It looks like India’s outsourcing market may have lost a bit of its groove.
It was bound to happen. Exploding growth during the past few years combined with a defined pool of talent has resulted in mounting salary costs, high staff turnover rates and poorer delivery of service. As a result, many North American and European-based companies are now evaluating other emerging markets, such as Vietnam, China and Philippines, for their IT, customer service and call center, and administrative support requirements.
This is distressing news for Indian-based offshore market leaders like Tata , Wipro and HCL Technologies . That’s because they have established low price as the foundation of their value proposition, without significant brand investments to build trust and confidence in the minds of their key audiences (customers, partners, employees and investors).
When a company makes doing business about price, it run the risk of customers finding someone willing to provide a comparable product or service for less. And that is a no win market environment defined by eroding margins and customer churn. (Just ask the folks still providing long distance telecommunications service.)
The Indian IT community should take a lesson from Dell. Yes…they sell on price competitiveness, but they clearly explain to the market through advertising, public relations and other promotional activities how they are able to deliver a high-quality, performance machine for less. (They have one heck of an efficient supply chain .)
At the end of the day, people do business with companies they know and trust. As a business owner and buyer of technology products, I trust Dell. Wipro…Tata…HCL…I’m not so sure.
March 21, 2005, 4:01 pm
India's Lost Groove
Posted by jeffM
Comments (0)
Send this
March 7, 2005, 2:07 pm
US Slips in Technology
There’s nothing subtle about Bill Archey. The President and CEO of the AeA – the largest technology association in the country with more than 3,000 member companies – delivers a message with the not-so-gentle “WAP” of a sledgehammer.
The AeA’s new cry of alarm is about the shrinking gap in technology innovation and competitiveness between the United States and the rest of the world, particularly China, India and Eastern Europe. And after hearing a presentation from Archey and reading the AeA’s new report on the topic, I think a ***** on the head is exactly what we need.
Simply put, America is losing its science and technical leadership and without significant action may one day be relegated to a me-too standing in the world economy. Consider the following:
--According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, graduating high school seniors in the United States tested 19 out of 21 countries in math and science proficiency.
--China now graduates four times as many engineers as the US while India awards roughly 20,000 more engineering degrees a year than we do.
--The National Science Foundation reports that federal funding of R&D as a percent of GDP has slipped from 1.25 percent in 1985 to .75 percent in 2002.
--Nearly seven out of 100 people in the US have broadband access. Compare that to South Korea with more than 20 percent broadband penetration, Hong Kong with 15 percent and Taiwan with 10 percent.
No other industry has more of an impact on our lives than technology. At Strategic Communications Group (Strategic), we represent a group of companies in innovative markets like Voice over IP (VoIP), global satellite telecommunications, broadband content delivery search, smart card biometrics and RFID. This is the reason why I truly enjoy what I do for a living and why the AeA report is so startling.
We need to recognize that future science and technology leadership is not predetermined to occur in the United States. Technology, software and telecommunications companies are built on innovation, access to capital, effective marketing and sales, and a whole lot of hard work.
Bill, thanks for the “WAP.”
The AeA’s new cry of alarm is about the shrinking gap in technology innovation and competitiveness between the United States and the rest of the world, particularly China, India and Eastern Europe. And after hearing a presentation from Archey and reading the AeA’s new report on the topic, I think a ***** on the head is exactly what we need.
Simply put, America is losing its science and technical leadership and without significant action may one day be relegated to a me-too standing in the world economy. Consider the following:
--According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, graduating high school seniors in the United States tested 19 out of 21 countries in math and science proficiency.
--China now graduates four times as many engineers as the US while India awards roughly 20,000 more engineering degrees a year than we do.
--The National Science Foundation reports that federal funding of R&D as a percent of GDP has slipped from 1.25 percent in 1985 to .75 percent in 2002.
--Nearly seven out of 100 people in the US have broadband access. Compare that to South Korea with more than 20 percent broadband penetration, Hong Kong with 15 percent and Taiwan with 10 percent.
No other industry has more of an impact on our lives than technology. At Strategic Communications Group (Strategic), we represent a group of companies in innovative markets like Voice over IP (VoIP), global satellite telecommunications, broadband content delivery search, smart card biometrics and RFID. This is the reason why I truly enjoy what I do for a living and why the AeA report is so startling.
We need to recognize that future science and technology leadership is not predetermined to occur in the United States. Technology, software and telecommunications companies are built on innovation, access to capital, effective marketing and sales, and a whole lot of hard work.
Bill, thanks for the “WAP.”
Posted by jeffM
Comments (0)
Send this
February 21, 2005, 2:02 pm
Our Own Private Peer Review
With the level of business and trade media exposure Strategic Communications Group (Strategic) generates for its clients, it is inevitable that from time to time an executive we represent will feel slighted by the press. Whether it is a misquote, a comment taken out of context or inaccurate information, publications typically have a process to address these issues.
The foundation of quality and accurate reporting is the editorial review process most news sources adhere to. A reporter can’t simply write content and post it online or forward it to the production department for inclusion in the print edition. Rather, there are copyeditors, editors and (for the mainstream business press) fact checkers who pour over each word to ensure accuracy.
Granted, many publications lean to the political left or the right in their editorial and analysis, but any journalist of merit subscribes to the importance of peer review. This is why a break down in this system – such as the editorial fraud committed by the New York Times’ Jayson Blair – is so devastating to the reputation of the journalist and the publication.
In the blogosphere, however, there is no peer review. Five minutes after downloading blog-enabling software , a writer can take aim at anyone they choose without the requirement for fact or validity. Worse yet, a blogger can hide behind a pseudonym, essentially ducking any blowback that might come their way for making dubious comments.
The recent resignation of CNN news executive Eason Jordan is a recent example of what’s bad about blogging. Regardless of the true nature Jordan’s comments at the World Economic Forum, his 23-year career at CNN was snuffed out by an online community turned rabid by emotion.
Steve Lovelady, managing editor of CJR Daily (the Web site of The Columbia Journalism Review), got it right when he told the New York Times, “The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail.”
As a blogger, I believe it’s my responsibility to be passionate, opinionated and (when appropriate) controversial. But, I do my best to research and review from credible sources before posting content. And I always identify who I am and my motivations.
Use these evaluation criteria when reviewing blogs and assessing their credibility. And always remember: don’t believe everything you read.
The foundation of quality and accurate reporting is the editorial review process most news sources adhere to. A reporter can’t simply write content and post it online or forward it to the production department for inclusion in the print edition. Rather, there are copyeditors, editors and (for the mainstream business press) fact checkers who pour over each word to ensure accuracy.
Granted, many publications lean to the political left or the right in their editorial and analysis, but any journalist of merit subscribes to the importance of peer review. This is why a break down in this system – such as the editorial fraud committed by the New York Times’ Jayson Blair – is so devastating to the reputation of the journalist and the publication.
In the blogosphere, however, there is no peer review. Five minutes after downloading blog-enabling software , a writer can take aim at anyone they choose without the requirement for fact or validity. Worse yet, a blogger can hide behind a pseudonym, essentially ducking any blowback that might come their way for making dubious comments.
The recent resignation of CNN news executive Eason Jordan is a recent example of what’s bad about blogging. Regardless of the true nature Jordan’s comments at the World Economic Forum, his 23-year career at CNN was snuffed out by an online community turned rabid by emotion.
Steve Lovelady, managing editor of CJR Daily (the Web site of The Columbia Journalism Review), got it right when he told the New York Times, “The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail.”
As a blogger, I believe it’s my responsibility to be passionate, opinionated and (when appropriate) controversial. But, I do my best to research and review from credible sources before posting content. And I always identify who I am and my motivations.
Use these evaluation criteria when reviewing blogs and assessing their credibility. And always remember: don’t believe everything you read.
