Mitigating Outsourcing Risks: II

Last time ("Mitigating Outsourcing Risks: I," Point Lookout for April 15, 2009) we explored outsourcing risks associated with knowledge migration. In this Part II, we examine risks associated with the processes we outsource. As in Part I, the term "customer" refers to the organization that decided to outsource something, and "vendor" refers to the organization that carries out the outsourced activity.

Here are three risks associated with the processes we outsource.

Process stiffening

Outsourcing agreements typically include assumptions about the nature of the outsourced processes. These assumptions can vary widely — they might pertain to the frequency of changes in requirements, or to the requirements themselves, or to how well documented the processes are. Changes to these assumptions usually entail negotiation with the vendor. Sometimes those changes go beyond the scope of the contract, which makes the negotiations challenging. In effect, these sometimes-hidden assumptions can stiffen the processes that are outsourced. In dynamic organizations, process stiffness is a liability.

Vendors and customers who can make assumptions explicit during initial contracting will be able to devise more flexible and durable contract arrangements.

Wagging the dog

Occasionally the vendor wants a change that the customer didn't request. For instance, the vendor might want to cease support of an operating system or operating system version. Usually, continued support is available at a higher price, but that might not make economic sense to the customer. In this way, vendor priorities can become customer priorities, whether the customer likes it or not. The tail wags the dog.

Contracts that address this issue are more durable. They permit both parties to plan for change from the beginning of their collaboration.

Insulation from improvements and economies

Once a process is outsourced, the vendor might have an incentive to improve it. If lower-cost methods for producing the required deliverables are consistent Intent on maximizing short-term
expense reductions, many customers
lay off those who might have
understood the vendor's improvementswith the contract, the vendor might be able to retain all or some of the resulting savings. Often, the vendor is not even obliged to transfer knowledge of the improvements to the customer. Even when knowledge transfer occurs, many customers might no longer have employees who can understand what is transferred. In effect, the customer is insulated from process improvements and cannot benefit from them. When the customer moves to a new vendor, those improvements are often lost.

Customers who retain employees who are fully capable of understanding the details of the activities that were outsourced, and who are allocated to supporting the outsourcing relationship, have a better chance of capturing any process improvements the vendors produce. Intent on maximizing short-term expense reductions, many customers are unwilling to maintain such staff. But even those customers who do maintain an internal capability must rely on the willingness of their vendors to disclose any such improvements.

When modeling the economics of a decision to outsource, these risks are important. Including them in your decision process will produce higher-quality results.   First issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

How We Avoid Making Decisions

When an important item remains on our To-Do list for a long time, it's possible that we've found ways to avoid facing it. Some of the ways we do this are so clever that we may be unaware of them. Here's a collection of techniques we use to avoid engaging difficult problems.

Team Thrills

Occasionally we have the experience of belonging to a great team. Thrilling as it is, the experience is rare. How can we make it happen more often?

When Stress Strikes

Most of what we know about person-to-person communication applies when levels of stress are low. But when stress is high, as it is in emergencies, we're more likely to make mistakes. Knowing those mistakes in advance can be helpful in avoiding them.

Annoyance to Asset

Unsolicited contributions to the work of one element of a large organization, by people from another, are often annoying to the recipients. Sometimes the contributors then feel rebuffed, insulted, or frustrated. Toxic conflict can follow. We probably can't halt the flow of contributions, but we can convert it from a liability to a valuable asset.

Twenty-Three Thoughts

Sometimes we get so focused on the immediate problem that we lose sight of the larger questions. Here are twenty-three thoughts to help you focus on what really counts.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info