Introduction

In the year, prior to the turn of the millennium, Nissan was a company in a serious financial crisis. Debt had approached $22 billion by 1999. The company had been too complacent, and had taken its prior success, for granted [2].

Did Nissan’s decision to outsource their IT Infrastructure to IBM in 1999 make good sense? Nissan was a very troubled auto-manufacturer in the late 1990’s. Senior executives from the company were known for their conservative outlook on business, and their ‘old boy’s network,’ mentality. Profits were dropping dramatically, eventually forcing the company into the $22 Billion debt that it then faced. There were no signs indicating a change in the market that would encourage profit growth. The vehicle sales needed invigoration.

Mergers were the flavor of the day in the automotive industry during the late 1990’s. Nissan executives approached Daimler Chrysler and Ford to discuss a possible merger, but there was no interest from either of the companies [2]. There was only one alternative left, which was to reinvent themselves and reduce unnecessary overheads. This was the defining point that led to the business process outsourcing decision.

This paper seeks to answer the question “Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) make more sense?” We reviewed the example of the automotive manufacturer, Nissan, when they decided to outsource their entire Information Technology department to IBM in late 1999, to answer our question.

Nissan – A brief history and the events leading up to the BPO decision

I. The Boom years

Nissan was established in Japan in 1933 as a heavy industry manufacturer. After the Second World War they turned their attention to automotive vehicles. In the 1950’s, they finally had an impact on the global market with the introduction of the Datsun branded sedans and small pickup trucks. The company eventually opened full-time operations in the USA in September 1960 [6].

The company experienced dramatic growth with the introduction of the ‘Z’ series sports sedans in the early 1970’s, with the 240Z becoming the fastest selling sports car of all time. This success led Nissan to the top of the U.S. vehicle importers market by 1975. Vehicle sales in the USA topped over 250,000 units per annum by 1970 [6]. The company was young, its leaders dynamic and the future looked very bright. They were competing for the U.S. market with the likes of Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors, showing improved quality and production efficiencies over their competitors.

The company was growing at a phenomenal rate, opening new manufacturing plants around the world on a regular basis such as Australia (1976), Spain (1980) and the United Kingdom (1984) [6]. There was no respite to the pace of growth and new business generation coming from the company.

In 1983, the company began the worldwide marketing of vehicles under the Nissan name which was felt to have a stronger quality image and started the six year transition from Datsun to Nissan on vehicles, dealerships, facilities and marketing materials. Sales continued to grow, eventually reaching 830,767 in 1985 [6]. The decade closed out with resounding success for Nissan with their domination of the North American market.

In 1993, the mid-line Stanza sedan was replaced with an all-new Altima and non-competitive Japanese-designed minivan was replaced with a new U.S. created Quest, which was the first minivan with car-like handling. Sales came roaring back in 1994 to near-peak levels of 774,405 [6].

In 1996, sales began to slip once again, fueled by a change in American vehicle tastes. Trucks and SUVs gained market share at the expense of sedans and sports cars [2]. Nissan’s position as a manufacturing driven company, which helped them in the ’80’s and early ’90’s, then had new problems with the dollar/yen balance which began to hurt their competitiveness against market driven companies.

Unlike their competitors, Toyota and Honda, which were focused on key volume segments, Nissan did not dominate any individual segment and competed in identical segments against Toyota and Honda.
Unfortunately for Nissan in the 1990s, the Japanese “bubble economy” burst, a downturn in Europe coincided, so there was more pressure in the U.S. to perform. Unfortunately U.S. customers didn’t have a genuine brand reason to shop Nissan except for the ‘best price’ deal.

Former Nissan president, Mr. Nakamura, announced a “Back-to-Basics” plan. The key elements of the plan were to reduce inventories, eliminate unrealistic sales targets, and increase dealer profitability. Unfortunately for Nakamura and Nissan, the plan did not work [2].

II. Trouble looms for the auto-manufacturer in 1990’s

In the early 1990’s, trouble began to brew in the organization. The once revered executives at Nissan were now viewed as arrogant members of the old-boys club and were ignorant to the changing needs of their customers and the overall automotive market, in general.

As the company progressed deeper into debt, it met with more challenges. Nissan’s business partners and suppliers were charging a premium for their goods and services. Nissan was obliged to meet its financial commitments and by so doing placed itself further into debt. Finally, the company was in debt to the tune of $22 billion. Even the company’s financers were tightening the noose around them. Nissan felt the situation was hopeless.

III. Steps taken to address issues

Nissan executives were looking for a way out, a way to rescue the company from entering into bankruptcy. The first approach was to find a partner. Both the newly established DaimlerChrysler and the Ford Motor company were approached, but both organizations rejected the idea of a merger [2]. Finally, Renault, the French automotive company recovering from a similar predicament, decided to enter into negotiations with the flailing Japanese company. A senior executive at Renault, Carlos Ghosn, was a huge supporter of the merger idea.

After much negotiation, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry agreed to allow Renault to purchase a substantial stake in Nissan. The Nissan-Renault alliance was born and Ghosn was appointed Chief Operating Officer.
Nissans Executive decisions and major events

I. Creating a global alliance vision:

The following is excerpted from the Nissan/Renault alliance vision:
“The Renault-Nissan Alliance is a unique group of two global companies linked by cross-shareholding. They are united for performance though a coherent strategy, common goals, and principles, results-driven synergies, shared best practices. They respect and reinforce their respective identities and brands.”[2]

The Alliance set itself three objectives, with the goal of being amongst the best three automotive groups in the following areas:

1. Quality.

Achieve customer recognition as being a quality and value added product.

2. Technology.

Lead in key technology development and implementation with a focus on excellence in specific areas of the automotive business.

3. Operating Profit.

Consistently generate a high operating profit margin and vigorously pursue growth.

II. Appointing a new leader

Ghosn, given his enthusiasm for the merger, his demonstrated tenacity, and his experience of the automotive industry, was a natural choice for a senior position at Nissan. His initial appointment as Chief Operating Officer (COO) was just a temporary assignment. In 2000, he was named President and in 2001, he was appointed Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

As CEO, Ghosn was very aware that the ‘buck’ stopped with him. He was the final decision maker. Some important and very serious decisions were made to save the ailing company. Ghosn had to use all of his valuable experience gained from rescuing other organizations, such as Michelin and Renault, to save Nissan.

III. Decision making to save a troubled auto-manufacturer

With Ghosn’s arrival in Japan in the spring of 1999, he immediately set about researching Nissan’s root problems. The newly appointed COO had a management philosophy that stated “you must always start with a clean sheet of paper because the worst thing you can have is prefabricated solutions… you have to start with a zero base of thinking, cleaning everything out of your mind.”[2]

For the first few months, Ghosn flew around Japan, meeting and greeting employees at all levels, absorbing information and formulating a plan. He used this information to plot a picture of Nissan from a global perspective, identifying issues, and problems that had created the dispersed, unprofitable organization.

One of the many issues Ghosn identified was the lack of communication around the organization. Seniors managers around the world were aware of some of the issues that caused the downturn of fortune in the company. They even had solutions to them, but had lacked the necessary authority to implement or communicate the solutions back to Corporate Headquarters.

Finally, the major issues were whittled down to five key issues: [2]

• Lack of clear profit orientation. Nissan was not focused on driving profit, but were rather focused on market share and ended up having to buy their market share at the expense of the declining profits.

• Insufficiently focused on customers and too much focus on competitors. The company was too concerned about the competition introducing a new line which would have dug into the Nissan market share. For example when Volkswagen introduced their new Jetta sedan Nissan saw a significant decline in their Maxima sales.

• Lacked cross-functional, cross-border, and intra-hierarchical lines of work in the company. Nissan seemed to operate as separate islands scattered throughout the globe. There was no centralized purchasing function or in fact any of the other major business activities. The organization was not making maximum use of its global presence or buying power.

• Lack of sense of urgency. The executives in Nissan were complacent in their activities. Things had gone so well for the company in the preceding 60 years that they felt that there was no reason to embrace change.

• No shared vision or common long-term plan. Senior management within Nissan did not have a joint plan for the different brands within the company. Each division did their own thing with little or no thought for the greater good of the company. An example was the Z series that had achieved phenomenal success throughout the 1970’s and ’80’s but was suddenly dropped from production when sales dropped. The obvious thing to have been done was to test the market with a modernized design. Instead Nissan chose to ignore the market and drop the brand.

To address the issues, Ghosn announced the Nissan Revival Plan on October 18, 1999. This seven-point plan was aimed at reducing costs and debt as well as creating and launching new automotive brands to raise sales and market awareness. The goals announced in the plan were far-reaching and encompassed: [2]

• The reduction of operating costs, net debt, global head count, and vehicle assembly plants and manufacturing platforms (the latter in Japan).

• The generation of new product investment through the launch of twenty-two new models.
The cost-cutting plan called for centralization of purchasing, procurement, human resources and information technology. By centralizing these essential functions, the plan aimed to assist the company in achieving its aggressive cost reductions.

Expenditure, particularly in the information technology function, was perceived as being out of control. Ghosn’s message to senior level executives was clear, “cut costs in every possible area.” If that meant outsourcing non-core activities because somebody else could do it cheaper, then that had to be fully investigated and determined. The management was ruthless in their execution of the plan [2].

Nissan looks at Business Process Outsourcing as a means

I. Will outsourcing non-core activities save money?
There are well-documented records of company’s saving money and others of outsourcing horror stories. Success really depended on the situation and the provider.

Most experts agreed, though, that you needed to use BPO in strategic decisions, for example refocused efforts on core competencies and not merely for cost cutting activities [1]. Stephen Withers of ZDNet said in his on-line article that you should only “use BPO for strategic purposes, not to take advantage of a (possibly transient) cost saving.” Withers then asked the reader, “Does outsourcing the IT Infrastructure make sense?” To answer that question corporate Chief Information Officer’s (CIO’s) would need to have completed extensive research and have done a thorough analysis of their business processes.

This is exactly what Nissan’s CIO did, or rather what Ghosn told him to do. The company had invested over 80 billion yen (over $US760million) in 1998 on IT services, but their processes were still not providing the management with the infrastructure that would assist in building their competitive edge [5]. The final decision was made to approach various outsourcing service providers for the much needed help.

II. Does outsourcing the IT infrastructure make sense?

If Information Technology (IT) truly was a commodity, like gasoline or electricity, then companies only competed on price, with very small profit margins. In that event, the decision to turn over IT to an outsourcer was as simple as it was a century ago to turn to motor vehicles instead of using the horse and cart. However, while personal computers and the networks they run on may be standardized, the services provided by IT outsourcers vary in many ways. Services such as data analysis, application development, and IT decision-making allowed companies more competitiveness in the market therefore, those elements of IT are far from being viewed as commodities [8].

With regards the decision to outsource, many factors were considered in Nissan’s case. Ann Moynihan in her article in the Albany Business review states “Outsourcing can help you: [3]

• Reduce and control operating costs.

• Free staff to focus on core business.

• Gain access to specialized skills and technologies.

• Introduce positive change.

• Gain control over a difficult-to-manage function resulting from uneven workloads, insufficient or unskilled resources.”

With Nissan, in 1999, this was exactly what they were looking for. Refocused staff efforts, introduction of positive change and control gained in all critical areas led to the outsourcing decision.

The choice of IBM as Nissan’s outsourcing partner was a strategic one. In the late 1990’s there were not many outsourcing companies that had the breadth or the global reach that IBM had. Competitors such as EDS and CSC were not considered because they were only outsourcers and could not offer the hardware and software technology that Nissan required to update their infrastructure [5]. If either one of those competitors were selected over IBM as a partner Nissan would still have faced the same infrastructure issues. IBM was the only logical partner.

Did the relationship work between Nissan & IBM?

I. A further look at the relationship between IBM and Nissan

In a joint IBM and Nissan press release published in Tokyo on June 19, 2000, the two companies announced that they were “Extending their global partnership for information system (IS) operations which Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. and IBM agreed in October 1999, Nissan and IBM today jointly announced that Nissan will outsource its IS operations in Japan, to IBM Japan.

The service includes Nissan’s regular maintenance and operational activities as well as part of its application development, but excludes the planning and design of new systems. The two companies will start operations from October 1. [7]

In North America, Nissan has outsourced these same operations to IBM Corp. since October 1999. This latest agreement in Japan is expected to further accelerate the standardization, integration and centralization of Nissan’s IS on a global level.”

Ghosn further noted, “The Nissan Revival Plan cannot be accomplished without effective information systems. Following upon the recent agreement with Japan Telecom, this latest partnership with IBM puts in place the global infrastructure which is key to support Nissan’s long term profitable growth.” [4]

II. Hypothetical view of the Return-on-Investment model used

Before they could calculate their Return on Investment (ROI), Nissan first had to look at the Total Cost of Ownership model proposed by IBM. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is a type of calculation designed to help consumers and enterprise managers assess both direct and indirect costs and benefits related to the purchase of any IT component. The intention was to arrive at a final figure that will reflect the effective cost of purchase, overall [8].

The TCO model used, had to calculate the costs that were required, beyond the fees of outsourcing. The organization had to evaluate specific criteria’s that could have added expense to the outsourcing project. They also had to calculate the ongoing expenses throughout the lifetime of the contract [8].

Then, after calculating the payback period, Nissan were in a position to calculate their ROI. Once the numbers were crunched, a thorough financial and risk analysis was conducted. The ROI measured the profit or cost savings realized. It was calculated by estimating, for a 3-year period, the investment was made and the resulting profit created through that investment.

The results were conclusive. Nissan and IBM entered into their agreement and operations scheduled to commence on October 1, 1999.

Conclusion

I. Did Nissan’s BPO reach its stated objective?

Nissan’s stated objective for the outsourcing of the IT infrastructure was to control expenditure, improve efficiencies, and update the infrastructure. By outsourcing to IBM, Nissan achieved all of its goals.

In controlling expenditure, outsourcing gave companies the opportunity to have a predictable monthly budget for expenditure. That amount may or may not have been lower than current expenditures but the component that was crucial to a large organization such as Nissan was that the amount is predictable. There was no variable component to the pricing. The only time the pricing may have fluctuated was when additional services, which were out of scope of the contract, were required.

In Nissan’s case, that was never a requirement. The company was in the first stage of a major, global, restructuring project and there were no new initiatives taking place.

The second objective in the BPO was to improve efficiencies. IBM is the world’s largest information technology company with revenues close to $100 billion [9]. When companies outsource their operations to IBM they are gaining best-of-breed technologies, excellent consultants and some of the best systems architects money can buy.

The way that any global outsourcer makes its money is by achieving economies of scale. The only way to achieve these economies of scale is to ensure that they deploy the best hardware, software, and infrastructure possible and make that equipment work to maximum efficiencies. By taking full advantage of this best-of-breed technology, Nissan met its second and third stated objectives.

II. What if the IT Infrastructure had been retained in-house?

If Nissan had decided to retain its IT infrastructure in-house and attempted to implement an updated and modernized system, it would have lead to a significant increase in their expenditure. Ghosn’s prime objective, when he took over the company in 1999, was to reduce expenditure by 700 billion Yen [2]. He was not interested in spending any additional money to modernize existing equipment.

To support the intended improvement in competitiveness, Nissan had to ensure that their infrastructure supported the additional workload. There was no way they could do the intended improvement in efficiencies without external support. Nissan did not have the expertise and the additional work force to handle the required upgrades and the reengineering of business processes.

III. Final assessment and summation of the relationship

Robert Greenberg, Nissan’s CIO of North America was on record as saying in 2006 that, “We were happy with the services from IBM but the world had changed.” This comment sums up the relationship as it stands now, almost 8 years later [5]. When Nissan announced its Revival Plan, in 1999, the company had very clear objectives; cut costs, and return to profitability.

Nissan was looking for help in 1999 and IBM fulfilled this role for their IT Infrastructure. Greenberg also stated in his Q&A that “One of the things that also took place with the original outsourcing to IBM was we probably outsourced too much.” [5]

Greenberg was not working for Nissan when the original outsourcing decision was made in 1999; he only joined the company in 2005. He is on record though as saying that he thought that they should have either retained some of the infrastructure in-house or perhaps have multi-sourced, thereby ensuring that they had the best possible solution and price.

In 2006, when the contract came up for renewal, the CIO decided to put everything out to bid and compare what the other vendors were offering with what IBM had provided for so many years. The decision to look at new vendors was actually excellent timing for the company as Nissan had decided to relocate their North American corporate headquarters from Los Angeles, CA to Nashville, TN and any transition could be timed to coincide with the move.

Ultimately, what Greenberg opted to do was to accept IBM’s proposal to “manage desktop systems, network services, help desks, dealer systems, and other key infrastructure elements for Nissan North America.” He then outsourced the application and maintenance to an Indian firm, Satyam and brought the remainder of the services back in-house [5].

When asked about the decision to bring IT back in-house, Greenberg said, “By bringing it in-house you increase the alignment. It’s a matter of building the knowledge internally [that] can be used to help drive the business activity, which is much harder when a business analyst function is sitting within a third party.” [5]

IV. Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does BPO make more sense?

As Stephen Withers stated in his article, BPO decisions should not be made for cost-cutting exercises but rather for strategic directions [1]. In other words, companies should not view BPO as a cost saving tool. Outsourcing the IT operation makes sense when an organization is looking to improve efficiencies and business processes or when they cannot attract, or retain, the human capital who have the expertise and ability to modernize or improve the infrastructure.

Nissan’s CIO Robert Greenberg thought that he would actually save money by bringing some of the work back in-house because he was “not paying margin on the individual [headcount].” [5]
Some of the individual lessons that Nissan’s Greenberg has learnt from the outsourcing agreement with IBM has been that certain services developed by the IT organization can indeed be outsourced or developed externally. However, he felt strongly about retaining in-house IT skills in such value generation areas as business analysts who have a strong understanding of the business, sometimes even better than the business customer does. Insourcing these skills could result in ideas and dialog with the business, with the end result being a service delivery or product development than can then be outsourced.

In summary, the answer to the question, ‘Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does Business Process Outsourcing make more sense?’ is that it depends. It depends on the available skills; it depends on the overall objectives (cost saving vs. process improvement) and it depends on the organization. For the most part the majority of major corporations world wide that have been through an outsourcing contract or are in an outsourcing contract will agree that there are substantial benefits to implementing an outsourcing contract and there substantial benefits in retaining those skills in-house. What each organization needs to do is ascertain which of those benefits outweigh the other and base their decision on that analysis.

Works Cited

[1] Withers, Stephen. “BPO: Save money or fix your processes?” ZDNet.com
[http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/business/soa/BPO-Save-money-or-fix-your-processes-/0],139023749,139156391-10,00.htm 17 August 2004. Downloaded October 22, 2007

[2] Magee, David. Turn Around: How Carlos Ghosn rescued Nissan. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc, 2003.

[3] Moynihan, Ann. “Outsourcing enables owner to focus on core business.” http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2002/10/14/focus10.html October 11, 2002. Downloaded October 22, 2007

[4] IBM Press room press releases. IBM.com “Extending Their Global Partnership, Nissan, and IBM Announce IS Outsourcing for Japan” http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/1670.wss June 19, 2000. Downloaded October 19, 2007

[5] Thibodeau, Patrick. “Q&A: Nissan CIO reshapes automaker’s IT”
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=110024&intsrc=industry_list March 29, 2006. Downloaded October 23, 2007

[7] McDougall, Paul. “IBM, Nissan Outsourcing Deal Spans The Globe” http://www.informationweek.com/outsourcing/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=181502685 March 10, 2006 10:00 AM. Downloaded November 02, 2007

[8] Ikin, Paul. IBM Representative on Nissan Global team. 1998 to 2001.

Author: Paul Ikin
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Provided by: Duty on LCD/Plasma TV

Introduction

In the year, prior to the turn of the millennium, Nissan was a company in a serious financial crisis. Debt had approached $22 billion by 1999. The company had been too complacent, and had taken its prior success, for granted [2].

Did Nissan’s decision to outsource their IT Infrastructure to IBM in 1999 make good sense? Nissan was a very troubled auto-manufacturer in the late 1990’s. Senior executives from the company were known for their conservative outlook on business, and their ‘old boy’s network,’ mentality. Profits were dropping dramatically, eventually forcing the company into the $22 Billion debt that it then faced. There were no signs indicating a change in the market that would encourage profit growth. The vehicle sales needed invigoration.

Mergers were the flavor of the day in the automotive industry during the late 1990’s. Nissan executives approached Daimler Chrysler and Ford to discuss a possible merger, but there was no interest from either of the companies [2]. There was only one alternative left, which was to reinvent themselves and reduce unnecessary overheads. This was the defining point that led to the business process outsourcing decision.

This paper seeks to answer the question “Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) make more sense?” We reviewed the example of the automotive manufacturer, Nissan, when they decided to outsource their entire Information Technology department to IBM in late 1999, to answer our question.

Nissan – A brief history and the events leading up to the BPO decision

I. The Boom years

Nissan was established in Japan in 1933 as a heavy industry manufacturer. After the Second World War they turned their attention to automotive vehicles. In the 1950’s, they finally had an impact on the global market with the introduction of the Datsun branded sedans and small pickup trucks. The company eventually opened full-time operations in the USA in September 1960 [6].

The company experienced dramatic growth with the introduction of the ‘Z’ series sports sedans in the early 1970’s, with the 240Z becoming the fastest selling sports car of all time. This success led Nissan to the top of the U.S. vehicle importers market by 1975. Vehicle sales in the USA topped over 250,000 units per annum by 1970 [6]. The company was young, its leaders dynamic and the future looked very bright. They were competing for the U.S. market with the likes of Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors, showing improved quality and production efficiencies over their competitors.

The company was growing at a phenomenal rate, opening new manufacturing plants around the world on a regular basis such as Australia (1976), Spain (1980) and the United Kingdom (1984) [6]. There was no respite to the pace of growth and new business generation coming from the company.

In 1983, the company began the worldwide marketing of vehicles under the Nissan name which was felt to have a stronger quality image and started the six year transition from Datsun to Nissan on vehicles, dealerships, facilities and marketing materials. Sales continued to grow, eventually reaching 830,767 in 1985 [6]. The decade closed out with resounding success for Nissan with their domination of the North American market.

In 1993, the mid-line Stanza sedan was replaced with an all-new Altima and non-competitive Japanese-designed minivan was replaced with a new U.S. created Quest, which was the first minivan with car-like handling. Sales came roaring back in 1994 to near-peak levels of 774,405 [6].

In 1996, sales began to slip once again, fueled by a change in American vehicle tastes. Trucks and SUVs gained market share at the expense of sedans and sports cars [2]. Nissan’s position as a manufacturing driven company, which helped them in the ’80’s and early ’90’s, then had new problems with the dollar/yen balance which began to hurt their competitiveness against market driven companies.

Unlike their competitors, Toyota and Honda, which were focused on key volume segments, Nissan did not dominate any individual segment and competed in identical segments against Toyota and Honda.
Unfortunately for Nissan in the 1990s, the Japanese “bubble economy” burst, a downturn in Europe coincided, so there was more pressure in the U.S. to perform. Unfortunately U.S. customers didn’t have a genuine brand reason to shop Nissan except for the ‘best price’ deal.

Former Nissan president, Mr. Nakamura, announced a “Back-to-Basics” plan. The key elements of the plan were to reduce inventories, eliminate unrealistic sales targets, and increase dealer profitability. Unfortunately for Nakamura and Nissan, the plan did not work [2].

II. Trouble looms for the auto-manufacturer in 1990’s

In the early 1990’s, trouble began to brew in the organization. The once revered executives at Nissan were now viewed as arrogant members of the old-boys club and were ignorant to the changing needs of their customers and the overall automotive market, in general.

As the company progressed deeper into debt, it met with more challenges. Nissan’s business partners and suppliers were charging a premium for their goods and services. Nissan was obliged to meet its financial commitments and by so doing placed itself further into debt. Finally, the company was in debt to the tune of $22 billion. Even the company’s financers were tightening the noose around them. Nissan felt the situation was hopeless.

III. Steps taken to address issues

Nissan executives were looking for a way out, a way to rescue the company from entering into bankruptcy. The first approach was to find a partner. Both the newly established DaimlerChrysler and the Ford Motor company were approached, but both organizations rejected the idea of a merger [2]. Finally, Renault, the French automotive company recovering from a similar predicament, decided to enter into negotiations with the flailing Japanese company. A senior executive at Renault, Carlos Ghosn, was a huge supporter of the merger idea.

After much negotiation, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry agreed to allow Renault to purchase a substantial stake in Nissan. The Nissan-Renault alliance was born and Ghosn was appointed Chief Operating Officer.
Nissans Executive decisions and major events

I. Creating a global alliance vision:

The following is excerpted from the Nissan/Renault alliance vision:
“The Renault-Nissan Alliance is a unique group of two global companies linked by cross-shareholding. They are united for performance though a coherent strategy, common goals, and principles, results-driven synergies, shared best practices. They respect and reinforce their respective identities and brands.”[2]

The Alliance set itself three objectives, with the goal of being amongst the best three automotive groups in the following areas:

1. Quality.

Achieve customer recognition as being a quality and value added product.

2. Technology.

Lead in key technology development and implementation with a focus on excellence in specific areas of the automotive business.

3. Operating Profit.

Consistently generate a high operating profit margin and vigorously pursue growth.

II. Appointing a new leader

Ghosn, given his enthusiasm for the merger, his demonstrated tenacity, and his experience of the automotive industry, was a natural choice for a senior position at Nissan. His initial appointment as Chief Operating Officer (COO) was just a temporary assignment. In 2000, he was named President and in 2001, he was appointed Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

As CEO, Ghosn was very aware that the ‘buck’ stopped with him. He was the final decision maker. Some important and very serious decisions were made to save the ailing company. Ghosn had to use all of his valuable experience gained from rescuing other organizations, such as Michelin and Renault, to save Nissan.

III. Decision making to save a troubled auto-manufacturer

With Ghosn’s arrival in Japan in the spring of 1999, he immediately set about researching Nissan’s root problems. The newly appointed COO had a management philosophy that stated “you must always start with a clean sheet of paper because the worst thing you can have is prefabricated solutions… you have to start with a zero base of thinking, cleaning everything out of your mind.”[2]

For the first few months, Ghosn flew around Japan, meeting and greeting employees at all levels, absorbing information and formulating a plan. He used this information to plot a picture of Nissan from a global perspective, identifying issues, and problems that had created the dispersed, unprofitable organization.

One of the many issues Ghosn identified was the lack of communication around the organization. Seniors managers around the world were aware of some of the issues that caused the downturn of fortune in the company. They even had solutions to them, but had lacked the necessary authority to implement or communicate the solutions back to Corporate Headquarters.

Finally, the major issues were whittled down to five key issues: [2]

• Lack of clear profit orientation. Nissan was not focused on driving profit, but were rather focused on market share and ended up having to buy their market share at the expense of the declining profits.

• Insufficiently focused on customers and too much focus on competitors. The company was too concerned about the competition introducing a new line which would have dug into the Nissan market share. For example when Volkswagen introduced their new Jetta sedan Nissan saw a significant decline in their Maxima sales.

• Lacked cross-functional, cross-border, and intra-hierarchical lines of work in the company. Nissan seemed to operate as separate islands scattered throughout the globe. There was no centralized purchasing function or in fact any of the other major business activities. The organization was not making maximum use of its global presence or buying power.

• Lack of sense of urgency. The executives in Nissan were complacent in their activities. Things had gone so well for the company in the preceding 60 years that they felt that there was no reason to embrace change.

• No shared vision or common long-term plan. Senior management within Nissan did not have a joint plan for the different brands within the company. Each division did their own thing with little or no thought for the greater good of the company. An example was the Z series that had achieved phenomenal success throughout the 1970’s and ’80’s but was suddenly dropped from production when sales dropped. The obvious thing to have been done was to test the market with a modernized design. Instead Nissan chose to ignore the market and drop the brand.

To address the issues, Ghosn announced the Nissan Revival Plan on October 18, 1999. This seven-point plan was aimed at reducing costs and debt as well as creating and launching new automotive brands to raise sales and market awareness. The goals announced in the plan were far-reaching and encompassed: [2]

• The reduction of operating costs, net debt, global head count, and vehicle assembly plants and manufacturing platforms (the latter in Japan).

• The generation of new product investment through the launch of twenty-two new models.
The cost-cutting plan called for centralization of purchasing, procurement, human resources and information technology. By centralizing these essential functions, the plan aimed to assist the company in achieving its aggressive cost reductions.

Expenditure, particularly in the information technology function, was perceived as being out of control. Ghosn’s message to senior level executives was clear, “cut costs in every possible area.” If that meant outsourcing non-core activities because somebody else could do it cheaper, then that had to be fully investigated and determined. The management was ruthless in their execution of the plan [2].

Nissan looks at Business Process Outsourcing as a means

I. Will outsourcing non-core activities save money?
There are well-documented records of company’s saving money and others of outsourcing horror stories. Success really depended on the situation and the provider.

Most experts agreed, though, that you needed to use BPO in strategic decisions, for example refocused efforts on core competencies and not merely for cost cutting activities [1]. Stephen Withers of ZDNet said in his on-line article that you should only “use BPO for strategic purposes, not to take advantage of a (possibly transient) cost saving.” Withers then asked the reader, “Does outsourcing the IT Infrastructure make sense?” To answer that question corporate Chief Information Officer’s (CIO’s) would need to have completed extensive research and have done a thorough analysis of their business processes.

This is exactly what Nissan’s CIO did, or rather what Ghosn told him to do. The company had invested over 80 billion yen (over $US760million) in 1998 on IT services, but their processes were still not providing the management with the infrastructure that would assist in building their competitive edge [5]. The final decision was made to approach various outsourcing service providers for the much needed help.

II. Does outsourcing the IT infrastructure make sense?

If Information Technology (IT) truly was a commodity, like gasoline or electricity, then companies only competed on price, with very small profit margins. In that event, the decision to turn over IT to an outsourcer was as simple as it was a century ago to turn to motor vehicles instead of using the horse and cart. However, while personal computers and the networks they run on may be standardized, the services provided by IT outsourcers vary in many ways. Services such as data analysis, application development, and IT decision-making allowed companies more competitiveness in the market therefore, those elements of IT are far from being viewed as commodities [8].

With regards the decision to outsource, many factors were considered in Nissan’s case. Ann Moynihan in her article in the Albany Business review states “Outsourcing can help you: [3]

• Reduce and control operating costs.

• Free staff to focus on core business.

• Gain access to specialized skills and technologies.

• Introduce positive change.

• Gain control over a difficult-to-manage function resulting from uneven workloads, insufficient or unskilled resources.”

With Nissan, in 1999, this was exactly what they were looking for. Refocused staff efforts, introduction of positive change and control gained in all critical areas led to the outsourcing decision.

The choice of IBM as Nissan’s outsourcing partner was a strategic one. In the late 1990’s there were not many outsourcing companies that had the breadth or the global reach that IBM had. Competitors such as EDS and CSC were not considered because they were only outsourcers and could not offer the hardware and software technology that Nissan required to update their infrastructure [5]. If either one of those competitors were selected over IBM as a partner Nissan would still have faced the same infrastructure issues. IBM was the only logical partner.

Did the relationship work between Nissan & IBM?

I. A further look at the relationship between IBM and Nissan

In a joint IBM and Nissan press release published in Tokyo on June 19, 2000, the two companies announced that they were “Extending their global partnership for information system (IS) operations which Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. and IBM agreed in October 1999, Nissan and IBM today jointly announced that Nissan will outsource its IS operations in Japan, to IBM Japan.

The service includes Nissan’s regular maintenance and operational activities as well as part of its application development, but excludes the planning and design of new systems. The two companies will start operations from October 1. [7]

In North America, Nissan has outsourced these same operations to IBM Corp. since October 1999. This latest agreement in Japan is expected to further accelerate the standardization, integration and centralization of Nissan’s IS on a global level.”

Ghosn further noted, “The Nissan Revival Plan cannot be accomplished without effective information systems. Following upon the recent agreement with Japan Telecom, this latest partnership with IBM puts in place the global infrastructure which is key to support Nissan’s long term profitable growth.” [4]

II. Hypothetical view of the Return-on-Investment model used

Before they could calculate their Return on Investment (ROI), Nissan first had to look at the Total Cost of Ownership model proposed by IBM. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is a type of calculation designed to help consumers and enterprise managers assess both direct and indirect costs and benefits related to the purchase of any IT component. The intention was to arrive at a final figure that will reflect the effective cost of purchase, overall [8].

The TCO model used, had to calculate the costs that were required, beyond the fees of outsourcing. The organization had to evaluate specific criteria’s that could have added expense to the outsourcing project. They also had to calculate the ongoing expenses throughout the lifetime of the contract [8].

Then, after calculating the payback period, Nissan were in a position to calculate their ROI. Once the numbers were crunched, a thorough financial and risk analysis was conducted. The ROI measured the profit or cost savings realized. It was calculated by estimating, for a 3-year period, the investment was made and the resulting profit created through that investment.

The results were conclusive. Nissan and IBM entered into their agreement and operations scheduled to commence on October 1, 1999.

Conclusion

I. Did Nissan’s BPO reach its stated objective?

Nissan’s stated objective for the outsourcing of the IT infrastructure was to control expenditure, improve efficiencies, and update the infrastructure. By outsourcing to IBM, Nissan achieved all of its goals.

In controlling expenditure, outsourcing gave companies the opportunity to have a predictable monthly budget for expenditure. That amount may or may not have been lower than current expenditures but the component that was crucial to a large organization such as Nissan was that the amount is predictable. There was no variable component to the pricing. The only time the pricing may have fluctuated was when additional services, which were out of scope of the contract, were required.

In Nissan’s case, that was never a requirement. The company was in the first stage of a major, global, restructuring project and there were no new initiatives taking place.

The second objective in the BPO was to improve efficiencies. IBM is the world’s largest information technology company with revenues close to $100 billion [9]. When companies outsource their operations to IBM they are gaining best-of-breed technologies, excellent consultants and some of the best systems architects money can buy.

The way that any global outsourcer makes its money is by achieving economies of scale. The only way to achieve these economies of scale is to ensure that they deploy the best hardware, software, and infrastructure possible and make that equipment work to maximum efficiencies. By taking full advantage of this best-of-breed technology, Nissan met its second and third stated objectives.

II. What if the IT Infrastructure had been retained in-house?

If Nissan had decided to retain its IT infrastructure in-house and attempted to implement an updated and modernized system, it would have lead to a significant increase in their expenditure. Ghosn’s prime objective, when he took over the company in 1999, was to reduce expenditure by 700 billion Yen [2]. He was not interested in spending any additional money to modernize existing equipment.

To support the intended improvement in competitiveness, Nissan had to ensure that their infrastructure supported the additional workload. There was no way they could do the intended improvement in efficiencies without external support. Nissan did not have the expertise and the additional work force to handle the required upgrades and the reengineering of business processes.

III. Final assessment and summation of the relationship

Robert Greenberg, Nissan’s CIO of North America was on record as saying in 2006 that, “We were happy with the services from IBM but the world had changed.” This comment sums up the relationship as it stands now, almost 8 years later [5]. When Nissan announced its Revival Plan, in 1999, the company had very clear objectives; cut costs, and return to profitability.

Nissan was looking for help in 1999 and IBM fulfilled this role for their IT Infrastructure. Greenberg also stated in his Q&A that “One of the things that also took place with the original outsourcing to IBM was we probably outsourced too much.” [5]

Greenberg was not working for Nissan when the original outsourcing decision was made in 1999; he only joined the company in 2005. He is on record though as saying that he thought that they should have either retained some of the infrastructure in-house or perhaps have multi-sourced, thereby ensuring that they had the best possible solution and price.

In 2006, when the contract came up for renewal, the CIO decided to put everything out to bid and compare what the other vendors were offering with what IBM had provided for so many years. The decision to look at new vendors was actually excellent timing for the company as Nissan had decided to relocate their North American corporate headquarters from Los Angeles, CA to Nashville, TN and any transition could be timed to coincide with the move.

Ultimately, what Greenberg opted to do was to accept IBM’s proposal to “manage desktop systems, network services, help desks, dealer systems, and other key infrastructure elements for Nissan North America.” He then outsourced the application and maintenance to an Indian firm, Satyam and brought the remainder of the services back in-house [5].

When asked about the decision to bring IT back in-house, Greenberg said, “By bringing it in-house you increase the alignment. It’s a matter of building the knowledge internally [that] can be used to help drive the business activity, which is much harder when a business analyst function is sitting within a third party.” [5]

IV. Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does BPO make more sense?

As Stephen Withers stated in his article, BPO decisions should not be made for cost-cutting exercises but rather for strategic directions [1]. In other words, companies should not view BPO as a cost saving tool. Outsourcing the IT operation makes sense when an organization is looking to improve efficiencies and business processes or when they cannot attract, or retain, the human capital who have the expertise and ability to modernize or improve the infrastructure.

Nissan’s CIO Robert Greenberg thought that he would actually save money by bringing some of the work back in-house because he was “not paying margin on the individual [headcount].” [5]
Some of the individual lessons that Nissan’s Greenberg has learnt from the outsourcing agreement with IBM has been that certain services developed by the IT organization can indeed be outsourced or developed externally. However, he felt strongly about retaining in-house IT skills in such value generation areas as business analysts who have a strong understanding of the business, sometimes even better than the business customer does. Insourcing these skills could result in ideas and dialog with the business, with the end result being a service delivery or product development than can then be outsourced.

In summary, the answer to the question, ‘Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does Business Process Outsourcing make more sense?’ is that it depends. It depends on the available skills; it depends on the overall objectives (cost saving vs. process improvement) and it depends on the organization. For the most part the majority of major corporations world wide that have been through an outsourcing contract or are in an outsourcing contract will agree that there are substantial benefits to implementing an outsourcing contract and there substantial benefits in retaining those skills in-house. What each organization needs to do is ascertain which of those benefits outweigh the other and base their decision on that analysis.

Works Cited

[1] Withers, Stephen. “BPO: Save money or fix your processes?” ZDNet.com
[http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/business/soa/BPO-Save-money-or-fix-your-processes-/0],139023749,139156391-10,00.htm 17 August 2004. Downloaded October 22, 2007

[2] Magee, David. Turn Around: How Carlos Ghosn rescued Nissan. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc, 2003.

[3] Moynihan, Ann. “Outsourcing enables owner to focus on core business.” http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2002/10/14/focus10.html October 11, 2002. Downloaded October 22, 2007

[4] IBM Press room press releases. IBM.com “Extending Their Global Partnership, Nissan, and IBM Announce IS Outsourcing for Japan” http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/1670.wss June 19, 2000. Downloaded October 19, 2007

[5] Thibodeau, Patrick. “Q&A: Nissan CIO reshapes automaker’s IT”
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=110024&intsrc=industry_list March 29, 2006. Downloaded October 23, 2007

[7] McDougall, Paul. “IBM, Nissan Outsourcing Deal Spans The Globe” http://www.informationweek.com/outsourcing/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=181502685 March 10, 2006 10:00 AM. Downloaded November 02, 2007

[8] Ikin, Paul. IBM Representative on Nissan Global team. 1998 to 2001.

Author: Paul Ikin
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Provided by: Cellphone news

Outsourcing your non-core operations to a service provider has ceased to become a prerogative. Almost everyone is doing it even the top Fortune 500 companies. Definitely, outsourcing has become another option for business viability and survival.

Apart from lowered cost and enhanced quality of work, outsourcing enables companies to tap the expertise of the outsourced service provider into its own operation, thus the outsourcing company stands to benefit more than just getting its non-core jobs done by an outsource provider. Yet, as beneficial as it seems, there are attending risks. Just like an ordinary business transaction, outsourcing, too has loopholes.

Here are ten (10) outsourcing risks identified and the steps to ward them off:

RISK #1: Outsource provider’s track record.

Taking a closer look at the outsource provider’s number of years in the outsourcing industry, size of his company as to number of his employees when he started out compared to his present organizational structure, taking into account the ratio of employees’ turn-over, his financial background, etc… – all these are determinant factors of an outsource provider’s track record.

RISK #2: Competencies.

Is the outsource provider competent to deliver quality services? Is the outsource service provider ISO9000 compliant, or are there verifiable certifications from competent independent agencies like CMM, issued in its favor? What are the procedures the outsource service provider undertake to ensure that it delivers quality service?

Clients’ references are the best source of information concerning competencies of the outsource service provider. Their satisfaction guarantees yours, too.

RISK #3: Hidden costs.

The apparent reason why you outsource is cost. Undeniably, outsourcing cuts down cost, but be wary about hidden costs that can spring like panthers aiming for your throat!

Areas to watch include connectivity expense, infrastructure maintenance and development, transition cost, licensing and consultancy.

RISK #4: Meeting deadlines.

Are commitments attainable? Is your outsource service provider apt to the challenge of delivering to you the service you need within prescribed, and agreed upon, time frame?

RISK #5: Data safety.

Now, caution should be emphasized here. You will be sharing information about your business with your outsource service provider. Is non-disclosure agreement an issue? Get an affirmative response from your outsource provider that any information, data or work processes that concern your business should not be disclosed to a third party. A privacy statement should be included, and form part of your contract with him.

Your team at the outsource service provider’s company should undergo pre-hiring orientation which will inculcate their adherence to non-disclosure of vital information and privacy agreements.

Security settings such as firewalls, anti-spam ware, access controls and data encryption should be discussed and agreed upon as well.

RISK #6: Contingency Plans.

Find out about contingency plans. Does your outsource service provider have one in place?

Your outsource service provider should have considered measures to undertake before any contingency strikes. Equally important are its recovery plans. How well does your outsource service provider expect to continue with its business should a disaster occur?

Businesses are beset with risks. When you outsource, you become involved with whatever risk your outsource service provider face up to. It is best to know that you will be dealing with a service provider that has foresight. This is a sign of maturity and responsibility.

RISK #7: Transparency.

Always invoke transparency between you and your outsource service provider in all phases of your business undertaking. This will immobilize intrigue, dissension, and will affirm trust.

Is invoicing done on time? Are contracts feasible?

Eradicate minor flaws as they take root, by being transparent and trustworthy. This will be the ground upon which your business will flourish.

RISK #8: Adherence to labor laws, state laws and regulations.

Your outsource service provider should operate within the legal tenets of its own country. Its non-conformance of state laws, regulations, ordinances, etc… will affect you, if not legally, then on moral decency.

You as the outsource service provider’s client should ensure your moral ascendancy in environmental concerns, and employees’ welfare.

RISK #9: Employees’ Issues.

Cross-training of employees is necessary to avoid disputes and needless work stoppage. As most outsourcing is done to foreign countries, employees should receive orientation as to what they can expect from a foreign client, as well as the client understanding situational factors, such as time-zone difference, length of work hours, etc… from the point of view of employees.

RISK #10: Cultural Match.

Akin to risk No. 9 is finding a “match” or a “fit” between the outsource service provider and the client. Cultural factors can influence, positively or negatively, the outcome of the working relationship. For a suave interaction, the “fit” should be found.

A mismatch can cause problems ranging from pre-termination of the contract, faster turn-over of employees and a host of other concerns. Any of these reasons means loss for both parties.

Most common reasons why outsourcing goes sour are outsourcing services getting expensive or poor performance by the service provider.

The key is to choose wisely and carefully. Avoiding guesswork will eliminate unnecessary expense, wasted time and efforts. Selecting a service provider who possesses integrity, honesty and competence remains a sure-fire formula.

Author: Steve Arun
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Provided by: Credit card currency-exchange fees

The trend towards outsourcing will continue to grow as market pressures force corporations to be more tightly focused on core business functions, gaining competitive advantage and reducing costs. Outsourcing is an attractive alternative in good times and bad times. Shifting back end administrative and business functions to an external provider in good times, may be a means for quicker time to market and focusing resources on core business activities to grow the business. In bad times, outsourcing is a means for streamlining the enterprise by eliminating functions, which create a drag on capital and/or do not provide any competitive advantage.

In the current economic environment, concerns over, shrinking margins, liquidity and the
need to reduce operating cost structures is accelerating a trend towards shifting certain
back office administrative functions to outside suppliers. This trend is seen as a major
paradigm shift within enterprises, which have realigned their internal corporate
infrastructure to focus on more strategic areas of their core business.

Although the human resources (HR) function is viewed as critical within corporations,
increasingly, small, medium and even large corporations are moving to outsource this
service.

The case for outsourcing has three basic rationales. First the regulatory
compliance obligations imposed under ERISA, COBRA and IRS regulations, have
become extremely burdensome and expensive for companies. Consequently, avoiding
major legal problems and financial liability requires substantial investment in resources
and capital in an area outside of the core business of most companies. This makes
outsourcing a viable option even if it does not necessarily result in a cost savings in the
near term. Second, the need to upgrade HR systems and invest in new technology is
increasingly difficult when companies are hard pressed to invest in functions aligned with
the core competency of the enterprise. HR outsourcing service providers are better
positioned to invest in new technologies and software more likely to conform to “best
practices” for delivery of the service. Third, for companies with global operations,
employee self-service can substantially reduce costs and improve employee satisfaction
with the service. However, this requires integration of all processes- HRIS, payroll and
benefits administration- across the entire HR operation including its global ones.

Because of the business exigencies driving the shift towards HR outsourcing, the industry
is expected to grow to $37.7 Billion in 2003.
Currently HR outsourcing services fall primarily within three categories: Professional
Employer Organization (PEO), Business Processing Outsourcing (BPO) and Application
Service Providers (ASPs).4
PEOs assume and take full responsibility for the human resources administration,
including the legal liability for the company’s workers. It becomes in essence a coemployer
with final say over, hiring, firing, and compensation decisions. The PEO
becomes a partner, in the non-legal sense, with ownership of the HR function while the
company retains responsibility over all business matters.

BPO refers to all business processes and not just HR. Typically this involves transferring
the entire function to a service provider and is differentiated from PEOs because it
usually involves introducing new technologies and processes to bear in the HR service.
Because of the complexity of HR systems in large corporations, shifting to BPO may be
more expensive in the short term. However, long term it can result in benefits because
large HR outsource providers will invest in systems and technology viewed as
prohibitively expensive within a firm where this function lies outside of its core business.

The BPO services market is growing rapidly with analyst projecting revenues of $128
billion this year and growth to $234 billion by 2005.

Finally, ASPs host software on the web and rent it to users. The most commonly known
of these packages is “People Soft”. The latter application and other packages are used to
manage payroll, benefits, head count and other HR processes.

Each of the HR outsourcing services described has advantages and disadvantages for
particular enterprises depending, on the number of employees, affordability of the
service, type of business and the degree to which an enterprise desires to retain control of
this function in-house.

This paper will briefly cover the legal aspects of HR outsourcing and will discuss some
of the most common contract issues faced in outsourcing relationships, essential items
that ought to be considered by the parties and key provisions within outsourcing service
agreements.

As previously discussed, companies facing pressure to reduce costs or address the
personnel shortages due to corporate down sizing have several different outsourcing
alternatives available to them to delegate back-end administrative functions. Typically,
the first alternative firms look to before looking outside, is to retain control of the
function in-house and reduce employment related costs (taxes, benefits, headcount), by
using contingent staff or (temporary workers) or persons classified as “independent
contractors” (IC) to perform the work. Though this may be an appealing solution for
many firms, given the legal and economic benefits, improper classification of someone as
an IC, consultant or temporary worker, who is later deemed an “employee” carries
serious financial risks.

Friction has developed between the growing use of contract workers in lieu of full time
employees and, the public policy aims of providing workers with protections under
federal labor laws to take the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”)
and state law employee remedial measures. In addition to the tax risk of an IRS audit, the
risks are higher today that workers will bring claims for social security, workman’s
compensation or other actions challenging the misclassification, so that they may
participate in lucrative benefit programs provided by the employer.
The case that brought these issues to the fore was Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation
(“Microsoft I”) and its progeny of cases. In Microsoft I, plaintiffs, employees designated
as temporary workers or “free lancers”, brought an action against the corporation to
recover savings benefits under ERISA and for stock option benefits offered through a
stock purchase plan, that were available to regular employees.6 The Court framed the
legal and public policy issues in the opinion’s opening statement:
“Large corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or
independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, and thereby
increasing their profits. This practice has understandably led to a number of problems, legal and
otherwise. One of the legal issues that sometimes arises is exemplified in this lawsuit. The named
plaintiffs, who were classified by Microsoft as independent contractors seek to strip that label of
its protective covering to obtain for themselves certain benefits that the company provided to all of
its regular or permanent employees.”

The problems for Microsoft arose as a result of an IRS tax audit for tax years 1989 and
1990. The IRS examined the company’s employment records to determine if it was in
compliance with tax laws. Applying the common-law principles defining the employer-employee relationship, the IRS concluded Mircosoft’s “freelancers” were not
independent contractors but employees for withholding and tax purposes.
In reaching this conclusion, the IRS applied the test set out under the common law of
agency, which requires, in determining if a hired party is an “employee”, consideration of
the hiring party’s right to control the manner and means by which the product is
accomplished. The IRS applies a 20 factor “control test” to “assess all of the incidents
of the relationship” with no one factor being determinative of the employment
relationship of the parties.9 The US Supreme Court reached asimilion conclusion in
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company vs. Darden party not to adopt the IRS factors
and, instead applied a twelve factors that it considered. In assessing the relationship of
the parties the court decided for determining whether an individual qualifies as a
“common law employee”.

Microsoft, on first impression, appeared to have taken the appropriate measures to avoid
stumbling into an employer-employee relationship- the workers were told they were
freelancers and signed various agreements classifying them as independent contractors,
that included provisions that the workers would be responsible for paying their own taxes
and benefits. However, after having taken these steps with respect to the form of the
relationship, the court found that Microsoft had fully integrated these workers into its
workforce, placing them alongside regular employees, sharing the same supervisors,
performing identical functions and working the same core hours. Because Microsoft
required them to work on site, they were given admittance keys, office equipment and
supplies of the company.

Even after the IRS determined that plaintiffs were “common law employees”, Microsoft
attempted to use a temporary agency to “house” these workers as employees of the
agency, so that it could continue to use them in the same manner previously described.
On review in Vizcaino v. U.S. Dist. Court for Western District of Washington, 173 F.3d
713 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Microsoft III”), the Court in striking down the District Court’s
modification of the class of plaintiffs, which it deemed a contravention of its order on
remand, rejected the lower court’s assertion that the eligibility for benefits of these
temporary agency workers turned on whether they were employees of the Company or
the agency. The District Court’s view precluded the possibility that the agency and
Microsoft could jointly employ the plaintiff. The Court held that at common law it was
possible for the plaintiff’s to be employees of both the temporary agency and of the
recipient of their services (Microsoft), if, based on a determination using the Darden
factors, an employee-employer relationship existed. In essence the agency and Microsoft
were joint employers and the triangular relationship that Microsoft created was not
viewed as precluding or as being mutually exclusive of a two- party relationship that
existed between the company and the temporary workers. So what are the lessons gleaned from the Microsoft cases?

o Review the language in the company’s benefit plans to ensure “covered
employees” is properly defined within the plan and not left to statutory or judicial
interpretation.

o The mere classification of workers as independent contractors is not sufficient,
and behavioral, financial and the type of relationship between the hiring party and
the workers must support the classification.

o Users of outsourcing services should apply the 20 IRS factors to conduct a selfassessment
of the relationship between the parties.

o Consider using only ICs that are incorporated so that the relationship is between
entities and not an individual and an entity.

o Ensure that the agreement reflects the 20 factors, so for example: allow the IC to
determine the means and the methods for delivery, limit the agreement to the
project, and ensure the contract calls for the IC to cover its expenses and benefits.

o Require that the IC submit an invoice prior to receiving any payments.

o Avoid placing IC in situations where work is subject to the direct supervision of a
company employee.

o Avoid imposing administrative requirements on the IC, which are applicable to
employees.

o Allow the IC to hire and delegate the work to its employees subject to the
requirements of the project.

In particular, the fact that a worker is employed by a temporary agency, or similar entity
is not a guarantee against misclassification under the joint employer rule applied by the
Ninth Cir. Court in Microsoft III. If a misclassification does occur a firm may qualify for
an IRS Section 530 “safe harbor” exception if it can show the following:

1. Reasonable basis for classification of individuals as ICs based on:

o Reliance on a relevant court case, the advice of a qualified accountant or attorney,
or IRS ruling;

o The IRS did not reclassify the same or similar workers in a previous audit;

o It is standard industry practice to treat the particular workers as ICs.

2. Consistently treated same or similar workers as ICs in the past.

3. Consistently filed federal tax forms 1099 on these same or similar workers.

Outsourcing any critical business function and especially one like HR must be carefully
planned and executed to be an economic and strategic success. HR operations require
trained and specialized personnel to handle complex processes and manage the
compliance responsibilities created under the myriad of federal and state employment
regulations. Outsourcing of this function carries the risk of losing qualified personnel and
a degradation of the function. A firm can ill afford the risk of entering into a relationship
with a vendor whose lack of expertise in payroll and benefit administration causes
disruptions and a loss of efficiency. This may, in the worst case, demoralize the work
force and expose the firm to significant legal liability. Partial success in this area can
mean total failure and the loss of strategic initiative.

Contracting of the outsource service is a process which requires inputs from all of the
stakeholders (HR personnel, users of the service, and the management team) and those
persons within or outside of the organization with expertise in the function. Before talks
are ever initiated with a vendor, the key goal is to define the scope of the service and the
performance metrics, which will be applied to measure success. The use of metrics will
be covered in greater detail below in respect to Service Level Agreements (SLAs).

Important to both parties in the transaction, is defining the kind of relationship, which
must be established for the arrangement to succeed. If the entire HR Dept function is to
be outsourced then it will be in the interest of both parties to enter into a long-term
relationship that will justify the up-front costs and investments that will be required of
each of them. This type of arrangement as previously mentioned is subject to the firms
particular circumstances, and will probably result in selecting either the BPO or PEO
alternative because of the broad scope of the outsourced service. For the buyer this type
of wholesale delegation is expensive, complex and risky. If it doesn’t work out, the
buyers will incur significant costs and, disruption to the business in replacing the vendor
or in bringing the function back in-house.

Typically, total outsourcing of a function is a major undertaking with broad implications
for both the buyer and vendor. In this situation the preferred relationship is one that is
more of a partnership, in the non-legal sense, where the parties view their interests as
mutually benefited by the relationship.

On the other end of the continuum is the outsourcing of processes, like payroll, which is
very specific and straightforward and can be executed on a short-term basis.
Normally, in the HR area, firms will retain part of the function in-house, and delegate
those functions to an ASP or BPO, which require major investments in technology or
software. An outside supplier whose core compency lies within function is better able to
absorb the costs, based on economies of scale. This type of arrangement will generally
result in an intermediate term relationship where the parties will have to develop close
collaboration but will not have to incur the high costs, and investment of resources
required in a long-term relationship.

Partnership arrangements require provisions that maximize the flexibility of the vendor in
performing the service. Typically because such relationships are appropriate in contracts
with long terms of duration, typically five to seven years, and complex service
arrangements, the approach ought to be less prescriptive with respect to the scope and
level of service.
In shorter-term arrangements more typical of supplier/purchaser relationships, contracts
need to be more prescriptive in defining the scope of the services and the client
requirements.

Generally contracts ought to build in some level of flexibility to allow for changes in:

business circumstances,
technology
and the needs of the buyer.

Transfer of Personnel and Assets:

Outsourcing arrangements may require the transfer of assets and personnel to the vendor.
Defining the terms covering the transfer of affected personnel will generally have
important implications for the buyer and its employees with respect to employment or
employment rights. When wholesale outsourcing of groups or functions occur, it is
important for firms to take measures to preserve the general morale, of those remaining
and communicate openly and honestly with those persons transferred under the
outsourcing agreement. Contract terms need to address how the outsourcing of the
function and subsequent transfer will affect benefits, pensions and pay of personnel
moved to the service provider. Consideration should also be given to the rights, if any,
the transferring firm may have to either enforce special terms affecting transferred
employees or the right to retain these employees in the event of contract termination.
With respect to equipment and other assets, terms governing the use by the vendor of any
equipment made available to it by the buyer should specify rights of ownership and other
matters related to the transfer of equipment or other items of value.

Defining the rights to intellectual property (IP) is critical in all outsourcing agreements.
Typically the vendor will want to retain rights in any IP developed by it in the course of
the arrangement. The thought being that it is providing a service and not being paid to
develop IP. The buyer on the other hand will want all rights to IP developed based on the
transfer of proprietary or confidential information to the vendor and any work product
developed in performing the service. This issue will usually be resolved through
negotiation.
Related to this are confidentiality provisions, which provide important contractual
protections with respect to each party’s right’s in and use of IP in the arrangement.

Services
This is will probably be set out in a schedule and negotiated based on the scope of the
services and the functions or processes that will be outsourced. As stated previously, the
nature of the relationship, partnership or supplier/purchaser will determine how detailed
and specific this ought to be.

In any event there should be sufficient clarity and definition for the parties to be able to
set mutual expectations and understand the deliverables that must be produced under the
agreement.
Termination
Defining the terms for exiting an arrangement is one of the most critical issues in an
outsource agreement. Generally, early termination provisions, which set out rights and
applicable penalties due in such event, should be a matter of last resort except in cases, of
material breach or force majeure.

Default provisions should set out escalation clauses and a reasonable cure period to
ensure the parties have procedures for resolving disputes and issues related to the
performance of their respective obligations.
There should also be provisions governing the management of the exit. These should
include the vendor cooperation in facilitating the transfer of the service to another vendor
and the return of any equipment or other items to the buyer, which were used by vendor
during the contract.
Consideration should be given to other provisions, which might help to reduce the level
of disruption to the buyer’s operations as a result of the termination of the agreement.

What is a Service Level Agreement (SLA)?

SLAs in an outsourcing arrangement identify the service levels or performance standards
that the vendor must meet or exceed. The SLA also specifies consequences for failing to
achieve the minimum service level set by the buyer.
SLAs should be applied to the key parts of the outsourced service and not necessarily to
every aspect. The purpose of SLAs is to ensure the buyer has the means to control the
level and the consistency of the service received from the provider.
Generally, the minimum level that ought to be set is that which is required to support the
buyer’s on-going business operations and HR requirements. An important rationale for
outsourcing should be to improve the level and quality of the function that is being
outsourced. Therefore the minimum level of service should be at least equal to the level
that existed before the function was outsourced to the provider.
In the HR area metrics are difficult to establish because much of what is being measured
is intangible. For example if buyer wants to determine the success of a web based
application for benefits, this can only be ascertained by surveying user satisfaction. As
such questionnaires and employee satisfaction surveys become essential tools for
measuring the performance of the vendor.

SLAS must reflect the agreement understanding of the parties as to what constitutes a
good result and with respect to measuring performance, their agreement on the
mechanisms used to measure the result.
The SLA should also cover what constitutes the best and the worst-case level of service.
In this regard the buyer will want to incorporate service credits, which may become
applicable in the event the vendor fails to meet minimum service levels. At the same time
it is also appropriate to consider incentives or bonuses, which the vendor can receive for
achieving the best-case level of service.

The point of any negotiation ought to be that it is in the interest of both parties that the
vendor meet or exceed the service levels set in the SLA. The buyers should not exploit
the use of SLAs, to reduce costs through the application of credits or penalties, because
this will only inject an unnecessary level of contention into the relationship that will
under cut the development of a partnership between the parties.
SLAs should not have a distorting effect on behavior, where the vendor becomes focused
only on those aspects of the service, that are measured, at the expense of other aspects,
which may not be weighted as heavily in the evaluation process. The vendor’s goal
should be to meet, or exceed expectations in every area covered by service.

Author: Jose Rojas
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Provided by: PCB Prototype & Manufacturing

Kudos to Outsourcing

Is outsourcing good for us? Should we outsource at all? Of course, yes! There’s nothing inherently wrong with the concept itself! Just have a look:

I don’t have space in my house to grow vegetables, and I can’t buy a house with a large kitchen garden, so, I outsource them from my nearest vendor.

I can do my dishes and my laundry, but I find it too energy-sapping and time-consuming, so, I’ve hired someone who would save my time.

So, what do I do with so much of saved time? I write…which is in fact, my core competency!

And that’s exactly the point I want to make. Same logical sense applies to your business. If you don’t have enough capital or resources or if you want to save some recurrent costs and focus your time and money on your core competencies, you would outsource. More or less, every business out sources to sustain and to grow.
Outsourcing has today evolved into a preferred business practice for managers to use as a bridge to circumvent business problems, as a handy tool to focus on core issues and as a launch pad to enable businesses to register higher growth rates.

Advantages of Outsourcing

Outsourcing enables cost cutting and savings
Outsourcing enables you to meet deadlines sans stress
Outsourcing enables you to avail of world-class expertise and provide a better quality to your customers
Outsourcing enables you to offload the non-core and non-differentiating allied activities in your business and lets you to focus on more important functions….
Outsourcing enables you to gain a competitive edge over your rivals
Outsourcing helps you to innovate while you contract out the repetitive standardized processes
Outsourcing enables you to quickly respond to the changing market equations
Outsourcing enables you to function as a compact, coherent and streamlined business
Outsourcing enables quick expansion or upgrade in business, allowing you to take more orders
Outsourcing enables you to ward off risks
Outsourcing enables you to transform a process and remove any inefficiency
Outsourcing speeds up your pace towards your long-term business goals

In fact, outsourcing to a cheaper developing country like India, where you are spoilt with choices, with abundant talent in various fields and a vast English speaking population, will only add on to the general benefits of outsourcing. No Wonder, India alone accounts for 40% of the world’s outsourced IT projects.

When to Outsource?

How to figure out whether Outsourcing or more specifically, off shoring, is the answer to the problems you are facing in business? And even if you are not facing much of a problem yet, How to decide if you should opt for it for the sake of cost cutting and other benefits of off shoring? You should definitely consider outsourcing/off shoring seriously if one or more of the following scenarios sound like a description of situations in your own business venture:

When you need occasional or recurrent assistance with a particular function, say, legal matters or some programming need, hiring full-time employee doesn’t make good economic sense. Outsourcing a short-term job would not only be much cheaper but also easily sustainable.

When a small home business owner can’t afford to hire employees but can easily outsource some help at very cheap rates from countries like India where there is a multitude of skilled professionals in various fields.

Even Independent Professionals can outsource the help needed in day-to-day office life like secretarial and clerical help or the expertise and specialized skills like IT, graphic designing, legal services, patent filing etc. This can be easily achieved by contracting out to other professionals (commonly known as virtual assistants or kpo consultants) through the internet. They offer their services and operate either independently through their own sites or through a dedicated and comprehensive portal for outsourcing like http://www.e-guru.in . They are experts in their field, would not ask for the usual employee benefits and don’t need to be managed since you are their client. For example, a doctor might need accounting services or a public speaker might need someone to develop software, and or an event manager might need a copywriter and so on.

When there is a skill shortage in a particular field, say programming and other IT skills, difficulty in finding right candidates coupled with high pay packages only underline the need for outsourcing. In fact, off shoring to a country like India, with abundant skilled professionals and lower currency rates would result in huge savings for you in terms of costs as well as quality

When your office has a history of acute employee stress, mounting pressures around deadlines and work-overload, you can ease off the burden by contracting out the time-consuming standardized processes which are the repetitive, easier and non-core parts of the business, thus enabling better productivity for yourself and your employees.

When a fast changing non-core process is a continuous drain on your resources. For instance, if you need to keep upgrading your IT processes according to the latest soft wares and technologies, but that’s not your core competency, then it is better to consider outsourcing it to the IT experts in India who can better manage and run the process at fractional costs than to hire a full-time software development staff.

When you aren’t satisfied with the quality of output of an in-house non-core business process, you can either re-train your personnel or hire more experienced candidates at higher salaries, both of which mean spending more.

On the other hand, you can avail of world class quality as well as reduce your costs by off shoring the same to India. Though non-core processes bear no direct affect on the customers of your product or service directly but a shoddy quality doesn’t bode well in the long-term. (At the same time, I would add a word of caution, you first need to examine and understand the reasons for an internal function’s inefficiency and under-performance so that you know what to expect even if you eventually outsource it.)

When one needs to expand to meet the growing demand and deliver increasing number of orders in time, but one doesn’t have the infrastructure or resources to drastically upgrade yet, outsourcing is the perfect solution.

When one needs to start a new process in-house in a short period, one can outsource for immediate commencement of services and then slowly establish a dedicated in-house staff for the same.

When you need to transform an in-house process, it is advisable to outsource it on a short-term basis for the change to occur in a stable manner and once the operations are running smoothly and steadily, you can transfer it back home.

When a project or function is being inefficiently performed in-house for any reason, outsourcing it would insure you against the operational and financial risks.

Let me point out here that in recent times, though other avenues are fast picking up, but off shoring of IT services to the developing nations like India, is being particularly hailed as a generally successful deal for one and all. Areas in which outsourcing is gaining momentum are: Internet related programming, scripting languages, databases, graphic designing, animation, web hosting, accounting, recruitment, editing, copy writing, .NET technology, sql server, oracle, C/C++, embedded systems and similar projects most of which are being hosted for outsourcing at http://www.e-guru.in

Conclusion

Making the right choice is less about choosing whether to outsource or not and more about what to outsource and to whom! So, I urge you to do your own homework, in-house research about what processes qualify for outsourcing, cost-benefit analyses, putting in place a stream-lined management policy regarding pre and post-outsourcing functions and goals, carefully selecting a destination which would offer you sufficient choices, signing up through a reliable channel, following up on it and the works.

In a nutshell, I would say, your action as well inaction – both will have a bearing on your business! And it is better to prepare yourself now and act before it is too late. Outsourcing is a boon for one and all. So, don’t chicken out, there is a whole lot of competition out there in business which is continuously trying to oust you. Just plan for it, go ahead with it and ensure yourself a place in the marketplace of future!

Author: Jason V Thomas
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Provided by: Duty on LCD/Plasma TV

Introduction

In the year, prior to the turn of the millennium, Nissan was a company in a serious financial crisis. Debt had approached $22 billion by 1999. The company had been too complacent, and had taken its prior success, for granted [2].

Did Nissan’s decision to outsource their IT Infrastructure to IBM in 1999 make good sense? Nissan was a very troubled auto-manufacturer in the late 1990’s. Senior executives from the company were known for their conservative outlook on business, and their ‘old boy’s network,’ mentality. Profits were dropping dramatically, eventually forcing the company into the $22 Billion debt that it then faced. There were no signs indicating a change in the market that would encourage profit growth. The vehicle sales needed invigoration.

Mergers were the flavor of the day in the automotive industry during the late 1990’s. Nissan executives approached Daimler Chrysler and Ford to discuss a possible merger, but there was no interest from either of the companies [2]. There was only one alternative left, which was to reinvent themselves and reduce unnecessary overheads. This was the defining point that led to the business process outsourcing decision.

This paper seeks to answer the question “Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) make more sense?” We reviewed the example of the automotive manufacturer, Nissan, when they decided to outsource their entire Information Technology department to IBM in late 1999, to answer our question.

Nissan – A brief history and the events leading up to the BPO decision

I. The Boom years

Nissan was established in Japan in 1933 as a heavy industry manufacturer. After the Second World War they turned their attention to automotive vehicles. In the 1950’s, they finally had an impact on the global market with the introduction of the Datsun branded sedans and small pickup trucks. The company eventually opened full-time operations in the USA in September 1960 [6].

The company experienced dramatic growth with the introduction of the ‘Z’ series sports sedans in the early 1970’s, with the 240Z becoming the fastest selling sports car of all time. This success led Nissan to the top of the U.S. vehicle importers market by 1975. Vehicle sales in the USA topped over 250,000 units per annum by 1970 [6]. The company was young, its leaders dynamic and the future looked very bright. They were competing for the U.S. market with the likes of Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors, showing improved quality and production efficiencies over their competitors.

The company was growing at a phenomenal rate, opening new manufacturing plants around the world on a regular basis such as Australia (1976), Spain (1980) and the United Kingdom (1984) [6]. There was no respite to the pace of growth and new business generation coming from the company.

In 1983, the company began the worldwide marketing of vehicles under the Nissan name which was felt to have a stronger quality image and started the six year transition from Datsun to Nissan on vehicles, dealerships, facilities and marketing materials. Sales continued to grow, eventually reaching 830,767 in 1985 [6]. The decade closed out with resounding success for Nissan with their domination of the North American market.

In 1993, the mid-line Stanza sedan was replaced with an all-new Altima and non-competitive Japanese-designed minivan was replaced with a new U.S. created Quest, which was the first minivan with car-like handling. Sales came roaring back in 1994 to near-peak levels of 774,405 [6].

In 1996, sales began to slip once again, fueled by a change in American vehicle tastes. Trucks and SUVs gained market share at the expense of sedans and sports cars [2]. Nissan’s position as a manufacturing driven company, which helped them in the ’80’s and early ’90’s, then had new problems with the dollar/yen balance which began to hurt their competitiveness against market driven companies.

Unlike their competitors, Toyota and Honda, which were focused on key volume segments, Nissan did not dominate any individual segment and competed in identical segments against Toyota and Honda.
Unfortunately for Nissan in the 1990s, the Japanese “bubble economy” burst, a downturn in Europe coincided, so there was more pressure in the U.S. to perform. Unfortunately U.S. customers didn’t have a genuine brand reason to shop Nissan except for the ‘best price’ deal.

Former Nissan president, Mr. Nakamura, announced a “Back-to-Basics” plan. The key elements of the plan were to reduce inventories, eliminate unrealistic sales targets, and increase dealer profitability. Unfortunately for Nakamura and Nissan, the plan did not work [2].

II. Trouble looms for the auto-manufacturer in 1990’s

In the early 1990’s, trouble began to brew in the organization. The once revered executives at Nissan were now viewed as arrogant members of the old-boys club and were ignorant to the changing needs of their customers and the overall automotive market, in general.

As the company progressed deeper into debt, it met with more challenges. Nissan’s business partners and suppliers were charging a premium for their goods and services. Nissan was obliged to meet its financial commitments and by so doing placed itself further into debt. Finally, the company was in debt to the tune of $22 billion. Even the company’s financers were tightening the noose around them. Nissan felt the situation was hopeless.

III. Steps taken to address issues

Nissan executives were looking for a way out, a way to rescue the company from entering into bankruptcy. The first approach was to find a partner. Both the newly established DaimlerChrysler and the Ford Motor company were approached, but both organizations rejected the idea of a merger [2]. Finally, Renault, the French automotive company recovering from a similar predicament, decided to enter into negotiations with the flailing Japanese company. A senior executive at Renault, Carlos Ghosn, was a huge supporter of the merger idea.

After much negotiation, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry agreed to allow Renault to purchase a substantial stake in Nissan. The Nissan-Renault alliance was born and Ghosn was appointed Chief Operating Officer.
Nissans Executive decisions and major events

I. Creating a global alliance vision:

The following is excerpted from the Nissan/Renault alliance vision:
“The Renault-Nissan Alliance is a unique group of two global companies linked by cross-shareholding. They are united for performance though a coherent strategy, common goals, and principles, results-driven synergies, shared best practices. They respect and reinforce their respective identities and brands.”[2]

The Alliance set itself three objectives, with the goal of being amongst the best three automotive groups in the following areas:

1. Quality.

Achieve customer recognition as being a quality and value added product.

2. Technology.

Lead in key technology development and implementation with a focus on excellence in specific areas of the automotive business.

3. Operating Profit.

Consistently generate a high operating profit margin and vigorously pursue growth.

II. Appointing a new leader

Ghosn, given his enthusiasm for the merger, his demonstrated tenacity, and his experience of the automotive industry, was a natural choice for a senior position at Nissan. His initial appointment as Chief Operating Officer (COO) was just a temporary assignment. In 2000, he was named President and in 2001, he was appointed Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

As CEO, Ghosn was very aware that the ‘buck’ stopped with him. He was the final decision maker. Some important and very serious decisions were made to save the ailing company. Ghosn had to use all of his valuable experience gained from rescuing other organizations, such as Michelin and Renault, to save Nissan.

III. Decision making to save a troubled auto-manufacturer

With Ghosn’s arrival in Japan in the spring of 1999, he immediately set about researching Nissan’s root problems. The newly appointed COO had a management philosophy that stated “you must always start with a clean sheet of paper because the worst thing you can have is prefabricated solutions… you have to start with a zero base of thinking, cleaning everything out of your mind.”[2]

For the first few months, Ghosn flew around Japan, meeting and greeting employees at all levels, absorbing information and formulating a plan. He used this information to plot a picture of Nissan from a global perspective, identifying issues, and problems that had created the dispersed, unprofitable organization.

One of the many issues Ghosn identified was the lack of communication around the organization. Seniors managers around the world were aware of some of the issues that caused the downturn of fortune in the company. They even had solutions to them, but had lacked the necessary authority to implement or communicate the solutions back to Corporate Headquarters.

Finally, the major issues were whittled down to five key issues: [2]

• Lack of clear profit orientation. Nissan was not focused on driving profit, but were rather focused on market share and ended up having to buy their market share at the expense of the declining profits.

• Insufficiently focused on customers and too much focus on competitors. The company was too concerned about the competition introducing a new line which would have dug into the Nissan market share. For example when Volkswagen introduced their new Jetta sedan Nissan saw a significant decline in their Maxima sales.

• Lacked cross-functional, cross-border, and intra-hierarchical lines of work in the company. Nissan seemed to operate as separate islands scattered throughout the globe. There was no centralized purchasing function or in fact any of the other major business activities. The organization was not making maximum use of its global presence or buying power.

• Lack of sense of urgency. The executives in Nissan were complacent in their activities. Things had gone so well for the company in the preceding 60 years that they felt that there was no reason to embrace change.

• No shared vision or common long-term plan. Senior management within Nissan did not have a joint plan for the different brands within the company. Each division did their own thing with little or no thought for the greater good of the company. An example was the Z series that had achieved phenomenal success throughout the 1970’s and ’80’s but was suddenly dropped from production when sales dropped. The obvious thing to have been done was to test the market with a modernized design. Instead Nissan chose to ignore the market and drop the brand.

To address the issues, Ghosn announced the Nissan Revival Plan on October 18, 1999. This seven-point plan was aimed at reducing costs and debt as well as creating and launching new automotive brands to raise sales and market awareness. The goals announced in the plan were far-reaching and encompassed: [2]

• The reduction of operating costs, net debt, global head count, and vehicle assembly plants and manufacturing platforms (the latter in Japan).

• The generation of new product investment through the launch of twenty-two new models.
The cost-cutting plan called for centralization of purchasing, procurement, human resources and information technology. By centralizing these essential functions, the plan aimed to assist the company in achieving its aggressive cost reductions.

Expenditure, particularly in the information technology function, was perceived as being out of control. Ghosn’s message to senior level executives was clear, “cut costs in every possible area.” If that meant outsourcing non-core activities because somebody else could do it cheaper, then that had to be fully investigated and determined. The management was ruthless in their execution of the plan [2].

Nissan looks at Business Process Outsourcing as a means

I. Will outsourcing non-core activities save money?
There are well-documented records of company’s saving money and others of outsourcing horror stories. Success really depended on the situation and the provider.

Most experts agreed, though, that you needed to use BPO in strategic decisions, for example refocused efforts on core competencies and not merely for cost cutting activities [1]. Stephen Withers of ZDNet said in his on-line article that you should only “use BPO for strategic purposes, not to take advantage of a (possibly transient) cost saving.” Withers then asked the reader, “Does outsourcing the IT Infrastructure make sense?” To answer that question corporate Chief Information Officer’s (CIO’s) would need to have completed extensive research and have done a thorough analysis of their business processes.

This is exactly what Nissan’s CIO did, or rather what Ghosn told him to do. The company had invested over 80 billion yen (over $US760million) in 1998 on IT services, but their processes were still not providing the management with the infrastructure that would assist in building their competitive edge [5]. The final decision was made to approach various outsourcing service providers for the much needed help.

II. Does outsourcing the IT infrastructure make sense?

If Information Technology (IT) truly was a commodity, like gasoline or electricity, then companies only competed on price, with very small profit margins. In that event, the decision to turn over IT to an outsourcer was as simple as it was a century ago to turn to motor vehicles instead of using the horse and cart. However, while personal computers and the networks they run on may be standardized, the services provided by IT outsourcers vary in many ways. Services such as data analysis, application development, and IT decision-making allowed companies more competitiveness in the market therefore, those elements of IT are far from being viewed as commodities [8].

With regards the decision to outsource, many factors were considered in Nissan’s case. Ann Moynihan in her article in the Albany Business review states “Outsourcing can help you: [3]

• Reduce and control operating costs.

• Free staff to focus on core business.

• Gain access to specialized skills and technologies.

• Introduce positive change.

• Gain control over a difficult-to-manage function resulting from uneven workloads, insufficient or unskilled resources.”

With Nissan, in 1999, this was exactly what they were looking for. Refocused staff efforts, introduction of positive change and control gained in all critical areas led to the outsourcing decision.

The choice of IBM as Nissan’s outsourcing partner was a strategic one. In the late 1990’s there were not many outsourcing companies that had the breadth or the global reach that IBM had. Competitors such as EDS and CSC were not considered because they were only outsourcers and could not offer the hardware and software technology that Nissan required to update their infrastructure [5]. If either one of those competitors were selected over IBM as a partner Nissan would still have faced the same infrastructure issues. IBM was the only logical partner.

Did the relationship work between Nissan & IBM?

I. A further look at the relationship between IBM and Nissan

In a joint IBM and Nissan press release published in Tokyo on June 19, 2000, the two companies announced that they were “Extending their global partnership for information system (IS) operations which Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. and IBM agreed in October 1999, Nissan and IBM today jointly announced that Nissan will outsource its IS operations in Japan, to IBM Japan.

The service includes Nissan’s regular maintenance and operational activities as well as part of its application development, but excludes the planning and design of new systems. The two companies will start operations from October 1. [7]

In North America, Nissan has outsourced these same operations to IBM Corp. since October 1999. This latest agreement in Japan is expected to further accelerate the standardization, integration and centralization of Nissan’s IS on a global level.”

Ghosn further noted, “The Nissan Revival Plan cannot be accomplished without effective information systems. Following upon the recent agreement with Japan Telecom, this latest partnership with IBM puts in place the global infrastructure which is key to support Nissan’s long term profitable growth.” [4]

II. Hypothetical view of the Return-on-Investment model used

Before they could calculate their Return on Investment (ROI), Nissan first had to look at the Total Cost of Ownership model proposed by IBM. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is a type of calculation designed to help consumers and enterprise managers assess both direct and indirect costs and benefits related to the purchase of any IT component. The intention was to arrive at a final figure that will reflect the effective cost of purchase, overall [8].

The TCO model used, had to calculate the costs that were required, beyond the fees of outsourcing. The organization had to evaluate specific criteria’s that could have added expense to the outsourcing project. They also had to calculate the ongoing expenses throughout the lifetime of the contract [8].

Then, after calculating the payback period, Nissan were in a position to calculate their ROI. Once the numbers were crunched, a thorough financial and risk analysis was conducted. The ROI measured the profit or cost savings realized. It was calculated by estimating, for a 3-year period, the investment was made and the resulting profit created through that investment.

The results were conclusive. Nissan and IBM entered into their agreement and operations scheduled to commence on October 1, 1999.

Conclusion

I. Did Nissan’s BPO reach its stated objective?

Nissan’s stated objective for the outsourcing of the IT infrastructure was to control expenditure, improve efficiencies, and update the infrastructure. By outsourcing to IBM, Nissan achieved all of its goals.

In controlling expenditure, outsourcing gave companies the opportunity to have a predictable monthly budget for expenditure. That amount may or may not have been lower than current expenditures but the component that was crucial to a large organization such as Nissan was that the amount is predictable. There was no variable component to the pricing. The only time the pricing may have fluctuated was when additional services, which were out of scope of the contract, were required.

In Nissan’s case, that was never a requirement. The company was in the first stage of a major, global, restructuring project and there were no new initiatives taking place.

The second objective in the BPO was to improve efficiencies. IBM is the world’s largest information technology company with revenues close to $100 billion [9]. When companies outsource their operations to IBM they are gaining best-of-breed technologies, excellent consultants and some of the best systems architects money can buy.

The way that any global outsourcer makes its money is by achieving economies of scale. The only way to achieve these economies of scale is to ensure that they deploy the best hardware, software, and infrastructure possible and make that equipment work to maximum efficiencies. By taking full advantage of this best-of-breed technology, Nissan met its second and third stated objectives.

II. What if the IT Infrastructure had been retained in-house?

If Nissan had decided to retain its IT infrastructure in-house and attempted to implement an updated and modernized system, it would have lead to a significant increase in their expenditure. Ghosn’s prime objective, when he took over the company in 1999, was to reduce expenditure by 700 billion Yen [2]. He was not interested in spending any additional money to modernize existing equipment.

To support the intended improvement in competitiveness, Nissan had to ensure that their infrastructure supported the additional workload. There was no way they could do the intended improvement in efficiencies without external support. Nissan did not have the expertise and the additional work force to handle the required upgrades and the reengineering of business processes.

III. Final assessment and summation of the relationship

Robert Greenberg, Nissan’s CIO of North America was on record as saying in 2006 that, “We were happy with the services from IBM but the world had changed.” This comment sums up the relationship as it stands now, almost 8 years later [5]. When Nissan announced its Revival Plan, in 1999, the company had very clear objectives; cut costs, and return to profitability.

Nissan was looking for help in 1999 and IBM fulfilled this role for their IT Infrastructure. Greenberg also stated in his Q&A that “One of the things that also took place with the original outsourcing to IBM was we probably outsourced too much.” [5]

Greenberg was not working for Nissan when the original outsourcing decision was made in 1999; he only joined the company in 2005. He is on record though as saying that he thought that they should have either retained some of the infrastructure in-house or perhaps have multi-sourced, thereby ensuring that they had the best possible solution and price.

In 2006, when the contract came up for renewal, the CIO decided to put everything out to bid and compare what the other vendors were offering with what IBM had provided for so many years. The decision to look at new vendors was actually excellent timing for the company as Nissan had decided to relocate their North American corporate headquarters from Los Angeles, CA to Nashville, TN and any transition could be timed to coincide with the move.

Ultimately, what Greenberg opted to do was to accept IBM’s proposal to “manage desktop systems, network services, help desks, dealer systems, and other key infrastructure elements for Nissan North America.” He then outsourced the application and maintenance to an Indian firm, Satyam and brought the remainder of the services back in-house [5].

When asked about the decision to bring IT back in-house, Greenberg said, “By bringing it in-house you increase the alignment. It’s a matter of building the knowledge internally [that] can be used to help drive the business activity, which is much harder when a business analyst function is sitting within a third party.” [5]

IV. Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does BPO make more sense?

As Stephen Withers stated in his article, BPO decisions should not be made for cost-cutting exercises but rather for strategic directions [1]. In other words, companies should not view BPO as a cost saving tool. Outsourcing the IT operation makes sense when an organization is looking to improve efficiencies and business processes or when they cannot attract, or retain, the human capital who have the expertise and ability to modernize or improve the infrastructure.

Nissan’s CIO Robert Greenberg thought that he would actually save money by bringing some of the work back in-house because he was “not paying margin on the individual [headcount].” [5]
Some of the individual lessons that Nissan’s Greenberg has learnt from the outsourcing agreement with IBM has been that certain services developed by the IT organization can indeed be outsourced or developed externally. However, he felt strongly about retaining in-house IT skills in such value generation areas as business analysts who have a strong understanding of the business, sometimes even better than the business customer does. Insourcing these skills could result in ideas and dialog with the business, with the end result being a service delivery or product development than can then be outsourced.

In summary, the answer to the question, ‘Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does Business Process Outsourcing make more sense?’ is that it depends. It depends on the available skills; it depends on the overall objectives (cost saving vs. process improvement) and it depends on the organization. For the most part the majority of major corporations world wide that have been through an outsourcing contract or are in an outsourcing contract will agree that there are substantial benefits to implementing an outsourcing contract and there substantial benefits in retaining those skills in-house. What each organization needs to do is ascertain which of those benefits outweigh the other and base their decision on that analysis.

Works Cited

[1] Withers, Stephen. “BPO: Save money or fix your processes?” ZDNet.com
[http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/business/soa/BPO-Save-money-or-fix-your-processes-/0],139023749,139156391-10,00.htm 17 August 2004. Downloaded October 22, 2007

[2] Magee, David. Turn Around: How Carlos Ghosn rescued Nissan. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc, 2003.

[3] Moynihan, Ann. “Outsourcing enables owner to focus on core business.” http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2002/10/14/focus10.html October 11, 2002. Downloaded October 22, 2007

[4] IBM Press room press releases. IBM.com “Extending Their Global Partnership, Nissan, and IBM Announce IS Outsourcing for Japan” http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/1670.wss June 19, 2000. Downloaded October 19, 2007

[5] Thibodeau, Patrick. “Q&A: Nissan CIO reshapes automaker’s IT”
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=110024&intsrc=industry_list March 29, 2006. Downloaded October 23, 2007

[7] McDougall, Paul. “IBM, Nissan Outsourcing Deal Spans The Globe” http://www.informationweek.com/outsourcing/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=181502685 March 10, 2006 10:00 AM. Downloaded November 02, 2007

[8] Ikin, Paul. IBM Representative on Nissan Global team. 1998 to 2001.

Author: Paul Ikin
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Provided by: Cellphone news

Introduction

In the year, prior to the turn of the millennium, Nissan was a company in a serious financial crisis. Debt had approached $22 billion by 1999. The company had been too complacent, and had taken its prior success, for granted [2].

Did Nissan’s decision to outsource their IT Infrastructure to IBM in 1999 make good sense? Nissan was a very troubled auto-manufacturer in the late 1990’s. Senior executives from the company were known for their conservative outlook on business, and their ‘old boy’s network,’ mentality. Profits were dropping dramatically, eventually forcing the company into the $22 Billion debt that it then faced. There were no signs indicating a change in the market that would encourage profit growth. The vehicle sales needed invigoration.

Mergers were the flavor of the day in the automotive industry during the late 1990’s. Nissan executives approached Daimler Chrysler and Ford to discuss a possible merger, but there was no interest from either of the companies [2]. There was only one alternative left, which was to reinvent themselves and reduce unnecessary overheads. This was the defining point that led to the business process outsourcing decision.

This paper seeks to answer the question “Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) make more sense?” We reviewed the example of the automotive manufacturer, Nissan, when they decided to outsource their entire Information Technology department to IBM in late 1999, to answer our question.

Nissan – A brief history and the events leading up to the BPO decision

I. The Boom years

Nissan was established in Japan in 1933 as a heavy industry manufacturer. After the Second World War they turned their attention to automotive vehicles. In the 1950’s, they finally had an impact on the global market with the introduction of the Datsun branded sedans and small pickup trucks. The company eventually opened full-time operations in the USA in September 1960 [6].

The company experienced dramatic growth with the introduction of the ‘Z’ series sports sedans in the early 1970’s, with the 240Z becoming the fastest selling sports car of all time. This success led Nissan to the top of the U.S. vehicle importers market by 1975. Vehicle sales in the USA topped over 250,000 units per annum by 1970 [6]. The company was young, its leaders dynamic and the future looked very bright. They were competing for the U.S. market with the likes of Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors, showing improved quality and production efficiencies over their competitors.

The company was growing at a phenomenal rate, opening new manufacturing plants around the world on a regular basis such as Australia (1976), Spain (1980) and the United Kingdom (1984) [6]. There was no respite to the pace of growth and new business generation coming from the company.

In 1983, the company began the worldwide marketing of vehicles under the Nissan name which was felt to have a stronger quality image and started the six year transition from Datsun to Nissan on vehicles, dealerships, facilities and marketing materials. Sales continued to grow, eventually reaching 830,767 in 1985 [6]. The decade closed out with resounding success for Nissan with their domination of the North American market.

In 1993, the mid-line Stanza sedan was replaced with an all-new Altima and non-competitive Japanese-designed minivan was replaced with a new U.S. created Quest, which was the first minivan with car-like handling. Sales came roaring back in 1994 to near-peak levels of 774,405 [6].

In 1996, sales began to slip once again, fueled by a change in American vehicle tastes. Trucks and SUVs gained market share at the expense of sedans and sports cars [2]. Nissan’s position as a manufacturing driven company, which helped them in the ’80’s and early ’90’s, then had new problems with the dollar/yen balance which began to hurt their competitiveness against market driven companies.

Unlike their competitors, Toyota and Honda, which were focused on key volume segments, Nissan did not dominate any individual segment and competed in identical segments against Toyota and Honda.
Unfortunately for Nissan in the 1990s, the Japanese “bubble economy” burst, a downturn in Europe coincided, so there was more pressure in the U.S. to perform. Unfortunately U.S. customers didn’t have a genuine brand reason to shop Nissan except for the ‘best price’ deal.

Former Nissan president, Mr. Nakamura, announced a “Back-to-Basics” plan. The key elements of the plan were to reduce inventories, eliminate unrealistic sales targets, and increase dealer profitability. Unfortunately for Nakamura and Nissan, the plan did not work [2].

II. Trouble looms for the auto-manufacturer in 1990’s

In the early 1990’s, trouble began to brew in the organization. The once revered executives at Nissan were now viewed as arrogant members of the old-boys club and were ignorant to the changing needs of their customers and the overall automotive market, in general.

As the company progressed deeper into debt, it met with more challenges. Nissan’s business partners and suppliers were charging a premium for their goods and services. Nissan was obliged to meet its financial commitments and by so doing placed itself further into debt. Finally, the company was in debt to the tune of $22 billion. Even the company’s financers were tightening the noose around them. Nissan felt the situation was hopeless.

III. Steps taken to address issues

Nissan executives were looking for a way out, a way to rescue the company from entering into bankruptcy. The first approach was to find a partner. Both the newly established DaimlerChrysler and the Ford Motor company were approached, but both organizations rejected the idea of a merger [2]. Finally, Renault, the French automotive company recovering from a similar predicament, decided to enter into negotiations with the flailing Japanese company. A senior executive at Renault, Carlos Ghosn, was a huge supporter of the merger idea.

After much negotiation, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry agreed to allow Renault to purchase a substantial stake in Nissan. The Nissan-Renault alliance was born and Ghosn was appointed Chief Operating Officer.
Nissans Executive decisions and major events

I. Creating a global alliance vision:

The following is excerpted from the Nissan/Renault alliance vision:
“The Renault-Nissan Alliance is a unique group of two global companies linked by cross-shareholding. They are united for performance though a coherent strategy, common goals, and principles, results-driven synergies, shared best practices. They respect and reinforce their respective identities and brands.”[2]

The Alliance set itself three objectives, with the goal of being amongst the best three automotive groups in the following areas:

1. Quality.

Achieve customer recognition as being a quality and value added product.

2. Technology.

Lead in key technology development and implementation with a focus on excellence in specific areas of the automotive business.

3. Operating Profit.

Consistently generate a high operating profit margin and vigorously pursue growth.

II. Appointing a new leader

Ghosn, given his enthusiasm for the merger, his demonstrated tenacity, and his experience of the automotive industry, was a natural choice for a senior position at Nissan. His initial appointment as Chief Operating Officer (COO) was just a temporary assignment. In 2000, he was named President and in 2001, he was appointed Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

As CEO, Ghosn was very aware that the ‘buck’ stopped with him. He was the final decision maker. Some important and very serious decisions were made to save the ailing company. Ghosn had to use all of his valuable experience gained from rescuing other organizations, such as Michelin and Renault, to save Nissan.

III. Decision making to save a troubled auto-manufacturer

With Ghosn’s arrival in Japan in the spring of 1999, he immediately set about researching Nissan’s root problems. The newly appointed COO had a management philosophy that stated “you must always start with a clean sheet of paper because the worst thing you can have is prefabricated solutions… you have to start with a zero base of thinking, cleaning everything out of your mind.”[2]

For the first few months, Ghosn flew around Japan, meeting and greeting employees at all levels, absorbing information and formulating a plan. He used this information to plot a picture of Nissan from a global perspective, identifying issues, and problems that had created the dispersed, unprofitable organization.

One of the many issues Ghosn identified was the lack of communication around the organization. Seniors managers around the world were aware of some of the issues that caused the downturn of fortune in the company. They even had solutions to them, but had lacked the necessary authority to implement or communicate the solutions back to Corporate Headquarters.

Finally, the major issues were whittled down to five key issues: [2]

• Lack of clear profit orientation. Nissan was not focused on driving profit, but were rather focused on market share and ended up having to buy their market share at the expense of the declining profits.

• Insufficiently focused on customers and too much focus on competitors. The company was too concerned about the competition introducing a new line which would have dug into the Nissan market share. For example when Volkswagen introduced their new Jetta sedan Nissan saw a significant decline in their Maxima sales.

• Lacked cross-functional, cross-border, and intra-hierarchical lines of work in the company. Nissan seemed to operate as separate islands scattered throughout the globe. There was no centralized purchasing function or in fact any of the other major business activities. The organization was not making maximum use of its global presence or buying power.

• Lack of sense of urgency. The executives in Nissan were complacent in their activities. Things had gone so well for the company in the preceding 60 years that they felt that there was no reason to embrace change.

• No shared vision or common long-term plan. Senior management within Nissan did not have a joint plan for the different brands within the company. Each division did their own thing with little or no thought for the greater good of the company. An example was the Z series that had achieved phenomenal success throughout the 1970’s and ’80’s but was suddenly dropped from production when sales dropped. The obvious thing to have been done was to test the market with a modernized design. Instead Nissan chose to ignore the market and drop the brand.

To address the issues, Ghosn announced the Nissan Revival Plan on October 18, 1999. This seven-point plan was aimed at reducing costs and debt as well as creating and launching new automotive brands to raise sales and market awareness. The goals announced in the plan were far-reaching and encompassed: [2]

• The reduction of operating costs, net debt, global head count, and vehicle assembly plants and manufacturing platforms (the latter in Japan).

• The generation of new product investment through the launch of twenty-two new models.
The cost-cutting plan called for centralization of purchasing, procurement, human resources and information technology. By centralizing these essential functions, the plan aimed to assist the company in achieving its aggressive cost reductions.

Expenditure, particularly in the information technology function, was perceived as being out of control. Ghosn’s message to senior level executives was clear, “cut costs in every possible area.” If that meant outsourcing non-core activities because somebody else could do it cheaper, then that had to be fully investigated and determined. The management was ruthless in their execution of the plan [2].

Nissan looks at Business Process Outsourcing as a means

I. Will outsourcing non-core activities save money?
There are well-documented records of company’s saving money and others of outsourcing horror stories. Success really depended on the situation and the provider.

Most experts agreed, though, that you needed to use BPO in strategic decisions, for example refocused efforts on core competencies and not merely for cost cutting activities [1]. Stephen Withers of ZDNet said in his on-line article that you should only “use BPO for strategic purposes, not to take advantage of a (possibly transient) cost saving.” Withers then asked the reader, “Does outsourcing the IT Infrastructure make sense?” To answer that question corporate Chief Information Officer’s (CIO’s) would need to have completed extensive research and have done a thorough analysis of their business processes.

This is exactly what Nissan’s CIO did, or rather what Ghosn told him to do. The company had invested over 80 billion yen (over $US760million) in 1998 on IT services, but their processes were still not providing the management with the infrastructure that would assist in building their competitive edge [5]. The final decision was made to approach various outsourcing service providers for the much needed help.

II. Does outsourcing the IT infrastructure make sense?

If Information Technology (IT) truly was a commodity, like gasoline or electricity, then companies only competed on price, with very small profit margins. In that event, the decision to turn over IT to an outsourcer was as simple as it was a century ago to turn to motor vehicles instead of using the horse and cart. However, while personal computers and the networks they run on may be standardized, the services provided by IT outsourcers vary in many ways. Services such as data analysis, application development, and IT decision-making allowed companies more competitiveness in the market therefore, those elements of IT are far from being viewed as commodities [8].

With regards the decision to outsource, many factors were considered in Nissan’s case. Ann Moynihan in her article in the Albany Business review states “Outsourcing can help you: [3]

• Reduce and control operating costs.

• Free staff to focus on core business.

• Gain access to specialized skills and technologies.

• Introduce positive change.

• Gain control over a difficult-to-manage function resulting from uneven workloads, insufficient or unskilled resources.”

With Nissan, in 1999, this was exactly what they were looking for. Refocused staff efforts, introduction of positive change and control gained in all critical areas led to the outsourcing decision.

The choice of IBM as Nissan’s outsourcing partner was a strategic one. In the late 1990’s there were not many outsourcing companies that had the breadth or the global reach that IBM had. Competitors such as EDS and CSC were not considered because they were only outsourcers and could not offer the hardware and software technology that Nissan required to update their infrastructure [5]. If either one of those competitors were selected over IBM as a partner Nissan would still have faced the same infrastructure issues. IBM was the only logical partner.

Did the relationship work between Nissan & IBM?

I. A further look at the relationship between IBM and Nissan

In a joint IBM and Nissan press release published in Tokyo on June 19, 2000, the two companies announced that they were “Extending their global partnership for information system (IS) operations which Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. and IBM agreed in October 1999, Nissan and IBM today jointly announced that Nissan will outsource its IS operations in Japan, to IBM Japan.

The service includes Nissan’s regular maintenance and operational activities as well as part of its application development, but excludes the planning and design of new systems. The two companies will start operations from October 1. [7]

In North America, Nissan has outsourced these same operations to IBM Corp. since October 1999. This latest agreement in Japan is expected to further accelerate the standardization, integration and centralization of Nissan’s IS on a global level.”

Ghosn further noted, “The Nissan Revival Plan cannot be accomplished without effective information systems. Following upon the recent agreement with Japan Telecom, this latest partnership with IBM puts in place the global infrastructure which is key to support Nissan’s long term profitable growth.” [4]

II. Hypothetical view of the Return-on-Investment model used

Before they could calculate their Return on Investment (ROI), Nissan first had to look at the Total Cost of Ownership model proposed by IBM. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is a type of calculation designed to help consumers and enterprise managers assess both direct and indirect costs and benefits related to the purchase of any IT component. The intention was to arrive at a final figure that will reflect the effective cost of purchase, overall [8].

The TCO model used, had to calculate the costs that were required, beyond the fees of outsourcing. The organization had to evaluate specific criteria’s that could have added expense to the outsourcing project. They also had to calculate the ongoing expenses throughout the lifetime of the contract [8].

Then, after calculating the payback period, Nissan were in a position to calculate their ROI. Once the numbers were crunched, a thorough financial and risk analysis was conducted. The ROI measured the profit or cost savings realized. It was calculated by estimating, for a 3-year period, the investment was made and the resulting profit created through that investment.

The results were conclusive. Nissan and IBM entered into their agreement and operations scheduled to commence on October 1, 1999.

Conclusion

I. Did Nissan’s BPO reach its stated objective?

Nissan’s stated objective for the outsourcing of the IT infrastructure was to control expenditure, improve efficiencies, and update the infrastructure. By outsourcing to IBM, Nissan achieved all of its goals.

In controlling expenditure, outsourcing gave companies the opportunity to have a predictable monthly budget for expenditure. That amount may or may not have been lower than current expenditures but the component that was crucial to a large organization such as Nissan was that the amount is predictable. There was no variable component to the pricing. The only time the pricing may have fluctuated was when additional services, which were out of scope of the contract, were required.

In Nissan’s case, that was never a requirement. The company was in the first stage of a major, global, restructuring project and there were no new initiatives taking place.

The second objective in the BPO was to improve efficiencies. IBM is the world’s largest information technology company with revenues close to $100 billion [9]. When companies outsource their operations to IBM they are gaining best-of-breed technologies, excellent consultants and some of the best systems architects money can buy.

The way that any global outsourcer makes its money is by achieving economies of scale. The only way to achieve these economies of scale is to ensure that they deploy the best hardware, software, and infrastructure possible and make that equipment work to maximum efficiencies. By taking full advantage of this best-of-breed technology, Nissan met its second and third stated objectives.

II. What if the IT Infrastructure had been retained in-house?

If Nissan had decided to retain its IT infrastructure in-house and attempted to implement an updated and modernized system, it would have lead to a significant increase in their expenditure. Ghosn’s prime objective, when he took over the company in 1999, was to reduce expenditure by 700 billion Yen [2]. He was not interested in spending any additional money to modernize existing equipment.

To support the intended improvement in competitiveness, Nissan had to ensure that their infrastructure supported the additional workload. There was no way they could do the intended improvement in efficiencies without external support. Nissan did not have the expertise and the additional work force to handle the required upgrades and the reengineering of business processes.

III. Final assessment and summation of the relationship

Robert Greenberg, Nissan’s CIO of North America was on record as saying in 2006 that, “We were happy with the services from IBM but the world had changed.” This comment sums up the relationship as it stands now, almost 8 years later [5]. When Nissan announced its Revival Plan, in 1999, the company had very clear objectives; cut costs, and return to profitability.

Nissan was looking for help in 1999 and IBM fulfilled this role for their IT Infrastructure. Greenberg also stated in his Q&A that “One of the things that also took place with the original outsourcing to IBM was we probably outsourced too much.” [5]

Greenberg was not working for Nissan when the original outsourcing decision was made in 1999; he only joined the company in 2005. He is on record though as saying that he thought that they should have either retained some of the infrastructure in-house or perhaps have multi-sourced, thereby ensuring that they had the best possible solution and price.

In 2006, when the contract came up for renewal, the CIO decided to put everything out to bid and compare what the other vendors were offering with what IBM had provided for so many years. The decision to look at new vendors was actually excellent timing for the company as Nissan had decided to relocate their North American corporate headquarters from Los Angeles, CA to Nashville, TN and any transition could be timed to coincide with the move.

Ultimately, what Greenberg opted to do was to accept IBM’s proposal to “manage desktop systems, network services, help desks, dealer systems, and other key infrastructure elements for Nissan North America.” He then outsourced the application and maintenance to an Indian firm, Satyam and brought the remainder of the services back in-house [5].

When asked about the decision to bring IT back in-house, Greenberg said, “By bringing it in-house you increase the alignment. It’s a matter of building the knowledge internally [that] can be used to help drive the business activity, which is much harder when a business analyst function is sitting within a third party.” [5]

IV. Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does BPO make more sense?

As Stephen Withers stated in his article, BPO decisions should not be made for cost-cutting exercises but rather for strategic directions [1]. In other words, companies should not view BPO as a cost saving tool. Outsourcing the IT operation makes sense when an organization is looking to improve efficiencies and business processes or when they cannot attract, or retain, the human capital who have the expertise and ability to modernize or improve the infrastructure.

Nissan’s CIO Robert Greenberg thought that he would actually save money by bringing some of the work back in-house because he was “not paying margin on the individual [headcount].” [5]
Some of the individual lessons that Nissan’s Greenberg has learnt from the outsourcing agreement with IBM has been that certain services developed by the IT organization can indeed be outsourced or developed externally. However, he felt strongly about retaining in-house IT skills in such value generation areas as business analysts who have a strong understanding of the business, sometimes even better than the business customer does. Insourcing these skills could result in ideas and dialog with the business, with the end result being a service delivery or product development than can then be outsourced.

In summary, the answer to the question, ‘Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does Business Process Outsourcing make more sense?’ is that it depends. It depends on the available skills; it depends on the overall objectives (cost saving vs. process improvement) and it depends on the organization. For the most part the majority of major corporations world wide that have been through an outsourcing contract or are in an outsourcing contract will agree that there are substantial benefits to implementing an outsourcing contract and there substantial benefits in retaining those skills in-house. What each organization needs to do is ascertain which of those benefits outweigh the other and base their decision on that analysis.

Works Cited

[1] Withers, Stephen. “BPO: Save money or fix your processes?” ZDNet.com
[http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/business/soa/BPO-Save-money-or-fix-your-processes-/0],139023749,139156391-10,00.htm 17 August 2004. Downloaded October 22, 2007

[2] Magee, David. Turn Around: How Carlos Ghosn rescued Nissan. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc, 2003.

[3] Moynihan, Ann. “Outsourcing enables owner to focus on core business.” http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2002/10/14/focus10.html October 11, 2002. Downloaded October 22, 2007

[4] IBM Press room press releases. IBM.com “Extending Their Global Partnership, Nissan, and IBM Announce IS Outsourcing for Japan” http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/1670.wss June 19, 2000. Downloaded October 19, 2007

[5] Thibodeau, Patrick. “Q&A: Nissan CIO reshapes automaker’s IT”
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=110024&intsrc=industry_list March 29, 2006. Downloaded October 23, 2007

[7] McDougall, Paul. “IBM, Nissan Outsourcing Deal Spans The Globe” http://www.informationweek.com/outsourcing/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=181502685 March 10, 2006 10:00 AM. Downloaded November 02, 2007

[8] Ikin, Paul. IBM Representative on Nissan Global team. 1998 to 2001.

Author: Paul Ikin
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Provided by: Canada duty

Introduction

In the year, prior to the turn of the millennium, Nissan was a company in a serious financial crisis. Debt had approached $22 billion by 1999. The company had been too complacent, and had taken its prior success, for granted [2].

Did Nissan’s decision to outsource their IT Infrastructure to IBM in 1999 make good sense? Nissan was a very troubled auto-manufacturer in the late 1990’s. Senior executives from the company were known for their conservative outlook on business, and their ‘old boy’s network,’ mentality. Profits were dropping dramatically, eventually forcing the company into the $22 Billion debt that it then faced. There were no signs indicating a change in the market that would encourage profit growth. The vehicle sales needed invigoration.

Mergers were the flavor of the day in the automotive industry during the late 1990’s. Nissan executives approached Daimler Chrysler and Ford to discuss a possible merger, but there was no interest from either of the companies [2]. There was only one alternative left, which was to reinvent themselves and reduce unnecessary overheads. This was the defining point that led to the business process outsourcing decision.

This paper seeks to answer the question “Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) make more sense?” We reviewed the example of the automotive manufacturer, Nissan, when they decided to outsource their entire Information Technology department to IBM in late 1999, to answer our question.

Nissan – A brief history and the events leading up to the BPO decision

I. The Boom years

Nissan was established in Japan in 1933 as a heavy industry manufacturer. After the Second World War they turned their attention to automotive vehicles. In the 1950’s, they finally had an impact on the global market with the introduction of the Datsun branded sedans and small pickup trucks. The company eventually opened full-time operations in the USA in September 1960 [6].

The company experienced dramatic growth with the introduction of the ‘Z’ series sports sedans in the early 1970’s, with the 240Z becoming the fastest selling sports car of all time. This success led Nissan to the top of the U.S. vehicle importers market by 1975. Vehicle sales in the USA topped over 250,000 units per annum by 1970 [6]. The company was young, its leaders dynamic and the future looked very bright. They were competing for the U.S. market with the likes of Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors, showing improved quality and production efficiencies over their competitors.

The company was growing at a phenomenal rate, opening new manufacturing plants around the world on a regular basis such as Australia (1976), Spain (1980) and the United Kingdom (1984) [6]. There was no respite to the pace of growth and new business generation coming from the company.

In 1983, the company began the worldwide marketing of vehicles under the Nissan name which was felt to have a stronger quality image and started the six year transition from Datsun to Nissan on vehicles, dealerships, facilities and marketing materials. Sales continued to grow, eventually reaching 830,767 in 1985 [6]. The decade closed out with resounding success for Nissan with their domination of the North American market.

In 1993, the mid-line Stanza sedan was replaced with an all-new Altima and non-competitive Japanese-designed minivan was replaced with a new U.S. created Quest, which was the first minivan with car-like handling. Sales came roaring back in 1994 to near-peak levels of 774,405 [6].

In 1996, sales began to slip once again, fueled by a change in American vehicle tastes. Trucks and SUVs gained market share at the expense of sedans and sports cars [2]. Nissan’s position as a manufacturing driven company, which helped them in the ’80’s and early ’90’s, then had new problems with the dollar/yen balance which began to hurt their competitiveness against market driven companies.

Unlike their competitors, Toyota and Honda, which were focused on key volume segments, Nissan did not dominate any individual segment and competed in identical segments against Toyota and Honda.
Unfortunately for Nissan in the 1990s, the Japanese “bubble economy” burst, a downturn in Europe coincided, so there was more pressure in the U.S. to perform. Unfortunately U.S. customers didn’t have a genuine brand reason to shop Nissan except for the ‘best price’ deal.

Former Nissan president, Mr. Nakamura, announced a “Back-to-Basics” plan. The key elements of the plan were to reduce inventories, eliminate unrealistic sales targets, and increase dealer profitability. Unfortunately for Nakamura and Nissan, the plan did not work [2].

II. Trouble looms for the auto-manufacturer in 1990’s

In the early 1990’s, trouble began to brew in the organization. The once revered executives at Nissan were now viewed as arrogant members of the old-boys club and were ignorant to the changing needs of their customers and the overall automotive market, in general.

As the company progressed deeper into debt, it met with more challenges. Nissan’s business partners and suppliers were charging a premium for their goods and services. Nissan was obliged to meet its financial commitments and by so doing placed itself further into debt. Finally, the company was in debt to the tune of $22 billion. Even the company’s financers were tightening the noose around them. Nissan felt the situation was hopeless.

III. Steps taken to address issues

Nissan executives were looking for a way out, a way to rescue the company from entering into bankruptcy. The first approach was to find a partner. Both the newly established DaimlerChrysler and the Ford Motor company were approached, but both organizations rejected the idea of a merger [2]. Finally, Renault, the French automotive company recovering from a similar predicament, decided to enter into negotiations with the flailing Japanese company. A senior executive at Renault, Carlos Ghosn, was a huge supporter of the merger idea.

After much negotiation, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry agreed to allow Renault to purchase a substantial stake in Nissan. The Nissan-Renault alliance was born and Ghosn was appointed Chief Operating Officer.
Nissans Executive decisions and major events

I. Creating a global alliance vision:

The following is excerpted from the Nissan/Renault alliance vision:
“The Renault-Nissan Alliance is a unique group of two global companies linked by cross-shareholding. They are united for performance though a coherent strategy, common goals, and principles, results-driven synergies, shared best practices. They respect and reinforce their respective identities and brands.”[2]

The Alliance set itself three objectives, with the goal of being amongst the best three automotive groups in the following areas:

1. Quality.

Achieve customer recognition as being a quality and value added product.

2. Technology.

Lead in key technology development and implementation with a focus on excellence in specific areas of the automotive business.

3. Operating Profit.

Consistently generate a high operating profit margin and vigorously pursue growth.

II. Appointing a new leader

Ghosn, given his enthusiasm for the merger, his demonstrated tenacity, and his experience of the automotive industry, was a natural choice for a senior position at Nissan. His initial appointment as Chief Operating Officer (COO) was just a temporary assignment. In 2000, he was named President and in 2001, he was appointed Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

As CEO, Ghosn was very aware that the ‘buck’ stopped with him. He was the final decision maker. Some important and very serious decisions were made to save the ailing company. Ghosn had to use all of his valuable experience gained from rescuing other organizations, such as Michelin and Renault, to save Nissan.

III. Decision making to save a troubled auto-manufacturer

With Ghosn’s arrival in Japan in the spring of 1999, he immediately set about researching Nissan’s root problems. The newly appointed COO had a management philosophy that stated “you must always start with a clean sheet of paper because the worst thing you can have is prefabricated solutions… you have to start with a zero base of thinking, cleaning everything out of your mind.”[2]

For the first few months, Ghosn flew around Japan, meeting and greeting employees at all levels, absorbing information and formulating a plan. He used this information to plot a picture of Nissan from a global perspective, identifying issues, and problems that had created the dispersed, unprofitable organization.

One of the many issues Ghosn identified was the lack of communication around the organization. Seniors managers around the world were aware of some of the issues that caused the downturn of fortune in the company. They even had solutions to them, but had lacked the necessary authority to implement or communicate the solutions back to Corporate Headquarters.

Finally, the major issues were whittled down to five key issues: [2]

• Lack of clear profit orientation. Nissan was not focused on driving profit, but were rather focused on market share and ended up having to buy their market share at the expense of the declining profits.

• Insufficiently focused on customers and too much focus on competitors. The company was too concerned about the competition introducing a new line which would have dug into the Nissan market share. For example when Volkswagen introduced their new Jetta sedan Nissan saw a significant decline in their Maxima sales.

• Lacked cross-functional, cross-border, and intra-hierarchical lines of work in the company. Nissan seemed to operate as separate islands scattered throughout the globe. There was no centralized purchasing function or in fact any of the other major business activities. The organization was not making maximum use of its global presence or buying power.

• Lack of sense of urgency. The executives in Nissan were complacent in their activities. Things had gone so well for the company in the preceding 60 years that they felt that there was no reason to embrace change.

• No shared vision or common long-term plan. Senior management within Nissan did not have a joint plan for the different brands within the company. Each division did their own thing with little or no thought for the greater good of the company. An example was the Z series that had achieved phenomenal success throughout the 1970’s and ’80’s but was suddenly dropped from production when sales dropped. The obvious thing to have been done was to test the market with a modernized design. Instead Nissan chose to ignore the market and drop the brand.

To address the issues, Ghosn announced the Nissan Revival Plan on October 18, 1999. This seven-point plan was aimed at reducing costs and debt as well as creating and launching new automotive brands to raise sales and market awareness. The goals announced in the plan were far-reaching and encompassed: [2]

• The reduction of operating costs, net debt, global head count, and vehicle assembly plants and manufacturing platforms (the latter in Japan).

• The generation of new product investment through the launch of twenty-two new models.
The cost-cutting plan called for centralization of purchasing, procurement, human resources and information technology. By centralizing these essential functions, the plan aimed to assist the company in achieving its aggressive cost reductions.

Expenditure, particularly in the information technology function, was perceived as being out of control. Ghosn’s message to senior level executives was clear, “cut costs in every possible area.” If that meant outsourcing non-core activities because somebody else could do it cheaper, then that had to be fully investigated and determined. The management was ruthless in their execution of the plan [2].

Nissan looks at Business Process Outsourcing as a means

I. Will outsourcing non-core activities save money?
There are well-documented records of company’s saving money and others of outsourcing horror stories. Success really depended on the situation and the provider.

Most experts agreed, though, that you needed to use BPO in strategic decisions, for example refocused efforts on core competencies and not merely for cost cutting activities [1]. Stephen Withers of ZDNet said in his on-line article that you should only “use BPO for strategic purposes, not to take advantage of a (possibly transient) cost saving.” Withers then asked the reader, “Does outsourcing the IT Infrastructure make sense?” To answer that question corporate Chief Information Officer’s (CIO’s) would need to have completed extensive research and have done a thorough analysis of their business processes.

This is exactly what Nissan’s CIO did, or rather what Ghosn told him to do. The company had invested over 80 billion yen (over $US760million) in 1998 on IT services, but their processes were still not providing the management with the infrastructure that would assist in building their competitive edge [5]. The final decision was made to approach various outsourcing service providers for the much needed help.

II. Does outsourcing the IT infrastructure make sense?

If Information Technology (IT) truly was a commodity, like gasoline or electricity, then companies only competed on price, with very small profit margins. In that event, the decision to turn over IT to an outsourcer was as simple as it was a century ago to turn to motor vehicles instead of using the horse and cart. However, while personal computers and the networks they run on may be standardized, the services provided by IT outsourcers vary in many ways. Services such as data analysis, application development, and IT decision-making allowed companies more competitiveness in the market therefore, those elements of IT are far from being viewed as commodities [8].

With regards the decision to outsource, many factors were considered in Nissan’s case. Ann Moynihan in her article in the Albany Business review states “Outsourcing can help you: [3]

• Reduce and control operating costs.

• Free staff to focus on core business.

• Gain access to specialized skills and technologies.

• Introduce positive change.

• Gain control over a difficult-to-manage function resulting from uneven workloads, insufficient or unskilled resources.”

With Nissan, in 1999, this was exactly what they were looking for. Refocused staff efforts, introduction of positive change and control gained in all critical areas led to the outsourcing decision.

The choice of IBM as Nissan’s outsourcing partner was a strategic one. In the late 1990’s there were not many outsourcing companies that had the breadth or the global reach that IBM had. Competitors such as EDS and CSC were not considered because they were only outsourcers and could not offer the hardware and software technology that Nissan required to update their infrastructure [5]. If either one of those competitors were selected over IBM as a partner Nissan would still have faced the same infrastructure issues. IBM was the only logical partner.

Did the relationship work between Nissan & IBM?

I. A further look at the relationship between IBM and Nissan

In a joint IBM and Nissan press release published in Tokyo on June 19, 2000, the two companies announced that they were “Extending their global partnership for information system (IS) operations which Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. and IBM agreed in October 1999, Nissan and IBM today jointly announced that Nissan will outsource its IS operations in Japan, to IBM Japan.

The service includes Nissan’s regular maintenance and operational activities as well as part of its application development, but excludes the planning and design of new systems. The two companies will start operations from October 1. [7]

In North America, Nissan has outsourced these same operations to IBM Corp. since October 1999. This latest agreement in Japan is expected to further accelerate the standardization, integration and centralization of Nissan’s IS on a global level.”

Ghosn further noted, “The Nissan Revival Plan cannot be accomplished without effective information systems. Following upon the recent agreement with Japan Telecom, this latest partnership with IBM puts in place the global infrastructure which is key to support Nissan’s long term profitable growth.” [4]

II. Hypothetical view of the Return-on-Investment model used

Before they could calculate their Return on Investment (ROI), Nissan first had to look at the Total Cost of Ownership model proposed by IBM. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is a type of calculation designed to help consumers and enterprise managers assess both direct and indirect costs and benefits related to the purchase of any IT component. The intention was to arrive at a final figure that will reflect the effective cost of purchase, overall [8].

The TCO model used, had to calculate the costs that were required, beyond the fees of outsourcing. The organization had to evaluate specific criteria’s that could have added expense to the outsourcing project. They also had to calculate the ongoing expenses throughout the lifetime of the contract [8].

Then, after calculating the payback period, Nissan were in a position to calculate their ROI. Once the numbers were crunched, a thorough financial and risk analysis was conducted. The ROI measured the profit or cost savings realized. It was calculated by estimating, for a 3-year period, the investment was made and the resulting profit created through that investment.

The results were conclusive. Nissan and IBM entered into their agreement and operations scheduled to commence on October 1, 1999.

Conclusion

I. Did Nissan’s BPO reach its stated objective?

Nissan’s stated objective for the outsourcing of the IT infrastructure was to control expenditure, improve efficiencies, and update the infrastructure. By outsourcing to IBM, Nissan achieved all of its goals.

In controlling expenditure, outsourcing gave companies the opportunity to have a predictable monthly budget for expenditure. That amount may or may not have been lower than current expenditures but the component that was crucial to a large organization such as Nissan was that the amount is predictable. There was no variable component to the pricing. The only time the pricing may have fluctuated was when additional services, which were out of scope of the contract, were required.

In Nissan’s case, that was never a requirement. The company was in the first stage of a major, global, restructuring project and there were no new initiatives taking place.

The second objective in the BPO was to improve efficiencies. IBM is the world’s largest information technology company with revenues close to $100 billion [9]. When companies outsource their operations to IBM they are gaining best-of-breed technologies, excellent consultants and some of the best systems architects money can buy.

The way that any global outsourcer makes its money is by achieving economies of scale. The only way to achieve these economies of scale is to ensure that they deploy the best hardware, software, and infrastructure possible and make that equipment work to maximum efficiencies. By taking full advantage of this best-of-breed technology, Nissan met its second and third stated objectives.

II. What if the IT Infrastructure had been retained in-house?

If Nissan had decided to retain its IT infrastructure in-house and attempted to implement an updated and modernized system, it would have lead to a significant increase in their expenditure. Ghosn’s prime objective, when he took over the company in 1999, was to reduce expenditure by 700 billion Yen [2]. He was not interested in spending any additional money to modernize existing equipment.

To support the intended improvement in competitiveness, Nissan had to ensure that their infrastructure supported the additional workload. There was no way they could do the intended improvement in efficiencies without external support. Nissan did not have the expertise and the additional work force to handle the required upgrades and the reengineering of business processes.

III. Final assessment and summation of the relationship

Robert Greenberg, Nissan’s CIO of North America was on record as saying in 2006 that, “We were happy with the services from IBM but the world had changed.” This comment sums up the relationship as it stands now, almost 8 years later [5]. When Nissan announced its Revival Plan, in 1999, the company had very clear objectives; cut costs, and return to profitability.

Nissan was looking for help in 1999 and IBM fulfilled this role for their IT Infrastructure. Greenberg also stated in his Q&A that “One of the things that also took place with the original outsourcing to IBM was we probably outsourced too much.” [5]

Greenberg was not working for Nissan when the original outsourcing decision was made in 1999; he only joined the company in 2005. He is on record though as saying that he thought that they should have either retained some of the infrastructure in-house or perhaps have multi-sourced, thereby ensuring that they had the best possible solution and price.

In 2006, when the contract came up for renewal, the CIO decided to put everything out to bid and compare what the other vendors were offering with what IBM had provided for so many years. The decision to look at new vendors was actually excellent timing for the company as Nissan had decided to relocate their North American corporate headquarters from Los Angeles, CA to Nashville, TN and any transition could be timed to coincide with the move.

Ultimately, what Greenberg opted to do was to accept IBM’s proposal to “manage desktop systems, network services, help desks, dealer systems, and other key infrastructure elements for Nissan North America.” He then outsourced the application and maintenance to an Indian firm, Satyam and brought the remainder of the services back in-house [5].

When asked about the decision to bring IT back in-house, Greenberg said, “By bringing it in-house you increase the alignment. It’s a matter of building the knowledge internally [that] can be used to help drive the business activity, which is much harder when a business analyst function is sitting within a third party.” [5]

IV. Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does BPO make more sense?

As Stephen Withers stated in his article, BPO decisions should not be made for cost-cutting exercises but rather for strategic directions [1]. In other words, companies should not view BPO as a cost saving tool. Outsourcing the IT operation makes sense when an organization is looking to improve efficiencies and business processes or when they cannot attract, or retain, the human capital who have the expertise and ability to modernize or improve the infrastructure.

Nissan’s CIO Robert Greenberg thought that he would actually save money by bringing some of the work back in-house because he was “not paying margin on the individual [headcount].” [5]
Some of the individual lessons that Nissan’s Greenberg has learnt from the outsourcing agreement with IBM has been that certain services developed by the IT organization can indeed be outsourced or developed externally. However, he felt strongly about retaining in-house IT skills in such value generation areas as business analysts who have a strong understanding of the business, sometimes even better than the business customer does. Insourcing these skills could result in ideas and dialog with the business, with the end result being a service delivery or product development than can then be outsourced.

In summary, the answer to the question, ‘Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does Business Process Outsourcing make more sense?’ is that it depends. It depends on the available skills; it depends on the overall objectives (cost saving vs. process improvement) and it depends on the organization. For the most part the majority of major corporations world wide that have been through an outsourcing contract or are in an outsourcing contract will agree that there are substantial benefits to implementing an outsourcing contract and there substantial benefits in retaining those skills in-house. What each organization needs to do is ascertain which of those benefits outweigh the other and base their decision on that analysis.

Works Cited

[1] Withers, Stephen. “BPO: Save money or fix your processes?” ZDNet.com
[http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/business/soa/BPO-Save-money-or-fix-your-processes-/0],139023749,139156391-10,00.htm 17 August 2004. Downloaded October 22, 2007

[2] Magee, David. Turn Around: How Carlos Ghosn rescued Nissan. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc, 2003.

[3] Moynihan, Ann. “Outsourcing enables owner to focus on core business.” http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2002/10/14/focus10.html October 11, 2002. Downloaded October 22, 2007

[4] IBM Press room press releases. IBM.com “Extending Their Global Partnership, Nissan, and IBM Announce IS Outsourcing for Japan” http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/1670.wss June 19, 2000. Downloaded October 19, 2007

[5] Thibodeau, Patrick. “Q&A: Nissan CIO reshapes automaker’s IT”
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=110024&intsrc=industry_list March 29, 2006. Downloaded October 23, 2007

[7] McDougall, Paul. “IBM, Nissan Outsourcing Deal Spans The Globe” http://www.informationweek.com/outsourcing/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=181502685 March 10, 2006 10:00 AM. Downloaded November 02, 2007

[8] Ikin, Paul. IBM Representative on Nissan Global team. 1998 to 2001.

Author: Paul Ikin
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Provided by: Programmable pressure cooker

Introduction

In the year, prior to the turn of the millennium, Nissan was a company in a serious financial crisis. Debt had approached $22 billion by 1999. The company had been too complacent, and had taken its prior success, for granted [2].

Did Nissan’s decision to outsource their IT Infrastructure to IBM in 1999 make good sense? Nissan was a very troubled auto-manufacturer in the late 1990’s. Senior executives from the company were known for their conservative outlook on business, and their ‘old boy’s network,’ mentality. Profits were dropping dramatically, eventually forcing the company into the $22 Billion debt that it then faced. There were no signs indicating a change in the market that would encourage profit growth. The vehicle sales needed invigoration.

Mergers were the flavor of the day in the automotive industry during the late 1990’s. Nissan executives approached Daimler Chrysler and Ford to discuss a possible merger, but there was no interest from either of the companies [2]. There was only one alternative left, which was to reinvent themselves and reduce unnecessary overheads. This was the defining point that led to the business process outsourcing decision.

This paper seeks to answer the question “Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) make more sense?” We reviewed the example of the automotive manufacturer, Nissan, when they decided to outsource their entire Information Technology department to IBM in late 1999, to answer our question.

Nissan – A brief history and the events leading up to the BPO decision

I. The Boom years

Nissan was established in Japan in 1933 as a heavy industry manufacturer. After the Second World War they turned their attention to automotive vehicles. In the 1950’s, they finally had an impact on the global market with the introduction of the Datsun branded sedans and small pickup trucks. The company eventually opened full-time operations in the USA in September 1960 [6].

The company experienced dramatic growth with the introduction of the ‘Z’ series sports sedans in the early 1970’s, with the 240Z becoming the fastest selling sports car of all time. This success led Nissan to the top of the U.S. vehicle importers market by 1975. Vehicle sales in the USA topped over 250,000 units per annum by 1970 [6]. The company was young, its leaders dynamic and the future looked very bright. They were competing for the U.S. market with the likes of Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors, showing improved quality and production efficiencies over their competitors.

The company was growing at a phenomenal rate, opening new manufacturing plants around the world on a regular basis such as Australia (1976), Spain (1980) and the United Kingdom (1984) [6]. There was no respite to the pace of growth and new business generation coming from the company.

In 1983, the company began the worldwide marketing of vehicles under the Nissan name which was felt to have a stronger quality image and started the six year transition from Datsun to Nissan on vehicles, dealerships, facilities and marketing materials. Sales continued to grow, eventually reaching 830,767 in 1985 [6]. The decade closed out with resounding success for Nissan with their domination of the North American market.

In 1993, the mid-line Stanza sedan was replaced with an all-new Altima and non-competitive Japanese-designed minivan was replaced with a new U.S. created Quest, which was the first minivan with car-like handling. Sales came roaring back in 1994 to near-peak levels of 774,405 [6].

In 1996, sales began to slip once again, fueled by a change in American vehicle tastes. Trucks and SUVs gained market share at the expense of sedans and sports cars [2]. Nissan’s position as a manufacturing driven company, which helped them in the ’80’s and early ’90’s, then had new problems with the dollar/yen balance which began to hurt their competitiveness against market driven companies.

Unlike their competitors, Toyota and Honda, which were focused on key volume segments, Nissan did not dominate any individual segment and competed in identical segments against Toyota and Honda.
Unfortunately for Nissan in the 1990s, the Japanese “bubble economy” burst, a downturn in Europe coincided, so there was more pressure in the U.S. to perform. Unfortunately U.S. customers didn’t have a genuine brand reason to shop Nissan except for the ‘best price’ deal.

Former Nissan president, Mr. Nakamura, announced a “Back-to-Basics” plan. The key elements of the plan were to reduce inventories, eliminate unrealistic sales targets, and increase dealer profitability. Unfortunately for Nakamura and Nissan, the plan did not work [2].

II. Trouble looms for the auto-manufacturer in 1990’s

In the early 1990’s, trouble began to brew in the organization. The once revered executives at Nissan were now viewed as arrogant members of the old-boys club and were ignorant to the changing needs of their customers and the overall automotive market, in general.

As the company progressed deeper into debt, it met with more challenges. Nissan’s business partners and suppliers were charging a premium for their goods and services. Nissan was obliged to meet its financial commitments and by so doing placed itself further into debt. Finally, the company was in debt to the tune of $22 billion. Even the company’s financers were tightening the noose around them. Nissan felt the situation was hopeless.

III. Steps taken to address issues

Nissan executives were looking for a way out, a way to rescue the company from entering into bankruptcy. The first approach was to find a partner. Both the newly established DaimlerChrysler and the Ford Motor company were approached, but both organizations rejected the idea of a merger [2]. Finally, Renault, the French automotive company recovering from a similar predicament, decided to enter into negotiations with the flailing Japanese company. A senior executive at Renault, Carlos Ghosn, was a huge supporter of the merger idea.

After much negotiation, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry agreed to allow Renault to purchase a substantial stake in Nissan. The Nissan-Renault alliance was born and Ghosn was appointed Chief Operating Officer.
Nissans Executive decisions and major events

I. Creating a global alliance vision:

The following is excerpted from the Nissan/Renault alliance vision:
“The Renault-Nissan Alliance is a unique group of two global companies linked by cross-shareholding. They are united for performance though a coherent strategy, common goals, and principles, results-driven synergies, shared best practices. They respect and reinforce their respective identities and brands.”[2]

The Alliance set itself three objectives, with the goal of being amongst the best three automotive groups in the following areas:

1. Quality.

Achieve customer recognition as being a quality and value added product.

2. Technology.

Lead in key technology development and implementation with a focus on excellence in specific areas of the automotive business.

3. Operating Profit.

Consistently generate a high operating profit margin and vigorously pursue growth.

II. Appointing a new leader

Ghosn, given his enthusiasm for the merger, his demonstrated tenacity, and his experience of the automotive industry, was a natural choice for a senior position at Nissan. His initial appointment as Chief Operating Officer (COO) was just a temporary assignment. In 2000, he was named President and in 2001, he was appointed Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

As CEO, Ghosn was very aware that the ‘buck’ stopped with him. He was the final decision maker. Some important and very serious decisions were made to save the ailing company. Ghosn had to use all of his valuable experience gained from rescuing other organizations, such as Michelin and Renault, to save Nissan.

III. Decision making to save a troubled auto-manufacturer

With Ghosn’s arrival in Japan in the spring of 1999, he immediately set about researching Nissan’s root problems. The newly appointed COO had a management philosophy that stated “you must always start with a clean sheet of paper because the worst thing you can have is prefabricated solutions… you have to start with a zero base of thinking, cleaning everything out of your mind.”[2]

For the first few months, Ghosn flew around Japan, meeting and greeting employees at all levels, absorbing information and formulating a plan. He used this information to plot a picture of Nissan from a global perspective, identifying issues, and problems that had created the dispersed, unprofitable organization.

One of the many issues Ghosn identified was the lack of communication around the organization. Seniors managers around the world were aware of some of the issues that caused the downturn of fortune in the company. They even had solutions to them, but had lacked the necessary authority to implement or communicate the solutions back to Corporate Headquarters.

Finally, the major issues were whittled down to five key issues: [2]

• Lack of clear profit orientation. Nissan was not focused on driving profit, but were rather focused on market share and ended up having to buy their market share at the expense of the declining profits.

• Insufficiently focused on customers and too much focus on competitors. The company was too concerned about the competition introducing a new line which would have dug into the Nissan market share. For example when Volkswagen introduced their new Jetta sedan Nissan saw a significant decline in their Maxima sales.

• Lacked cross-functional, cross-border, and intra-hierarchical lines of work in the company. Nissan seemed to operate as separate islands scattered throughout the globe. There was no centralized purchasing function or in fact any of the other major business activities. The organization was not making maximum use of its global presence or buying power.

• Lack of sense of urgency. The executives in Nissan were complacent in their activities. Things had gone so well for the company in the preceding 60 years that they felt that there was no reason to embrace change.

• No shared vision or common long-term plan. Senior management within Nissan did not have a joint plan for the different brands within the company. Each division did their own thing with little or no thought for the greater good of the company. An example was the Z series that had achieved phenomenal success throughout the 1970’s and ’80’s but was suddenly dropped from production when sales dropped. The obvious thing to have been done was to test the market with a modernized design. Instead Nissan chose to ignore the market and drop the brand.

To address the issues, Ghosn announced the Nissan Revival Plan on October 18, 1999. This seven-point plan was aimed at reducing costs and debt as well as creating and launching new automotive brands to raise sales and market awareness. The goals announced in the plan were far-reaching and encompassed: [2]

• The reduction of operating costs, net debt, global head count, and vehicle assembly plants and manufacturing platforms (the latter in Japan).

• The generation of new product investment through the launch of twenty-two new models.
The cost-cutting plan called for centralization of purchasing, procurement, human resources and information technology. By centralizing these essential functions, the plan aimed to assist the company in achieving its aggressive cost reductions.

Expenditure, particularly in the information technology function, was perceived as being out of control. Ghosn’s message to senior level executives was clear, “cut costs in every possible area.” If that meant outsourcing non-core activities because somebody else could do it cheaper, then that had to be fully investigated and determined. The management was ruthless in their execution of the plan [2].

Nissan looks at Business Process Outsourcing as a means

I. Will outsourcing non-core activities save money?
There are well-documented records of company’s saving money and others of outsourcing horror stories. Success really depended on the situation and the provider.

Most experts agreed, though, that you needed to use BPO in strategic decisions, for example refocused efforts on core competencies and not merely for cost cutting activities [1]. Stephen Withers of ZDNet said in his on-line article that you should only “use BPO for strategic purposes, not to take advantage of a (possibly transient) cost saving.” Withers then asked the reader, “Does outsourcing the IT Infrastructure make sense?” To answer that question corporate Chief Information Officer’s (CIO’s) would need to have completed extensive research and have done a thorough analysis of their business processes.

This is exactly what Nissan’s CIO did, or rather what Ghosn told him to do. The company had invested over 80 billion yen (over $US760million) in 1998 on IT services, but their processes were still not providing the management with the infrastructure that would assist in building their competitive edge [5]. The final decision was made to approach various outsourcing service providers for the much needed help.

II. Does outsourcing the IT infrastructure make sense?

If Information Technology (IT) truly was a commodity, like gasoline or electricity, then companies only competed on price, with very small profit margins. In that event, the decision to turn over IT to an outsourcer was as simple as it was a century ago to turn to motor vehicles instead of using the horse and cart. However, while personal computers and the networks they run on may be standardized, the services provided by IT outsourcers vary in many ways. Services such as data analysis, application development, and IT decision-making allowed companies more competitiveness in the market therefore, those elements of IT are far from being viewed as commodities [8].

With regards the decision to outsource, many factors were considered in Nissan’s case. Ann Moynihan in her article in the Albany Business review states “Outsourcing can help you: [3]

• Reduce and control operating costs.

• Free staff to focus on core business.

• Gain access to specialized skills and technologies.

• Introduce positive change.

• Gain control over a difficult-to-manage function resulting from uneven workloads, insufficient or unskilled resources.”

With Nissan, in 1999, this was exactly what they were looking for. Refocused staff efforts, introduction of positive change and control gained in all critical areas led to the outsourcing decision.

The choice of IBM as Nissan’s outsourcing partner was a strategic one. In the late 1990’s there were not many outsourcing companies that had the breadth or the global reach that IBM had. Competitors such as EDS and CSC were not considered because they were only outsourcers and could not offer the hardware and software technology that Nissan required to update their infrastructure [5]. If either one of those competitors were selected over IBM as a partner Nissan would still have faced the same infrastructure issues. IBM was the only logical partner.

Did the relationship work between Nissan & IBM?

I. A further look at the relationship between IBM and Nissan

In a joint IBM and Nissan press release published in Tokyo on June 19, 2000, the two companies announced that they were “Extending their global partnership for information system (IS) operations which Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. and IBM agreed in October 1999, Nissan and IBM today jointly announced that Nissan will outsource its IS operations in Japan, to IBM Japan.

The service includes Nissan’s regular maintenance and operational activities as well as part of its application development, but excludes the planning and design of new systems. The two companies will start operations from October 1. [7]

In North America, Nissan has outsourced these same operations to IBM Corp. since October 1999. This latest agreement in Japan is expected to further accelerate the standardization, integration and centralization of Nissan’s IS on a global level.”

Ghosn further noted, “The Nissan Revival Plan cannot be accomplished without effective information systems. Following upon the recent agreement with Japan Telecom, this latest partnership with IBM puts in place the global infrastructure which is key to support Nissan’s long term profitable growth.” [4]

II. Hypothetical view of the Return-on-Investment model used

Before they could calculate their Return on Investment (ROI), Nissan first had to look at the Total Cost of Ownership model proposed by IBM. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is a type of calculation designed to help consumers and enterprise managers assess both direct and indirect costs and benefits related to the purchase of any IT component. The intention was to arrive at a final figure that will reflect the effective cost of purchase, overall [8].

The TCO model used, had to calculate the costs that were required, beyond the fees of outsourcing. The organization had to evaluate specific criteria’s that could have added expense to the outsourcing project. They also had to calculate the ongoing expenses throughout the lifetime of the contract [8].

Then, after calculating the payback period, Nissan were in a position to calculate their ROI. Once the numbers were crunched, a thorough financial and risk analysis was conducted. The ROI measured the profit or cost savings realized. It was calculated by estimating, for a 3-year period, the investment was made and the resulting profit created through that investment.

The results were conclusive. Nissan and IBM entered into their agreement and operations scheduled to commence on October 1, 1999.

Conclusion

I. Did Nissan’s BPO reach its stated objective?

Nissan’s stated objective for the outsourcing of the IT infrastructure was to control expenditure, improve efficiencies, and update the infrastructure. By outsourcing to IBM, Nissan achieved all of its goals.

In controlling expenditure, outsourcing gave companies the opportunity to have a predictable monthly budget for expenditure. That amount may or may not have been lower than current expenditures but the component that was crucial to a large organization such as Nissan was that the amount is predictable. There was no variable component to the pricing. The only time the pricing may have fluctuated was when additional services, which were out of scope of the contract, were required.

In Nissan’s case, that was never a requirement. The company was in the first stage of a major, global, restructuring project and there were no new initiatives taking place.

The second objective in the BPO was to improve efficiencies. IBM is the world’s largest information technology company with revenues close to $100 billion [9]. When companies outsource their operations to IBM they are gaining best-of-breed technologies, excellent consultants and some of the best systems architects money can buy.

The way that any global outsourcer makes its money is by achieving economies of scale. The only way to achieve these economies of scale is to ensure that they deploy the best hardware, software, and infrastructure possible and make that equipment work to maximum efficiencies. By taking full advantage of this best-of-breed technology, Nissan met its second and third stated objectives.

II. What if the IT Infrastructure had been retained in-house?

If Nissan had decided to retain its IT infrastructure in-house and attempted to implement an updated and modernized system, it would have lead to a significant increase in their expenditure. Ghosn’s prime objective, when he took over the company in 1999, was to reduce expenditure by 700 billion Yen [2]. He was not interested in spending any additional money to modernize existing equipment.

To support the intended improvement in competitiveness, Nissan had to ensure that their infrastructure supported the additional workload. There was no way they could do the intended improvement in efficiencies without external support. Nissan did not have the expertise and the additional work force to handle the required upgrades and the reengineering of business processes.

III. Final assessment and summation of the relationship

Robert Greenberg, Nissan’s CIO of North America was on record as saying in 2006 that, “We were happy with the services from IBM but the world had changed.” This comment sums up the relationship as it stands now, almost 8 years later [5]. When Nissan announced its Revival Plan, in 1999, the company had very clear objectives; cut costs, and return to profitability.

Nissan was looking for help in 1999 and IBM fulfilled this role for their IT Infrastructure. Greenberg also stated in his Q&A that “One of the things that also took place with the original outsourcing to IBM was we probably outsourced too much.” [5]

Greenberg was not working for Nissan when the original outsourcing decision was made in 1999; he only joined the company in 2005. He is on record though as saying that he thought that they should have either retained some of the infrastructure in-house or perhaps have multi-sourced, thereby ensuring that they had the best possible solution and price.

In 2006, when the contract came up for renewal, the CIO decided to put everything out to bid and compare what the other vendors were offering with what IBM had provided for so many years. The decision to look at new vendors was actually excellent timing for the company as Nissan had decided to relocate their North American corporate headquarters from Los Angeles, CA to Nashville, TN and any transition could be timed to coincide with the move.

Ultimately, what Greenberg opted to do was to accept IBM’s proposal to “manage desktop systems, network services, help desks, dealer systems, and other key infrastructure elements for Nissan North America.” He then outsourced the application and maintenance to an Indian firm, Satyam and brought the remainder of the services back in-house [5].

When asked about the decision to bring IT back in-house, Greenberg said, “By bringing it in-house you increase the alignment. It’s a matter of building the knowledge internally [that] can be used to help drive the business activity, which is much harder when a business analyst function is sitting within a third party.” [5]

IV. Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does BPO make more sense?

As Stephen Withers stated in his article, BPO decisions should not be made for cost-cutting exercises but rather for strategic directions [1]. In other words, companies should not view BPO as a cost saving tool. Outsourcing the IT operation makes sense when an organization is looking to improve efficiencies and business processes or when they cannot attract, or retain, the human capital who have the expertise and ability to modernize or improve the infrastructure.

Nissan’s CIO Robert Greenberg thought that he would actually save money by bringing some of the work back in-house because he was “not paying margin on the individual [headcount].” [5]
Some of the individual lessons that Nissan’s Greenberg has learnt from the outsourcing agreement with IBM has been that certain services developed by the IT organization can indeed be outsourced or developed externally. However, he felt strongly about retaining in-house IT skills in such value generation areas as business analysts who have a strong understanding of the business, sometimes even better than the business customer does. Insourcing these skills could result in ideas and dialog with the business, with the end result being a service delivery or product development than can then be outsourced.

In summary, the answer to the question, ‘Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does Business Process Outsourcing make more sense?’ is that it depends. It depends on the available skills; it depends on the overall objectives (cost saving vs. process improvement) and it depends on the organization. For the most part the majority of major corporations world wide that have been through an outsourcing contract or are in an outsourcing contract will agree that there are substantial benefits to implementing an outsourcing contract and there substantial benefits in retaining those skills in-house. What each organization needs to do is ascertain which of those benefits outweigh the other and base their decision on that analysis.

Works Cited

[1] Withers, Stephen. “BPO: Save money or fix your processes?” ZDNet.com
[http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/business/soa/BPO-Save-money-or-fix-your-processes-/0],139023749,139156391-10,00.htm 17 August 2004. Downloaded October 22, 2007

[2] Magee, David. Turn Around: How Carlos Ghosn rescued Nissan. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc, 2003.

[3] Moynihan, Ann. “Outsourcing enables owner to focus on core business.” http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2002/10/14/focus10.html October 11, 2002. Downloaded October 22, 2007

[4] IBM Press room press releases. IBM.com “Extending Their Global Partnership, Nissan, and IBM Announce IS Outsourcing for Japan” http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/1670.wss June 19, 2000. Downloaded October 19, 2007

[5] Thibodeau, Patrick. “Q&A: Nissan CIO reshapes automaker’s IT”
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=110024&intsrc=industry_list March 29, 2006. Downloaded October 23, 2007

[7] McDougall, Paul. “IBM, Nissan Outsourcing Deal Spans The Globe” http://www.informationweek.com/outsourcing/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=181502685 March 10, 2006 10:00 AM. Downloaded November 02, 2007

[8] Ikin, Paul. IBM Representative on Nissan Global team. 1998 to 2001.

Author: Paul Ikin
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Provided by: Programmable Pressure Cooker

Introduction

In the year, prior to the turn of the millennium, Nissan was a company in a serious financial crisis. Debt had approached $22 billion by 1999. The company had been too complacent, and had taken its prior success, for granted [2].

Did Nissan’s decision to outsource their IT Infrastructure to IBM in 1999 make good sense? Nissan was a very troubled auto-manufacturer in the late 1990’s. Senior executives from the company were known for their conservative outlook on business, and their ‘old boy’s network,’ mentality. Profits were dropping dramatically, eventually forcing the company into the $22 Billion debt that it then faced. There were no signs indicating a change in the market that would encourage profit growth. The vehicle sales needed invigoration.

Mergers were the flavor of the day in the automotive industry during the late 1990’s. Nissan executives approached Daimler Chrysler and Ford to discuss a possible merger, but there was no interest from either of the companies [2]. There was only one alternative left, which was to reinvent themselves and reduce unnecessary overheads. This was the defining point that led to the business process outsourcing decision.

This paper seeks to answer the question “Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) make more sense?” We reviewed the example of the automotive manufacturer, Nissan, when they decided to outsource their entire Information Technology department to IBM in late 1999, to answer our question.

Nissan – A brief history and the events leading up to the BPO decision

I. The Boom years

Nissan was established in Japan in 1933 as a heavy industry manufacturer. After the Second World War they turned their attention to automotive vehicles. In the 1950’s, they finally had an impact on the global market with the introduction of the Datsun branded sedans and small pickup trucks. The company eventually opened full-time operations in the USA in September 1960 [6].

The company experienced dramatic growth with the introduction of the ‘Z’ series sports sedans in the early 1970’s, with the 240Z becoming the fastest selling sports car of all time. This success led Nissan to the top of the U.S. vehicle importers market by 1975. Vehicle sales in the USA topped over 250,000 units per annum by 1970 [6]. The company was young, its leaders dynamic and the future looked very bright. They were competing for the U.S. market with the likes of Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors, showing improved quality and production efficiencies over their competitors.

The company was growing at a phenomenal rate, opening new manufacturing plants around the world on a regular basis such as Australia (1976), Spain (1980) and the United Kingdom (1984) [6]. There was no respite to the pace of growth and new business generation coming from the company.

In 1983, the company began the worldwide marketing of vehicles under the Nissan name which was felt to have a stronger quality image and started the six year transition from Datsun to Nissan on vehicles, dealerships, facilities and marketing materials. Sales continued to grow, eventually reaching 830,767 in 1985 [6]. The decade closed out with resounding success for Nissan with their domination of the North American market.

In 1993, the mid-line Stanza sedan was replaced with an all-new Altima and non-competitive Japanese-designed minivan was replaced with a new U.S. created Quest, which was the first minivan with car-like handling. Sales came roaring back in 1994 to near-peak levels of 774,405 [6].

In 1996, sales began to slip once again, fueled by a change in American vehicle tastes. Trucks and SUVs gained market share at the expense of sedans and sports cars [2]. Nissan’s position as a manufacturing driven company, which helped them in the ’80’s and early ’90’s, then had new problems with the dollar/yen balance which began to hurt their competitiveness against market driven companies.

Unlike their competitors, Toyota and Honda, which were focused on key volume segments, Nissan did not dominate any individual segment and competed in identical segments against Toyota and Honda.
Unfortunately for Nissan in the 1990s, the Japanese “bubble economy” burst, a downturn in Europe coincided, so there was more pressure in the U.S. to perform. Unfortunately U.S. customers didn’t have a genuine brand reason to shop Nissan except for the ‘best price’ deal.

Former Nissan president, Mr. Nakamura, announced a “Back-to-Basics” plan. The key elements of the plan were to reduce inventories, eliminate unrealistic sales targets, and increase dealer profitability. Unfortunately for Nakamura and Nissan, the plan did not work [2].

II. Trouble looms for the auto-manufacturer in 1990’s

In the early 1990’s, trouble began to brew in the organization. The once revered executives at Nissan were now viewed as arrogant members of the old-boys club and were ignorant to the changing needs of their customers and the overall automotive market, in general.

As the company progressed deeper into debt, it met with more challenges. Nissan’s business partners and suppliers were charging a premium for their goods and services. Nissan was obliged to meet its financial commitments and by so doing placed itself further into debt. Finally, the company was in debt to the tune of $22 billion. Even the company’s financers were tightening the noose around them. Nissan felt the situation was hopeless.

III. Steps taken to address issues

Nissan executives were looking for a way out, a way to rescue the company from entering into bankruptcy. The first approach was to find a partner. Both the newly established DaimlerChrysler and the Ford Motor company were approached, but both organizations rejected the idea of a merger [2]. Finally, Renault, the French automotive company recovering from a similar predicament, decided to enter into negotiations with the flailing Japanese company. A senior executive at Renault, Carlos Ghosn, was a huge supporter of the merger idea.

After much negotiation, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry agreed to allow Renault to purchase a substantial stake in Nissan. The Nissan-Renault alliance was born and Ghosn was appointed Chief Operating Officer.
Nissans Executive decisions and major events

I. Creating a global alliance vision:

The following is excerpted from the Nissan/Renault alliance vision:
“The Renault-Nissan Alliance is a unique group of two global companies linked by cross-shareholding. They are united for performance though a coherent strategy, common goals, and principles, results-driven synergies, shared best practices. They respect and reinforce their respective identities and brands.”[2]

The Alliance set itself three objectives, with the goal of being amongst the best three automotive groups in the following areas:

1. Quality.

Achieve customer recognition as being a quality and value added product.

2. Technology.

Lead in key technology development and implementation with a focus on excellence in specific areas of the automotive business.

3. Operating Profit.

Consistently generate a high operating profit margin and vigorously pursue growth.

II. Appointing a new leader

Ghosn, given his enthusiasm for the merger, his demonstrated tenacity, and his experience of the automotive industry, was a natural choice for a senior position at Nissan. His initial appointment as Chief Operating Officer (COO) was just a temporary assignment. In 2000, he was named President and in 2001, he was appointed Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

As CEO, Ghosn was very aware that the ‘buck’ stopped with him. He was the final decision maker. Some important and very serious decisions were made to save the ailing company. Ghosn had to use all of his valuable experience gained from rescuing other organizations, such as Michelin and Renault, to save Nissan.

III. Decision making to save a troubled auto-manufacturer

With Ghosn’s arrival in Japan in the spring of 1999, he immediately set about researching Nissan’s root problems. The newly appointed COO had a management philosophy that stated “you must always start with a clean sheet of paper because the worst thing you can have is prefabricated solutions… you have to start with a zero base of thinking, cleaning everything out of your mind.”[2]

For the first few months, Ghosn flew around Japan, meeting and greeting employees at all levels, absorbing information and formulating a plan. He used this information to plot a picture of Nissan from a global perspective, identifying issues, and problems that had created the dispersed, unprofitable organization.

One of the many issues Ghosn identified was the lack of communication around the organization. Seniors managers around the world were aware of some of the issues that caused the downturn of fortune in the company. They even had solutions to them, but had lacked the necessary authority to implement or communicate the solutions back to Corporate Headquarters.

Finally, the major issues were whittled down to five key issues: [2]

• Lack of clear profit orientation. Nissan was not focused on driving profit, but were rather focused on market share and ended up having to buy their market share at the expense of the declining profits.

• Insufficiently focused on customers and too much focus on competitors. The company was too concerned about the competition introducing a new line which would have dug into the Nissan market share. For example when Volkswagen introduced their new Jetta sedan Nissan saw a significant decline in their Maxima sales.

• Lacked cross-functional, cross-border, and intra-hierarchical lines of work in the company. Nissan seemed to operate as separate islands scattered throughout the globe. There was no centralized purchasing function or in fact any of the other major business activities. The organization was not making maximum use of its global presence or buying power.

• Lack of sense of urgency. The executives in Nissan were complacent in their activities. Things had gone so well for the company in the preceding 60 years that they felt that there was no reason to embrace change.

• No shared vision or common long-term plan. Senior management within Nissan did not have a joint plan for the different brands within the company. Each division did their own thing with little or no thought for the greater good of the company. An example was the Z series that had achieved phenomenal success throughout the 1970’s and ’80’s but was suddenly dropped from production when sales dropped. The obvious thing to have been done was to test the market with a modernized design. Instead Nissan chose to ignore the market and drop the brand.

To address the issues, Ghosn announced the Nissan Revival Plan on October 18, 1999. This seven-point plan was aimed at reducing costs and debt as well as creating and launching new automotive brands to raise sales and market awareness. The goals announced in the plan were far-reaching and encompassed: [2]

• The reduction of operating costs, net debt, global head count, and vehicle assembly plants and manufacturing platforms (the latter in Japan).

• The generation of new product investment through the launch of twenty-two new models.
The cost-cutting plan called for centralization of purchasing, procurement, human resources and information technology. By centralizing these essential functions, the plan aimed to assist the company in achieving its aggressive cost reductions.

Expenditure, particularly in the information technology function, was perceived as being out of control. Ghosn’s message to senior level executives was clear, “cut costs in every possible area.” If that meant outsourcing non-core activities because somebody else could do it cheaper, then that had to be fully investigated and determined. The management was ruthless in their execution of the plan [2].

Nissan looks at Business Process Outsourcing as a means

I. Will outsourcing non-core activities save money?
There are well-documented records of company’s saving money and others of outsourcing horror stories. Success really depended on the situation and the provider.

Most experts agreed, though, that you needed to use BPO in strategic decisions, for example refocused efforts on core competencies and not merely for cost cutting activities [1]. Stephen Withers of ZDNet said in his on-line article that you should only “use BPO for strategic purposes, not to take advantage of a (possibly transient) cost saving.” Withers then asked the reader, “Does outsourcing the IT Infrastructure make sense?” To answer that question corporate Chief Information Officer’s (CIO’s) would need to have completed extensive research and have done a thorough analysis of their business processes.

This is exactly what Nissan’s CIO did, or rather what Ghosn told him to do. The company had invested over 80 billion yen (over $US760million) in 1998 on IT services, but their processes were still not providing the management with the infrastructure that would assist in building their competitive edge [5]. The final decision was made to approach various outsourcing service providers for the much needed help.

II. Does outsourcing the IT infrastructure make sense?

If Information Technology (IT) truly was a commodity, like gasoline or electricity, then companies only competed on price, with very small profit margins. In that event, the decision to turn over IT to an outsourcer was as simple as it was a century ago to turn to motor vehicles instead of using the horse and cart. However, while personal computers and the networks they run on may be standardized, the services provided by IT outsourcers vary in many ways. Services such as data analysis, application development, and IT decision-making allowed companies more competitiveness in the market therefore, those elements of IT are far from being viewed as commodities [8].

With regards the decision to outsource, many factors were considered in Nissan’s case. Ann Moynihan in her article in the Albany Business review states “Outsourcing can help you: [3]

• Reduce and control operating costs.

• Free staff to focus on core business.

• Gain access to specialized skills and technologies.

• Introduce positive change.

• Gain control over a difficult-to-manage function resulting from uneven workloads, insufficient or unskilled resources.”

With Nissan, in 1999, this was exactly what they were looking for. Refocused staff efforts, introduction of positive change and control gained in all critical areas led to the outsourcing decision.

The choice of IBM as Nissan’s outsourcing partner was a strategic one. In the late 1990’s there were not many outsourcing companies that had the breadth or the global reach that IBM had. Competitors such as EDS and CSC were not considered because they were only outsourcers and could not offer the hardware and software technology that Nissan required to update their infrastructure [5]. If either one of those competitors were selected over IBM as a partner Nissan would still have faced the same infrastructure issues. IBM was the only logical partner.

Did the relationship work between Nissan & IBM?

I. A further look at the relationship between IBM and Nissan

In a joint IBM and Nissan press release published in Tokyo on June 19, 2000, the two companies announced that they were “Extending their global partnership for information system (IS) operations which Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. and IBM agreed in October 1999, Nissan and IBM today jointly announced that Nissan will outsource its IS operations in Japan, to IBM Japan.

The service includes Nissan’s regular maintenance and operational activities as well as part of its application development, but excludes the planning and design of new systems. The two companies will start operations from October 1. [7]

In North America, Nissan has outsourced these same operations to IBM Corp. since October 1999. This latest agreement in Japan is expected to further accelerate the standardization, integration and centralization of Nissan’s IS on a global level.”

Ghosn further noted, “The Nissan Revival Plan cannot be accomplished without effective information systems. Following upon the recent agreement with Japan Telecom, this latest partnership with IBM puts in place the global infrastructure which is key to support Nissan’s long term profitable growth.” [4]

II. Hypothetical view of the Return-on-Investment model used

Before they could calculate their Return on Investment (ROI), Nissan first had to look at the Total Cost of Ownership model proposed by IBM. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is a type of calculation designed to help consumers and enterprise managers assess both direct and indirect costs and benefits related to the purchase of any IT component. The intention was to arrive at a final figure that will reflect the effective cost of purchase, overall [8].

The TCO model used, had to calculate the costs that were required, beyond the fees of outsourcing. The organization had to evaluate specific criteria’s that could have added expense to the outsourcing project. They also had to calculate the ongoing expenses throughout the lifetime of the contract [8].

Then, after calculating the payback period, Nissan were in a position to calculate their ROI. Once the numbers were crunched, a thorough financial and risk analysis was conducted. The ROI measured the profit or cost savings realized. It was calculated by estimating, for a 3-year period, the investment was made and the resulting profit created through that investment.

The results were conclusive. Nissan and IBM entered into their agreement and operations scheduled to commence on October 1, 1999.

Conclusion

I. Did Nissan’s BPO reach its stated objective?

Nissan’s stated objective for the outsourcing of the IT infrastructure was to control expenditure, improve efficiencies, and update the infrastructure. By outsourcing to IBM, Nissan achieved all of its goals.

In controlling expenditure, outsourcing gave companies the opportunity to have a predictable monthly budget for expenditure. That amount may or may not have been lower than current expenditures but the component that was crucial to a large organization such as Nissan was that the amount is predictable. There was no variable component to the pricing. The only time the pricing may have fluctuated was when additional services, which were out of scope of the contract, were required.

In Nissan’s case, that was never a requirement. The company was in the first stage of a major, global, restructuring project and there were no new initiatives taking place.

The second objective in the BPO was to improve efficiencies. IBM is the world’s largest information technology company with revenues close to $100 billion [9]. When companies outsource their operations to IBM they are gaining best-of-breed technologies, excellent consultants and some of the best systems architects money can buy.

The way that any global outsourcer makes its money is by achieving economies of scale. The only way to achieve these economies of scale is to ensure that they deploy the best hardware, software, and infrastructure possible and make that equipment work to maximum efficiencies. By taking full advantage of this best-of-breed technology, Nissan met its second and third stated objectives.

II. What if the IT Infrastructure had been retained in-house?

If Nissan had decided to retain its IT infrastructure in-house and attempted to implement an updated and modernized system, it would have lead to a significant increase in their expenditure. Ghosn’s prime objective, when he took over the company in 1999, was to reduce expenditure by 700 billion Yen [2]. He was not interested in spending any additional money to modernize existing equipment.

To support the intended improvement in competitiveness, Nissan had to ensure that their infrastructure supported the additional workload. There was no way they could do the intended improvement in efficiencies without external support. Nissan did not have the expertise and the additional work force to handle the required upgrades and the reengineering of business processes.

III. Final assessment and summation of the relationship

Robert Greenberg, Nissan’s CIO of North America was on record as saying in 2006 that, “We were happy with the services from IBM but the world had changed.” This comment sums up the relationship as it stands now, almost 8 years later [5]. When Nissan announced its Revival Plan, in 1999, the company had very clear objectives; cut costs, and return to profitability.

Nissan was looking for help in 1999 and IBM fulfilled this role for their IT Infrastructure. Greenberg also stated in his Q&A that “One of the things that also took place with the original outsourcing to IBM was we probably outsourced too much.” [5]

Greenberg was not working for Nissan when the original outsourcing decision was made in 1999; he only joined the company in 2005. He is on record though as saying that he thought that they should have either retained some of the infrastructure in-house or perhaps have multi-sourced, thereby ensuring that they had the best possible solution and price.

In 2006, when the contract came up for renewal, the CIO decided to put everything out to bid and compare what the other vendors were offering with what IBM had provided for so many years. The decision to look at new vendors was actually excellent timing for the company as Nissan had decided to relocate their North American corporate headquarters from Los Angeles, CA to Nashville, TN and any transition could be timed to coincide with the move.

Ultimately, what Greenberg opted to do was to accept IBM’s proposal to “manage desktop systems, network services, help desks, dealer systems, and other key infrastructure elements for Nissan North America.” He then outsourced the application and maintenance to an Indian firm, Satyam and brought the remainder of the services back in-house [5].

When asked about the decision to bring IT back in-house, Greenberg said, “By bringing it in-house you increase the alignment. It’s a matter of building the knowledge internally [that] can be used to help drive the business activity, which is much harder when a business analyst function is sitting within a third party.” [5]

IV. Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does BPO make more sense?

As Stephen Withers stated in his article, BPO decisions should not be made for cost-cutting exercises but rather for strategic directions [1]. In other words, companies should not view BPO as a cost saving tool. Outsourcing the IT operation makes sense when an organization is looking to improve efficiencies and business processes or when they cannot attract, or retain, the human capital who have the expertise and ability to modernize or improve the infrastructure.

Nissan’s CIO Robert Greenberg thought that he would actually save money by bringing some of the work back in-house because he was “not paying margin on the individual [headcount].” [5]
Some of the individual lessons that Nissan’s Greenberg has learnt from the outsourcing agreement with IBM has been that certain services developed by the IT organization can indeed be outsourced or developed externally. However, he felt strongly about retaining in-house IT skills in such value generation areas as business analysts who have a strong understanding of the business, sometimes even better than the business customer does. Insourcing these skills could result in ideas and dialog with the business, with the end result being a service delivery or product development than can then be outsourced.

In summary, the answer to the question, ‘Does the cost of implementing an in-house solution outweigh the benefits or does Business Process Outsourcing make more sense?’ is that it depends. It depends on the available skills; it depends on the overall objectives (cost saving vs. process improvement) and it depends on the organization. For the most part the majority of major corporations world wide that have been through an outsourcing contract or are in an outsourcing contract will agree that there are substantial benefits to implementing an outsourcing contract and there substantial benefits in retaining those skills in-house. What each organization needs to do is ascertain which of those benefits outweigh the other and base their decision on that analysis.

Works Cited

[1] Withers, Stephen. “BPO: Save money or fix your processes?” ZDNet.com
[http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/business/soa/BPO-Save-money-or-fix-your-processes-/0],139023749,139156391-10,00.htm 17 August 2004. Downloaded October 22, 2007

[2] Magee, David. Turn Around: How Carlos Ghosn rescued Nissan. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc, 2003.

[3] Moynihan, Ann. “Outsourcing enables owner to focus on core business.” http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2002/10/14/focus10.html October 11, 2002. Downloaded October 22, 2007

[4] IBM Press room press releases. IBM.com “Extending Their Global Partnership, Nissan, and IBM Announce IS Outsourcing for Japan” http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/1670.wss June 19, 2000. Downloaded October 19, 2007

[5] Thibodeau, Patrick. “Q&A: Nissan CIO reshapes automaker’s IT”
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=110024&intsrc=industry_list March 29, 2006. Downloaded October 23, 2007

[7] McDougall, Paul. “IBM, Nissan Outsourcing Deal Spans The Globe” http://www.informationweek.com/outsourcing/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=181502685 March 10, 2006 10:00 AM. Downloaded November 02, 2007

[8] Ikin, Paul. IBM Representative on Nissan Global team. 1998 to 2001.

Author: Paul Ikin
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Provided by: Latest trends in mobile phone