by
Matthew Banks on January 11th, 2010 at 4:05 pm :
Comments 000
by Matthew Banks
Boston based consulting firm Vantage Partners has published a White Paper, aimed at law firms, entitled Easy Mistakes to Make When Making Decisions About LPO. The Paper contains several pertinent market observations and useful recommendations for law firms, both at a practical and strategic level. I have selected a handful for comment (text copied from the Paper is in italics):
- In-house law departments are leading the way in the exploration and experimentation with LPO. And even where law firms are getting involved… Most law firm experience is centered around serving a particular client who has insisted in the use of a lower cost resource for some of the work. This is indeed true for most, but not all law firms. We are seeing more law firms folding LPO into their offerings and into their model. Recent examples include the Allen & Overy offshore document review option and the move by Simmons & Simmons to set up a core team in India. Most of this activity is from U.K. based firms. In addition, a number of US AmLaw 200 firms have set up either formal or informal LPO “investigatory committees”, as they conduct a due diligence process aimed at selecting one or more preferred LPO providers.
- The LPO industry is still relatively immature, populated by many small providers who may not have significant staying power and who do not, in fact, offer the usual outsourcing benefits in terms of scale, technology investments, or process expertise. An industry that in its formative years was characterized by the emergence of numerous, boutique providers, is now beginning to scale up and consolidate in order to meet the increasing sophistication of AmLaw 200, U.K. Top 50 and Global 2000 procurement. Although the market is still comparatively nascent, a handful of leading providers has pulled away from the rest of the pack in terms of their experience, scalability and infrastructure. Maturing providers combined with increased market activity and acceptability make now a great time for many law firms, used to following not leading, to examine LPO.
- Lawyers will generally be unable to shed responsibility for the quality of the work carried out by the LPO provider, even when the client has selected the provider and foisted it on the law firm. The structure for contractual relations and liability can vary. In some cases, the client will contract directly with the LPO even where a law firm is involved. In other cases, the law firm will be the aggregator who subcontracts to (partners with) with the LPO. In the latter scenario, the laws firm will have contractual recoverability from the LPO subject to any agreed limits on liability. We find that “risk” (reputational and financial) is a major part of any dialogue with law firms and should not be shied away from, but rather addressed and resolved head on. Quantifying risk (or lack of it) is very important, from the selection of suitable tasks for outsourcing through to transparency into the workflow process and quality regime. A robust documented and defensible process provides visibility into exactly what is being done, how and by whom, which means that the risk can be mitigated and managed. Risk management is something that Vantage has highlighted in their Paper.
The Paper goes on to list typical mistakes that law firms might make when they consider LPO:
- Failing to understand what your clients are really asking for. Be prepared to address a client desire for strategic transformational change. Procurement departments of major corporations and banks are getting involved in purchasing legal services. We see this in more and more RFPs. It’s not just the delivery of services that is changing but the way they are procured.
- Grudgingly accepting LPO when a client forces it upon you. It is easier to obtain quality outputs from an LPO provider if you enter into the relationship in a collaborative fashion rather than as the result of being coerced by your mutual client. It is even easier to do a quality job and get some credit for being responsive and innovative if, when asked by a client about LPO, you can identify some providers with whom you have already established a relationship and perhaps even have run some successful pilots. One hopes that all providers prioritize the best commercial and legal interests of the clients! Fortunately we experience highly collaborative working relationships with law firms. We also ensure that our documented process (which is approved by the client and law firm prior to project start) includes a pre-agreed communication and collaboration regime with outside counsel so this joint effort is not left to chance.
- Thinking you have to “own it”. There are “best friends” relationships or networks that can serve as good alternatives and don’t require a large capital investment. There are providers who can leverage economies of scale and process expertise to deliver a reliable and more flexible managed service and do so under fairly stringent service level agreements. At any scale, there are challenges with the captive model. Ownership and control are not the same thing. The unwinding of captives in the financial services sector is a warning indicator. See blogs at http://www.integreon.com/blog/cat/captive-v-3rd-party.
Filed under Captive v. 3rd Party, Knowledge Outsourcing (KPO), Legal Economics, Legal Outsourcing (LPO), Onshore v. offshore, Outsourcing Tips
by
Matthew Banks on January 4th, 2010 at 3:34 pm :
Comments 002
by Matthew Banks, Ron Friedmann, and Mark Ross
Integreon’s LPO experts, Matthew Banks, Ron Friedmann and Mark Ross take a look at what to expect in the LPO world in 2010.
Someone once said that less happens in a year than you might think but more happens in a decade than you might think. That’s the way we feel about the legal profession and LPO. So rather than offer a list of dramatic and sweeping 2010 predictions; we tender below some likely developments consistent with broader trends that will continue to play out over 2010 and beyond, bringing significant growth to the LPO industry. We also break with traditional year-end predictions because our list exceeds the customary ten items.
LPO is part of the bigger picture of evolution of legal services. Legal organizations are now, more than ever, actively trying many new and related approaches: technology, back office restructuring, process improvement, LPO, alternative fee arrangements, and better knowledge management, among others. So, in that context, here is what we think 2010 will see:
1. More organizations will outsource more work to more LPO providers.
2. The third party provider model will dominate. We don’t expect to see many captives in the legal market; it’s too difficult and they fail.
3. In the U.S., expect the ABA to provide more detailed guidance on how to outsource legal services ethically. While in the U.K., the Law Society, to date silent on the subject, will publically comment for the first time.
4. There will be lots of talk about alternative offshore locations to India but none will yet emerge of such scale. Onshore and near shore will be the main alternative and could grow as quickly as offshore.
5. LPOs, which are already good at what they do, will get even better. More experience brings better service.
6. LPOs will expand what they do — more capabilities and services inching a little higher up the value chain but still based around the core services available today: discovery, contracts, compliance, research, and IP. In addition to moving higher up the value chain, LPOs will also expand into consumer related and high volume legal services such as conveyancing, personal injury, wills and probate.
7. Document review however, will retain its #1 spot as the service most often outsourced, at greatest volume, and by far the greatest revenue generator for the LPO industry.
8. Organizations will start to develop multi-functional teams on an FTE basis, rather than single function transactional work. For example, corporations will engage core teams to handle a variety of legal dept work such as contract management, compliance, etc. The underlying economics of a dedicated team is better both for customers and providers.
9. LPO pricing will be stable.
10. Revenue growth for the LPO market will be rapid and some providers could double in size over the next year or two.
11. The biggest LPOs will reach 500+ lawyers working on document review, contract management, and due diligence projects. While concurrently, some smaller providers will exit the market altogether.
12. We will see more Rio Tinto type publicity, but less than you might expect because law departments have no vested interest in making public their private outsourcing arrangements with third party providers. Law firms, in contrast, are more likely to publicize outsourcing because, as service providers in a competitive market, they may see it as a competitive advantage.
13. Generally, law firm activity will be reactively driven by clients. Although a number of major firms will cement “preferred LPO provider” relationships. However, many or most top law firms will have had exposure to LPO one way or the other by end of 2010. That said, the first few firms to do something new are always long in coming; once a handful have acted, the market can tip quite suddenly.
14. U.K. law firms will continue to be more active in offshore outsourcing than US law firms. US law firm activity will more likely be a mix of offshore, near shore or onshore.
15. Recent blog posts have debated whether process is the future of law. In part, yes, but there will be a polarization between what clients are prepared to pay premium rates for and what the market will force into new models. Not all law will be process driven but LPO will help to increase the scope of what can be process driven.
16. Procurement will drive more law department purchase decisions. Their drive to efficiency will push more work to LPO; their drive to systematize purchasing may slow down sales cycles.
17. The biggest LPO single client contract value will exceed $10M annually.
Filed under Captive v. 3rd Party, India Business and Economy, Legal Economics, Legal Outsourcing (LPO), Onshore v. offshore, Outsourcing Tips
by
Liam Brown on November 20th, 2009 at 3:58 am :
Comments 000
The Lawyer’s Lyceum Capital injects £25m into LPO start-up and LegalWeek’s Lyceum commits £25m to enter LPO market in Laureate venture articles show continuing investment momentum into LPO, as discussed in my post £400m Acquisition an Indicator of a Maturing KPO Market? This particular investor group has been looking for opportunities to invest in “new business models for delivery of legal services” for some time. I can’t find much about the startup company, Laureate, on the web, but Lyceum’s advisory panel knows a thing or two about the opportunity in the legal market: former Clifford Chance managing partner Tony Williams, visionary legal IT consultant Richard Susskind and Paul Hewitt, who helped develop legal services at the RAC and Cooperative Group. I expect to see some of this private equity money go towards acquiring law firms’ captive, non-core business services operations. It’s certainly a use of capital that Integreon has earmarked.
Filed under Business Process Outsourcing (BPO), Captive v. 3rd Party, Economic Trends
by
Liam Brown on May 12th, 2009 at 3:09 am :
Comments 000
Outsourcing is back in the news. Come to think of it, when has it not been in the news? Two US national mainstream media had important articles last week.
Outsourcing: Thriving at Home and Abroad (Business Week, 4 May 2009) reports that outsourcing is thriving in the current economy. “Companies looking to cut expenses in the face of soft demand are keener than ever to hand off parts of their operations to lower-cost providers.” That is old news; what’s new is the locations those companies are selecting. Political considerations, internal and external customer perception, availability of talent, currency exchange rates, disaster planning, shrinking cost differentials between domestic and offshore locations, relative inflation rates, now drive companies to consider smaller domestic US cities such as Indianapolis and Boise. The drivers have consistently been, as the article touches on, increasingly sophisticated customers taking “a more nuanced approach” to their operations and sourcing strategy. Core processes are kept captive and non-core processes are outsourced (the so called “hybrid captive/outsourced approach”); some non-core processes are outsourced to multiple providers to mitigate risk (the so called “multi-sourcing approach”); and some processes are sourced offshore while others are sourced onshore (the so called “right-shoring approach”).
Obama’s Plan on Corporate Taxes Unnerves the Indian Outsourcing Industry (New York Times, 6 May 2009) reports on how the Obama Administration’s proposal to tax offshore profits is causing consternation in India. The article suggests the impact of the proposals may not be that great, though they are not yet fully understood. As we read the tax proposal, to the extent it has an impact, it would impact the profits of companies operating offshore captives so it might actually drive demand for third party providers of offshore services such as Integreon. What really caught my attention, though, was the speed at which this tax proposal appeared and at which it has the potential to change the sourcing location landscape - much faster than company operations planners can respond.
The lesson we draw from both articles supports the strategy we have long followed; namely, be flexible about location and have a choice of countries and continents. Companies should select location based on factors such as culture, time zones, cost, business continuity, exchange rates, relative inflation rates, skill availability, turnover, and taxes. Because these factors change over time, sometimes quite rapidly, companies must retain flexibility. For example, the Indian Rupee has had dramatic swings in value versus the US Dollar. And, as the Business Week article points out, the economic downturn has suddenly shrunk the cost arbitrage advantage of India over the US (though it is still large).
For these reasons, we now operate delivery centers in India, the Philippines, US, and UK, with more locations likely in the future. We are not dogmatic about the “best” location.
For onshore locations, we have long been enthusiastic about the types of cities Business Week describes. In 2007, we acquired an existing outsourcing business in Fargo, ND. The location in Fargo was a big factor in our acquisition decision - we recognized that we could hire, and more importantly, retain long-term highly skilled workers there at costs significantly lower than in major US cities.
We have also just opened a delivery center in Bristol, UK. While Bristol is a major city, costs there are up to 30% lower than in London, so it reflects the same thinking - find the right onshore locations that offer a good mix of skill, cost, and cultural compatability.
To drive home the point that location decisions depend on many factors, consider electronic discovery services. For our EDD business, we employ specialized employees, operate server farms, and need to take quick delivery of digital media. For these reasons, we operate delivery centers in “high cost” domestic cities such as New York City and Washington DC.
Global supply chain economics are complex and change rapidly. We encourage those considering outsourcing to think carefully about the right destination(s) for their work and to select a service partner that offers a range of choices, with the location flexibility to accommodate your needs as the evolve. We believe that optimized value chains will operate the right processes, in the right places, with the right people, using the right technology. Each value chain will differ - one size definitely does not fit all.
Filed under Business Process Outsourcing (BPO), Captive v. 3rd Party, Economic Trends, India Business and Economy, Onshore v. offshore, Outsourcing Industry News
by
Ron Dappen on April 9th, 2009 at 7:23 pm :
Comments 000
In our constant effort to learn more about the market, we’ve just launched a survey co-sponsored by FreePint. In particular, we want to know more about how outsourcing is viewed by those who use or buy any of the following services:
- Research
- Document preparation (word processing, etc.)
- Legal support
- Pitch support (graphics, presentations, etc.)
If you fit the description above, please consider taking this survey. We will share the survey results with all participants.
To receive a copy of the report, just provide your email address at the end of the survey. The survey is completely anonymous. Your email address will not be associated with your responses in any way; it will only be used to send you the survey results.
To link directly to the survey, click here.
Filed under Business Process Outsourcing (BPO), Captive v. 3rd Party, Economic Trends, India Business and Economy, Knowledge Outsourcing (KPO), Legal Outsourcing (LPO)
by
Lokendra Tomar on July 21st, 2008 at 8:00 pm :
Comments 000
Outsourcing the Offshore Operations by Steve Hamm in Business Week (16 July 2008) suggests that third-party outsourcing providers are generally better at managing operations than captive centers. This thesis comports with conventional wisdom.
A recent research report by TPI, a leading sourcing consulting firm, however, concludes otherwise. Captive 2.0 – The Next Generation of Indian IT and BPO Captive Operations finds that the difference in performance between third-party delivery centers and captives (a corporation’s offshore, owned and operated center) may not be so cut-and-dry. The research looked at four segments:
- Average captives
- Average third-party providers
- Best-in-class captives
- Best-in-class third-party providers
The data showed that while average third-party outsourcing is “better” than the average captive on cost and value, best-in-class third-party still falls behind best-in-class captive.
For suppliers, the real competition for best-in-class third party outsourcing providers is less other third-party providers than it is best-in-class captives. Moreover, as outsourcing moves up the value chain into the middle-office and as global macro-economic volatility continues, outperforming captive sourcing become even more difficult, requiring highly adept management and a global delivery and customer service footprint.
For buyers, this means a flexible approach to outsourcing strategy: a mix of captive and third-party services may be necessary. Buyers (clients) may do better with a captive where proprietary technology and detailed domain expertise are critical and difficult for a third-party to master. Where processes and functions are generic or sub-scale, third-party providers often have the advantage.
Filed under Captive v. 3rd Party
by
Ron Friedmann on February 11th, 2008 at 7:15 pm :
Comments 000
Rethinking the India Back Office in the Wall Street Journal (11 Feb 2008) explains that company owned and operated offshore centers (”captives”)are often more expensive than companies expect. Consequently, “Some of the largest outsourcing units are still those belonging to Western companies, including Wall Street’s biggest banks… could soon be looking to get out of part or all of the business by selling either to Indian companies that specialize in outsourcing services, to private-equity firms or through initial public offerings.”
Dollar depreciation and Indian wage inflation have taken a toll but India still offers a significant cost savings. The bigger problem is that operating a captive is expensive and hard. A recent McKinsey / Nasscom study found that captives are “less efficient than companies run by outsourcing firms that specialize in the business. ” The article continues to observe that “Once the initial benefit was felt, companies found it hard to keep on top of their costs. Salaries and the cost of office space jumped. Staff turnover has been high, and companies are having to spend on headhunting fees and training.”
What the article reports is consistent with Integreon’s experience.
Filed under Captive v. 3rd Party
by
Matthew Banks on February 11th, 2008 at 7:10 pm :
Comments 000
Howrey have no doubt discovered that there are highly capable legal resources offshore and that it is possible to achieve quality and control through onshore and offshore supervision. I think the greater challenge for law firm captives (offshore centers owned and operated by the law firm) is the cost and time investment of establishing and managing an offshore operation. Third party providers such as Integreon offer law firms a key advantage: remove cost and hassle from onshore lawyers, not add to it.
Many of my law firm clients, particularly litigators and litigation support staff, complain that they already spend too much time managing onshore recruitment, training and staff turnover within large teams. Another concern I have for captives is scalability. Having a compact resource offshore is one thing, but the ability to scale up (and down) to meet project demands is another. For many law firms and companies, the real value of outsourcing comes with scale and/or resource flex.
Filed under Captive v. 3rd Party