Blog article
See all stories »

Outsourcing innovation - myth or a matter of time?

The debate over whether innovation in outsourcing can truly exist seems interminable. At the same time as commentators debate about what innovation really is, suppliers continue to jostle for a place at the innovation table, the opportunity to say “We add value” rather than “We are cheap”.

Out of all this, it’s clear that no one has yet truly found the answer. Some believe that the fact that outsourcing is too tightly bound by a commercial contract stifles any potential for innovation within the project. Others believe that the heavy involvement of the procurement department, with its principle focus on cost and little regard for quality or service transformation, is also an inhibitor to innovative outsourcing.

If the outsourcing project is “locked down” from a commercial standpoint and too strictly governed by service level agreements and key performance indicators, neither the supplier nor the end user organisation will feel incentivised to identify opportunities for innovation. This ensures that any scope for innovation is scuppered.

So what actually drives innovation? And what environmental variables have to be present for innovation to flourish? Partnership and trust between the end user organisation and their partner is paramount. So is the ethos of approaching a problem and solving it together, as opposed to doing it in isolation. End user organisations are starting to realise that to really see the benefits of outsourcing, they need to work with their partners on high-level projects where the innovation and business transformation will make a positive effect on bottom line.

 

 

3099

Comments: (1)

A Finextra member
A Finextra member 27 August, 2008, 12:24Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes

There's an old song 'Do what you do do well, boy, do what you do do well....'

Simple rule if you don't do it as good as someone else you can get to do it, then outsource. Cost is obviously an issue, but what is the cost of not doing?

Innovation has many fathers.

Personally, the reason I set about creating a workable and practical authentication system is because I 'accidentally' read the majority of the defence 'secret' weapons projects of a country which shall remain unnamed (on the grounds that it may upset someone and be very hazardous to me), covering every detail including plans, research, prototyping , deployment, conclusions, names, addresses, contact details of participants, location of facilities, budgets...etc, you get the idea. They most probably know I did it (I hope so anyway for all our sake), but it's too late after the horse has bolted, isn't it? I assume that some of the very many smarter people than me have had similar 'accidents' and I am very, very concerned by that.

I am also concerned about the future of the internet for the average person if we continue on this irresponsible course of thinking it'll be all right.

Corporations generally only innovate to increase profits or maintain market share. This sometimes means that if the competitors are happy with a stauts quo (ie. banks in Australia) then there is little effort at innovation, but plenty of lip service.

 

Now hiring