{"id":1130,"date":"2014-07-04T10:44:00","date_gmt":"2014-07-04T10:44:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/projects\/horsesforsources\/fixing_outsourcing1_070414\/"},"modified":"2014-07-04T10:44:00","modified_gmt":"2014-07-04T10:44:00","slug":"fixing_outsourcing1_070414","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.horsesforsources.com\/fixing_outsourcing1_070414\/","title":{"rendered":"Steps the outsourcing industry needs to take to survive"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
Outsourcing: Making the same mistakes over and over and expecting people to stop moaning<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
One of the the core issues we discussed at last week’s Blueprint Sessions was the frustrating and seemingly never-ending issue of providers over-promising delights to clients to win engagements and then failing to deliver on them. \u00a0However, the group of 45 industry stakeholders all agreed that all of the entities are at fault in setting up too many of these engagements to fail:<\/p>\n
Buyers: \u00a0<\/strong>Thinking that they are going to get wads of free transformational consulting that will miraculously appear from the provider – even thought they haven’t actually paid<\/em> for any;<\/p>\n
Providers: \u00a0<\/strong>Promising wads of\u00a0free transformation consulting to augment their operational obligations, even though they probably will not really give the client any (but who cares, as it’ll be too late for the client to back out in two years’ time and they aren’t contractually obliged to provide it);<\/p>\n
Advisors:<\/strong> \u00a0Strong-arming providers to respond to RFPs in three weeks and allowing very little (if any) interaction time for providers to interact with their clients in advance to develop the right solution and get a stronger balance between delivery capability and desired outcomes.<\/p>\n
So what happens when you look at a culmination of many buyers’ first five years’ experiences after signing a contract? \u00a0Let’s take a look at some collective journeys:<\/p>\n