Offshore : la Tunisie rêve d'un nouveau départ
Débarrassés de Ben Ali, les informaticiens tunisiens entendent faire de leur pays un champion du nearshore francophone. Des observateurs étrangers pointent, eux, le risque géopolitique.
Jeudi 20 janvier 2011
Off-shore : les leçons à retenir de la crise tunisienne
A l'occasion de la crise tunisienne, Jean-Paul Binot, président de la commission Global Sourcing de l'EOA (European Outsourcing Association France), revient sur les risques inhérents à l'outsourcing et sur les bonnes pratiques à avoir.
Mardi 18 janvier 2011
Vers une reprise sur le front de l'externalisation IT en France
La période 2009/2010 marque le début d'une transition sur le marché de l'externalisation informatique. Si le marché reste en croissance, la dynamique est loin d'être ce qu'elle a été au cours des années antérieures. La pluri-annualité des contrats et le foisonnement auront permis à ce marché de garder le cap malgré les phases d'avant-vente languissantes et peu de nouvelles signatures.
Mercredi 22 décembre 2010
Dossier Gartner II (3e partie)
La course folle de-l'externalisation : jusqu'où-vous emmènera-t-elle ?
Après avoir examiné dans un premier chapitre les dix forces majeures qui sont en train de remodeler l'avenir des services informatiques et du marché de l'externalisation, ce second chapitre examine les nouvelles normes de l'externalisation qui seront nécessaires pour garantir le succès à l'avenir. Après l’externalisation classique et l’externalisation allégée en ressources, cette troisième partie aborde l’externalisation pilotée par les services.
Lire la suite...
Mardi 21 décembre 2010
Dossier Gartner II (2e partie)
La course folle de-l'externalisation : jusqu'où-vous emmènera-t-elle ?
Après avoir examiné dans un premier chapitre les dix forces majeures qui sont en train de remodeler l'avenir des services informatiques et du marché de l'externalisation, ce second chapitre examine les nouvelles normes de l'externalisation qui seront nécessaires pour garantir le succès à l'avenir. La première partie a présenté l’externalisation classique, cette deuxième examine l’externalisation allégée en ressources.
Lire la suite...
Lundi 20 décembre 2010Dossier Gartner II (1ère partie)
La course folle de l'externalisation : jusqu'où-vous emmènera-t-elle ?
Après avoir examiné dans un premier chapitre les dix forces majeures qui sont en train de remodeler l'avenir des services informatiques et du marché de l'externalisation, ce second chapitre examine les nouvelles normes de l'externalisation qui seront nécessaires pour garantir le succès à l'avenir.
Lire la suite...
Vendredi 17 décembre 201061% du marché européen de l'externalisation concerne l'informatique
Sur un marché mondial proche des 94 milliards de dollars en 2009, le marché européen de l'externalisation en capte plus du tiers. Les prestations IT dépassent largement le BPO.
Vendredi 10 décembre 2010
Le livre blanc de l'EOA
La gestion des données personnelles dans les projets offshore
Les membres de l’EOA France (European Outsourcing Association) rapportent leurs connaissances et leurs expériences de l’externalisation dans un livre blanc dédié à la gestion des données personnelles dans les projets d’externalisation offshore.
Lire la suite...
Jeudi 9 décembre 2010
Un guide pour anticiper les risques liés à l'externalisation
L’Anssi (Agence nationale de la sécurité des systèmes d'information) met à disposition aujourd'hui un guide destiné à accompagner les entreprises dans leurs démarches d’externalisation. Disponible en ligne et librement réutilisable, ce document a vocation à poser les grands principes de ce service très en vogue.
Lire la suite...
Lundi 6 décembre 2010
Les multiples écueils de l’offshore et du nearshore
Par Guy Rimo, consultant principal chez Compass
Contrairement aux pays anglo-saxons, la France, en est au démarrage du processus de délocalisation de ses activités et de nombreux problèmes doivent être réglés avant de voir l’offshore ou le nearshore s’imposer plus largement.
Lire la suite...
Jeudi 25 novembre2010
Dossier Gartner (dernière partie)
La course folle de-l'externalisation : jusqu'où-vous emmènera-t-elle ?
Cet article détaille ces forces et explique ce que les acheteurs et-prestataires de services doivent savoir et doivent internaliser pour répondre à-ces forces. Plus précisément, il Gartner examine dix forces majeures qui sont en train de-remodeler activement l'avenir des services informatiques et du marché de-l'externalisation. Cette dernière partie aborde les questions d’hyperconcurrence, de chaînes de valeur des services métiers et d’hyperverticalisation.
Lire la suite...
Mercredi 24 novembre2010
Dossier Gartner (2e partie):
La course folle de-l'externalisation : jusqu'où-vous emmènera-t-elle ?
Cet article détaille ces forces et explique ce que les acheteurs et-prestataires de services doivent savoir et doivent internaliser pour répondre à-ces forces. Plus précisément, il Gartner examine dix forces majeures qui sont en train de-remodeler activement l'avenir des services informatiques et du marché de-l'externalisation. La mondialisation, La consumérisation et le cloud computing sont abordés dans cette deuxième partie.
Lire la suite...
Lundi 22 Novembre 2010
L'off-shore est toujours une opportunité pour l'Europe
Une étude du cabinet américain Everest Group dresse les grandes tendances (favorables) de l'off-shore en Europe. A la demande de l'office égyptien de promotion de l'off-shore au pays des pharaons, le cabinet Everest Group a publié une étude sur le marché de l'off-shore en Europe. Selon celle-ci, l'Europe devrait rejoindre à terme les Etats-Unis sur l'externalisation, même si les différences sont importantes entre pays.Lire la suite...
jeudi 4 novembre 2010
7,1% des dépenses IT consacrées à l'externalisation en 2010
La part des dépenses consacrées par les entreprises à l'externalisation dans les dépenses IT globales a progressé d'un point par rapport à 2009. La crise a cependant freiné la dynamique observée depuis 2008.
Les prestations et services dans le domaine de l'externalisation informatique (infogérance applicative et d'infrastructures matérielles, BPO et Tierce Maintenance Applicative en tête) montent en puissance depuis le début des années 2000. Aujourd'hui, la part des dépenses qui leur sont consacrées atteint 7,1% des dépenses totales IT des entreprises dans le monde. Bien qu'en progression d'un point par rapport à l'année dernière, le rythme de progression de la part des dépenses IT consacrées à l'externalisation est plus faible qu'entre 2008 et 2009 où elle a progressé de 2,3 points. Une baisse qui s'explique en grande partie par la crise et la réduction de tous les budgets IT, y compris les dépenses consacrées à l'externalisation pourtant génératrices de baisse des coûts.
Source: Dominique FILIPPONE, Journal du Netmercredi 8 septembre 2010
Externalisation : le nearshore vole la vedette à l'offshore
Les pratiques d'externalisation sont désormais monnaie courante au sein des entreprises. Pour autant, le choix de l'offshore se fait avec parcimonie, en fonction de la qualité souhaitée.
Lire la Suite...
mercredi 25 août 2010
L’Afrique : Nouvel eden pour la délocalisation informatique
Une étude réalisée par AT Kearney montre que 7 pays africains figurent parmi les 50 meilleures destinations mondiales pour la délocalisation des services informatiques, également appelée offshoring. Égypte, Tunisie, Maroc et Sénégal sont parmi les destinations privilégiées par les entreprises occidentales.
Voir la suite...
lundi 16 août 2010
Outsourcing: Quelques vérifications avant de s’y mettre…
Partie 3/3:
- Most contractual considerations are taken care of by the lawyers, but it is important to be aware of these items.
For example, make sure Non-Disclosure Agreements are in-place; define who has the final say in whether an asset delivered meets the requirements of the work; what happens when one side fails to meet their obligations; what are the terms of payment, and so on.
- The work specification, generally provided by the developer, is the blueprint, recipe, and wish-list for the assets to be provided. The depth and clarity of the Spec are the primary resources for the outsourcer; write a quick and sloppy Spec, and you'll almost certainly get the same result back.
Descriptions, annotations, and examples will be a boon for the person on the other end implementing your Spec. Don't assume the outsourcer "knows" a certain model has a polygon budget of X, because it's to be implemented in Area Y. Quantify whenever possible.
- Documentation, in this case, primarily falls into the arena of asset tracking. Spec delivered? Check. First Pass asset delivered? Check. First Pass Feedback delivered to Outsourcer? Check. And so on. This document should be organic, and shared by developer and outsourcer, in order to provide total transparency. Any red flags are then obvious to both parties.
- Developers live and die by milestones, so it is important to set up a milestone delivery schedule that works well for both parties. The developer almost certainly is already working off of a pre-existing milestone schedule, so integrating the outsourcing into that schedule, and by extension, the development pipeline, is paramount.
A code/asset drop from an outsourcer two days before a developer milestone is due just won't work. Provide ample, and realistic, time to integrate assets into the game, especially for the first for the first few deliverables from the outsourcer.
The devil is in the details. With all of the above, there are still a staggering number of minor items that will come up. Manage expectations, prepare documentation, foster good communications, and frequently revisit your assumptions. Nothing ever goes as planned, including the plans themselves.
Outsourcing: Quelques vérifications avant de s’y mettre…
Partie 2/3:
- Where will the actual outsource work be performed? Onsite is optimal, but rare, and often expensive even if it possible. Be aware that even if you are lucky enough to secure outsource workers on-site, unless the development team is on-board with the new group, problems can and will arise.
Several times I've worked on projects in which we've moved heaven and earth to get them working at the developer, usually at great cost and inconvenience to all involved, only to later find the dev team largely ignoring them.
Sometimes it's overt, like when the outsource team was forced to work in an unheated conference room in winter. Other times it's more subtle, like the dev team that kept "forgetting" on a daily basis to inform the outsourcers that dinner had arrived during a crunch when all hands were on deck 16+ hours day at the dev studio.
If the team cannot work onsite, see if you can arrange to have the outsourcers on-site for a week or two. This will enable the outsourcers have a "boot camp", if you will, into the processes, pipelines, and personnel that the studio utilizes. At the very least, once everyone has had a chance to put names with faces, it helps communications by orders of magnitude to not see people in either group as just an email address or voice on a conference call.
- If offsite, what is the time zone difference? The farther apart developer and outsourcer are, the more difficult real-time communications become. On the flip side however, if the developer is literally half a world away, the resultant lag can be beneficial, as it provides a 12-hour buffer in which to review the assets; it provides a chance to review the deliverables with more breathing room.
- How will the two groups talk with each other? Does the developer have a point person to coordinate and disseminate the assets internally, as well as supply relevant information and feedback to the developer (best case), or will assets delivered to the already over-worked lead(s) (worst case)?
One project I worked with had an inordinate number of outsourcers required, including on-site, individual contractors as well as over 10 different outsource groups, across all disciplines, working offsite. In the end, it required one dedicated person at the developer, plus several additional people on the publishing side to coordinate and arrange all of the paperwork to process.
It was a herculean task, and one that could have been mitigated with better planning on both sides, as well as a clear understanding from both parties on approval process to greenlight the overall outsource plan.
Furthermore, with so many outsource groups located in India, Russia, and China these days, determine that there is a sufficient quantity of speakers of the desired language (generally English) so that queries and information can be exchanged at a peer-to-peer level for mundane daily issues. Of course, this assumes both groups are comfortable with non-critical conversations occurring outside of the main communication chain.
- Aside from assets and documentation between teams, there needs to be regular conversations via conference call, IM, and if possible, video conferencing. It might seem like a hassle to have the whole team assembled for an hour to answer some questions from the outsourcer, but 30 minutes on the phone is better than exchanging and forwarding a day's worth of emails explaining the same issues. Make this meeting mandatory for all concerned.
- Once the developer and outsourcer have gotten familiar with working with each other, and one cycle of asset delivery has occurred, it is a good idea to sit down with both sides and figure out what worked, and what did not. Identifying and correcting problems or hiccups now is much better than waiting until the project is over to do a post-mortem.
One developer had a fairly good system of tracking each asset in its various stages of completion, which was shared with the outsource team. However, the outsourcers regarded the early stages of work as being more a guidance than a requirement, so when they submitted assets which the outsource team considered to be fairly far along, the assets were rejected because the outsourcers had strayed off-target on the deliverable, as they made some key assumptions that were not in line with what the developer expected.
The original intent of the tracking document was to allow the developer to course correct the outsourcers' work product course in more discrete chunks along the way, and theoretically prevent deliverable expectations to snowball wildly off target. A mid-sprint post-mortem revealed that the developer did not really emphasize the importance of the tracking document, and that the outsourcer failed to see its relevance or importance, and just regarded it as one more piece of paper.
- Don't let the tail wag the dog. Time and again, developers get exasperated with an outsourcer because they begin to think, after answering a blizzard of questions, that it would be quicker and easier if they just did the work themselves. It's a common trap, and oftentimes seems quicker, but it's really only a short-term solution.
Granted, outsourcers may often require a fair amount on bandwidth from the dev team during ramp-up, but if you've done your homework, and have the right team and processes in place, chances are that in two weeks time you'll find that percentage of time you spent hand-holding outsourcers is greatly reduced.
- Past titles they've worked on. Do these types of games closely match your game?
- Types of work they've done on these titles. Almost every outsource shop nowadays has a specialization, so merely getting an "art" outsource may not meet your particular needs.Don't get level artists if you need concept work.
- Quality of the work, and time it will take the outsource group to create it. Create a sample spec document that is representative of the work you need performed. Monitor how long it takes for them to finish the sample and the quality of work. This should provide a ballpark baseline of the quality/tempo of their output.
- The financial state of the outsource organization. Are they agreeing to all terms and conditions because they are on monetary life-support, or because they are just acquiesce to everything because they are so darn accommodating? The last thing you need is to discover the outsourcer closed its doors midway through their task, leaving you high and dry, and in a worse predicament than before.
- The personnel the outsourcer will task to work on your project. It may be great if the company provided stellar assets for a AAA title that sold 5 million units, but if you're getting a different team within the company which had nothing to do with said smash hit, it doesn't help your needs. Make sure any contract you have with this team (see below) identifies by name key personnel who will be involved for the duration of the project.
- Related to the personnel point, above, be aware that many outsource groups utilize subcontractors as well.
- Reputation and word of mouth. Have you worked with this group before or know anyone else who has? Odds are, in this small industry, you can ascertain whether or nor not this outsource group will mesh well with your team, just from experiences you or others have had with them.
- Make sure you sit down with the development team and ascertain what exactly they need. Poll the leads and let them tell you what will work best for them, and make sure they have had the opportunity to vet and approve the outsourcers. Make sure the developer owns the decision to use a particular team. A shotgun marriage just won't work.
- Once you have a decent grasp of all of these points, create an outsource plan that delineates all of the above. Identify all of the pertinent stakeholders, ascertain their needs and areas of interest, and what they require for these needs to be met.
This includes not just the developer and production team, but also those persons who will also be involved, such as Legal and Finance. Clearly show the total cost, payment terms, work product, and schedule for completion. Set concrete time limits for submission of assets, feedback on the assets from the dev team, the named person responsible for supplying feedback and approval, and approval times.
As an example, one developer required that the art lead provide all feedback on assets. Unfortunately, there were no limits on how long the art lead had to provide feedback, and as a result it required constant prodding by several people to get the necessary feedback from the lead. In turn, this wasted precious time on basic housekeeping task that should have been a no-brainer.
- The most important item to remember harks back to 1975, when Frederick Brooks wrote The Mythical Man-Month. In essence, the book shows that adding people to complete a task does not always realize efficiencies of time, as tasks often have to happen in sequence, not in parallel.
The frequently used example to demonstrate this theory is that if it takes one woman nine months to have a baby, then it should take nine women one month to have the same baby. Clearly, this is absurd. In practical terms, it just means that adding more people to complete a task, if the production pipeline calls for one person, usually a discipline lead, as the gatekeeper to moving the process forward, will fail. The lead becomes overwhelmed, no matter how many people are aiding in the work output.
Outsourcing: Quelques vérifications avant de s’y mettre…
Partie 1/3 :
While this may make the people upstairs happy because you are "doing something", it is fraught with danger. A more thorough process that allows you to kick the tires of your potential outsourcers will save you time and headaches in the long run, guaranteed.
lundi 16 août 2010
Outsourcing: Quelques vérifications avant de s’y mettre…
Partie 3/3:
Paperwork AKA Contracts, Specs, Documents, and Milestones
Paperwork is usually the least thrilling part of development, but usually also the most critical. Well-documented work is the only concrete thing everyone can rely on to get the job done right.
There are four main components at play here, all of them equally relevant:
- Most contractual considerations are taken care of by the lawyers, but it is important to be aware of these items.
For example, make sure Non-Disclosure Agreements are in-place; define who has the final say in whether an asset delivered meets the requirements of the work; what happens when one side fails to meet their obligations; what are the terms of payment, and so on.
- The work specification, generally provided by the developer, is the blueprint, recipe, and wish-list for the assets to be provided. The depth and clarity of the Spec are the primary resources for the outsourcer; write a quick and sloppy Spec, and you'll almost certainly get the same result back.
Descriptions, annotations, and examples will be a boon for the person on the other end implementing your Spec. Don't assume the outsourcer "knows" a certain model has a polygon budget of X, because it's to be implemented in Area Y. Quantify whenever possible.
- Documentation, in this case, primarily falls into the arena of asset tracking. Spec delivered? Check. First Pass asset delivered? Check. First Pass Feedback delivered to Outsourcer? Check. And so on. This document should be organic, and shared by developer and outsourcer, in order to provide total transparency. Any red flags are then obvious to both parties.
- Developers live and die by milestones, so it is important to set up a milestone delivery schedule that works well for both parties. The developer almost certainly is already working off of a pre-existing milestone schedule, so integrating the outsourcing into that schedule, and by extension, the development pipeline, is paramount.
A code/asset drop from an outsourcer two days before a developer milestone is due just won't work. Provide ample, and realistic, time to integrate assets into the game, especially for the first for the first few deliverables from the outsourcer.
The devil is in the details. With all of the above, there are still a staggering number of minor items that will come up. Manage expectations, prepare documentation, foster good communications, and frequently revisit your assumptions. Nothing ever goes as planned, including the plans themselves.
Outsourcing: Quelques vérifications avant de s’y mettre…
Partie 2/3:
Communications: Geography and Work Considerations
These two topics are closely intertwined, and will largely define how the developer and outsource group work together on a day-to-day basis. As the outsource group is augmenting the developer, the best idea is to have the outsourcer deliver resources in a manner that benefits the developer's production pipeline. Beyond that, how the two teams collaborate will make a world of difference.
The following are items to be mindful of in this regard:
- Where will the actual outsource work be performed? Onsite is optimal, but rare, and often expensive even if it possible. Be aware that even if you are lucky enough to secure outsource workers on-site, unless the development team is on-board with the new group, problems can and will arise.
Several times I've worked on projects in which we've moved heaven and earth to get them working at the developer, usually at great cost and inconvenience to all involved, only to later find the dev team largely ignoring them.
Sometimes it's overt, like when the outsource team was forced to work in an unheated conference room in winter. Other times it's more subtle, like the dev team that kept "forgetting" on a daily basis to inform the outsourcers that dinner had arrived during a crunch when all hands were on deck 16+ hours day at the dev studio.
If the team cannot work onsite, see if you can arrange to have the outsourcers on-site for a week or two. This will enable the outsourcers have a "boot camp", if you will, into the processes, pipelines, and personnel that the studio utilizes. At the very least, once everyone has had a chance to put names with faces, it helps communications by orders of magnitude to not see people in either group as just an email address or voice on a conference call.
- If offsite, what is the time zone difference? The farther apart developer and outsourcer are, the more difficult real-time communications become. On the flip side however, if the developer is literally half a world away, the resultant lag can be beneficial, as it provides a 12-hour buffer in which to review the assets; it provides a chance to review the deliverables with more breathing room.
- How will the two groups talk with each other? Does the developer have a point person to coordinate and disseminate the assets internally, as well as supply relevant information and feedback to the developer (best case), or will assets delivered to the already over-worked lead(s) (worst case)?
One project I worked with had an inordinate number of outsourcers required, including on-site, individual contractors as well as over 10 different outsource groups, across all disciplines, working offsite. In the end, it required one dedicated person at the developer, plus several additional people on the publishing side to coordinate and arrange all of the paperwork to process.
It was a herculean task, and one that could have been mitigated with better planning on both sides, as well as a clear understanding from both parties on approval process to greenlight the overall outsource plan.
Furthermore, with so many outsource groups located in India, Russia, and China these days, determine that there is a sufficient quantity of speakers of the desired language (generally English) so that queries and information can be exchanged at a peer-to-peer level for mundane daily issues. Of course, this assumes both groups are comfortable with non-critical conversations occurring outside of the main communication chain.
- Aside from assets and documentation between teams, there needs to be regular conversations via conference call, IM, and if possible, video conferencing. It might seem like a hassle to have the whole team assembled for an hour to answer some questions from the outsourcer, but 30 minutes on the phone is better than exchanging and forwarding a day's worth of emails explaining the same issues. Make this meeting mandatory for all concerned.
- Once the developer and outsourcer have gotten familiar with working with each other, and one cycle of asset delivery has occurred, it is a good idea to sit down with both sides and figure out what worked, and what did not. Identifying and correcting problems or hiccups now is much better than waiting until the project is over to do a post-mortem.
One developer had a fairly good system of tracking each asset in its various stages of completion, which was shared with the outsource team. However, the outsourcers regarded the early stages of work as being more a guidance than a requirement, so when they submitted assets which the outsource team considered to be fairly far along, the assets were rejected because the outsourcers had strayed off-target on the deliverable, as they made some key assumptions that were not in line with what the developer expected.
The original intent of the tracking document was to allow the developer to course correct the outsourcers' work product course in more discrete chunks along the way, and theoretically prevent deliverable expectations to snowball wildly off target. A mid-sprint post-mortem revealed that the developer did not really emphasize the importance of the tracking document, and that the outsourcer failed to see its relevance or importance, and just regarded it as one more piece of paper.
- Don't let the tail wag the dog. Time and again, developers get exasperated with an outsourcer because they begin to think, after answering a blizzard of questions, that it would be quicker and easier if they just did the work themselves. It's a common trap, and oftentimes seems quicker, but it's really only a short-term solution.
Granted, outsourcers may often require a fair amount on bandwidth from the dev team during ramp-up, but if you've done your homework, and have the right team and processes in place, chances are that in two weeks time you'll find that percentage of time you spent hand-holding outsourcers is greatly reduced.
Your first round of due diligence should involve looking at the portfolio of work as well as the state and composition of the outsource studio. This includes:
- Past titles they've worked on. Do these types of games closely match your game?
- Types of work they've done on these titles. Almost every outsource shop nowadays has a specialization, so merely getting an "art" outsource may not meet your particular needs.Don't get level artists if you need concept work.
- Quality of the work, and time it will take the outsource group to create it. Create a sample spec document that is representative of the work you need performed. Monitor how long it takes for them to finish the sample and the quality of work. This should provide a ballpark baseline of the quality/tempo of their output.
- The financial state of the outsource organization. Are they agreeing to all terms and conditions because they are on monetary life-support, or because they are just acquiesce to everything because they are so darn accommodating? The last thing you need is to discover the outsourcer closed its doors midway through their task, leaving you high and dry, and in a worse predicament than before.
- The personnel the outsourcer will task to work on your project. It may be great if the company provided stellar assets for a AAA title that sold 5 million units, but if you're getting a different team within the company which had nothing to do with said smash hit, it doesn't help your needs. Make sure any contract you have with this team (see below) identifies by name key personnel who will be involved for the duration of the project.
- Related to the personnel point, above, be aware that many outsource groups utilize subcontractors as well.
- Reputation and word of mouth. Have you worked with this group before or know anyone else who has? Odds are, in this small industry, you can ascertain whether or nor not this outsource group will mesh well with your team, just from experiences you or others have had with them.
- Make sure you sit down with the development team and ascertain what exactly they need. Poll the leads and let them tell you what will work best for them, and make sure they have had the opportunity to vet and approve the outsourcers. Make sure the developer owns the decision to use a particular team. A shotgun marriage just won't work.
- Once you have a decent grasp of all of these points, create an outsource plan that delineates all of the above. Identify all of the pertinent stakeholders, ascertain their needs and areas of interest, and what they require for these needs to be met.
This includes not just the developer and production team, but also those persons who will also be involved, such as Legal and Finance. Clearly show the total cost, payment terms, work product, and schedule for completion. Set concrete time limits for submission of assets, feedback on the assets from the dev team, the named person responsible for supplying feedback and approval, and approval times.
As an example, one developer required that the art lead provide all feedback on assets. Unfortunately, there were no limits on how long the art lead had to provide feedback, and as a result it required constant prodding by several people to get the necessary feedback from the lead. In turn, this wasted precious time on basic housekeeping task that should have been a no-brainer.
- The most important item to remember harks back to 1975, when Frederick Brooks wrote The Mythical Man-Month. In essence, the book shows that adding people to complete a task does not always realize efficiencies of time, as tasks often have to happen in sequence, not in parallel.
The frequently used example to demonstrate this theory is that if it takes one woman nine months to have a baby, then it should take nine women one month to have the same baby. Clearly, this is absurd. In practical terms, it just means that adding more people to complete a task, if the production pipeline calls for one person, usually a discipline lead, as the gatekeeper to moving the process forward, will fail. The lead becomes overwhelmed, no matter how many people are aiding in the work output.
Outsourcing: Quelques vérifications avant de s’y mettre…
Partie 1/3 :
[Working with outsourcers is a vital part of much game development these days, but it's easy to get off track, and this article from a former development director for 2K Games delves into methods to increase reliability and foster communication.]
In game development, whenever a title encounters a problem that will impact the game negatively, the oft-heard, knee-jerk response/solution is "can we outsource?" Outsourcing resources, whether it is personnel or assets, can provide a relatively painless answer that keeps your title on track.
Almost every developer these days employs outsourcers to one degree or another. But outsourcing is not a silver bullet solution in every instance. There are many factors to consider when examining the outsourcers for your project, and whether bringing in external contractors to augment your team is the best way to bring a successful result to your game. This article will discuss best practices for bringing in an outside group to aid the development during full production.
Before getting started, it is extremely important to get off on the right foot and make the sure the development team has total buy-in with regard to the need for the outsource team's involvement.
Some teams welcome outsourcing, some outright will say no, and some will say yes and then proceed to passive-aggressively foot-drag and sabotage all work being done by the outsourcing team.
Often, it is the publisher that will first suggest employing outsourcers, and many developers regard advice from publishers on development matters with an eye-roll.
Therefore it is incumbent on both sides of the publisher/developer table to come to an agreement that employing an outsource group is the best solution to the issue at hand, and then communicate this up and down the chain within the respective organizations.
In this case, you have to lead the horse to water AND make it drink -- if it is the best, most efficient way to solve a problem.
Due Diligence
Performing adequate due diligence is an obvious, yet frequently ignored, critical first step. In the rush to provide a solution, developers will grab any available group with bodies and availability and throw them at the problem.
While this may make the people upstairs happy because you are "doing something", it is fraught with danger. A more thorough process that allows you to kick the tires of your potential outsourcers will save you time and headaches in the long run, guaranteed.
vendredi 30 juillet 2010
Outsourcing IT : De la réduction des coûts vers l’augmentation de la valeur ajoutée..
We know that, thanks to a rock-bottom economy , the IT and business process outsourcing industry has taken hit. We know that while companies are still looking to outsource and offshore, they are less interested in mega-deals and much tighter with their spending.
Nonetheless, value is top of mind. And not just value in terms of cost, but value in terms of buisiness benefit. So says a new research report, “From Cost to Value,” from consulting and tax advisory firm KPMG International. The report is based on the responses of about 450 CIOs to an online surve sent out in January, which was based on the firm’s own technology agenda launched in 2007 and updated in 2009. Specific to the survey is an analysis of the CIO’s profile and its relation to the priorities on his or her agenda.
The report indicates that now more than ever IT value is critical to business success. In fact, CIOs queried for the report put IT value, which they define as the ability to better react to changing market conditions by using IT — highest on their agenda for the coming years. Eighty percent of respondents put this in the top three of the most important trends. IT value beat out cost optimization (62 percent), portfolio management (52 percent) and risk and compliance (56 percent).
With that in mind, it is no wonder that when asked about outsourcing, the CIOs surveyed said that while most expect the number of outsourcing contracts to increase in the coming years, they also are becoming more critical of their sourcing providers. Many – nearly 70 percent – say they intend to pay much more attention to the price-quality ratio. What’s even more telling is that nearly 90 percent intend to increase pressure on their sourcing provider. According to KPMG, this indicates that CIOs realize outsourcing must show satisfying results.
In a prepared statement, Bryan Cruickshank, a partner with KPMG Advisory in the U.K., said that although the tendency is to equate value with cost-cutting, “our survey suggests a dual focus amongst today’s CIOs. Understandably, they are pursuing value by reviewing outsourcing arrangements and retaining a firm focus on cost optimization for example. At the same time though, they are demonstrating their willingness to move the CIO role from its typically operational home into something more transformational. With that in mind, the days when IT was seen merely as a way of improving efficiency seem behind us. These days, CIOs expect IT to contribute directly to realizing the business strategy and to have a central role in management.”
lundi 26 juillet 2010
Les 7 raisons d’externaliser son informatique pour une PME
Externaliser son informatique, c’est-à-dire confier la gestion de son parc informatique à un prestataire externe, est une pratique devenue peu à peu courante, y compris à présent pour des structures petites ou moyennes.
Voici 7 raisons principales qui amènent les PME, mais aussi les associations ou les collectivités locales, à l’envisager, les termes employés étant la maintenance informatique externalisée, l’infogérance ou plus anciennement l’outsourcing pour les anglophones :
1) Réduire les coûts et les restructurer
L’externalisation permet un abaissement du coût global de l’informatique pour l’entreprise. Faire appel à un info géreur permet de plus de modifier l’équilibre du ratio coûts fixes/coûts variables en faveur des coûts variables. Les contrats de maintenance informatique ou d’infogérance étant en général basés sur la taille du parc, l’évolution des coûts est plus souple et plus prévisible.
2) Se concentrer sur son métier de base
Confier son informatique à un prestataire externe, une entreprise de services informatiques spécialisée, permet au responsable de la structure et à ses collaborateurs de se décharger des problèmes techniques en faisant appel à des experts. Ce que les américains appellent : « Focus on Core Business ».
3) Améliorer la qualité
L’infogérance permet de définir des normes de qualité et de suivre le sous-traitant sur la base de ces normes à partir d’indicateurs définis avec lui.
4) L’expertise opérationnelle
L’infogérance permet d’accéder aux meilleures pratiques opérationnelles qui seraient trop difficiles ou trop longues à développer en interne.
5) L’accès aux talents
Comment trouver un informaticien à la fois talentueux et pédagogue lorsqu’on n’est pas du métier ? Le prestataire d’infogérance a accès à un plus grand bassin de talent qu’il sait reconnaître, former et faire évoluer dans le cadre de sa politique de ressources humaines.
6) La force du contrat
Les services de l’infogérance sont fournis avec un contrat juridiquement contraignant comprenant des recours juridiques et pouvant aller jusqu’à des sanctions financières. Ce n’est pas le cas avec les services internes.
7) Un catalyseur de changement
Dans certains cas, l’appel à l’info géreur peut être un catalyseur de changement radical dans les pratiques de l’entreprise en matière de traitement des problèmes informatiques, de la sécurité et de la confidentialité des données. L’info géreur devient un agent de changement dans le processus.
En résumé, l’externalisation permet, comme lorsqu’on fait appel à un expert-comptable pour sa comptabilité, de se décharger largement d’une responsabilité dont on sait dès lors qu’elle est transférée à un expert extérieur, dans le cadre d’une relation contractuelle formalisée.
mercredi 9 juin 2010
Outsourcing: Intéressant pour tous
Les services nearshore promettent d’avantage de transparence et de prestations pour les mêmes tarifs. C’est à ca titre que de plus en plus d’entreprises envisagent aujourd’hui le transfert partiel ou total de leurs ressources IT.
Une interview réalisée par «Business Facts» auprés de Hans Blindenbacher, CEO du prestataire d’outsourcing Econis SA, nous révele ce que les entreprises sont en droit d’entendre ;
En terme de meilleure stratégie IT, face à des complexités croissantes et des exigences plus élevées notamment en termes de pression des coûts et de la durée limitée des cycles d’innovation, Hans Blindenbacher opte en faveur du transfert des activités.
En effet et en examinant objectivement les possibilités externes en matière de la qualité des prestations de service, la stratégie « buy » se présente comme étant le choix optimal face à de telles contraintes.
Les projets IT, sont généralement présentés en tant que sous-projets de stratégie d’entreprise . Leur objectif est d’utiliser plus efficacement les technologies de l’information afin de créer de la transparence dans tous les services d’entreprise et faciliter ainsi les processus.
Le modèle d’outsourcing IT est basé sur l’acceptation non conventionnelle que ce sont les services, et non les technologies, qui exercent un contrôle, et c’est ainsi que les conflits entre les économistes et les techniciens demeurent envisageables.
C’est à ce sujet que le CEO, déclare que le monde informatique est divisé en deux camps ; d’une part, le camp traditionnel ou c’est l’euphorie de la technique qui prime, et, d’autre part le camp des visionnaires dominé par la mentalité de la prestation de service.
Une interview réalisée par «Business Facts» auprés de Hans Blindenbacher, CEO du prestataire d’outsourcing Econis SA, nous révele ce que les entreprises sont en droit d’entendre ;
En terme de meilleure stratégie IT, face à des complexités croissantes et des exigences plus élevées notamment en termes de pression des coûts et de la durée limitée des cycles d’innovation, Hans Blindenbacher opte en faveur du transfert des activités.
En effet et en examinant objectivement les possibilités externes en matière de la qualité des prestations de service, la stratégie « buy » se présente comme étant le choix optimal face à de telles contraintes.
Les projets IT, sont généralement présentés en tant que sous-projets de stratégie d’entreprise . Leur objectif est d’utiliser plus efficacement les technologies de l’information afin de créer de la transparence dans tous les services d’entreprise et faciliter ainsi les processus.
Le modèle d’outsourcing IT est basé sur l’acceptation non conventionnelle que ce sont les services, et non les technologies, qui exercent un contrôle, et c’est ainsi que les conflits entre les économistes et les techniciens demeurent envisageables.
C’est à ce sujet que le CEO, déclare que le monde informatique est divisé en deux camps ; d’une part, le camp traditionnel ou c’est l’euphorie de la technique qui prime, et, d’autre part le camp des visionnaires dominé par la mentalité de la prestation de service.
Le défi, pour un département IT orienté technologie, est de créer des solutions techniques intéressantes, il souhaite si possible fournir de nombreuses prestations avec des ressources propres. L’efficacité des coûts est surtout opérée par la réduction des facteurs de coûts externes, ce qui à l’avenir deviendra plutôt difficile.
Des processus de gestion IT et des Service Levels clairement définis en interne constituent plutôt l’exception. Aussi, la transparence et la motivation pour examiner et utiliser de manière cohérente les possibilités d’outsourcing externes font défaut.
Des processus de gestion IT et des Service Levels clairement définis en interne constituent plutôt l’exception. Aussi, la transparence et la motivation pour examiner et utiliser de manière cohérente les possibilités d’outsourcing externes font défaut.
Le défi, pour un département IT orienté service, est d’offrir le meilleur service possible au client. Les prestations à réaliser ou à acquérir en externe se basent sur des processus et des Service Levels clairement définis et sont transparents question gestion, contenu des prestations et prix. De tels départements peuvent exploiter au maximum les avantages de ces prestations.
Les deux variantes sont possibles. Mais la primauté de la technique est successivement remplacée par la primauté de la prestation de service. Les conflits d’intérêts naissent exactement là où les priorités sont contradictoires, mais ils peuvent aussi être source d’innovations!
En abordant l’adoption des scénarios d’outsourcing par les directions d’entreprises, Hans Blindenbacher souligne que les aspects IT sont aujourd’hui très bien maitrisés par les cadres d’entreprises, chose négligée dans le passé, il déclare que les resultats seraient bénéfiques pour tous si le processus IT est abordé avec l’objectivité necéssaire.
Pour finir, Hans Blindenbacher explique comment l’outsourcins peut offrir aux entreprises d’avantage de transparence à moindre coût ;
Les deux variantes sont possibles. Mais la primauté de la technique est successivement remplacée par la primauté de la prestation de service. Les conflits d’intérêts naissent exactement là où les priorités sont contradictoires, mais ils peuvent aussi être source d’innovations!
En abordant l’adoption des scénarios d’outsourcing par les directions d’entreprises, Hans Blindenbacher souligne que les aspects IT sont aujourd’hui très bien maitrisés par les cadres d’entreprises, chose négligée dans le passé, il déclare que les resultats seraient bénéfiques pour tous si le processus IT est abordé avec l’objectivité necéssaire.
Pour finir, Hans Blindenbacher explique comment l’outsourcins peut offrir aux entreprises d’avantage de transparence à moindre coût ;
En terme de transparence de gestion IT, elle résulte d’un recensement systématique des processus, des prestations informatiques nécessaires et des frais connexes. Ces facteurs sont résumés dans un Service Level Agreement (SLA) et constituent la base de la collaboration entre une entreprise et des prestataires externes. En matière de Service Levels, des critères différents sont utilisés pour les prestations propres et externes. Ainsi, la transparence continuelle fait défaut, ce qui empêche de nouveau une évaluation de la gestion d’entreprise. Dans une entreprise dotée de structures SLA claires, la DG a une solide base de calcul et une transparence totale sur l’IT. Elle peut ainsi nettement mieux assumer sa mission de direction. En outre, les conditions sont ainsi créées pour un outsourcing réussi.
En terme de coût, il est évident que les PME ne peuvent guère fournir des prestations IT complexes sur la durée au même tarif qu’une société d’outsourcing, avec ses spécialistes et son savoirfaire.
En terme de coût, il est évident que les PME ne peuvent guère fournir des prestations IT complexes sur la durée au même tarif qu’une société d’outsourcing, avec ses spécialistes et son savoirfaire.
Les arguments contre l’outsourcing, comme par exemple la dépendance ou la sécurité déficiente, sont faciles à réfuter et s’appliquent d’ailleurs également aux ressources internes. Chaque projet d’externalisation permet d’atteindre deux objectifs significatifs: une standardisation durable des processus IT ainsi qu’une homogénéisation des ressources IT. Les économies de coûts qui en résultent profitent directement à l’entreprise.
Lundi 3 Mai 2010
Top Ten Mistakes Made When Offshoring
According to SSON (Shared Services & Outsourcing Network), here after the most common errors companies make when transferring work overseas.
Sending work offshore can be a valuable tool for firms looking to enjoy the benefits of labor arbitrage, increased geographical penetration and strengthening ties with national governments. It can also be a nightmare. Done incorrectly, offshoring can undermine the very foundations of a company with bills that could draw tears from a stone. It’s amazing, then, how often it all goes pear-shaped…
The Shared Services & Outsourcing Network asked a number of experts for their thoughts on the most common, and the most potentially dangerous, mistakes companies make when sending work offshore. So here it is: the SSON guide to the Top Ten Mistakes Made When Offshoring. Recognise anything?
1. Not allocating sufficient time and resources to transition
Especially when cost-savings are a primary driver, there’s an understandable impulse to get an offshoring move completed as quickly as possible. The organization’s biggest cheeses - not to mention the shareholders - may find it hard to resist the temptation to push hard for a speedy transition so the big move can start demonstrating cold hard gains speedily (as cash spent on the transition - especially to a new captive center - tends to be seen as dead money). However, that way lies if not madness then at least the risk of creating significant, and potentially very costly, difficulties in the longer term.
“Oftentimes companies consider offshoring as part of a cost -cutting exercise,” says Steve Reynolds, MD North America at WNS. “Savings needs to be substantial and delivered as soon as possible. Unfortunately, this results in an accelerated time for transition which can short cut the required processes for moving complex work offshore. The average tenure in a shared services center should not be ignored and process mapping and documentation cannot capture every detail of a process. Gaps are filled by sending the right number of staff for the right amount of time to observe the processes in the SSC location. In addition, subject matter experts from the company should plan on spending a substantial amount of time in the offshore location insuring that training is done accurately and be available for escalation during ramp-up and production cut over.”
2. Not making the appropriate choice between outsource and captive
Offshoring work can be done whilst keeping it within the organization, or of course as part of an outsourcing deal. There are pros and cons to either solution (and indeed to the hybrid model as well). However, companies sometimes make the mistake of looking at offshoring itself as the key to solving the particular problems they’re addressing, without looking fully into all the options as to who might be best-placed to carry out that work once it’s been sent overseas. There might be overwhelming advantages for some firms in retaining the work within a captive set-up; similarly, outsourcing might be a preferred option for others. The critical issue is that in many circumstances the outsource/captive decision might well be a more important one than the onshore/offshore debate; simply voting for “India” or “Malaysia” over onshore locations isn’t taking a sufficiently big-picture perspective.
“The threshold issue is, of course,” says Peter Brudenalll, partner at Hunton & Wiilliams, “whether to ‘go it alone’ and establish a captive or to use a third-party outsourcing vendor. Clearly, if a company is a large, well-known organization with intellectual property or data too core to the business to be outsourced then there is a very good chance it will be able to succeed in running a captive in an offshore location. However, captives can struggle to succeed where there is a lack of management expertise on the ground and a high attrition rate among employees. Attrition rates can be extremely high in places such as India where there is always a wealth of opportunities for talented individuals to change companies. If a company is not well-known, or is not able to provide its staff with a distinct career path, then attrition rates can start to become a big issue. It should also be recognized that salary costs have risen in India over the last few years so establishing and running a captive may not necessarily generate the cost savings anticipated in the original business plan.”
3. Having insufficient disaster-recovery plans and backup
It’s a dangerous world out there - and with climate change and associated socio-political instability looming, it’s probably only going to get more so - and moving work and resources to a new location means having to prepare for new dangers. Even over the past few weeks we’ve seen catastrophic natural calamities in the Asia-Pacific region (including devastating floods in the offshoring hot spot of the Philippines) damaging infrastructure and placing serious obstacles in the way of beleaguered workforces. Failing to plan correctly for negative phenomena is an unforgivable sin that tends to be uncovered only when it’s too late to be redeemed. Don’t be a sinner.
“Earthquakes happen. Flooding occurs. Underwater cables get knocked out. Water disputes on regional borders can cause strikes. Ageing thespians can die. Be prepared for the unexpected. Items like this can strike, and have in our experience struck, when you least expect them. Make sure that you can quickly leverage resource elsewhere to another center or back up SSC location or move to a backup plan at a fast turnaround time. Ensure your key local employees in the new offshore operations have laptops and can work remotely if required. You do not want to be the one having to explain to your CFO at a month- or quarter-end, that you cannot close the books or process key transactions, just because you have not thought of adequate business continuity.” cautions Chris Gunning, Director Global Shared Services, Europe, Bangalore and Asia Pacific regions at Unisys.
4. Skimping on the due diligence
There’s no excuse for this one. Whether investing bundles of precious cash in an offshore center or handing over key processes (and more precious cash) to an outsource provider, failing to carry out the requisite due diligence isn’t just asking for trouble, it’s walking up to the counter, slamming your fist down and demanding it. An organization needs to be as diligent as possible even at the expense of a delay in implementation. No matter how close the relationship between buyer and provider, or how confident an organization might be in the integrity and stability of a proposed new location, the due diligence must be seen as an indispensable part of any offshoring process.
“In offshore arrangements, particularly when outsourcing to a third party, the importance of due diligence on the vendor cannot be underestimated. We always advise clients that they must visit offshore sites so that they fully understand where the services will be provided from, and what security arrangements are in place. [When outsourcing] nterest from a senior level in the customer's organization is essential to this process, and will also assist in getting the contract negotiations concluded, rather than both the vendor and customer beating each other up to obtain small wins while the big picture gets lost,” says Hunton & Williams’ Peter Brudenall.
5. Lacking a corporate offshoring strategy
Offshoring is a major proposition with major consequences. A failure to look at this proposition holistically across the organization means some of these consequences could impact negatively on areas which might have been off the radar for those behind the drive to offshore who might have their own horizons limited by their own responsibilities. A corporate offshoring strategy will allow the company to make the very most of their offshoring while preparing everyone within the organization for the changes which are about to take place.
“Companies can no longer allow every process manager to determine their own strategy when outsourcing,” warns WNS’ Steve Reynolds. “The complexity of multiple agreements, minimum volume commitments, disparate terms, multiple locations, lack of BCP, etc. quickly erodes the expected savings. A company quickly becomes frozen trying to manage and meet commitments across too many suppliers. A much better approach is for senior management to think through a high level strategy of what is to be outsourced, what can go offshore, an ideal set of vendors to utilize, optimal locations, and expected results. Once this strategy is in place, procurement can then determine the appropriate set of suppliers.”
6. Letting advisors and attorneys lead the negotiations
It’s a common problem when outsourcing, particularly when work is to be sent to locations into which the organization doesn’t already have commercial penetration: allowing the legal eagles to drive the conversation during negotiations. Now, it’s obvious that legal representation at negotiations is indispensable (and having a good stable of experienced advisors on your side is increasingly de rigeur): but it’s imperative that negotiations proceed according to the interests of the organization - and that means the organization leading negotiations and being supported by its advisory team, not the other way round.
“During the negotiation of the agreement between a vendor and a client, all too often, the customer takes a back seat during the discussions allowing the advisor and/or attorney to take the lead. Many times, the customer isn’t even present. The result of this style of negotiation is a substantial increase in the amount of time to negotiate an agreement due to battles being fought over every term and condition whether big or small. One would assume that a client would get a better agreement but in reality it’s the opposite. The spirit of partnership is typically lost as both sides dig in their heels. Attorneys and advisors should give advice and/or an opinion then get out of the way and let the customer and vendor figure it out,” advises WNS’ Reynolds.
7. Not creating sufficient visibility around offshore operations
Sending work offshore isn’t getting rid of responsibility - especially if you’re operating a captive center. The adage “out of sight, out of mind” when applied to offshore work is a recipe for the kind of disaster that leaves hardened professionals weeping into their whiskies. Offshore operations need to be highly visible - to encourage engagement among many other reasons - and must not at all costs be seen as anything other than an indispensable aspect of global operations. Keeping your offshore work and employees in the dark could mean you’ll be blind to potentially destabilizing events down the line.
“Just because you have moved work offshore, does not mean that you can hope to disconnect yourself from the new offshore operations. If anything, the opposite must apply. Be visible. Our captive offshore Global SSC in Bangalore is an integral and key part of our overall Finance operations. They have the same access to employee development and training as every other Finance employee in our company. Being seen is important. Visit them as often as you can. Hold regular All Hands Meetings. Leverage other forms of communications on a daily and weekly basis. Invite and encourage your CEO, CFO and regional Finance Vice Presidents down to meet the new offshore teams. Get your customers out to meet them. Stay connected with them. Invite the key members to your own strategy meetings. Engage. Communicate. Remember, they are ‘the finance of your future’ so nurture and develop your key leaders and team members, as you would with staff in Corporate or Regional HQs, or in your retained captive organizations onshore,” says Unisys’ Chris Gunning.
8. Insufficient ongoing management
Just as you can’t hide your offshore operations out of sight, you can’t take your hands all the way off the controls - even if you’ve outsourced the work that’s gone offshore. Ongoing management is essential - after all it’s still your organization that is affected by the work being done, even if it’s someone else doing it. The management of the work itself might be out of your hands to a certain extent - but the management of the contract and its terms, and the management of the relationship itself, shouldn’t be considered any less crucial simply because work’s now being done a few thousand miles away.
“This is a typical mistake in many outsourcing arrangements, but it becomes particularly bad when made in an offshoring context. Customers need to understand that any outsourcing arrangement will require them to provide on-going direction and management - not only to ensure that they are actively engaged in the outsourced services but so that they understand how the services are being performed in case they need to very quickly transition those services to another vendor. In the event of a vendor suffering an event such as that experienced by Satyam earlier this year, or running into financial difficulties, many customers will quickly evaluate the potential reputational and service delivery issues and decide that they would feel more comfortable with another vendor. Assuming that the legal basis for terminating the agreement is there, only those customers who have a very good understanding of the way in which the services have been delivered will find it possible (let alone easy) to quickly transfer the services to another vendor. When services are being provided from an offshore location, it can often be even more difficult to quickly transition services to a replacement vendor unless the customer has been actively engaged with the vendor,” says Hunton & Williams’ Peter Brudenall.
9. Not having clearly defined roles and responsibilities
Offshoring is complicated enough without the added confusion of people not knowing specifically what they’re going to be doing, where and when. Obviously during the transition period it’s critical that everyone adheres to a well-defined timetable; even beyond that, though, the usual need for shared services staff to enjoy clear role-definitions becomes extra-crucial once distance is placed between the SSO and other areas of the organization - even something as simple as changing time zones can lead to problems at both ends unless people are certain of their own responsibilities.
“This goes much beyond the need of simple Service Level Agreements (SLAs) or Statements of Work (SOWs),” says Unisys’ Chris Gunning. “Ensure that each of your key team members, including managers and those responsible for delivery of services as well as your process owners, have cleared defined roles and responsibilities. And for that matter, encourage your customer to do the same for his or her organization. No matter how much governance you have in place, or how wonderful and detailed your SLA and KPI metric structure looks like, if you take your eye off the ball on simple things such as clear role descriptions, and who is actually responsible for the delivery and meeting of those metrics and services, then you will forever be embedded a series of finger-pointing and looking the other way, when trying to make people internally accountable and responsible for their actions, as well as trying to explain to dysfunctional customers, that their C-Sat issue really starts and end with them, and not shared services.”
10. Not achieving a level of partnership with a vendor
A successful outsourcing relationship requires both parties to work together. This is just as true - in fact more so - when work is transferred to another country. The buyer organization must trust the vendor to work successfully within a social and legislative environment with which the buyer may have no experience; the vendor needs the buyer to give sufficient support to enable it to take on processes and activities smoothly and successfully. Failing to develop the requisite level of partnership can destroy any outsourcing relationship, let alone one that involves crossing oceans, timezones and international boundaries.
“Outsourcing has matured to achieve a new level of relationship between a customer and vendor. With many customers, the relationship has gone way beyond a typical customer/vendor arrangement. For those clients that are able to achieve this level, their satisfaction with outsourcing and offshoring is significantly higher than most. Both parties are in the game together. Strategies are shared and the offshore provider is an extension of the clients operation. Too often, this level of relationship is not achieved resulting in a commoditization of work and inability to achieve the expected transform of the operation,” says Steve Reynolds of WNS.
