Should I Buy An Asset-Centric Solution or Build It?

It takes twice as long, at twice the cost and you will only get half of the expected functionality.” Many times, we have heard this proverbial phrase. And even if it is true, does it automatically mean you will go for the buy-variant? We’ve learned that decision-making consists of weighing many pros and cons. In this blog, we’ll provide you with a set of arguments to take into consideration.

More than just the financials (The Mindset Matters)

In our experience, a build-versus-buy decision is both multi-faceted and multi-stakeholder. To give you an example: A business leader will typically look for business process support and time to value. An IT leader may have a preference to stay on the same platform and exert control through the deployment of internal IT resources. Procurement will weigh the risk profile and continuity of the vendor base. The security officer may focus on secure, compliant transfer and storage of the business data. And finance? From finance, we expect that they will compare the cost of build versus buy in relation to the budgeting cycle.

What you have here is a mix of different personas, each with different priorities and objectives. So, how to tackle this, how to move forward? You can start to untangle this Gordian knot by genuinely trying to understand and acknowledge each stakeholder’s position.

One word of caution. However accurate the numbers are that you come up with. As you are zooming in on the pros and cons with the goal of creating a viable comparison, you need to do your homework and not only gather the facts but also be aware that each stakeholder has a different motivation.

As a business leader from Bosch said so eloquently:

“I don’t care about the make and model of the tool. I’ve got a business to run” – business leader at Bosch

We started this blog by outlining the various personas that each have their own priorities, but at the end of the day, there is one common goal: keeping the business running—today and tomorrow. And to do this, you need a solution that can either be built or bought.

What are the hidden and obvious costs?

Let’s start with the most rational comparison: the financial axis. For sure the first and foremost thing finance wants to do is compare the cost of build versus buy. The purchasing cost is easy to identify. It’s the figure at the bottom of the vendor’s quotation. What is on the build side of the equation is more elusive. If building software is not your core business, it is difficult to grasp what effort goes into creating and maintaining a business application. When we see stakeholders evaluating the financials of build versus buy, typically only a fraction of the build costs turn up in the comparison. The reputed tip of the iceberg.

Together with a number of prospects, we created a model to help identify and uncover how far the iceberg extends under the waterline, in other words—to make the hidden cost elements visible. While building the model, we had to face difficult questions such as:

  • How much effort does it take to retrieve the data points?
  • Is it even possible to obtain an insight into the below-sea-level items?
  • To what extent will a complete view of the build cost influence the decision-making?

In close collaboration, we discovered two findings:

  1. Apart from any numeric comparison, getting a complete picture of all cost elements proved to be extremely insightful and changed how both scenarios are evaluated.
  2. Appraising the ‘submerged’ cost elements is essential in defining the tipping point.

Evaluating build versus buy

When making a build-versus-buy decision business leaders strive to get a complete picture of the cost aspects and understand the impact on the business as a whole. But how do they know that? This is where the iceberg comes into play.

When working with prospects and customers to uncover the true cost for them, we found the iceberg to be an educational exercise and a great conversational framework to understand all aspects of business application creation and usage. Different areas in the framework have different owners and they don’t all have the same agenda, e.g. the cost for software developers falls within the IT department, whereas cloud-subscription fees come out of the line of business budget.

Our framework requires input from all areas that DIY touches on. By doing so, it also reveals the mindset and priorities of the different stakeholders and provides insight into the evaluation criteria of the build-versus-buy decision. As such it will be an eye-opener and helps to align all stakeholders.

Conscious Competence Learning Matrix

‘Hidden’ costs impact the tipping point

The hidden or underwater costs play a significant role in determining the tipping point. It’s a matter of simple mathematics. The more you can exclude hidden costs from the equation, the more your decision will lean towards build. This conclusion led us to investigate why one would exclude hidden costs. We found:

  • The effort to retrieve the hidden cost is too high.

What to do about it: This is fairly easy to mitigate. To find your way out of this impasse, think about using estimates and guesstimates as an alternative to actuals. As long as your data is ‘good enough’, you can still use it to make good decisions. Thus, not creating an exact cost comparison, but a probable comparison.

  • We don’t want to include hidden costs.

What to do about it: This finding is more of a political and commercial nature. Here it matters who you are talking to. You can imagine that a sales rep who is trying to sell the buy-scenario has an avid interest in having as many costs associated with the build-scenario and vice versa. To overcome this potential conflict of interest, we co-developed the cost comparison model. As a result, we know that all cost elements in the model are relevant to the decision-making. When we encounter a persona saying that a particular cost element is non-retrievable, we have solid arguments to go into challenger mode.

A blend of arguments

We started this blog by explaining that a build-versus-buy decision spans multiple departments and stakeholders, and we gave the financial aspect the most weight when it comes to making the choice. There are certainly other factors that play a role in the decision, such as time to value, feature richness and risk, but ultimately, all of these aspects affect the total cost to build.

For several of our prospects, the co-developed framework has been instrumental in finding an answer when faced with the question Do I Build or Do I Buy?

build costs

If you want to find out what other aspects are influencing the build-versus-buy decision, check out our Build-Versus-Buy Guide here.

This article is published in ServiceMax Field Service Digital on June 22nd, 2021

5 Ways to Improve New Technician Time to Value

Over the last few years, the topic of technician/talent shortage has been getting more and more traction at service industry events. Analyst firms Forrester, IDC, TSIA, Aberdeen and The Service Council are too in unison about the technician gap. And not only are service organizations struggling to find enough candidates, but they are also struggling to find ones with the right skills—especially as the nature of service jobs evolves beyond simply fixing a piece of equipment. Candidates must also be able to:

  • Adapt to and learn about new technology tools attached to service work
  • Learn about new service procedures tied to more complex service assets
  • Work in a group or team environment
  • Be able to work and engage with the customer

Once you overcome these obstacles and hire new technicians, how can you quickly get them onboarded and delivering value? In a 2017 survey from the Aeronautical Repair Station Association, the average time for a technician to become fully profitable lies between 9 and 24 months. This represents an onboarding investment of between $132,750 and $354,000. Per industry, the values may differ, but the onboarding time is pretty much consistent across organizations. As you can see, being able to improve new technician time to value can make a big difference on the bottom line.

The changing demographics of the workforce adds another layer of complexity. For Millennials, on the job learning is done a bit differently than previous generations. Rather than relying on cumbersome textbooks, they can search the web for the exact info they need or ask their peers. This has implications on the tools you provide to millennials. Having digital business tools with a consumer look and feel and ease of use can go a long way in training, as well as attracting younger talent. Modern service execution tools and millennial learning habits may be your ticket to faster time to value.

Five Ways to Improve New Technician Time to Value

1. Make jobs simpler

Different service jobs have different characteristics and skill requirements. Through slicing and dicing of the jobs and smart dispatching, you can assign simpler tasks to junior resources. Based on their track record and development they can move up the ladder.

2. Facilitate access to information

As much information you want to provide to a technician when dispatching the job, the reality onsite may be different. Proving access to relevant and adjacent information in an on-demand mode will allow your technician to become self-sufficient.

3. Deploy contingent workflows

An installation, break-fix, inspection and preventive maintenance job probably will have different workflows. A workflow may even differ per customer. Instead of requiring your technicians to learn and remember all variants, use a field service management tool to assist and even prescribe workflows.

4. Assist humans with machine learning

Throughout the lifecycle of a product, the product itself and all human interactions generate a lot of data. Mining that data and creating insights allows humans to make better decisions. Simple tasks can be automated creating more meaningful work for technicians.

5. Interweave social interaction into the job

Even when automating many aspects of service, it is the people-component that cements it all together. Call it assisted service with a human touch. Using voice-calls or messaging is an integral part of the job. Interweaving those social interactions into the job creates context and makes the communication more efficient. Try to facilitate connected conversations and conversational workflow for your employees, and make sure it is on an enterprise-grade platform to protect your intellectual property.

This article is published in ServiceMax Field Service Digital on February 11th, 2020