It has been over 5 years since the national rollout of the NDIS, so why do most NDIS offerings feel identical? Empathia Group reviewed 5 supported independent living offers to understand how providers differentiate themselves in the market and what we found wasn’t encouraging.

All 5 providers mentioned that they provide the basic SIL offering, including support for cooking, cleaning and access to the community. One provider directly mentions person-centredness, with a further two providers mentioning direct involvement in decision making. For Empathia Group, this is akin to attempting to sell a car by noting that it has wheels and seat belts. The facts are that many providers have failed to innovate, and sector-wide stagnation has forced many people living with a disability to choose among basic offers.

Many providers will be quick to point out, “but we provide quality services”, but we’re yet to see a convincing case where a provider can definitively demonstrate that their service quality or outcomes are superior to the sector average. We don’t even have agreed metrics for a sector average. Given that we have evaluation metrics to ensure we get the best deal in nearly all other markets, why has the SIL sector failed?

We know it is possible to innovate and differentiate in the disability space. HireUp has developed a genuinely differentiated strategy that focuses on customer self-management and a lean and automated operating model. They have channelled these savings in lower costs and higher wages, admittedly at the expense of worse employee stability. The critical thing to note is that HireUp has made real tradeoffs to appeal to its market segment differentially. For a customer that is seeking value and can self manage, HireUp has a real edge that can scale. Where are these deliberate trade-offs for crucial segments in SIL?

One strong argument is that there is no ability to make trade-offs in SIL. All providers are beholden to the cost model, safeguarding requirements and a limited asset pool. However, we are seeing the beginnings of differentiation and deliberate strategy in some segments of SIL. For example, one provider we have engaged has developed a specialised offering for the CALD community. By minimising some of their overhead, they have channelled their resources into developing genuine culturally sensitive offerings. This is coupled with deliberate marketing in CALD specific markets and direct campaigns. As a result, this organisation has created a unique value for SIL customers with a CALD background by eschewing the mass market.

Another strategy we have observed is a deliberate segmentation strategy based on the needs of the individual. For example, an organisation we have worked with has developed a psycho-social disability offering that is gaining traction. Rather than standardised training and induction offerings, this program focuses heavily on the recovery framework and provides specific training on re-integrating people in the community. It is impossible to provide this level of depth of training for all needs, so by making this trade-off this organisation has gained a natural edge in the market that is difficult to compete with. Further, this organisation focuses strongly on psychological backgrounds for key staff, so effective responses are the default. However, as with all trade-offs, they have lost some competitiveness in the broader market. This organisation couldn’t be happier with the result.

Real differentiation will be necessary as our sector becomes more competitive to gain a foothold and deliver genuine “quality services”. We believe that providers can make trade-offs in SIL that make a tangible impact on their growth and service quality. If you would like to learn more about Empathia Group’s product strategy or are interested in working with us, please drop us a line at [email protected]