As analysts, we are constantly pressured into creating ranking and ratings charts - determining the fate of who belongs in the upper-right "quadrant" versus the unfortunate souls who end up falling into the lower left. The assumption is that size/scale/mass is better, making for a better ranking/rating.
But truly, at the end of the day, does size really matter?
Yes, there is something to be said about size - high market share, large # of employees, wide range of capabilities and industry depth, long tenure, etc. - which pushes the "been there, done that" bar that much higher.
But I say, no. At the end of the day, although size is definitely something that's taken into consideration significantly, what really matters most in FAO relationships is the trust, communication, cultural feel and attention that is felt by all involved parties. FAO is a service, not a product, business. What may look like the best, in the upper right, may just not feel right for you, as a buyer. And what's in the lower left at the bottom, may suit you absolutely perfectly.
Please take a few minutes to read the short article below brought to my attention today by Helen Ricardo, a leading consultant in London from global sourcing advisory firm Alsbridge and big supporter of this blog. This little thought piece by her colleague, John Sheridan, indicates exactly what people should focus on - supplier and buyers alike - as related to selecting the right match in a services firm. I agree fully.
Download 61808_alsbridge_just_one_of_the_little_guys.pdf
Case in point yet again, as the FAO market matures and becomes more and more competitive. Be careful of market statistics, rankings and even opinions...we know best what matters most to suit our individual needs. Indeed, size has many, many benefits, but it's not always the clincher.
Comments