Archive for the ‘BlogPosts’ Category
The governance of service delivery and service performance has never been more important than today. We have demanding customers and business units, less money and less staff, and extremely complex delivery models, many of which may be outsourced, multi-sourced or shared.
ITIL as a discipline and best practice is a great guide for organisations on how best to support and deliver services that are aligned with business needs. The success of ITIL however is measured by the performance (SLAs/KPIs) of those services (stats, customer surveys and feedback, proxy measures, etc.) and the effectiveness of the Service Improvement and Business Change Programs that run alongside ITIL services.
So given this and, given the many sources of information that underpin ITIL SLAs/KPIs/Projects/SIPs/etc. (e.g. transaction systems, excel spread sheets, projects plans, word documents, information in people’s heads), 2 key question remains.
“How do you connect all this disconnected information on a single page (or iPad), to understand how effectively ITIL is underpinning service performance in your organisation?”
“How do you decide which aspects of the service require your focus and attention at the next governance meeting?”
For years IS Management have sought the Holy Grail of a well-structured, top-down management framework for IS but this has failed to materialise. Decisions on operational performance, infrastructure change management, third party outsourced delivery and numerous projects require a lot of information to be crunched and brought together for governance meetings.
ITIL/TOGAF/Prince2 have been around for quite some time and are big business. Consultancies sell time delivering these frameworks and these solutions. Often they design beautiful paper based processes with wonderful documentation that unfortunately never get adopted. Software providers deliver solutions that support different bits of it. Some of them deliver solutions that reportedly support all of it.
The fact is that ITIL/TOGAF/Prince2 are great frameworks of best practice and guidelines, but rarely, if ever, are they supported by one toolset or process within any organisation.
Typically, information on the performance of ITIL , Governance, IS Service delivery (SLAs and KPIs) or IS Projects, as well as the risks, issues, decisions taken, commitments made, SIPs on-going and outstanding actions, reside in (and in some cases are locked in) a variety of systems. MS Word documents, MS Excel spread sheets, MS Project plans, CRM systems, Service Management systems and financial management systems are all the places we keep this locked disconnected information.
Furthermore the information of most value (e.g. the context behind a performance indicator, the progress on an issue, the status of a milestone in a project) may be locked inside someone’s head.
Combined, this mix of data (both the facts and and the context/opinions) is the critical data that we need to aggregate. When we do, we get to see whether the things we are doing and the decisions we are taking, are having the desired effect on the organizations performance, customer satisfaction, or whatever the key outcomes are that define success.
Current Solution Options
Solutions like Digital Fuel’s Service Flow with reporting platforms like Cognos/Business Objects/SAS and enterprise project management platforms like Planview/Primavera/MSProjectServer are a possibility, but the cost of buying and integrating these platforms is often prohibitive.
Additionally this approach is not quick. Infrastructure needs to be purchased and implemented, requirements need to be understood, integration points need to be analysed, software needs to be installed, all before the configuration and training is even started.
Increasingly organisations are looking to avoid complex environments with 3-4 tools welded together to get the answer and they don’t want to wait 6-12 months before they start to see results. They have a governance challenge and they just want it fixed quickly.
So this cost and complexity of building and integrating multiple platforms has led the industry to a much “easier”, but more manual, way of doing things. Excel and PowerPoint based governance reporting dominate business reporting including ITIL and IT Service Management.
To be clear, Microsoft is the most widely used set of tools on the planet for data analysis and performance reporting.
With Microsoft Excel we
- Extract the performance from all our key systems
- Build graphs of the performance of each of the metrics
- Manage our Risks, Issue, Assumptions and Dependencies
- Track the actions we agreed at previous meetings
- And manage things like change requests, financial performance, stakeholder engagements, communication plans, etc.
With Microsoft PowerPoint or Microsoft Word we
- Build visually nice reports for our stakeholders
- Import all our summary data and graphs do each area or service line
- Add commentary regarding the performance
- Update with the latest information on risks, issues, assumptions, dependencies
We do all of the above to avoid the need for big systems, bypass them if they are already in place, and most importantly meet our commitments on governance and performance reporting to our stakeholders. What we have created is a cottage industry on governance reporting. Moreover every document is usually stored in some sort of document repository as the belief is that this means it is shared and dynamic – is it really?
What would the “almost” perfect solution look like
If we had a magic wand and said “what would the solution look like?” I would suggest that it could be described as follows
- It will be able to understand corporate outcomes and model the direct linkage of IS delivery and projects to those corporate outcomes.
- It will have ITIL/Togaf/PRINCE principles preconfigured inside the system with limited need to build these.
- It will be able to aggregate a lot of very detailed data from any service tools like HP OpenView, BMP Patrol, Remedy, SupportWorks, Assyst, Microsoft , Primavera, etc. etc. and connect that with commentary from people
- It will be able to present the same information rolled up to appropriate levels of summary.
- It will require no infrastructure, can be switched on tomorrow and turned off when no longer required.
- It will be setup within a matter of weeks and used by the people within the organisation with very minimal training.
- It will be able to be deployed to as many users as needed without increases in cost per user.
So back to our questions
“How do you connect all this disconnected information on a single page (or iPAD), to understand how effectively ITIL is underpinning service performance in your organisation?”
As I see it you have three choices. You either
a) accept the cost, complexity and long lead times that go with coupling a number of large solutions together to deliver this level of connectivity to, or
b) retain or hire a load of people to manually do this and accept the costs, risks, manual errors, and lack of confidence that goes with manual ITIL reporting, as the reports are not directly connected to the underlying data and audit trails of progress, or
c) you find something that looks similar to the “almost” perfect solution I describe above, that will take what you have already, enrich it with context and perspective, and deliver it on single page views (and iPad views) per governance point.
“How do you decide which aspects of the service, or current project portfolio, require your focus and attention at the next governance meeting?”
This remains in the realm of good management but good managers are made great managers when they have the information they need, can consume it quickly, have visual indicators on where to focus their attention, and can get to the detail and audit trail on any item with minimal effort.
When provided with this, great managers make quicker decisions and consequentially are much more likely to achieve the goals they are responsible for delivering.
The undisputed facts about outsourcing, Part 1: Buyers are saving money, but aren’t seeing a whole lot more
I have just read the latest study from Horses from Sources conducted by the London School of Economics Outsourcing Unit on the State of Outsourcing in 2011.
While it is clear to see that the cost savings targets are being met, the concerns are clear – thats about it.
I am unsure of how many participated in this from the UK but regardless of this fact, everything we see validates the results. Even though organisations say they are chasing capability lift and innovation, the facts remain that cost is the driver and the provider chases (espicially in first generation outsouring) the delivery of those cost committments without the the loss if its profit. It has to. Thats where the focus is, and the critical measures and targets align with that.
So when does the organisation realise this is going the wrong way.
Many would say they told you right from the start it was going wrong, but I guess it happens not long after the organisation realises that 1) the service hasn’t changed much in the last 2-3 years, 2) the processes are just as manual in places as they were before, and 3) the services are not supporting the business objectives or worse, preventing the business achieving its objectives.
This is when they really know is gone wrong. However perhaps its gone right, just right against the wrong objectives. I spoke to the head of a worldwide shared services center recently who outsourced the service delivery element to a global provider and he told me “I didnt have a mandate to do it well or clever, I had a mandate to do it cheap, and we delivered on that. Now its time to start thinking about clever.” Well as least he didn’t think he was doing something else or that the provider was to deliver anything else, which is better than most.
It seems to me the that the changeover from first generation outsourcing to second generation outsourcing is the critical point. The point at which the business realises its done it cheaper, now it needs to do it better. I suspect many of the candiates interviewed were in this position. For the organiosation to now do better and do clever, it needs to refocus the incumbent or select new, but either way charge them with re-enginerring the processes and making a step change in the value being delivered back to the business.
But, as my friend Deborah Kops might say, thats when the fun really starts. Is the organisation prepared and capable of absorbing the cultural changes this mandate will require.
Catch more from Deborah on this subject at www.souringchange.com.
If you haven’t heard of Horses for Sources yet, then this latest study should accelerate your interest in them. Great organisation and well considered by many. See the link below for the full article.
I spend a lot of time, and have done for many years, talking to and working with organizations who are trying to set up IT services and Service Level Agreements.
Usually what’s involved is for me to provide a good amount of information and ‘know-how’ on how to approach doing this, accompanied by loads of encouragement and support – in order to give the client both the understanding and the confidence to drive this through.
For me the assimilation of this ‘knowledge’ has come through the medium of many prolonged and difficult projects – generally where negotiation or communications have failed and/or expectations have in some way been missed
Like many in the industry I have of course compiled a lot of this information together in written form to try to provide as much advance expectation of this things that go wrong – much of this is available. However recently, one thing occurred to me that I really hadn’t thought of quite so explicitly before:
All of our SLAs (and often services) are described and defined in really negative terms…
If you go into a shop or say a car showroom, the sales person doesn’t immediately start telling you about the liability associated with the product, or how often it is expected to fail, or when you might expect it to be unavailable.
The car salesman doesn’t start to tell you about the car’s handling faults before they’ve got you interested, or if you are buying clothes they wouldn’t tell you that the clothes
you are interested in were made using slave labor, or that the material is cheap so won’t last more than 5 washes…
If you are trying to sell something then you need to (emotionally) engage your prospect first before you give them any bad news. Ideally if they are interested and sold enough on the positive aspects of the product, then they will accept the negative ones. However if you start out by focussing on the down-sides, you may not get the chance to sell the up-sides and will lose your prospective customer.
Of course I’m not suggesting that sales should be devious and not mention negatives, and we need to be open and honest about what we are selling. However, in terms of emotional response, first impressions count and are lasting, so it makes sense to start off trying to win people over.
It’s much easier to give them bad news once they’ve emotionally engaged, rather than trying to sell them something that they’ve already discounted. I know – it’s basic sales technique.
So what’s this got to do with IT and SLAs?
We tend to write and present SLAs and service descriptions that simply refer to how we react and manage issues, or how long it will take us to respond (or not) and how long our service is available (or not). We don’t often write SLAs that tell our customers how much we are doing to help them do their job, or how fast/efficient/cost effective the service is, or how it delivers value to them.
This of course is easier said than done as often IT services aren’t the most exciting or engaging of ‘products’ to sell. However we should be trying to present and define our services in as much of a positive and user-engaging way as possible.
So how can this help with SLM?
By far the biggest hurdle to climb in developing SLAs is getting people on-side, on-board, on-message – and to ‘buy-in’. Everyone will tell you that the ‘business isn’t interested’, ‘we can’t get them involved’, ‘they don’t want to know’ etc.
Well maybe it’s no wonder if any previous attempt to look at this has resulted in a turgid list of negative and dull IT support tasks and responsibilities that say nothing about the customer’s business.
We need to present information on our services and service levels in a format that engages and enthuses people where possible – we can start on this by focussing on the positive – i.e. what does the service deliver in terms of value to the business and / or our customer’s ability to do their job?
Sure we will need to include information on support and what happens when things go wrong, but we really also should be thinking about how we can get customers on-side with us – so lets be radical and start with the positive…!
So as an example – rather than saying:
We provide you with Email services that will fail at some point. When they do we react pretty well and won’t make your life miserable for too long (although we can’t say for how long)
Why not say:
Your E-mail service helps you to communicate instantly and globally with your customers and contacts, wherever and whenever you need to. We help each employee to make an average of 400 email contacts per day, as well as managing your schedule in synch with your on-the-go PDA. Your IT dept also delivers this at very competitive cost compared to domestic services and with high standards of security and safety. If you have any issues with this service please contact our award-wining service desk for support… etc etc.
OK maybe I’m just dreaming but the message has got to be: lets be positive.
Author: Barclay Rae
What are the basics?
Recent client and industry research work has given me a lot of good new exposure to some of the emerging areas of ITSM, notably Social Media, Cloud and of course the ever developing Service Catalogue/service definition area. Interesting to see a lot of new activity and approaches in this area, particularly with concepts like OBASHI and other new ways of consulting and matching business demands with IT ones.
There is a need for more innovation and real grasp of the life and spirit of Service Management, and its good to see a lot of activity and interest developing in the market. However we are always in danger of getting away from the key source of what ITSM is all about – business and services, delivered by people.
I recently did a presentation where I wrote some new slides as well as digging out some old ones and came across some stuff which included my ‘ITIL/ITSM in one slide’ concept. I really think we have to be able to describe and paint a picture of what ITSM is and what it does and delivers in a simple and understandable format, so here goes:
So to me any CIO should be able to to answer these basic questions, which ITSM should deliver:
Does our IT organisation deliver what the business needs?
Can we demonstrate this?
Would our customers agree?
As such ITSM should simply be:
- To have an agreed set of business goals that IT is working towards
- To measure and review performance against these goals
- To develop and deliver services, with appropriate process, systems and organisational structures to ensure that the goals can be met
- To ensure that suitable people are in place with appropriate skills to deliver the services to meet those goals
- To constantly review performance and make relevant adjustments in resources, processes to ensure that IT is able to meet the goals
- To constantly review progress with the business and to regularly review and amend the goals as necessary
- To ensure that performance – and success in meeting the goals – is suitably publicised and understood across the business
Author: Barclay Rae
Isn’t outsourcing easy? Just crunch the numbers to figure out how much you can save to lump your back office somewhere cheaper, get an advisor to cut you a good deal and Bob’s yer uncle. Change management? What’s that? Something fluffy that went out of fashion with Total Quality Management in the ’80s?
Outsourcing change is revolutionary—the world order changes. At the minimum, outsourcing introduces new rules and tools, different outcomes, changes careers, moves work offshore, requires new skills—all in the effort to realize a business case within a specific period of time. Yet we spend most of our time worrying about selecting the right provider, or negotiating the right contract. It’s time to assess how we make outsourcing change happen, and its implications upon sourcing success. So let’s all do exactly that…
HfS Research and our contributing analyst Deborah Kops of Sourcingchange.com, are assessing the implications of change management on sourcing implementation, with the support of the Shared Services and Outsourcing Network. This groundbreaking study will put numbers around what the industry commonly views as “soft stuff,” yet privately views it as one of the most critical drivers of outsourcing success.
With the participation of both the buyer and provider community, the research will be able to quantify, for the first time, how buyers actually approach change management, and most importantly, where they find the greatest challenge in getting it right. Similarly, we are asking the provider community to chime in, bringing their considerable insights into client change success and describing how they support the change process.
Please take a few minutes to participate…and ask others in the industry to respond. Together we’ll be able to better dimension the state of change. Two lucky respondents will win an Amazon Kindle:
Most of us have been down on our knees praying that the relationship does not blow up over an error. Perhaps the cutover was delayed because the provider did not conduct sufficient user acceptance tests, or an employee committed fraud within a client account because controls were inadequate, or the client did not provide the entire list of company codes, delaying payment which got the business lines up in arms. Then several courses of action kick in: a), sweep the incident under the rug; b), start pointing fingers; c); blame the root cause on a decision that was taken some months back; or perhaps even d); fess up like a man and say mea culpa.
Despite the fact that our mothers taught us to take responsibility for our actions, in the complicated relationship pas de deux that is outsourcing, we tend to feel that apologizing and making reparations is not the way to deal with the other party. Despite protestations of partnership between provider and client, our tendency is to frame outsourcing relationships as a constant you win, I lose. If we let the other party have the so-called upper hand in the relationship, we frankly think that we are abdicating terrain, to use a military term.
The prevailing governance structures superimposed on outsourcing relationships don’t foster an admission that sourcing will go wrong from time to time. Governance as we practice it today is predicated on the concept that perfection is a given, and any and all mistakes are a major screw up.. The health of the relationship is boiled down to a green-yellow-red scorecard. Obtain as many greens as possible permitting an occasional yellow to demonstrate a degree of humanity is the goal. It’s a game that leaves no room for, and ascribes no value to honestly admitting to a good, old-fashioned screw up.
But in any endeavor, driven by either humans or technology, there is no such thing as perfection. Taking responsibility for a snafu is painful, but it signals that you live your value statement to the injured party and your employees. But it is not enough to apologize when you think sufficient time has passed, waiting until the injured party has moved onto other concerns and has enough perspective to brush the infraction off. It is necessary to act immediately and with sincerity.
Without sincerity and, depending on the context, either a willingness to take on responsibility for the problem or meet the other party at least half way, there is no apology. Unfortunately the concept of amnesia does not exist in a sourcing relationship; the damage caused by empty gestures just festers over time.
A little bit of penance is always helpful. Remediation is good; a bit more “give” than absolutely necessary indicates that the severity and impact of the fault is understood, and that the transgressors take it as a first principle to act in good faith.
Saying we screwed up actually earns the erring party relationship credibility over the long haul. While the short term impact—additional cost or delay, a plethora of sharp emails and calls, perhaps a closer rein on decisions, and greater supervision—is painful, over time, a straightforward admission of responsibility pays off in a better working relationship, deeper trust, and an overarching belief that the parties will always strive to act in the best interest of the partnership. Admission of guilt also builds employees’ faith in the errant company and its leadership, and teaches lessons about customer service and value.
Next time you think that the course of true outsourcing relationship should always run smooth, think again. But saying you’re sorry can go a long way.
What does Burnham’s quote have to do with outsourcing and shared services implementation? After variously laying the blame at the feet of recalcitrant business units or geographies, poor systems, or seemingly incompetent providers, the root cause of the failure to implement enterprise-wide change may lie in the inability of the sponsors or business owners to understand that what they ultimately get is the change they aspire to have. Without a predefined business architecture upon which to build, organizations find themselves with ad hoc operations all over the world, with no implementation or operations synergies, duplicative management, and higher cost.
Why are big globalization plans so very important? Quite simply, their scale, and only their scale, has the power to move the dial. Yet we are in terror of doing something big, and hope a small pilot will achieve the same sourcing objective. And it won’t.
Corporate change must have context to deliver the maximum stream of benefit Without a line of sight into an operating model’s end state, functions generally move offshore singly, rather than as vital component of a business architecture designed to affect cost, increase productivity and change ways of working across the enterprise.
Commitment is synonymous with scale. If the organization is truly committed to changing its architecture, it understands the importance of scale. If not, the planning quantum is merely an experiment which can be quickly stopped when resistance crops up, or other corporate initiatives seem more critical. Small is not beautiful.
To read more about the missed opportunity represented by thinking small, go to my column State of Change at http://www.ssonetwork.com/topic_detail.aspx?id=10102&ekfrm=6
Author: Deborah Kops
2010 saw us conduct exhaustive studies of enterprise sourcing customers to understand better how they can find new ways to drive productivity and revenue growth (innovation) and take better advantage of Cloud business services.
The one common theme that kept cropping up, was their overwhelming admission for more effective change management and communications, business transformation and governance programs. To put this all in a nutshell, many customers must radicallychange their whole approach to sourcing to break free from inflexible old-world business models, IT strangleholds and rate-card purgatory.
So this year, we are putting a major research emphasis on what measures customers need to address to get moving with their sourcing agendas. And, as if by some higher form of sorcery, we’ve been graced with the presence of Deborah “Sourcing Change” Kops herself to help steer our sourcing change research agenda this year. Over to you, Mrs. Kops…
Happy Sourcing Change Year
My friends at HfS are forecasting a meteorologist’s dream for the sourcing industry— high pressure combinations of Cowboys and Indians, a blizzard of new deals, and very Cloud-y days. In the face of these anticipated patterns, how should buyers prepare for the stormy weather that ultimately impacts results for their organizations? Perhaps it’s time to prepare for the change sourcing represents a bit differently. Here are my top five recommendations for staying warm and dry in 2011.
Approach sourcing as “disorganizing event” Buyers usually restrict their ambition for sourcing to make existing conditions a bit better, faster and cheaper in a more scalable structure. Yet the act of sourcing is a profound opportunity to make indelible changes to the way the organization works—enabling work in new ways, setting new rules, delivering different outcomes, even changing the culture. Think about how you want to change the organization, and solve for it, rather than build a better mousetrap. What do you want sourcing to enable you to do?
Focus on “worst practices” Think about it–the best practices always take care of themselves, yet the worst practices fester and fester. Want to delight your customers by making their lives better? Stop painting a picture about a sourcing nirvana where 200 basis points of the cost of an invoice will solve all ills, and design a solution to get rid of their biggest headaches—inaccurate data, late close, lackadaisical staff on boarding, excessive system downtime. First fix what is inexcusable and downright awful, and customers will start to believe the vision.
Allay all fear The aim of sourcing is about as altruistic as corporate initiatives get. Few dare to argue that the business case benefits aren’t exceptionally compelling. Yet what stops it in its tracks is fear—fear of pushing too fast or treading on important corporate toes on the part of the sponsoring team, fear of not performing on the part of the delivery team, and fear of loss of control on the part of the business lines. If you can allay your own fears, and those of your internal customers, you’re halfway there.
Ditch procurement Is traditional procurement deeply involved in M&A activity? Corporate strategy?Business transformation? Not a chance. While our friends in the CPO’s office have an important role to play in procurement process and governance, they cannot be the major arbiter of taste when it comes to sourcing true corporate change.
Deborah Kops, Contributing Analyst, Sourcing Change Management, HfS Research (click for bio)
Get moving The mantra for sourcing change is the opposite of “speed kills.” Take it as a given that you’ll never please everyone nor get all aspect of the solution right. The sourcing exercise is not a proxy for singing a kind of corporate “kumbaya”—sitting around until everyone holds hands around the campfire. Obvious change is like a revolution—there is a before and an after. Everyone may not like the after, but there is movement, ostensibly to something better.
During the course of the year, Sourcing Change will be working closely with HfS Research to not only help you think about change management differently, but also dimension similar challenges. You’ll know when to put on those boots, and when to put on sunscreen, when an umbrella is in order, and how to batten down for a tornado.
I recently read one of those elaborate corporate leadership books that was trying to boil down 300 pages of common sense into one list of 10 inspiring points. If you are like me, many of the business books you read either oversimplify a very complex problem, or attempt to restate the obvious in new jargon.
However, I did come across a gem that has resonance in sourcing change management: small numbers, also known as the sponsoring or sourcing team, make fairly significant business model decisions, and expect a broad range of stakeholders to (cheerfully?) execute.
Absolutely true—corporate decision making cannot not scale to the extent that everyone affected has a seat at the table. It’s completely impractical. But expecting business lines, enabling functions, process owners, and all those employees affected both up and downstream to just execute like automatons is more than a bit on the naïve side.
Over the course of any sourcing implementation, challenges will inevitably crop up. However, starting off on the right foot with the large numbers is critical—there are no second chances to make a first impression. Here are three imperatives for putting best feet forward with the masses:
Kick off formally Don’t keep them in the dark because it’s easier for the small team to manage. As soon as the strategy is agreed, and the implementation plan is clear, bring the large numbers into the fold in a respectful, orderly fashion. The gossip is already out there; trumping the water cooler gossip with fact puts the change on your footing. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan, noted American statesman, said, “everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own set of facts.”
Market! Understand that it’s imperative to market the change at announcement, not just send out a perfunctory email. Most willunderstand the base rationale for a change in operating model, but not automatically embrace the implications for themselves, their teams and their business. That’s where marketing comes in. Most stakeholders want to be sold on an idea, even if the mandate comes down from on high. They demand the respect of having the who/where/what/when and why presented to them formally through media they are accustomed to. Once this hurdle is crossed, they can start exploring the personal implications of the change.
Influence Ensure that you’ve convinced key individuals of the imperative for sourcing change in advance, or immediately upon announcement, and planted them across the landscape of affected functions and customers. Stakeholders emulate the behaviors of those whom they respect and wish to be like, so mapping key influencers and getting them on board with the rationale is a precondition to change management success.
Author: Deborah Kops
Excuse the excrable use of grammar to make a point. So much fault in outsourcing relationships is laid at the feet of what we call culture–the provider team do not know who the Yankees are, they don’t celebrate Christmas, they have too many holidays. In other words, they just aren’t like us. And the latest NBC offering “Outsource” doesn’t help; making poor jokes out of young Indian call center staff who haven’t figured out Halloween or why Americans think it’s cool to wear aprons with curvy female shapes. But the fact of the matter is that culture is not the only divide between client and provider staff.
So much of the disconnect between the client and the provider team is due to a generation divide. When 40 or 50 year olds directlylmanage 20-somethings who think careers are fungible, who have no idea about ‘paying it forward’ and little loyalty to an employer, issues naturally crop up. It’s the workplace version of communication between Mars and Venus. It’s not obvious in the Western workplace; we still accomodate 3 or 4 work generations in our companies. And the staging of ages buffers some of the problems which occur when Baby Boomers rub up against Millenials. But it’s not the case when work is outsourced offshore.
Perhaps you’ve run into a provider–or been a client for that matter–who understands the seriousness of the divide, and its implications for a good sourcing relationship. I haven’t–all I’ve experienced is cultural training that fronts the first few days of provider staff client induction, or a crash culture course for the retained client team. Why can’t client and provider include generational training in transition planning? Or even acknowledge the challenges in relationship building?
This is not to say outsourcing is not the right business model; what we need to acknowledge are its challenges. And the generation gap is great. To better understand the gap, go tohttp://www.sourcingchange.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/imperfect-arbitrage.pdf
Author: Deborah Kops