{"id":4596,"date":"2008-05-24T10:20:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-24T10:20:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/projects\/horsesforsources\/bpo-partnerships-are-opportunistic-rarely-strategic\/"},"modified":"2008-05-24T10:20:00","modified_gmt":"2008-05-24T10:20:00","slug":"bpo-partnerships-are-opportunistic-rarely-strategic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.horsesforsources.com\/bpo-partnerships-are-opportunistic-rarely-strategic\/","title":{"rendered":"BPO partnerships are opportunistic, rarely strategic"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a><\/a> Having worked closely with both <\/strong>ICG Commerce<\/strong><\/a> and <\/strong>Genpact<\/strong><\/a> for the last few years, it was a positive step forward for the firms to <\/strong>announce a partnership<\/strong><\/a>, but I believe the companies should go a step further and merge. Partnerships like this are normally opportunistic; they help the firms team up for broader finance\/procurement customer bids, as they can be vulnerable when competing with Accenture and IBM, which have broadscale finance & accounting (F&A) and Procurement BPO solutions.<\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n Both Genpact and ICGC are great masters of their areas, and, in-fact, resemble each other quite closely: Genpact was the rogue little guy that came along and upset the F&A BPO apple-cart and won multiple contracts away from the big boys, through a unique combination of low-cost labour underpinned by the GE culture and process methodology. The firm is now the third-largest F&A BPO provider and has recently gone public. ICGC has had to operate in a similar fashion, competing against much larger competition, but has enjoyed some notable blue-chip client successes, winining procurement engagements with companies such as Kimberly-Clark, Hertz and Nordstrom. F&A BPO is a much larger and more lucrative market, based on the major labor arbitrage advantages of moving transactional processes offshore, whereas procurement BPO has been a tougher sell to companies, with the challenges of moving work into low-cost locations and transitioning unique expertise sets in distinct category areas over to third-parties providers. <\/P> The business case for procurement BPO is based on future savings from managed spend, not on immediate<\/em> savings from the bottom-line through moving hundreds of positions offshore. Moreover, procurement is one of those functions which has, in many firms, been cut to the bone, and the only means to find new avenues of optimization is through having better technology and access to skilled staff, who normally reside in the regions where the procurement transactions take place. Most companies moving into procurement BPO today are often motivated by the fact they have already outsourced transactional finance work, have become experienced with outsourcing, and want to take a longer-term and more strategic view of managing their global sourcing mix. Hence, ICGC needs to be close to the F&A BPO action to get into the procurement BPO discussions. Being joined at the hip with Genpact is a very smart strategy – and Genpact – at the same time – needs to have that procurement story.<\/P>
\nBPO solutions that cut across finance\/procurement and payroll functions, normally require process knowledge that can be shared across delivery staff and technology. How easy is it to transfer these processes to two separate suppliers, whose staff work in separate locations, work for different organizations with different cultures and may not be overly familiar with each others’ technology platforms? Your BPO services are only going to be as good as the people delivering them, so you need to know your provider is investing heavily in ongoing quality improvements, enhancing the technology on an ongoing basis, and constantly developing its personnel. I like partnerships where two parties set aside budget to co-invest in developing a platform, or jointly establishing a delivery center, as opposed to opportunistic arrangements set up for competitive purposes to win deals.<\/P>
\n
\n
\n