Too many competing priorities. 1/ No vision. There is no differentiated service or offering at TechM. The company ends up chasing anything that is in vogue. ex: SoA, Web3.0, digital, immersive tech, 5G and now AI etc. They re-org every 6 months around these 'in vogue' techs. They hire leaders and when these techs don't take off (obviously because there is never an investment made into developing IPs etc outside of hiring leaders. All you will see is a bunch of white papers), 2/Every team (delivery, sales, domains) has a growth and margin target. So a pricing approval has to go through multiple approvals (including finance obviously). So if sales wants to win a strategic deal based on aggressive pricing or availability of key resources at onsite (since there is no IP or differentiated capability to sell) , delivery team stalls the pricing / hiring approval because they don't like the margins and then you have to escalate to the CeO for approvals. Basically, you will spend a lot of time managing internal stake holders than spending time focusing on the customer 3/ Eventually when the growth stalls (no differentiation or product vision, need for high margins on every deal, multiple internal stake holders, More of sales and delivery folks but architects are almost non-existent. 3/ You want to win in service tech industry. Hire domain experts in the industry as well as tech architects. Both come at a price. Tech M doesn't spend money on this talent. Even if they hire them, they will hire such talent far removed from onsite location. You needs them in London, your architect or industry SME will be hired in Bangalore or Chennai. 4/For all the above reasons, if your Business Unit growth YoY ends up being say between 15-20% (not for the lack of winning deals but because of the companies inability to hire/staff key roles for an engagement), the company brings in another leader and the ring-around-the-roses circus starts all over again.
