• Research News

    by Published on 18th August 2013 04:40 PM
    1. Categories:
    2. Research News

    Executive Summary

    This report summarizes the results of a major survey carried out by the National Outsourcing Association and Kingston Business School, on the impact of both national and organizational culture on outsourcing contracts. The survey results were supported by a series of interviews exploring the issues in relationship management which are also summarized in this report. Clients, Suppliers and Independent Consultants were included from both public and private sector organizations with over 100 managers taking part in the survey.
    The results demonstrate the complexity of evaluating a concept such as culture for all concerned, although a significant number of respondents do try to assess culture when negotiating contracts. In this study clients voted ‘service’ as the most important element of culture and this was reinforced by the interviews where slow decision making, misunderstandings and aggressive behaviors were cited as evidence of poor service orientation linked to cultural differences.

    Culture was assessed in the survey by comparison of self and partner across nine dimensions, including service, attention to detail, innovation and focus on end results. Clients and suppliers tended to rate themselves higher than their partners on most of the elements assessed, in particular innovation. Suppliers rated clients as more aggressive, a statistic supported by the qualitative interview findings where ‘bullying’ was a clear issue. There were differences in all responses between those who classed their outsourcing as a success and those who did not, but in particular communications and relationships were viewed as more problematic, and they were less likely to report that their partner had prepared staff for cultural differences.

    Over 75% of respondents stated that they would take more account of culture next time, rising to over 80% for those involved in off-shoring, indicating the importance of national as well as organizational differences. However it is also clear that some differences in culture are beneficial, and that it is critical to assess which cultural elements are important in what circumstances. An important outcome from best practice advice is that organizations need to assess their own culture and requirements as well as that of their partner, looking for potential matches or clashes. Holding cultural workshops, having metrics for communication and clear service expectations were also high on the list of ‘must do’ priorities. The overall conclusion is that a crucial aspect of successful outsourcing - service orientation - is impacted by perceptions of staff attitudes and behaviors, and that further work on development of a service quality measurement is needed. This report also includes a range of excellent best practice advice from leading experts and practitioners in the field.




    A full copy of the report is available here:
    by Published on 29th July 2013 08:57 AM
    1. Categories:
    2. Research News,
    3. Article,
    4. Practice Management

    How to start off a successful outsource project

    1.0 Know what you want

    There must be clear scoping of the demand and what is being put to the market. The objectives for the outsourcing must be consistent and reasonable – cost reduction, as an aim together with increase service may be inconsistent. Sign off internally why you are doing this and agree what is driving the whole process – this is important from the vendors perspective as well. If the vendor knows that cost reduction or technology refresh are key objectives the response can be tailored to your precise needs. Furthermore, objectives can change over time and the original case for an Outsource can be undermined by events. Revisiting the rationale you agreed internally is an important task during the process – don’t be driven by the running train take a time out to check you still need to do this.

    2.0 Put in place a clear process.

    Decide whether you are asking for a sole source versus competitive bid from the market. Sole sourcing is usually suggested (particularly by the vendor) if there is a history with the supplier and there is a time constraint – but there are significant negatives. Loss of leverage, not being able to compare alternatives, less aggressive pricing to name but three – and a sole source could have high impacts such as the legitimacy of the deal. Last but not least, the process may actually take longer as there is no time pressure that comes from a competitive environment.

    In a competitive bid position cost savings have a better chance of being realised and new suppliers can come with more innovative proposals than the in-house incumbent – at least in principle. The process can actually be quicker as the client can drive the competitive process – by a strict time based approach to the process for example. But on the other hand competitive bidding is more resource intensive, for the supplier as well as the client, so make sure you resource well.

    Be precise, not prescriptive, comprehensive but concise in the layout – focus on key objectives. We need the ‘what’ not the how – avoid laying down all sorts of preconditions about how the service is to be delivered – that’s the suppliers job in the proposal. I have seen in several RFP’ s detailed specifications of what packages to use and how precisely the service is to be delivered – effectively closing off all innovative solutions that may have been available from the vendor. Also specific demands will drive up the cost – the vendor may be able to offer off-the-shelf solutions that will work just as well as your specific demands but at very favourable rates.

    A request for informartion (RFI) is a high-level document inviting a general response and can be used as a test for possible solutions and to pre-select candidates for the bid. Usually there is no bid price given by the suppliers – nor should we expect too much detail here. An request for proposal (RFP) invites a formal response and takes longer for the vendor and the customer to evaluate. In a large bid this cost can come to millions of dollars so make sure before you issue a RFP you really mean to go ahead. Ensure you are being realistic in your demands and take care that the quality and clarity in the RFP promotes conformance in the proposals received.

    3.0 Manage the Communication Channels

    In negotiation avoid shortcuts and set specific goals – and ensure they are delivered. Evaluate, clarify and frame negotiations to keep competition alive. Document all discussions and carry out frequent self-assessment. Use a term sheet as this helps drive and track the discussion and allows apples to apples comparison – over time the term sheet can evolve into a contract so it is well worth the effort to create one.

    Manage the up and down communication channels carefully. Make sure no seniors speak to vendors and control vendor access to senior management carefully. Some vendors are good at getting around the formal process to the senior management and exploiting this access to short-circuit the tender process. We all know of ‘golf course’ deals that cut through a bid process and enable vendors to return to the customer team informing them they ‘know’ the requirements of senior management. Most golf course deals end in disaster so should be avoided like the plague.

    Keep talking to vendors and meet frequently to discuss the proposals – the more open and interactive the better the eventual outcome will be.

    4.0 Cover the Details

    First of all vendors to this for a living – often the vendor sales team have been doing this for years and when this is done will move onto the next. The customer side on the other hand may have not done this before or at least the team carrying out the supplier proposal evaluation may be completely new compared to the last time the outsource process was done. Also some of the customer team will have a day job to contend with – don’t forget this (or holidays etc.) and plan capacities well. Plan well, resource well and set realistic time scales – time pressure can act in the vendor’s favour and allow skipping of important details.

    Never let issues that should be solved at negotiation drift into ‘we will solve this later’ discussions. They never are and these can be a source of major conflict later. A trade union official some time ago told me: ‘It is better for the negotiation to break down rather than the agreement’. All-important details must be cleared before signing a contract.

    Partnership rhetoric will appear at some stage in the discussions from the vendor side. Partnership usually means giving all the risks to the vendor from the customer side or closing out competition from the vendor side (sole sourcing). Partnership can be invoked to get over tricky points and put them off until later stages or to close out competition. Partnership should be based on performance and strict business principles not waffle. I know it is often said we can handle the things we forgot later in a change process – I have personally never found this to be free of major problems and cost – so beware of this.

    Final point maximum gain minimum vendor pain during the proposal stage – and remember to ask yourself what you are looking for from outsourcing until you know what it is!

    REM