Digital Sourcing and Contracts
Digital sourcing is the set of concerns related to identifying suppliers (sources) of the necessary inputs to deliver digital value. Contract management is a critical, subsidiary concern, where digital value intersects with law.
The basic classes of inputs include:
People (with certain skills and knowledge)
Services (which themselves are composed of people, hardware, and/or software)
Practically speaking, these inputs are handled by two different functions:
People (in particular, full-time employees) are handled by a human resources function
Hardware, software, and services are handled by a procurement function
Other terms associated with this are vendor management, contract management, and supplier management; we will not attempt to clarify or rationalize these areas in this section
We discussed hiring and managing digital specialists in the Competency Category of IT Human Resources Management.
A small company may establish binding agreements with vendors relatively casually. For example, when the founder first chose a cloud platform on which to build their product, they clicked on a button that said “I accept”, at the bottom of a lengthy legal document they did not necessarily read closely. This “clickwrap” agreement is a legally binding contract, which means that the terms and conditions it specifies are enforceable by the courts.
A startup may be inattentive to the full implications of its contracts for various reasons:
The founder does not understand the importance and consequences of legally binding agreements
The founder understands but feels they have little to lose (for example, they have incorporated as a limited liability company, meaning the founder’s personal assets are not at risk)
The service is perceived to be so broadly used that an agreement with it must be safe (if 50 other startups are using a well-known cloud provider and prospering, why would a startup founder spend precious time and money on an overly detailed scrutiny of its agreements?)
All of these assumptions bear some risk – and many startups have been burned on such matters – but there are many other, perhaps more pressing risks for the founder and startup.
However, by the time the company has scaled to the team of teams level, contract management is almost certainly a concern of the CFO. The company has more resources (“deeper pockets”), and so lawsuits start to become a concern. The complexity of the company’s services may require more specialized terms and conditions. Standard “boilerplate” contracts, thus, are replaced by individualized agreements. Concerns over intellectual property, the ability to terminate agreements, liability for damages, and other topics require increased negotiation and contractual language. See the case study on the Nine Figure “True-Up” for a grim scenario.
At this point, the company may have hired its own legal professional; certainly, legal fees are going up, whether as services from external law firms or internal staff.
Contract and vendor management is more than just establishing the initial agreement. The ongoing relationship must be monitored for its consistency with the contract. If the vendor agrees that its service will be available 99.999% of the time, the availability of that service should be measured, and if it falls below that threshold, contractual penalties may need to be applied.
In larger organizations, where a vendor might hold multiple contracts, a concept of “vendor management” emerges. Vendors may be provided with “scorecards” that aggregate metrics which describe their performance and the overall impression of the customer. Perhaps key stakeholders are internally surveyed as to their impression of the vendor’s performance and whether they would be likely to recommend them again. Low scores may penalize a vendor’s chances in future Request for Information (RFI)/RFP processes; high scores may enhance them. Finally, advising on sourcing is one of the main services an Enterprise Architecture group may provide.
The first significant vendor relationship the startup may engage with is for cloud services. The decision whether, and how much, to leverage cloud computing remains a topic of much industry discussion. The following pros and cons are typically considered, as shown in Cloud Sourcing Pros and Cons [Morgenthal 2016]:
Public cloud workforce availability (as opposed to private cloud skills)
Better capital management (i.e., through expensed cloud services)
Ease in providing elastic scalability
Agility (faster provisioning of commercial cloud instances)
Reduce CAPEX (facilities, hardware, software)
Promoting innovation (e.g., web-scale applications may require current cloud infrastructure)
Public clouds are rich and mature, with extensive platform capabilities
Flexible capacity management/resource utilization
Data Gravity (scale of data too voluminous to easily migrate the apps and data to the cloud)
Security (perception cloud is not as secure)
Private clouds are improving
Lack of equivalent SaaS offerings for applications being run in-house
Significant integration requirements between in-house apps and new ones deployed to cloud
Lack of ability to support migration to cloud
Vendor licensing (see The Nine-Figure “True-Up”)
Network latency (slow response of cloud-deployed apps)
Poor transparency of cloud infrastructure
Risk of cloud platform lock-in
Cloud can reduce costs when deployed in a sophisticated way; if a company has purchased more capacity than it needs, cloud can be more economical (review the section on virtualization economics). However, ultimately, as Abbott and Fisher point out: “Large, rapidly growing companies can usually realize greater margins by using wholly owned equipment than they can by operating in the cloud. This difference arises because IaaS operators, while being able to purchase and manage their equipment cost-effectively, are still looking to make a profit on their services” [Abbott & Fisher 2015].
Minimally, cloud services need to be controlled for consumption. Cloud providers will happily allow virtual machines to run indefinitely, and charge for them. An ecosystem of cloud brokers and value-add resellers is emerging to assist organizations with optimizing their cloud dollars.
As software and digital services are increasingly used by firms large and small, the contractual rights of usage become more and more critical. We mentioned a “clickwrap” licensing agreement above. Software licensing, in general, is a large and detailed topic, one presenting a substantial financial risk to the unwary firm, especially when cloud and virtualization are concerned.
Software licensing is a subset of software asset management, which is itself a subset of IT asset management, discussed in more depth in the material on process management and IT lifecycles. Software asset management in many cases relies on the integrity of a digital organization’s package management; the package manager should represent a definitive inventory of all the software in use in the organization.
Free and Open-Source Software (sometimes abbreviated FOSS) has become an increasingly prevalent and critical component of digital products. While technically “free”, the licensing of such software can present risks. In some cases, open-source products have unclear licensing that puts them at risk of legal conflicts which may impact users of the technology [Loftus 2006]. In other cases, the open-source license may discourage commercial or proprietary use; for example, the GNU Public License (GPL) requirement for disclosing derivative works causes concern among enterprises [Yegulalp 2014].
When a company is faced by a sourcing question of any kind, one initial reaction is to research the market alternatives. But research is time-consuming, and markets are large and complex. Therefore, the role of industry or market analyst has developed.
In the financial media, we often hear from “industry analysts” who are concerned with whether a company is a good investment in the stock market. While there is some overlap, the industry analysts we are concerned with here are more focused on advising prospective customers of a given market’s offerings.
Because sourcing and contracting are an infrequent activity, especially for smaller companies, it is valuable to have such services. Because they are researching a market and talking to vendors and customers on a regular basis, analysts can be helpful to companies in the purchasing process.
However, analysts take money from the vendors they are covering as well, leading to occasional charges of conflict of interest. How does this work? There are a couple of ways.
First, the analyst firm engages in objective research of a given market segment. They do this by developing a common set of criteria for who gets included, and a detailed set of questions to assess their capabilities.
For example, an analyst firm might define a market segment of “Cloud IaaS” vendors. Only vendors supporting the basic NIST guidelines for IaaS are invited. Then, the analyst might ask: “Do you support SDNs; e.g., Network Function Virtualization?” as a question. Companies that answer “yes” will be given a higher score than companies that answer “no”. The number of questions on a major research report might be as high as 300 or even higher.
Once the report is completed, and the vendors are ranked (analyst firms typically use a two-dimensional ranking, such as the Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ or Forrester Wave™), it is made available to end users for a fee. Fees for such research might range from $500 to $5,000 or more, depending on how specialized the topic, how difficult the research, and the ability of prospective customers to pay.
|Large companies (e.g., those in the Fortune 500) typically would purchase an “enterprise agreement”, often defined as a named “seat” for an individual, who can then access entire categories of research.|
Customers may have further questions for the analyst who wrote the research. They may be entitled to some portion of analyst time as part of their license, or they may pay extra for this privilege.
Beyond selling the research to potential customers of a market, the analyst firm has a complex relationship with the vendors they are covering. In our example of a major market research report, the analyst firm’s sales team also reaches out to the vendors who were covered. The conversation starts something like this:
“Greetings. You did very well in our recent research report. Would you like to be able to give it away to prospective customers, with your success highlighted? If so, you can sponsor the report for $50,000.”
Because the analyst report is seen as having some independence, it can be an attractive marketing tool for the vendor, who will often pay (after some negotiating) for the sponsorship. In fact, vendors have so many opportunities along these lines they often find it necessary to establish a function known as “Analyst Relations” to manage all of them.
Software is often developed and delivered per contractual terms. Contracts are legally binding agreements, typically developed with the assistance of lawyers. As noted in Arbogast et al. 2012: “Legal professionals are trained to act, under legal duty, to advance their client’s interests and protect them against all pitfalls, seen or unseen”. The idea of “customer collaboration over contract negotiation” may strike them as the height of naïveté.
However, Agile and Lean influences have made substantial inroads in contracting approaches.
Arbogast et al. describe the general areas of contract concern:
Risk, exposure, and liability
Clarity of obligations, expectations, and deliverables
They argue that: “An Agile project contract may articulate the same limitations of liability (and related terms) as a traditional project contract, but the Agile contract will better support avoiding the very problems that a lawyer is worried about”.
So, what is an “Agile” contract?
There are two major classes of contracts:
Time and materials
In a time and materials contract, the contracting firm simply pays the provider until the work is done. This means that the risk of the project overrunning its schedule or budget resides primarily with the firm hiring out the work. While this can work, there is often a desire on the part of the firm to reduce this risk. If you are hiring someone because they claim they are experts and can do the work better, cheaper, and/or quicker than your own staff, it seems reasonable that they should be willing to shoulder some of the risks.
In a fixed-price contract, the vendor providing the service will make a binding commitment that (for example): “We will get the software completely written in nine months for $3 million”. Penalties may be enforced if the software is late, and it is up to the vendor to control development costs. If the vendor does not understand the work correctly, they may lose money on the deal.
Reconciling Agile with fixed-price contracting approaches has been a challenging topic [Opelt et al. 2013]. The desire for control over a contractual relationship is historically one of the major drivers of waterfall approaches. However, since requirements cannot be fully known in advance, this is problematic.
When a contract is signed based on waterfall assumptions, the project management process of change control is typically used to govern any alterations to the scope of the effort. Each change order typically implies some increase in cost to the customer. Because of this, the perceived risk mitigation of a fixed-price contract may become a false premise.
This problem has been understood for some time. Andreas Opelt states: “For Agile IT projects it is, therefore, necessary to find an agreement that supports the balance between a fixed budget (maximum price range) and Agile development (scope not yet defined in detail)” [Opelt et al. 2013].
How is this done? Opelt et al. further argue that the essential question revolves around the project “Iron Triangle”:
The approach they recommend is determining which of these elements is the “fixed point” and which is estimated. In traditional waterfall projects, the scope is fixed, while costs and deadline must be estimated (a problematic approach when product development is required).
In the view of Opelt et al., in Agile contracting, costs and deadlines are fixed, while the scope is “estimated”, or understood to have some inevitable variability: “… you are never exactly aware of what details will be needed at the start of a project. On the other hand, you do not always need everything that had originally been considered to be important” [Opelt et al. 2013].
Their recommended approach supports the following benefits:
Simplified adaptation to change
Non-punitive changes in scope
Reduced knowledge decay (large “batches” of requirements degrade in value over time)
This is achieved through:
Defining the contract at the level of product or project vision (epics or high-level stories; see discussion of Scrum) – not detailed specification
Developing high-level estimation
Establishing agreement for sharing the risk of product development variability
This last point, which Opelt et al. term “riskshare”, is key. If the schedule or cost expand beyond the initial estimate, both the supplier and the customer pay according to some agreed %, which they recommend be between 30%-70%. If the supplier proportion is too low, the contract essentially becomes time and materials. If the customer proportion is too low, the contract starts to resemble traditional fixed-price.
Incremental checkpoints are also essential; for example, the supplier/customer interactions should be high bandwidth for the first few sprints, while culture and expectations are being established and the project is developing a rhythm.
Finally, the ability for either party to exit gracefully and with a minimum penalty is needed. If the initiative is testing market response (aka Lean Startup) and the product hypothesis is falsified, there is little point in continuing the work from the customer’s point of view. And, if the product vision turns out to be far more work than either party estimated, the supplier should be able to walk away (or at least insist on comprehensive re-negotiation).
These ideas are a departure from traditional contract management. As Opelt et al. ask: “How can you sign a contract from which one party can exit at any time?”. Recall, however, that (if Agile principles are applied) the customer is receiving working software continuously through the engagement (e.g., after every sprint).
In conclusion, as Arbogast et al. argue: “Contracts that promote or mandate sequential lifecycle development increase project risk - an Agile approach … reduces risk because it limits both the scope of the deliverable and extent of the payment [and] allows for inevitable change” [Arbogast et al. 2012].
Evidence of Notability
Sourcing, and outsourcing, have long been key topics in digital and IT management. The option to allocate some level of responsibility to external parties in exchange for compensation has been an aspect of digital management since the first computers became available.
The decision to outsource some or all of an IT organization to a third party is often cast in terms of “it’s not our core competency”. However, Digital Transformation is resulting in some companies changing their minds and bringing digital systems development and operation back in-house, as a key business competency.