Biomedical subjects

Diana Farrell

Publications and source records attributed to Diana Farrell.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Smarter offshoring.

During the past 15 years, companies have flocked to a handful of cities in India and Eastern Europe for offshore service functions. As a result, the most popular sites are now overheating: Demand for young professionals is outstripping supply, wages and turnover are soaring, and overburdened infrastructure systems are struggling to serve the explosive growth. The happy news is that the tight labor markets in the well-known hot spots are the exceptions, not the rule. Many attractive alternatives are emerging around the world. According to a McKinsey Global Institute study, more than 90% of the vast and rapidly growing pool of university-educated people suitable for work in multinationals are located outside the current hot spot cities. For instance, Morocco is now home to offshore centers for French and Spanish companies requiring fluent speakers of their home languages. Neighboring Tunisia has used its modern infrastructure, business-friendly regulations, and stable, low-cost workforce to attract companies such as Siemens and Wanadoo. Vietnam offers university graduates who have strong mathematics skills; speak French, English, German, or Russian; and do not demand high wages. The problems facing the hot spots, coupled with the emergence of many more countries able and willing to provide offshore services, mean that picking a site has become more complicated. In choosing a location, companies will have to focus less on low wages and much more on other ways that candidate cities can fulfill their business needs. They will have to be much more rigorous in articulating precisely what they require from an offshore location. That means evaluating their unique needs on a range of dimensions and understanding how alternative locations can meet those needs for the foreseeable future.

Commerce↗

PubMed2004

Beyond offshoring: assess your company's global potential.

In the past few years, companies have become aware that they can slash costs by offshoring: moving jobs to lower-wage locations. But this practice is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how globalization can transform industries, according to research by the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI). The institute's yearlong study suggests that by streamlining their production processes and supply chains globally, rather than just nationally or regionally, companies can lower their costs-as we've seen in the consumer-electronics and PC industries. Companies can save as much as 70% of their total costs through globalization--50% from offshoring, 5% from training and business-task redesign, and 15% from process improvements. But they don't have to stop there. The cost reductions make it possible to lower prices and expand into new markets, attracting whole new classes of customers. To date, however, few businesses have recognized the full scope of performance improvements that globalization makes possible, much less developed sound strategies for capturing those opportunities. In this article, Diana Farrell, director of MGI, offers a step-by-step approach to doing both things. Among her suggestions: Assess where your industry falls along the globalization spectrum, because not all sectors of the economy face the same challenges and opportunities at the same time. Also, pay attention to production, regulatory, and organizational barriers to globalization. If any of these can be changed, size up the cost-saving (and revenue-generating) opportunities that will emerge for your company as a result of those changes. Farrell also defines the five stages of globalization-market entry, product specialization, value chain disaggregation, value chain reengineering, and the creation of new markets-and notes the different levers for cutting costs and creating value that companies can use in each phase.

Commerce↗

PubMed2003

The real new economy.

During the soar-and-swoon days of the late 1990s, many people believed that information technology, and the Internet in particular, were "changing everything" in business. A fundamental change did happen in the 1990s, but it was less about technology than about competition. Under director Diana Farrell, the McKinsey Global Institute has conducted an extensive study of productivity and its connection to corporate IT spending and use during that period. The study revealed that information technology is important--but not central--to the fate of industries and individual companies. So if information technology was not the primary factor in the productivity surge, what was? The study points to competition and innovation. In those industries that saw increases in competitive intensity, managers were forced to innovate aggressively to protect their revenues and profits. Those innovations--in products, business practices, and technology--led to the gains in productivity. In fact, a critical dynamic of the new economy--the real new economy--is the virtuous cycle of competition, innovation, and productivity growth. Managers can innovate in many ways, but during the 1990s, information technology was a particularly powerful tool, for three reasons: First, IT enabled the development of attractive new products and efficient new business processes. Second, it facilitated the rapid industrywide diffusion of innovations. And third, it exhibited strong scale economies--its benefits multiplied rapidly as its use expanded. This article reveals surprising data on how various industries in the United States and Europe were affected by competition, innovation, and information technology in the 1990s and offers insights about how managers can get more from their IT investments.

Commerce↗