 |
|
Alternative Business Models for Global Sourcing |
 |
|
Center shared by multiple clients |
|
Multiple owners |
|
May turn internal cost center into profitable enterprise |
|
| IMPLICATIONS |
 |
More complex to set up |
|
Moderate investment |
|
Opportunity to share reward |
|
Local knowledge of the JV partner helpful |
|
|
|
Wholly-owned center |
|
Proprietary processes and equipment |
|
Established by the corporation |
|
| IMPLICATIONS |
|
Highest investment |
|
High management commitment |
|
Potentially high risk if no local knowledge |
|
Potential to in-source |
|
|
|
Dedicated staff, equipment and facilities |
|
Long-term contract with some risk sharing |
|
Shared processes |
|
| IMPLICATIONS |
|
Requires robust vendor management |
|
Heavy management focus on the multi-vendor model |
|
Opportunity to employ best of breed providers |
|
|
|
Wholly owned center |
|
Established by Mu Sigma and transferred to the company |
|
Short-term contract |
|
| IMPLICATIONS |
|
Helpful when a firm wants to retain control but lacks local knowledge |
|
Also appropriate when vendors lack domain experience |
|
Opportunity to realize value as a “captive” facility |
|
|
