro

© GIARTE

29

3

23

9

2016 Min Plus 2017

Responses 2016 vs. 2017

=

Slide 10 | Outsourcing Performance 2017 | Sogeti

# OF RESPONDENTS INCREASED | COMPARED TO 2016

20

▪ 3x: did not (want to) participate

▪ 5x: new client organization (i.e. new on client list)

▪ 4x: existing client, but did notparticipate before

© GIARTE

OUTSOURCING RECOMMENDATION SCORE


Detractors

No way!

No

Promoters

Yes

Absolutely

Passives

Probably not

Partially

© GIARTE

Positive Negative

Absolutely

Yes

Partially

No Way!

No

Probably not

OUTSOURCING RECOMMENDATION SCORE | SOGETI


‘Would you recommend Sogeti?’

29SCORE 2017 N=

positiverecommendations

negativerecommendations

3

21

3

2

93%

7%

© GIARTE

PEER GROUPLARGE SIZE

ORS | PERCENTAGE PROMOTERS


Providers with ORS of 100%

Providers without ORS of 100%

© GIARTE

RELATIONSHIP DEVELOPMENT


7%

52%

41%

Much decreased Decreased It stayed the same Increased Much increased

‘Compared to last year, has your satisfaction with Sogeti decreased or increased?’

© GIARTE

50%

35%33% 32%

24%

19%18%

14%12% 10%

8%6%

4% 4%

Schuberg

Philis

Centric Conclusion OGD Axians KPN Fujitsu CGI Ordina Sogeti Capgemini Accenture Cegeka Atos

ORS | PERCENTAGE SUPER FANS – PEER GROUP LARGE SIZE


Providers with ORS of 100%

© GIARTE

ORS BENCHMARK | PEER GROUP I – LARGE SIZE


19%15%

5%

26%

17% 18%13%

10%4% 4% 7% 8%

40%

100% 81% 100% 85% 100% 100% 95% 100% 74% 83% 82% 87% 90% 96% 96% 100% 93% 92% 60%

N=16 N=27 N=25 N=39 N=23 N=23 N=22 N=21 N=19 N=18 N=17 N=15 N=83 N=28 N=26 N=16 N=29 N=13 N=10

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

NegativePositive

© GIARTESlide 17 | Outsourcing Performance 2017 | Sogeti

SATISFACTION SCORES | APPLICATION MANAGEMENT

8.17.6

7.07.5

7.07.3 7.3

7.9

N= 7 N= 12 N= 3 N= 4 N= 1 N= 11 N= 6 N= 14

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Development of

front-end

applications

Development

back-end

applications

Implementation

Cloud Enterprise

Systems

Implementation

non-cloud

Enterprise

Systems

Functional

Management of

Enterprise

Systems

System Integration

and middleware

Cloud

transformation

and rationalization

of business

applications

Testing

mean

© GIARTE

SatisfactionScore AM:


SATISFACTION SCORES | APPLICATION MANAGEMENT

8.0

6.0 6.0 7.0

7.0

4.0

6.0

7.0

9.0 9.0

8.08.0

7.0

8.0 8.0

9.0

8.17.6

7.07.5

7.07.3 7.3

7.9

N= 7 N= 12 N= 3 N= 4 N =1 N= 11 N= 6 N= 14

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Development of

front-end

applications

Development

back-end

applications

Implementation

Cloud Enterprise

Systems

Implementation

non-cloud

Enterprise

Systems

Functional

Management of

Enterprise

Systems

System Integration

and middleware

Cloud

transformation

and rationalization

of business

applications

Testing

min max mean

7.6 Peer Group Average = 7.2


SATISFACTION SCORES | INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT

7.0

8.0 8.0 8.0

7.0

7.7

7.0 7.0

N= 3 N= 1 N= 1 N= 2 N= 1 N= 3 N= 3 N= 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Non-cloud

datacenter hosting

and storage

Private cloud

hosting and

storage

100% pure public

cloud

orchestration

Orchestration of

hybrid clouds

Connectivity Cloud connectivity Security and threat

management

Infrastructure

transformation

mean

© GIARTE

SatisfactionScore IM:


SATISFACTION SCORES | INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT

4.0

8.0 8.0 8.0

7.0 7.0

6.0 6.0

9.0

8.0 8.0 8.0

7.0

8.08.0 8.0

7.0

8.0 8.0 8.0

7.0

7.7

7.0 7.0

N= 3 N= 1 N= 1 N= 2 N= 1 N= 3 N= 3 N= 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Non-cloud

datacenter hosting

and storage

Private cloud

hosting and

storage

100% pure public

cloud

orchestration

Orchestration of

hybrid clouds

Connectivity Cloud connectivity Security and threat

management

Infrastructure

transformation

min max mean


© GIARTE

8.08.3

7.5 7.58.0

7.0

8.0

N= 1 N= 4 N= 0 N= 2 N= 4 N= 2 N= 1 N= 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Classical local

workspace

Remote

workspace

Internet-centric

workspace

Unified

communication

Business

application

provisioning

Support services Physical device

management

Federated access

mean


SATISFACTION SCORES | END USER MANAGEMENT

© GIARTE

8.0

7.07.0

6.0 6.0

7.0

8.08.0

9.0

8.09.0

10.0

7.0

8.08.08.3

7.5 7.58.0

7.0

8.0

N= 1 N= 4 N= 0 N= 2 N= 4 N= 2 N= 1 N= 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Classical local

workspace

Remote

workspace

Internet-centric

workspace

Unified

communication

Business

application

provisioning

Support services Physical device

management

Federated access

min max mean

SatisfactionScore EUM:


SATISFACTION SCORES | END USER MANAGEMENT


© GIARTE

BENCHMARK SATISFACTION – CES | APPLICATION MANAGEMENT


Accenture

Atos CapgeminiCentric

CGICognizant

Conclusion

CtacDXC Technology Fujitsu

KPN,


Ordina

Schuberg Philis

Sogeti

Wipro

Endava Levi9, Macaw

myBrandNEH Group

SentiaSolvinity

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Sa

tisf

act

ion

Sco

re A

M s

ervi

ces

Customer Effort Score Non-standard Services AM

0

0

Low effortHigh effort

Sogeti 2016

© GIARTE

BENCHMARK SATISFACTION – CES | INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT


AtosAxians

BT

Capgemini

CegekaCentric

CGI

Conclusion

Ctac

Detron

DXC Technology

FujitsuIBM

KPN

OGD

Ordina

Schuberg Philis

SogetiT-Systems

Macaw,

NEH Group

myBrand

Open Line

PeopleWare

Pink Elephant

Proact

RAM InfotechnologySentia

Simac

Solvinity

Valid

Xcellent

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Sa

tisf

act

ion

Sco

re IM

ser

vice

s

Customer Effort Score Non-standard Services IM

0

0


© GIARTE

BENCHMARK SATISFACTION – CES | END USER MANAGEMENT


Atos

Axians

Capgemini

Cegeka

Centric

Conclusion

Detron

DXC Technology

Fujitsu

KPN

OGD

Schuberg Philis

Sogeti

Macaw

NEH Group

Open Line

PeopleWare

Pink ElephantRAM Infotechnology

Simac

Solvinity

Valid

Xcellent

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Sa

tisf

act

ion

Sco

re E

UM

ser

vice

s

Customer Effort Score Non-standard Services EUM

0

0


© GIARTE

COMMERCIAL POSITION


Accenture

Atos

Axians

BT

Capgemini

Cegeka,

Centric

CGI Cognizant

Conclusion

Ctac

DetronDXC Technology

Fujitsu

IBM

KPN

OGD

Ordina Schuberg Philis

Sogeti


T-Systems

Wipro

Endava

Levi9

Macaw

myBrand

NEH Group

Open LinePeopleWare

Pink Elephant

Proact

RAM Infotechnology

SentiaSimac

Solvinity

Valid

Xcellent

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

Sh

are

of w

all

et

Reletting

Peer group ILarge Size

Peer group IIMedium Size

0%

0%

Sogeti 2016

© GIARTE

TRUST IS THE NEW ORS


RELIABILITY WILLINGNESS

OPENNESS

EMPATHY

COMMUNICATION

COMPETENCE

Relationship(Cognitive)

Partnership(Affective)


7983

79

8681

77

69 68 67 69 71 70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Openness Willingness Empathy Communication Skills Reliability

2017 vs 2016

2017 2016

GIARTE TRUST INDICATORS | SOGETI

81GTS 2017

69GTS 2016

© GIARTE

GIARTE TRUST SCORE | PEER GROUP – LARGE SIZE


55

56

61

61

62

64

68

69

70

71

72

74

75

76

76

77

77

78

80

80

81

82

82

Wipro

Detron

DXC Technology

Ctac

Atos

IBM

Capgemini

BT

Fujitsu

KPN

T-Systems

Accenture

Ordina

CGI

Cegeka

Centric

Axians

OGD


Cognizant

Sogeti

Schuberg Philis

Conclusion

Accenture

Atos

Axians

BT

Capgemini

Cegeka

CentricCGI

Cognizant

Conclusion

Ctac

Detron

DXC Technology

Fujitsu

IBM

KPN

OGD

Ordina

Schuberg Philis

Sogeti

Tata Consultancy

Services (TCS)

T-Systems

Wipro

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Ma

ture

Rel

ati

on

ship

Mature Partnership

Partnership vs. Relationship

0

0

© GIARTE

NEXT LEVEL SOURCING


Performance Optimization Business Model Innovation

Managed Services Experimental Innovation

© GIARTE

NEXT LEVEL SOURCING | CURRENT STATE


Performance Optimization Business Model Innovation

Managed Services Experimental Innovation

© GIARTE

NEXT LEVEL SOURCING | WISH


Smaller providers set the tone in taking on digital

and cloud projects

A vivid contrast in presentation

content and style sets them apart

They position presentations as do-experiments

(demo’s, MVPs, challenges)

They activate their audiences by participating

It’s not who you know, but how they

remember your pitch

Non-IT decision makers are in favor of the unusual suspects

New kids in town

Leadership DNA Account & Sales

Truly understand what drives and disrupts businesses

Be at ease with ambiguity and uncertainly: don’t play defense

Experiment, take smart risks and learn to capitalize on value-creation

Advocate a strong vision with compelling narratives

Master soft innovation: the touch in tech delivers the wow

Own your personal success, inspire others and celebrate together

ATTACHMENTS

© GIARTE

ATTACHMENTS | RESEARCH DESIGN

Slide 42

Satisfaction with standard services

Recommendation

Relationship development

Customer Effort Score(non-standard services)

The research design of the benchmark is shown in the figure on the left. Per service provider respondents answer single questions about: ‒ The level of recommendation of the service provider (the Outsourcing

Recommendation Score - ORS);‒ The development of the relationship with the service provider; ‒ The amount of trust in the service provider (the Giarte Trust Score - GTS:

consisting of six trust indicators).

In addition, respondents are asked what services they receive from the service provider. These services are categorized in different domains: Application Management (AM), Infrastructure Management (IM) and End User Management (EUM). Questions are asked about: ‒ The satisfaction with the specific service; ‒ The Customer Effort Score (with respect to the provision of non standard

services).

RESEARCH DESIGN

6 trustindicators

A single question per service provider

A question per service provider for every relevant service

A question per service provider for every relevant service domain


© GIARTE

ATTACHMENTS | CONDITIONS ORS

Slide 43

ORS

N ≥ 15

ORS

≥ 30 millioneuros

N ≥ 10N < 15

CONDITIONS FOR A PUBLIC OUTSOURCING RECOMMENDATION SCORE (ORS)

ORS

< 30 million euros

N ≥ 10N < 15

ORS

N ≥ 7N < 10

An Outsourcing Recommendation Score -comprehensive profile in the yearbook

No Outsourcing Recommendation Score -brief profile in the yearbook

The Outsourcing Recommendation Score (ORS) Respondents are asked to what extent they would recommend their service provider(s). This question is no longer asked per service domain, but per service provider, which means that this year’s Outsourcing Recommendation Score is not comparable to the ones from previous editions.Service providers that received evaluations from at least 15 different client organizations – or 10 in case the sum of the contract values is at least 30 million euros on average (see the figure on the left) – are awarded an Outsourcing Recommendation Score (ORS). All recommendations from the total respondents group form the basis for the calculation of the Outsourcing Recommendation Score.


© GIARTE

ATTACHMENTS | PEER GROUPS

Slide 44

PEER GROUPS

Overview of service providers with a public Outsourcing Recommendation Score

IPeer groupLarge Size

IIPeer groupMedium Size

Accenture Endava

Atos Levi9

Axians Macaw

Capgemini myBrand

Cegeka NEH Group

Centric Open Line

CGI PeopleWare

Conclusion Pink Elephant

Ctac Proact

DXC Technology RAM Infotechnology

Fujitsu Sentia

IBM Solvinity

KPN Xcellent

OGD

Ordina

Schuberg Philis

Sogeti

T-Systems

Wipro

Service providers who did not receive a public Outsourcing Recommendation Score

BT Simac

Cognizant Valid

Detron


This year, Outsourcing Performance presents the results of 38 different service providers. Not all service providers serve the same customer groups. Therefore, we have chosen to organize them and their results in so-called peer groups.

Depending on the annual turnover reported in 2016 in the Netherlands, a service provider is classified in either the benchmark for Medium Size providers (revenue of up to 45 mln. Euros) or the benchmark for Large Size providers (revenue from 55 mln. Euros). Service providers with a revenue between 45 and 55 million euros can choose in which peer group they want to be included.

The table on the left shows which service provider is included in which peer group.


© GIARTE

ATTACHMENTS | ORS, SATISFACTION, CES

Slide 45

OUTSOURCING RECOMMENDATION SCORE (ORS)“Would you recommend < service provider > ?” Unlike previous years, this question was asked once per service provider, instead of per service domain.

No Way! No Probably not Partially Yes Absolutely

These answers make up the Outsourcing Recommendation Score (as a percentage ofpositive recommendations out of the total amount of answers that are given)

Detractors Passives PromotersSuper fans

SATISFACTION“Please rate the level of satisfaction with the services that you outsource to < service provider>. The number 1 stands for extremely dissatisfied and a 10 stands for extremely satisfied.”

CUSTOMER EFFORT SCORE (CES)“How much effort does it take your organization to get things done form <service provider> that fall outside the contracted <domain> services?

Much effort (Almost)no effort

0 points 20 points 40 points 60 points 80 points 100 points

Scores are calculated as an average, where the leftmost scale represents a value of 0 points and the rightmost scale a value of 100 points. When opposing scales are chosen exactly as often, this yields a final score of 50 points. The higher the score, the less effort it takes to receive a non-standard service from the service provider.

Respondents indicate which services they receive in each domain. Next, for each of these services, the level of satisfaction is indicated on a scale of 1 to 10. Based on this, an average grade per service is calculated. The average of these grades, where the weight of the grade for the service depends on the number of evaluations, then constitutes the satisfaction score for the domain in which the services are classified.


© GIARTE

ATTACHMENTS | GIARTE TRUST SCORE

Slide 46

GIARTE TRUST SCORE (GTS)

For each trust indicator (in bold), a statement is presented about which the respondent can indicate on a six point scale to what extent he/she agrees or disagrees with it. Per indicator, the service provider gets a score. The average of the six scores is the GiarteTrust Score. The peer group average is an average of the Giarte Trust Scores of all providers in the relevant peer group.

Reliability

“The service provider sticks to the agreements made”

Communication

“Communication between the service provider and us runs smoothly”

Skills

“The service provider has the right expertise and skills to provide the services”

Empathy

“The service provider really understands our organization and challenges”

Willingness

“The service provider puts in the effort to satisfy us as a customer and takes our interests into account”

Openness

“The service provider has the ability to resolve conflicts and differences of opinion with us in a constructive manner”

Strongly disagree

Disagree Slightly disagree

Slightly agree

Agree Strongly agree

0 points 20 points 40 points 60 points 80 points 100 points

Scores are calculated as an average, where the leftmost scale represents a value of 0 points and the rightmost scale a value of 100 points. When opposing scales are chosen exactly as often, this yields a final score of 50 points.


© GIARTE

ATTACHMENTS | NEXT LEVEL SOURCING


© GIARTE



Managed ServicesThe service provider delivers a set of IT services which are contracted for a fixed period of time and in which little or no changes take place during this period

© GIARTE



Performance OptimizationDuring the collaboration the service provider delivers a set of IT services, which are continuously improved in terms of quality, efficiency and profitability

© GIARTE



Experimental InnovationIn collaboration with the service provider technology is experimented with to discover new opportunities

© GIARTE



Business Model InnovationIn collaboration with the service provider there is purposefully being worked on business model improvements with the application of new technology

Documents

Outsourcing Performance 2017 - Sogeti.nl · © GIARTE TIMING Feb –Apr Online data collection Apr - June Analysis and reporting July –Sep Client interviews Sep - Oct Presentations