Monthly Archives: Jun 2007

Outsourcing advisory firms must shift from Tactical to Accountable support

June 27, 2007 | Phil Fersht

The role of the outsourcing advisor has shifted significantly over the last couple of years. Outsourcing has become such a core issue facing almost all companies today - becoming extremely complex in many cases - that companies are depending more than ever on trusted informed advice upon which to base their crucial decisions – decisions that will impact them for the next decade and beyond. Until recently, there weren’t too many independent outsourcing advisory firms which had the niche specialty to quantify the possibilities, source a supplier and broker a deal. However, the old sourcing advisor mentality of “going in to do a deal and slipping quietly out of the back door” is well-and-truly over. The secret sauce behind assessing vendors, getting a good price and doing a quick deal, is now pretty much a standard practice – there are at least 15 advisory businesses out there, of varying sizes, claiming they can do this for you. The level of competency of these advisors is open to interpretation – but how can you assess how good these firms are if their core practice is helping make outsourcing deals happen, and their clients then try and manage the transition all by themselves - right through to the operational end-state?

Companies should seek advisors which can be held accountable. Outsourcing buyers need to be able to declare in 5 years’ time: “XXX did a great job helping us through this process, and we still keep them close to our business for advice on how to govern our provider(s), manage our internal operations and cultural change.” However, advisors can only be held accountable if their clients decide to make them so – and that means they need to engage an advisor which will be with them for the long haul. If you buy an expensive car, for example, you will more than likely always go back to the same mechanic when you have an issue…so when you have car trouble in the future, you can always go back to the same garage and get them to take care of your problem. The garage has become accountable for the general performance of your vehicle – and no matter how many problems you may have along the way, they will be on hand to try getting you back on the road again. Moreover, wouldn’t you prefer to use a garage that you know has sufficient expertise to take care of more than merely the basic problems and will be in business for the long haul?

In the today’s intricate global sourcing environment, the role of the advisor is becoming almost as important as the capability of the outsourcing supplier. Companies should have an advisor helping them through their entire business lifecycle – and outsourcing is simply one change agent of several scenarios geared towards achieving operational excellence and core business focus. What’s more, the outsourcing decision is becoming more challenging with the newer wave of companies evaluating their options. Most of the earlier adopters made decisions based on short-term cost considerations, and went for the least complex outsourcing arrangement that had the quickest cost benefits. Nowadays, an increasing proportion of companies considering their global sourcing strategy are faced with more complex decisions, for example, many of these firms already have existing shared services operations and multiple outsourced point solutions; multiple IT systems and applications; multiple language needs and specific country laws and issues with which to contend; compliance requirements; cultural issues…the list of requirements goes on and on. There have been too many past occurrences of buyers who engaged with sourcing advisors that came in to make an outsourcing deal happen, and then allowed that advisor to exit the equation, leaving them to fend for themselves to manage unparalleled transition challenges and cultural change within their organization. In many cases, the advisors’ specialty skill was to broker the deal, and the reason why they exited the relationship was simply that they did not have the depth and breadth of expertise to warrant their continued presence.

Advisors...keeping you on the road

Posted in: Outsourcing Advisors



An Unsung Outsourcing Hero

June 25, 2007 | Phil Fersht

I always respect someone who has the focus and discipline to write a book - especially a particularly insightful book on "Outsourcing and Management".  Thomas Tunstall Ph.D. has enjoyed a colorful career, highlighted by his running KMPG's IT operations in Afghanistan (nice work if you can get it...).    Tom now serves as co-chair of the Dallas chapter of the International Association of Outsourcing Professionals (IAOP) and is Advisory Liaison for ACS (but we won't hold that against him).  I asked Tom to give us a brief outline of his book, which you should consider reading now Gray's Anatomy, Lost, 24, Sopranos, Ugly Betty and Desperate Housewives are all off the air:

"To understand why outsourcing – specifically the outsourcing of services – is completely overhauling management styles, we need to take a step back to see how we got here in the first place.


"As the large corporation blossomed in the late 1800s, it was first modeled as a stiff hierarchy, not much different than a sole proprietorship writ large. It then evolved into a multi-divisional form in the 1920s, which left finance and strategy functions at headquarters, but pushed operations and other tactical functions into the hands of field personnel. Although the structure of the large organization changed, the old hierarchical, manufacturing-oriented management styles endured for decades. A lot of those old school boys are still with us.


"Such antiquated management styles may have been okay during the manufacturing era, but the emphasis on services changes everything. When services used to be classified as merely overhead, they made up a small percentage of overall costs relative to raw materials and direct labor. They were safely ensconced within the walls of the old style organization.


"Now services are the products, and they contain a huge people component. The ability to readily outsource services, which now comprise over 80% of the economy in terms of employment, will strip down the old corporation to its core. All of the attendant functions and non-related processes will be turned over to specialists. This means that more and more work will get done outside corporate boundaries.


"This change in governance may seem unremarkable, but it will have a huge impact on management practice. Management behavior will be forced to change at long last – not because of goodwill or altruistic intentions on the part of management – but rather through the discipline of the market, the nature of the new rules of competition and the pervasiveness of services outsourcing. And make no mistake – the lessons will be harsh.

"Because the old governance mechanisms won’t work anymore as outsourcing and cross-organizational relationships become far more important, new management competencies will be required. Working with other organizations requires skills that many traditional managers just don’t have. Internal departments, for example, can be managed by whim or fiat. External suppliers can’t and won’t operate in such a fashion. The upshot will be that old authoritarian management styles will prove ineffective. Even laughable.


"Greater collaboration will become a must because it improves coordination. Management will be focused on outputs, process interfaces, and clear rules of engagement – all of which go part and parcel with outsourcing. Strong working relationships will win the day; idiosyncratic, ego-driven personalities will be an expensive luxury that few can afford.


"In the years ahead, watch the old school managers and executives retire early or be forced to bring new mindsets to the game. Many old school boys have become casualties already. Will you be next?" 

Adapted from Outsourcing and Management: Why the Market Benchmark Will Topple Old School Management Styles by Thomas Nelson Tunstall (Palgrave 2007)


Thomas Tunstall Ph.D. addressing the IAOP in Afghanistan

Posted in: Outsourcing Heros



The Baffling Book Baffles on...

June 21, 2007 | Phil Fersht

EDS has wasted no time in reveling in its meteoric rise from number 36 to number 1 over the last 12 months...


Upon hearing the news earlier....

Posted in: Confusing Outsourcing Information



Maintaining a 25% profit margin in this crazy world of globalization

June 21, 2007 | Phil Fersht

The recent discussion between BusinessWeek's Steve Hamm and Tata Consultancy Services' (TCS) CFO S. Mahalingham reveals some fascinating insight into how TCS has managed to maintain profit margins at the 25% level, despite intense pressures from wage inflation, employee attrition, aggressive competition and rupee appreciation against the dollar and other leading currencies.  Some key thoughts I took away from the dialog:

  • Creating an environment for staff to develop their soft skills, technical expertise, and global experience is the answer to improving employee retention.  S. Mahalingham explains "There are points when a person decides to make a choice, perhaps in the first two to three years. They are look at their career aspirations and they might leave the company. But if we can cross that hump, and go beyond that period to say seven or eight years, we do find that people want to stay with the organization. At that point, if they do leave, they will become an executive in another organization".  From my experiences working with suppliers, the key issue for them is employee retention in offshore locations.  Some suppliers prefer to hire experienced staff, who are likely to be more settled and less likely to jump ship in a year or two - which has the drawback of higher wage costs; other suppliers - especially the ambitious offshore providers headquartered in India - prefer to hire college graduates and work on intensive programs to retain them through the early years of their career to a stage where they will be more likely to stay with their employer as a settled manager-level employee when they mature.  It is plainly apparent that the more successful offshore providers are those which have developed successful training programs for their new hires, in order to keep their wage costs at a minimum through lower attrition.  Moreover, an experienced outsourcing provider employee who has three years plus experience working with their firm will have far higher productivity than a brand new employee - due to the simple fact they are familiar with their company's and clients' processes.  S. Mahalingham also points out that college graduates in India are not only looking for technical or process training, they also understand the need to develop their soft skills (business development, relationship-building etc) and get global experience.  This indicates to me that the established large Indian outsourcing providers are far more attractive places to work than the smaller Indian firms seeking to increase their market share, as they can offer the best graduates the environment they need to develop.  This also means that the established firms also have a better handle on keeping their employees' wages in check (but rupee appreciation is another issue out of their control...).  Hence, we probably have our established Indian offshore giants for the next couple of decades now... I cannot see many of the smaller vendors on the sub-continent finding room to grow and compete when you analyze the tough competitive climate nowadays.  The next wave of offshore mammoths are more likely to spring from the Philippines and China, as they become more experienced in providing global outsourcing services.
  • Multiple technical environments, servicing multiple languages underpinned by low cost offshore labor is the key to keeping margins high.  Steve Hamm points out:  “Over the past few years, Indian companies have become more like Western companies and Western companies are becoming more like the Indian companies.”  The lines between what constitutes and "Indian" versus "Western" company are blurred:  they are all "Global" firms now, with delivery infrastructures that often resemble each other.  The key advantage the Indian firms hold is that they are scaling outward from their Indian bases, with sound understanding of the next locations where they need to establish themselves (Latin America, China, Eastern Europe etc).  Hence, they are in a great position to keep a lid on their costs, whereas the Western suppliers have been forced to re-engineer their entire global delivery infrastructures in recent years to move away from high-cost locales and establish themselves in offshore territories, which comes with many new challenges and costs.   As these two sets of outsourcing supplier continue to become closer in infrastructure, the profit margins will eventually become more comparable, but for the medium-term, the Indian giants will continue to enjoy these high margins.  The wild card is clearly the rupee - if it appreciates out of control, this will clearly impact profits, but India's sheer scale is currently keeping that in check.

Posted in: IT Outsourcing / IT Services



Why a good BPO provider is not enough for a successful BPO service delivery

June 19, 2007 | Phil Fersht

Too many companies explain away their refusal to explore BPO as a "need to get their IT in order before we can consider this". BPO actually is creating a great opportunity to transform IT in concurrence with the business process - with the bill footed by cost arbitrage, as opposed to the shareholder.

The earlier BPO deals were largely focused on transitioning the people and processes to work in an outsourced end-state, and the IT people needed to support that outsourced function were brought into the equation late in the game to get the existing systems to support the outsourced end-state. This often caused issues with data security, systems and application integration, and often resulted in the outsourcing buyer incurring far greater costs to re-configure their IT backbone to support the BPO strategy than they had originally budgeted.

Both business process and IT change should be driven TOGETHER - and BPO is a change agent that must also incorporate this philosophy - and several of today's recent outsourcing buyers are leveraging BPO to transform their IT backbone at the same time. Gianni Giacomelli, who leads global marketing strategy for SAP’s BPO group, lives and breathes this issue on a daily basis and works tirelessly to create programs that support the BPO providers with deploying technology and resolving related problems – be them understanding how to better automate processes, finding shortcuts for implementation, sketching what is possible with technology innovation, or simply identifying solutions to operate the technology platform more cheaply. Take it away Gianni…

Two things explain much of the BPO industry’s uncertainties: one is about breaking bad habits, and the other about eliminating “blind spots”. The bad habits are the ones of the RFP cycle – where all the parties have traditionally played “sell-and-buy-a-product” instead of looking at operational synergies. The blind spot is the scarce use of joint process and technology redesign in unlocking those synergies. Ironing these wrinkles out will require substantial investments and change from all sides – but the stakes are high enough to give it a shot. I will argue that requiring a better alignment of customer, BPO provider and software vendor is a good way to change the game for the better.

While many early generation BPO deals showed patterns typical of system integration and process reengineering – both disciplines matured in the 90s - success in BPO is more than just process redesign and technology. It is about operational excellence and as such it must leverage both the operational and transformational skills of the provider – and should be driven by the respective stakeholders in both camps (that is, by the COO as well as the CIO). Some BPO providers, often pushed by end-clients and advisors, insufficiently supported by software vendors, and challenged by internal resource-allocation dynamics, have failed to realize this point in the past.

Structurally, many BPO providers were either born very good “operators” and excel at operating a given setup, or very good “implementers” who are good at designing and implementing innovation – but rarely both at the same time. The result in quite a few cases was a failure to leverage processes and technology solutions to fully harness the key drivers of BPO value: economies of scale, process optimization, and low cost labor. This explains a number of economically unsustainable deals that left customers and providers dissatisfied. Successful BPO providers make the most out of their technology investments by ensuring that these investments serve their service delivery needs. They integrate process and technology design with operational requirements, thereby creating replicable solutions that enable true scale leverage.

Gianni Giacomelli, SAP

The best service providers also seek the systematic and long-term involvement and intimate support of the software vendor they choose for their process/technology platforms to assist them in their quest for ongoing evolution and improvement. Catering for the providers’ needs is not a job a software vendor is typically structured to do – and requires substantial investment on his part, too. Customers looking for a sustainable BPO platform are therefore best advised to systematically verify the solidity of the service provider’ software vendor relationship backing it up, for each of the crucial parts of the service delivery they require.

It is dangerous to unduly restrict the service provider’s freedom in leveraging and fully harnessing the effectiveness of economies of scale and process optimization (for a more thorough discussion, see the article here). However, it is absolutely critical that the customer (complemented by expert advisors) "kicks the technology tires" of the provider through the RFP process. In the end, the customer and its advisors should check if the technology deployment the provider proposes is indeed going to enable the economies of scale and process optimization required to generate sustainable results. It is essential that the technology vendor heavily supports the BPO provider.

Gianni Giacomelli (pictured) is director of global strategy and marketing for SAP’s BPO business unit.

Posted in: Business Process Outsourcing (BPO)Outsourcing Heros



Sticking to your guns

June 16, 2007 | Phil Fersht

Kudos to Jason Corsello (aka the "Human Capitalist") for this brave and excellent post lauding the merits of HR software firm SuccessFactors.  Jason is fast-becoming the pre-eminent industry analyst in HR technology because he says what he thinks based on his informed judgement.  Having met Lars Dalgaard myself and having had a lot of exposure to the SuccessFactors product, I can attest to the fact that Jason is spot-on here with his synopsis.  It's refreshing to have analysts unafraid to air their views.

Corselloj Jason Corsello aka "The Human Capitalist"

Posted in: HR Strategy



Public or Private: What Works for an Outsourcing Supplier?

June 13, 2007 | Phil Fersht

An interesting article from tenacious HRO journalist Jessica Marquez at Workforce Magazine got me thinking more about the impact of private equity in outsourcing.   In mature markets, for example IT Outsourcing, the leading suppliers are all established longtime publicly traded entities (IBM, Accenture, HP etc).  The suppliers have established a critical mass of clients, all have vast offshore and onshore resources, and tend to compete more on reputation, innovation and established relationships.  Being publicly traded, they need to keep a close eye on maintaining acceptable profit margins, their contract strategies are more visible (especially when closely analyzed by Wall St) and there is less "secret sauce" around how they won the deal.  In BPO, however, the ball game is entirely different. 

The HR, Finance & Accounting and Procurement Outsourcing markets are all in rapid growth stage, suppliers are still attempting to get to a critical mass as fast as possible, while picking up referenceable name clients.  The HRO market accelerated too quickly for its own good after 9/11 and too many suppliers entered into situations where they allowed themselves to front-load deals to entice CEOs ambitious to demolish costs as quickly as possible.  Industry mammoths like IBM and Accenture can handle taking a few "at cost" deals to gain market share, but for smaller suppliers they simply cannot prosper from losing money on deals to grow a business if they are operating in a publicly-traded environment.  Wall Street is not tolerant of money-losing ventures unless the future upside can be quickly demonstrated.  Hence - why not find a private equity investor who genuinely understands the long-term upside of investing in an outsourcing supplier in growth mode?  They can ensure their incubated supplier is operating away from the Wall St radar and can cherry-pick the business they believe will be incremental for the future success of that firm by subsidizing operating costs to take out the competition.  ACS is one example of a firm which has enjoyed the early highs of the BPO boom and is now suffering from too much public exposure as it battles in ingest a huge array of global clients across several outsourcing towers.  The Dallas-based firm will surely benefit from an incubation period where it can ready itself for its next wave of growth away from the public spotlight.  The firm certainly has the business volume, brand and experience to rebound from its current predicament, and time away from the public spotlight is surely what it needs as it gets its act together.  Other firms like the ones mentioned in Jessica's article (i.e. Ceridian) also have tremendous potential to refocus, re-arm and come out fighting - and need the shield of their private ownership to provide the time, resources and management acumen needed to take their business to the next level.

Perhaps the most interesting example of a privately-held BPO which fully maximized its private status has been Genpact - the firm went on a huge tear, picking up over 35 major F&A BPO clients in the space of 3 years before announcing its public intentions this year.  It took full advantage of healthy investment from its parent investors to price aggressively, while combining this with a powerful offering based on its GE heritage and Six Sigma and LEAN methodologies.  This company came from practically nowhere to become one of the top tier of firms as a result of shrewd management in a privately run environment.  It will be fascinating to see how the firm continues to perform now it's operations will be far more exposed to Wall St.

So all-in-all, one can argue that being private in a high-growth and highly competitive industry like BPO is far more beneficial, provided the company is being carefully groomed by a team of investors who really know what they are doing - and really believe in the future potential of their industry.  Conversely, in fully mature industries like ITO, where everything is broken down into components parts to help investment analysts salivate at the profit margins, it makes more sense to be in the public domain where scrutiny is king.

Posted in: Uncategorized



The Baffling Book of Outsourcing

June 11, 2007 | Phil Fersht

I have been inundated in recent weeks with press releases, quotes, and data references to the The Black Book of Outsourcing.  "Great", I thought, "Now I can access a complete encyclopedia of outsourcing....".  So I decided to look up an area where I have some knowledge:


2006 RANK



Mellon SourceNet






IQ Back Office


Outsource Partners International








API Outsourcing/ Wells Fargo


Harbor Payments/ADP

OK - all these guys do Accounts Payable to some extent, but wait... Genpact didn't even make the list - and neither did ACS, InfosysBPO (Progeon), WNS, VWA, CGI etc etc.  And then I looked at sourcing advisors...ITO vendors...HRO vendors etc.  I realized if you don't know much about an area, these lists can appear credible, but if you actually have some domain knowledge you quickly see that these rankings and selections of vendors make little sense.  What I'd like to know is who is reading these lists, and are business decisions being made on them?  Isn't there some sort or body that regulates this "stuff" floating around the industry?  Can anyone shed some light on this?

Posted in: Confusing Outsourcing Information



Is Bangalore no longer a cost-saving location?

June 08, 2007 | Phil Fersht

My good friend and former colleague at the Yankee Group, Arijit "Apu" Sengupta (pictured) - who is now CEO of BPO quality improvement software firm BeyondCore - alerted me to a startup that reverse-offshored its development team from Bangalore back to the US: 

BangalorApue wages have just been growing like crazy. To give you an example, there is an employee of ours who took the first 5 years of his career to get from 1% to 10% of his equivalent US counterpart. He then jumped from 10% to 20% of his US counterpart in the next 1 year. During his time with us (less than 2 years) he jumped to 55% of the US wage.  In the next few months we would have had to move him to 75% just to ‘keep him at market. Once the salary rises to 75% of US salaries, the overhead cost differences between India and the US would overwhelm the financial viability. Consider the additional overhead of managing two offices, flying between the two centers, dealing with the cultural differences.  The costs of having two offices, which are twelve time zones apart, is significant. People in both offices frequently had conference calls at 10pm and midnight every night (as a result the office in the US didn’t get started until noon sometimes or people rolled in tired). We were all traveling constantly. Development and communication moved slower due to the distance and teams.”

For more on Apu's story, go to the CIO Magazine website

Posted in: Captives and Shared Services StrategiesSourcing Locations



Can China challenge India as a BPO powerhouse?

June 05, 2007 | Phil Fersht

Lisa Ross is a long-time respected analyst in the BPO world and runs her own research organization, aptly-named “FAO Research, Inc” which has taken the industry by storm over the last couple of years. Lisa has spent a lot of time talking with the advisor, supplier and end-user communities to understand the role China can potentially play in BPO – and most notably Finance & Accounting Outsourcing, which has some a heavy offshore component… In advance of the G8 Summit, take it away Lisa:

A sentiment we hear often from buyers, suppliers and advisors in the outsourcing space is that China is fast becoming the next India - but is this really an accurate statement for the Finance & Accounting Outsourcing (FAO) space?

Let's first look at the glass half empty:

• China's physical infrastructure, although improving, is light years behind technology centers in India.

• Same with human resources - workers are available and growing in number, yet their proficiency in foreign languages and cultures and process expertise is lacking. For voice-based BPO services, only Japanese businesses are being serviced currently from cities like Dalian which has a high Japanese-literacy rate; however, most Japanese businesses do not like the Japanese being spoken with a Chinese accent, so few of them actually use China-based services.

• There are roughly 220 million middle-class Chinese many of whom are learning English compared to 350 million Indians (more than the US and UK combined). Moreover, Indian pop culture – most notably movies – adds new elements to the Indian English language, which China seems to lack.

• Privacy laws are a mess, causing great security concerns, specifically around F&A issues.

• Financial development has yet to keep pace with the country's growth, as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) also struggles to reinvent itself.

• Knowledge management - a key ingredient to foster business and process innovation - has yet to be proven in large scale.

And now for the glass half full:

• China is moving from mass poverty as a whole to middle-income living, so the need for overall economic reform is tremendous - the need for FINANCE reform even greater. Enter FAO.

• China has LOTS of money to spend - aside from being a massive exporter of capital, it's currently a magnet for private capital inflows. And with Chavez angling to unseat the U.S. as Venezuela's partner in the oil business, etc.

• Many F&A processes require minimal customer contact and are data-centric. With many of the Indian-based sourcing models encompassing 10% of delivery onshore for voice-work and 90% operating offshore, there is every reason why the Chinese can replicate this model.

All-in-all, it seems that China will prosper in the short term with its engineering, manufacturing and technical acumen, but is still someway off becoming a major force in BPO services – namely Finance and Accounting and contact center . Once the middle class populous develops stronger language skills and supplier resources become more sophisticated – which will happen eventually – we can expect to see them compete more prominently in the BPO arena.


Lisa Ross is Chief Executive Officer at leading BPO analyst firm FAO Research, Inc. and can be reached at [email protected]

Posted in: Sourcing Locations



The HR Outsourcing Industry Crystallizes around J&J

June 02, 2007 | Phil Fersht
  • Jj_2
  • You can’t understate the importance of the 10-year $1bn Johnson & Johnson HR Outsourcing contract to the long-term sustainability of the HRO industry. When discussions began within J&J back in the summer of 2005, the key question bouncing around J&J’s leadership was “can we really do this?”. For a company that has grown largely through acquisition, J&J today boasts a couple of hundred businesses operating under the flagship brand. You can only begin to imagine the challenge of standardizing this global business on a common HR platform, across multiple countries, supported by centralized HR organizations. I recall times it looked doubtful the deal would happen with all the negative publicity surrounding HRO, the contractual issues of some of the earlier engagements, and the financial difficulties experienced by some of the ambitious providers who bit off slightly more than they could initially chew. It became abundantly clear over the last 6 months that J&J would prove to be the bellweather of the HRO industry – its very survival hinging on whether this would actually happen.

  • What is transpiring in today's industry, is that outsourcing (BPO and ITO) is providing the lever for companies to go through major change (hey – I managed to avoid saying “transformation”). And what’s more, HR outsourcing drives business change with the investment footed by labor arbitrage, process automation and self-service technology (contrary to the mega ERP implementations of the ‘90s where the cost was borne by the shareholders). For many global organizations, they simply cannot drive the scale of change necessary through organic process re-engineering – it’s often far too expensive, far too slow, and often far too political. Many companies do not have the required management experience to do it either. Going through outsourcing drives shock into system, forces change quickly and usually reduces administrative costs. Yes, a handful of companies decided it was not for them, for various reasons, but the vast majority would never go back. They want to work with what they have achieved and make it better, through better governance and constant innovation.

So what’s next for the HRO industry? – here are my snapshot predictions:

  • Global deals will continue to slow as the major providers reach capacity and absorb what they have already taken on
  • The upper middle-market will open up aggressively as firms with 5,000 – 10,000 employees pursue broader outsourcing strategies across SG&A and IT functions. Interest in outsourcing is at an all-time high and companies are vigorously exploring sourcing models that work for them – i.e. captives / hybrid models / full scope outsourcing
  • The “Transform first, then outsource” myth is beginning to fade (but slowly). The common plea of “we can’t do this right now until we get our act together internally first” isn’t washing as well as it used to, with more and more companies fixing their internal process and technology requirements while going through outsourcing transition. J&J is a perfect example of that, and a bellweather for many more organizations to follow who desperately need to change.
  • HRO will become more accepted as a standard outsourcing practice, like ITO, F&A and Call Center.  My post on the Human Capitalist blog in December 2006 lays out the issues the HRO industry has had to contend with, unlike other outsourcing towers:

    Holding HR Accountable

Posted in: HR OutsourcingHR Strategy