TIP’s approach to capability transfer
An external session can produce a good experience without creating the ability to repeat it. TIP’s intended handover is different in its ambition: customers develop people who can apply the approach in real work and help colleagues do the same.
The assumption worth revisiting.
If nobody has time to practise, adapt and teach, the organisation may keep buying the same starting point. AI can support reuse, but it does not by itself supply facilitation, judgement or the conditions in which colleagues will ask difficult questions.
Who can lead the next useful application without the supplier in the room?
Give the capacity a purpose.
Reserve time for internal practitioners to lead real work and share what they learn. Decide where continuing external challenge adds value as the capability grows.
How this fits the capacity allocation →
Use AI to challenge your first interpretation
Help me explore this question: Who can lead the next useful application without the supplier in the room? Identify the assumptions in our current approach. Offer alternative explanations, including one that challenges our preferred answer. Separate hypotheses from evidence and suggest what we should ask the people affected.
Treat the answers as possibilities to test with people and evidence.
Go deeper into the evidence.
UK Government Commercial Agency / Government Commercial Function · Official decision framework
The framework compares internal, purchased and mixed delivery using whole-life costs, capability, risks and outcomes.
Public-sector guidance, not evidence that insourcing saves money or a general legal requirement for private companies. Applying the method here is TIP’s interpretation.
Klarna Group plc · Company annual filing; company-reported attribution
Klarna reports a $7m Q1 2024 reduction in external marketing-supplier spending versus Q1 2023 and attributes 37% of that decrease to AI. Named services include translation, production, CRM and social agencies. The filing also describes workforce reduction alongside AI efficiency, cost optimisation and normal-course employee attrition.
Management attribution, not an experiment. Supplier reduction is not proof every service moved in-house. The filing does not establish that every leaver went unreplaced, that there were no layoffs, or that all workforce changes were caused by AI.
podcast
Agentic AI and the future of global business services
McKinsey · McKinsey Talks Operations
A useful prompt to reconsider the boundary of shared services: which decisions and activities could move closer to internal operating knowledge?
Listen or watch for: Would moving more work inside improve the complete process, or simply move a bottleneck?
About this resource
Consultancy examples and forecasts. The episode does not establish that insourcing is always cheaper or that predicted headcount reductions will occur.
Turn the question around.
Your customer’s insourcing opportunity could change your own business model. Explore which part of your offer they could own, and the value they would still want from you.
Explore the commercial risk →How TIP applies this to itself →