The picture becomes somewhat clearer when considering average client movements. The average participant growth was just 2.33% for the major providers, with a large standard deviation of 8.65%. One way to frame this is to consider the co-efficient of variation (just the standard deviation divided by the average). The CoVar, in this case, was 2.69, or in other words, the variance was over two times the average growth.

This is a startling finding because it means that there are considerable differences in how the larger providers perform, which suggests a substantially different perception in the market about their products. This indicates real differences in how services are delivered and marketed and that customers are exerting the choice the NDIS promised. It also reflects the perspective of our customer base, that building genuinely differentiated products makes a real difference to your organisation.

The most curious finding (we’ve saved it to the end) is that the rest of the sector (excluding these providers) grew by 10.89% in average participants. This is the first evidence of what we have long suspected. Customers are making real choices about where they live. The fact that major providers, on average, underperformed the rest of the market is a tell-tale sign that people are making real judgements about SIL, and it is no longer considered a simple commodity where the person with the most placements win.

How is it possible that the largest, most recognisable brands in the NDIS space grew at a slower pace than the rest of the sector? Our view is that many large providers are likely still focusing on merging and reconfiguring their state transfers which accounted for massive growth in 2020. It is also possible that major providers are compelled to offer generalised SIL services that are unable to edge out specific offerings that target the precise needs and wants of specific market subsegments.

We have also seen that some customers have large provider fatigue. In a previous article, we described one of our customers whose Managing Director is committed to individually reviewing the progress of each of his customers, monthly, on a face-to-face basis. Our view is that this goes some way to address customers’ concerns about safety, consistency, and their importance to the organisation. These views are reflected in the Royal Commission, where the impossibility of executive staff knowing each customer was highlighted.

We also see that the larger organisations have a much more difficult time standardising their culture and way of working across such large portfolios. Given that humans are notorious for negativity bias, the reputational impacts of rogue cultures are far more likely to propagate than positive outcomes.

As it turns out, larger providers may have been playing at a disadvantage, which is reflected in their growth performance. While some providers managed to maintain their growth trajectory, it is becoming apparent that simply being large isn’t a competitive advantage in the eyes of the customers.

What can you do?

These results validate the suspicion that you will be rewarded if you offer outstanding value to your customers. There is no escaping that SIL services depend on extensive trust between providers and customers, and trust is difficult to impose by fiat. However, real value is likely being generated when the organisation’s leaders are involved in product delivery from a customer perspective. We know that it is crucial from the support worker’s perspective. Once you know your product is the best in its segment, the next critical step is to consider how your leadership builds trust with customers and how your staff consistently deliver an outstanding, differentiated product. Indeed, with some excitement and trepidation, I write these words, we are entering the time of real customer choice.