Version 1.0 of the eSCM for Service Providers was released in November 2001 [Hyder 2001a,
Hyder 2001b]. Version 1.0 used the name eServices Capability Model. It contained 100 Practices,
organized into five organizational elements (Organizational Management, People, Business
Operations, Technology, and Knowledge Management), four components of the sourcing life-cycle
(Precontract, Contract Execution, Postcontract, and Overall) and five Capability Levels.
Version 1.1 was released in October 2002 [Hyder 2002], with 93 Practices. The name was changed to
the eSourcing Capability Model for IT-enabled Service Providers. The first certification against the
eSCM-SP was awarded in October 2003 to LG CNS LG*Net, Network Service Center, in Seoul, Korea.
Version 2 was released in April 2004 [Hyder 2004a, Hyder 2004b], with 84 Practices. The name
had evolved to its current form: the eSourcing Capability Model for Service Providers. The names
of the sourcing life-cycle components were changed to Initiation, Delivery, Completion, and Ongoing. Since different service providers may follow different business models, and contracts may
be signed at varying points in the life-cycle, describing various Practices as pre- or post-contract
could be inaccurate, therefore this change was made to support different ways of designing and
marketing services. The organizational elements were replaced by the ten Capability Areas. The
Capability Areas were observed to be a more natural organization of the Practices that supported
understanding, training, and adoption better than the organizational elements. The Capability
Levels remained essentially unchanged.
Version 2.01 was released in December 2006 [Hyder 2006a, Hyder 2006b]. It made some minor
corrections to the Model (e.g., typographical errors). The updates mainly reflected changes to the
methods for using the eSCM-SP and to graphics used in describing the Model and related material.
Version 2.02 is the official version number for the eSCM-SP as contained in the 2009 book. Unlike
earlier versions of the Model, the Required Activities in Major Activities “a” and “c” are not
explicitly stated for every Practice since they add little information to the templates described
earlier in the book. In those cases where supplemental information was provided for specific
Required Activities, it is retained in version 2.02; otherwise the redundant information was left
out, although the “a” and “c” Required Activities are used in Capability Determinations. For all
practical purposes, versions 2.0, 2.01, and 2.02 can be considered identical as far as the Practices
in the Model are concerned, although the information surrounding the Practices, such as the
descriptions of the Capability Determination methods and the comparisons to other improvement
frameworks have been updated.