I am at once reminded of the story of the truck that was too tall for an underpass and ended up getting stuck.

With the ensuing traffic jam growing by the minute, the city officials called in various experts to determine how to remove the truck from under the underpass and once again allow the traffic to flow freely.

They first consulted an engineer who suggested that they remove the section of the overpass immediately above the truck.  A complex exercise to be certain this, reasoned the engineer, would be the best way to free the trapped vehicle.

The city officials then turned to the head of road maintenance for her opinion.

She suggested that they dig out a trench on both sides of the vehicle and then after propping it up with stabilizers, remove the ground beneath it.  This way she reasoned the truck could either drive out of the mini-ravine or be pulled out.

While the experts were each advocating their recommended solution as being the best a young girl, who was watching the events unfold from her nearby yard, approached the city officials with a simple suggestion; “why not let enough air out of the tires so as to lower the vehicle enough so that it can easily drive out from under the underpass?”

The mere simplicity of the young girl’s suggestion makes this is a powerful story.

It also challenges the premise that traditional governance mechanisms in which rigid and for the most part unnecessarily complex and onerous conditions to ensure vendor performance are effective.

I am not suggesting that such conditions be eschewed but . . . they are far too often blindly incorporated and followed without the corresponding collaborative mechanisms being incorporated into the process.  As a result, contracts provide little more than stagnating reference points for missed SLAs as opposed to living guides that can be adjusted to ensure ongoing compliance.

This results in stakeholders focusing their energies on managing to avoid failure rather than on actually meeting the requirements that the contract is supposedly in place to ensure.  It is tantamount to a golfer trying not to miss the putt rather than making the putt.

The question is why do we do this?

To start, I think that this belt with suspenders mindset originates within the buying organization.  When there is an absence of communication between internal stakeholders, how can one expect that things will be any different when external stakeholders or partners are introduced into the equation?  Because of this disconnect contracts were, and unfortunately still are in too many instances, viewed as a replacement for real communication and collaboration.

Once again, the role of contracts should be to clearly spell out expectations and serve as a management guideline that focuses on success rather than addressing the possible remedies for failure.

What are your thoughts?

Are contracts without effective collaboration between stakeholders an effective means to ensure SLA performance?

30

from the Relational Governance section of the The Role of Service Level Agreements paper

While the above excerpt from the paper we have been discussing would seem to be both obvious and a given, within the realms of the procurement profession as it applies to the IT Outsourcing contracting process, nothing it would appear could be further from the truth.

In fact, and referencing Williamson’s (1985) conceptualization of “relational” governance, the paper recounts how economic weapons such as hostages and credible commitments to keep opportunistic behavior at bay, have long been the order of the day.  In essence financial inducements such as penalization for missed SLAs were considered the only means through which a contractor could ensure vendor performance.

It is not until recent years that this sledge hammer contract management methodology has been gradually usurped by a socially oriented enforcement of obligations, promises, and expectations that  according to Poppo and Zenger (2002) promote norms of flexibility, solidarity, and information exchange.

In this regard one cannot underestimate the critical importance of the emergence of social networking and social media in terms of facilitating this new age of buyer-vendor detente.  This is due to the fact that the Internet has added the element of convenience to the practical and sound principles of real-time collaboration.

What is especially encouraging about the socially oriented approach is that it creates an environment of trust between key stakeholders.  This means that potential problems can be recognized, acknowledged and dealt with effectively as opposed to remaining either hidden or alternatively justified, which ultimately results in little if any meaningful action being taken to remedy the situation.

Eschewing the blame game as IACCM’s Tim Cummins once called it, leads to greater cooperation within a contract’s framework encouraging  stakeholders to actively seek potential problem areas with the intent of coming to a mutually beneficial resolution for all concerned.  Or to put it another way, the economic levers championed by Williamson inadvertently rewarded the wrong behavior by punishing disclosure as opposed to rewarding it.

Therefore and as it relates to the establishment of SLAs, the more logical alternative is to not place the sole emphasis on SLAs being missed per se, but instead on the importance of full disclosure of the delivery process capability under the umbrella of a Collins autopsy without blame approach.

In this regard, vendor selection is based on the ability of the parties to effectively and successfully address problem areas as they arise instead of how effectively they can be avoided, which with the latter is a virtual impossibility in a complex global marketplace.

Of course the above creates a chicken or the egg scenario in that one might reasonably argue that because formal contracts inherently hinder the meaningful formation of collaborative or relationship-driven interaction, they are no longer a viable mechanism for achieving the desired contracting organization’s objectives.

However, there still exists a reluctance on the part of buyers to rely solely on the relational attributes of what the paper refers to as a trust arrangement.  For those advocating the traditional means of ensuring performance, the belief is that the vendor must first prove themselves capable of delivering to SLA requirements and that until such time the economic leverage of the Williamson approach serves as a safety mechanism that protects the interests of the Buyer.

Much like the analogy that you cannot steal second base with your foot firmly planted on first base, if formal contracts hinder the ability for the parties to openly and transparently communicate about both the good and the bad then the relationship as it stands would stagnate.  In other words, it would not likely progress to the point that the prerequisite performance would be achieved to warrant a non-contractual trust arrangement.

Within this context, the real question that needs to be answered is whether a hybrid approach in which some of the elements of a traditional contract can be successfully incorporated into a relational governance framework.

Referencing Baker et al. 1994; Mayer and Argyres 2004, such a merging of approach ideals is not only possible but is actually preferred.  Specifically, the paper contends that “the process of developing a comprehensive and complex contract itself requires parties to engage in joint problem solving.”  This in turn purportedly enhances the relationship building process between parties to the contract that might otherwise not have been possible.

The key obviously is to find the desired and/or needed balance.

In the next installment in this series, we will examine the specific contractual/SLA components of a blended approach that will help stakeholders to achieve the desired balance.

30

Comment from Andy Akrouche regarding April 4th, 2012 CI post “Relational Outsourcing and The Role of Service Level Agreements (Part 1)“

While I had originally planned with this second part in the series to delve deeper into the paper discussing the impact of SLAs on the relational IT outsourcing contracting process – something that I will be doing a little on in this article, the above referenced comment regarding my first post caught my attention.

Specifically the suggestion that the reliance on rigid contract terminology as a means of ensuring vendor performance is actually contradictory to what is really required to achieve outsourcing initiative success.

In this regard, the comment appears to align itself with the The Role of Service Level Agreements paper’s conclusions pertaining to role that SLAs can play in “fostering harmonious, cooperative relationships that have high levels of trust and commitment.”  This includes the empirical examination of the specific characteristics of formal contracts that “help in building partnership-style relationships.”

The latter part of the above paragraph itself suggests that the “Alignment” concept to which Andy Akrouch referred in his comment represents what can be called a living document by which the contracting guidelines are somewhat elastic in that they can adapt to changing realities or market conditions.

Besides representing a major departure from the belt with suspenders approach that purchasing departments have traditionally employed to achieve desired results relative to outsourcing, it is the further suggestion by Akrouche that the “effort you will put into planning and defining a set of services and associated service levels,” will ultimately “be proven wrong or inadequate at some point in time” that is most noteworthy.

Now at this point some may suggest that adaptability to changing circumstances can be effectively managed through the change order process associated with traditional (there’s that word again . . . traditional) project management practices.

Akrouche, as do the authors of the paper, disagree with this assessment.  In fact they go so far as to suggest – at least Akrouche does, that by adhering to the familiar change order process one effectively places themselves in a “straight jacket.”   Or to put it another way, instead of serving the best interests of the parties to the outsourcing contract by creating proactively effective guidelines that foster a greater relationship, the parties themselves become a slave to rigid contract terminology that will likely prove to be ineffective and irrelevant over time.

In essence, what is being suggested is that “formal contracts and relational governance function as complements, and not as substitutes,” leading to what one can reasonably surmise is a collaborative effort of give and take interaction as opposed to the blind enforcement of what I will call dormant terms and conditions that are based more on legal-speak as opposed to delivering a practical execution value.

In this regard, in which relationships serve as the lead metric for both managing and measuring the effectiveness of an outsourcing contract, we need to align what the paper calls the three relational governance attributes being relational norms, harmonious conflict resolution, and mutual dependence with the three corresponding SLA characteristics of foundation, change, and governance to ensure outsourcing success.

In subsequent installments to this series I will examine the specifics surrounding relational governance attributes, followed by a in-depth review of the SLA characteristics, including the eleven contractual elements to which the report refers.

I will also take the time to look at Andy Akrouche’s “Five Barriers To Becoming Relational” as a means of identifying a specific course of action that can be pursued by both contractors and their vendors to ensure outsourcing success.

In the meantime, how would you define the term relational outsourcing relative to its practical application to your present situation?

What are the keys to relational outsourcing success?

30

from the Abstract of the study The Role of Service Level Agreements in Relational Management of Information Technology Outsourcing: An Empirical Study by Jahyun Goo, Florida Atlantic University, Rajiv Kishore, State University of New York at Buffalo, H. R. Rao, SUNY Buffalo and Kichan Nam, Sogang University

One of the first thoughts that come to mind when one considers the introduction of Service Level Agreements or SLAs into a contractual relationship is that it represents a belt with suspenders mindset that serves as a legal hammer that can be used to purportedly guarantee vendor performance.

Nothing of course could be further from the truth as demonstrated by the high rate of outsourcing initiative failures.

In fact, and as IACCM’s Tim Cummins once pointed out (or perhaps lamented would be the better word), is that once at the negotiating table, senior executives from both the buyer and seller side tend to lie relative to the true lay of the land in terms of organizational capabilities.

Negotiate to collaborate as opposed to winning!

While some were surprised by this revelation I have on a first hand basis seen this deception at work, particularly from the vendor side of the equation.  Specifically, I have heard on more than one occasion the expressed sentiment that “we will win the business first, and then we will worry about how we will make it work!” approach to winning a contract.  This is tantamount to going into surgery with a doctor who is of the mind that he or she will figure out what to do during the course of the operation.

I do not know about you but, this learn as you go strategy would give me pause for thought before being put under.

Given the frequency under which contracts are established along similar lines, it is no wonder why the legalese of an SLA have become the equivalent of a loaded gun with a hair trigger as opposed to serving as a valuable guideline to help keep contractual relationships on track.  Or to put it another way, SLA’s have for the most part taken the place of relationship building between buyer and vendor.

So what is the answer?

Over the next two weeks I will examine the above referenced study in an effort to identify what both buyers and vendors need to do to overcome the seemingly inherent tendency to play one’s cards close to their vest at the negotiating table, and forge the kind of trusting, mutual benefit relationship that utilizes SLAs as a collaborative reference point as opposed to a litigious mechanism for what has traditionally been planned failure.

Relational Outsourcing Seminar

30

As you read the above paragraph one might be excused in thinking that it is a present day recognition of the important role that relationships play in the success of an outsourcing initiative.

After all, and with the recent introduction of a new seminar by SRS that focuses on bridging both the communicative and collaborative divides that have for so many years undermined the promise of the majority of outsourcing programs, its revelatory importance certainly contradicts what for many organizations was an exercise in head count reduction and bottom line savings.

In fact, this abdication mindset was in reality the antithesis of relational considerations in the provider selection process, as there was often times a prevailing good bye and good riddance disposability regarding those functions that were deemed to be outside of the organization’s core competencies.

Of course nothing could be further from the truth in that a dumping of functional responsibility rarely if ever delivered the promised savings, but instead in many instances actually undermined the organizations brand through a decline in customer service levels.  Or to put it another way, passing the proverbial buck without considering the implications beyond the myopic financial impact almost guaranteed failure.

Even in those instances where there was a recognition of outsourcing’s overall strategic importance over and above a dollar and sense perspective, the lack of practical training in critical areas of the contracting process reduced engagement to one of legalize where contract terms and conditions were the driving elements of stakeholder conduct.

The irony of the opening paragraph to today’s post is that a lawyer was the one to point out the inadequacies of the traditional contracting approach to outsourcing.  That he did so close to 7 years ago speaks to how slow the market has been to both recognize and adopt the new protocol for stakeholder responsibility and execution.

Are relationships the key to outsourcing success?

All of this has now changed with the pressing reality of current day demands for greater efficiencies and savings, coupled with the now obvious gaps with the contracting process of the past.

This is one of the reasons why the SRS Relational Outsourcing seminar is both timely and necessary.

It is also the reason why I found that yesterday’s discussion with SRS’ Andy Akrouche to be one of the more interesting interviews I have done of late.

What are your thoughts regarding relational outsourcing?

30

It is not that I am naturally cynical it is just that so many seminars relating to the contracting process seem to advocate a dot the “I’s” and cross the “T’s” adversarial approach that does little if anything to ensure a successful outcome.

Relational Outsourcing Seminar

And when I use the term outcome I am not talking about the actual award of a contract to a selected vendor but, the actual structure of the contract itself in the critical area of a full and true disclosure of capabilities and how the parties will work together to achieve a mutually satisfactory outcome.

So goes the outline for an upcoming PI Window on Business broadcast with SRS’ Andy Akrouche.

Akrouche, who is a veteran of the complex contracting process having spent many, many years with major corporations such as IBM, will be talking about his experiences with outsourcing and shared services including how he began to see a trend in terms of what differentiates or perhaps separates a successful outsourcing program from those that fail to achieve the expected results.

While the paucity of success with outsourcing initiatives within the industry may not be surprising to many, it is the reasons why so many programs fail that will likely surprise you.

If you or your organization is contemplating an outsourcing or shared services strategy then you will want to tune in on Tuesday, March 26^th at 12:00 Noon EST to hear what Andy has to say.

30

“Time after time, when postal operations have been contracted to the private sector, cost increases and inefficiency have been the result. When the work is returned, costs decrease and efficiency improves,” Burrus said. He then provided the following examples of failed work-sharing projects, including those examined below.

from the July/August 2003 issue of The American Postal Worker magazine

The above hardly paints a positive picture for those organizations – especially within the public sector, contemplating the prospective benefits of an outsourcing and/or shared services strategy.

Even with the enthusiasm for private sector capability championed through the emergence in the late nineties of the New Public Management or NPM concept which advocated the replacement of “authoritarian, top down policy-making practices with a “bottom-up” approach which facilitates stakeholder involvement,” it is now becoming increasingly apparent that this level of enterprise-wide engagement was more the result of wishful thinking than an achievable real-world practice.

For whatever reasons, and there are many, that the outsourcing initiatives such as those undertaken by the USPS have failed, one thing is certain . . . the far reaching consequences are significant, in some cases threatening the very survival of an enterprise itself.

In the case of the USPS, and as highlighted in my September 5th, 2011 post “U.S. Postal Service Shuts Down: Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night . . . just a lack of money and responsible management!,” I had referenced a New York Times article which indicated the following;

The United States Postal Service has long lived on the financial edge, but it has never been as close to the precipice as it is today: the agency is so low on cash that it will not be able to make a $5.5 billion payment due this month and may have to shut down entirely this winter unless Congress takes emergency action to stabilize its finances.

Though congress did in fact bail out the agency through a third extension to September 2012 of the $5.5 billion debt payment, the underlying problems and questions remain.  Specifically, how does an organization with declining revenues provide its workforce with guaranteed employment and benefits.

In fact according to an article written by Steven Greenhouse, USPS labor represents 80 percent of the agency’s expenses, compared with 53 percent at United Parcel Service and 32 percent at FedEx, its two biggest private competitors.

Given the recent turn of events and the growing reality of what is rapidly becoming an untenable situation, a properly managed outsourcing relationship strategy would streamline the USPS operations while simultaneously aligning labor expenses with the operational costs of the general market.

Click Here . . .

Obviously such a plan, as it was in 2003, would be met with considerable resistance, especially on the part of the workers’ unions who would undoubtedly refer to the existing (and onerous) no layoff agreement with the agency.  However, and this is the thing to keep in mind, the questions of layoffs becomes moot if their isn’t an agency from which employees can be laid off in the first place.

Against this backdrop, outsourcing initiatives have to be more effectively managed than they have in the past, with a much greater focus or emphasis on relationships.

This leads to an interesting question . . . how do you define and establish a sound outsourcing relationship strategy?  Especially in the case of the USPS where outsourcing may present all parties who, have traditionally been at odds with one another, with the only viable option for ongoing survival?

As always, your comments are welcome!

Be sure to check out SRS’ new Source Relationships Not Deals Seminar . . .

“This seminar bridges the disconnect between executive vision and practical front line execution. It is unlike any I have seen or been a part of.”

30

While outsourcing provides a tremendous opportunity for an organization to better focus on its core competencies by leveraging the expertise and resources of a third-party, it is critical to establish and manage the relationship to ensure that the end customer experience is positive.

Outsourcing strategy run aground?

“The story you are about to hear is true! None of the names were changed because none were actually given (with the exception of Michèl EX47458, Stella EX47336 and the “Canadian-based” Michelle Campbell).

And so in the infamous words of Sargent Joe Friday, here are “just the facts!”

Tuesday, September 2^nd, 2008

It was a comfortable late summer day with a mean temperature of 77.6 F, Visibility 15 miles and a maximum sustained wind speed of 8.00 miles per hour. (Check the Farmers Almanac if you do not believe me.)

The day started out like any other, coffee with milk and two sugar. Toast and margarine no jam.

The mail arrived at the community pick-up station as usual, and included a number of gratuitous/discounted offers for amongst other things increased hair growth, accelerated weight loss and dance lessons. The weight loss offer was mildly interesting, as I am at the ideal weight for a man whose stature is 6’ 9”. Alright 7’ 2”!

Included amongst the plethora of opportunities to change my life for the better was the Bell Canada bill. Upon opening it and viewing the amount that it purported as being the balance owing, I found myself wishing that one of the free coupons was for a set of electric paddles as my chest suddenly tightened and my left arm went numb.

So began a descent into the dark bowels of customer service indifference, incompetence and ultimately what became one of the most frustrating experiences of my life.

“But whose on first?”

While tragedy is often sweetened with comedy, the fact remains that after countless hours of broken promises, empathetic indifference, long periods of being put on hold, and being passed around between different departments like an unwanted relative, my experience with Bell in terms of addressing an erroneous billing issue was tantamount to a “whose on first” comedy sketch.

It started with my initial call to the number provided on the bill itself. A bill by the way that was supposedly the convenient and efficient amalgamation of fees for the bundled package of telephone, satellite and internet services.

Perhaps I misunderstood one of the many Bell sales representatives with whom my wife and I spoke in that bundled services was actually “bungled” services. (Note: up until this recent experience with billing, I thought that the sales process with Bell to set-up a new account was frustrating as it took several different calls before Bell actually got the order right. Hmm, perhaps that should have been a sign of things to come. But that is a story for another day.)

Back to my initial call and the fallacy of what was supposed to have been a bundled package. Upon reaching a Bell representative, I expressed my concern that there appeared to be sizable charges on the September statement for the internet, satellite and phone service installation. I also indicated that promised credits such as the discounts related to our “package” had not been calculated in the amount owing.

I was informed that I would have to be transferred to another department which looked after the satellite service. As for addressing my concerns relative to the internet charges, I was then told that I would need to request a transfer to yet another department upon conclusion of my dealings with the satellite group as internet services were handled by a different area of the Bell consortium.

After close to an hour of playing the department relay, where assistance was at times difficult to obtain I ultimately ended right back where I had started, speaking with a Bell Representative who happened to have grown-up in the town where I was now living.

Spending another 30 or so minutes painstakingly reviewing the line items from each section of the amalgamated statement, it was determined that the $710.07 in fees (that is correct $710.07 for the month) was, with the applicable credits and charge reversals, actually supposed to be $336.43. This of course did not include the $90 satellite installation rebate that would be credited once the coupon we had mailed in was received and applied.

The Bell representative with whom I was speaking informed me that it would likely take a month for the proper adjustments to be made, but not to worry because the correct amount owed would be reflected in the October statement.

I inquired as to the amount that should be paid during the interim period, and it was suggested that a payment of $710.07 was the best way to avoid any collection activity and late fees. I was however assured that the excess portion of the payment would be applied on future billings. In essence (and even though Bell had made the mistake) overpay, let us keep your money in our bank account, and once the proper credits were applied you would not have to make another payment until November or December. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this approach? As a side note, the Bell representative with whom I spoke assured me that she was entering everything into her computer so that our conversation would be “on file” thereby enabling any Bell representative to help me should the need arise. As you will find out shortly, this is a pivotal point.

Trick or Treat!

October of course is the month in which Thanksgiving and Halloween fall. Thanks to Bell however, Halloween came before Thanksgiving this year leaving me with very little to be thankful for relative to Bell Services.

On Tuesday, October 7^th we received a call from Bell indicating that the outstanding amount on our bill was now more than $800 and as a result was turned over for collection.

Perhaps the people in Bell’s collection department did not bother to read the notes from my discussion with the nice lady who grew up in the small town where I now live? Maybe there was a computer glitch, whereby the credits had been applied but not properly posted. Regardless, I dutifully called the “866” number that was provided in the message.

Navigating through the “convenience” of Bell’s automated attendant, now I know what the invasion of Normandy must have felt like, I was connected with an individual who asked for my telephone number, account number and mailing address. I guess the automated prompting to enter my telephone number when I first called in was perhaps an exercise in strengthening my dialing fingers?

Providing the information, I then outlined the nature of my conversation with the Bell representative on September 2^nd, as it appeared that there was nothing in the file to which this individual could refer.

At the end of my dissertation, the representative told me that I would have to be transferred to another department, where upon being connected I was once again required to reiterate the highlights from the September call. After listening to my entire story, the individual indicated that since I was in Quebec, they needed to transfer me (yes again) to the department that handled my region. This is when I had the pleasure of speaking with the individual who ultimately came to be known as Michèl EX47458.

At first skeptical of my “story” relating to the details of the September phone call, and after being put on hold three separate times for periods of between five and fifteen minutes, Michèl EX47458 gradually warmed up to the idea that perhaps there was a problem with their billing. After all, it was reasoned, I was consistent in providing the specific details of the September discussion. It was also reasonable to consider the fact that I would not have made up the number of $336.43 that represented the actual amount owed.

Michèl EX47458 assured me that the details of our conversation were now entered into the system – it turned out that the nice lady must have hit the delete button instead of the save button as there was no record of the September call.

He then informed me that he was going to provide their “investigation” unit with the details of our discussion and that our account would not reflect any adjustment until the November billing period.

We then agreed upon a $260 payment that when combined with an earlier payment meant that I had paid $410 on what was supposed to be a $336.43 bill, less the $90 mail-in credit. In short, I had paid $410 on what was supposed to be a $246.43 balance.

The phone is ringing, but no one is home!

The evening of Wednesday, October 8^th, we received a call from Bell. The message indicated that we should call back using telephone number 514-948-8129. The message also instructed us to use reference number 6624055, and that anyone would be able to help us.

On Friday morning I called the number that was provided (yes Friday, because after all I do work full time and my world does not orbit around the Bell Canada billing department), thinking that Michèl really delivered as this must be the call regarding the investigation.

Anticipating a satisfactory and long overdue resolution, I was surprised to find that the number did not work. Specifically, it was a line the recording indicated, that was used exclusively for outgoing calls. There is nothing more demonstrative of a broken service system than getting a number from your telephone provider that doesn’t work!

The only option I had was to once again call the “866” number. And there began a 2 ½ hour odyssey that even now is difficult to fathom.

Following the previous drill of interacting with the Bell automated system, I was finally put through to an actual person. I explained that I was given a “514” number that did not work, and provided the 6624055 reference number expecting that Michèl’s notes would appear on the screen and the individual with whom I was speaking would be able to bring the matter to a close.

What is this “reference” number?

Rather than a speedy resolution, my submission of the reference number was met with an “I don’t know what that is” response from the Bell representative. She did however tell me that more than $800 was owed on the bill, and wanted to know what arrangements I would be making in terms of payment. Where are those electric paddles when you need them?

I once again took the time to relay the details of both the September and October conversations asking the woman to just check the system as Michèl EX47458 dutifully entered the information into my file. The response . . . “oh this is the billing department sir, we will have to transfer you to our credit department.”

Exiled to the world of interminable muzak, another representative finally came on the line. After reiterating my story yet again, the individual indicated that I was transferred to the department that handled the Ontario region, and that she would have to transfer me to the department that looked after Quebec. Are you beginning to see a pattern.

After the gratuitous holding period, I think that the theme from Love Story filled the airwaves this time, another person answered. Upon providing my account details, the man asked what arrangements I would be making to pay the $800 balance that was outstanding. Chest pains, numb left arm, and now excessive hair loss, I told him the story which at this point had been repeated so many times that I came to feel like I was one of Bell’s taped messages. The response . . . you guessed it, “this is the billing department sir, I will need to transfer you to credit.”

After protesting that I had been passed around like a bad joke, the gentleman indifferently assured me that there was nothing he could do as he was in billing and my issue had to be handled by the credit department.

How can I help you?!?

What had now degenerated into a bad comedy routine, the credit department representative greeted me with the request for my account information followed by a cheery “how can I help you?”

After explaining my tortuous journey, which included yet another rendition of the details from the September call, as well as my exchange with Michèl EX 47458, the person who I came to know as Stella EX47336 “helpfully” told me that I would have to review the matter with the billing department and that she would transfer me immediately.

At my wits end, I told my new friend Stella EX47336 that this was the end of the line, and that I wanted to talk with a supervisor as I had finally reached my limit. Expressing great empathy for my situation, Stella EX47336 assured me that her supervisor would not be able to help, but said that she would put me on hold and personally (while staying on the line), facilitate the transfer to a supervisor from the billing department. She asked me to be patient as I would be on hold for a few minutes as she wanted to take the time to explain the sad details of my Bell experience to the billing supervisor. Queue supermarket muzak.

I must admit at this point that Stella EX47336 was true to her word as approximately 7 to 8 minutes later her cheerful voice once again echoed over the line as she introduced me to a supervisor from the billing department. Thank you, Stella! Perhaps there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

After assuring me that she was totally sympathetic to my feelings of frustration, the billing supervisor (who did not provide me with her name and employee number) said that she would put me on hold and would look into the matter. I responded by saying that between being passed around from one department to the next combined with long periods of being put on hold, I was not inclined to wait on the line – Michèl EX47458 where are those notes in my file – while she tried to find out what was going on. Especially if it involved another long wait. I suggested that she take down my number and call me back when she had the information she required to properly address what had become an incredibly aggravating situation.

Still maintaining a sympathetic position, she assured me that she would not be long, and that it would be better if I stayed on the line. Against my better judgement, I agreed. The song this time was a little better, and just as I felt myself starting to relax, I was disconnected.

Like the proverbial gambling addict, who believes that the next pull of the lever would open the door to untold riches, I determinedly called the “866” number. And yes, you probably could see it coming, I was passed around to three “different” departments before speaking with a gentleman who stated, “oh, you are dealing with people out of India. Let me put you through to Michelle Campbell who actually works out of our Montreal office. She will be able to help you!” Does anyone remember the old Johnny Rivers song, “when will we ever learn?”

I was greeted by Michelle Campbell’s voice mail indicating that she was away from the office until November 10^th and that I could leave a message or call 514-490-6511 in her absence. So I did it, I took the bait and called 514-490-6511.

The voice mail message was in French, and being close to fifty years of age, I grew up in Winnipeg where French immersion had more to do with a cooking technique versus learning a second language. Not understanding a single word, I waited for a beep and told the story to the airwaves until the line beeped again and I found myself disconnected one final time.

Epilogue

Tired, frustrated and basically spent, I returned the receiver to its base and reflected on the countless hours of my life that I would never get back wondering how a big Canadian company could be so out of touch with understanding the importance of the customer experience.

Like my efforts to resolve what should have been a simple issue of billing, my promised credits and adjustments are probably floating out there in the vastness of space. And had I paid the full amount back in September, even though it was determined that it was not owed, my money would now be there as well.

So goes the perils of Bell expanding it’s business outside of its core competencies, while expecting to fill the service gaps with a poorly conceived and executed Outsourcing Strategy. Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio . . .

Update . . .

After a seemingly interminable period of time, Bell – out of their Montreal Head Office mind you, did get to the proverbial bottom of the matter admitting that an error in the number they had associated with my account was actually for a customer with a similar name in another city.

They immediately credited the overcharge with an apology but sadly, the countless hours I had spent on this sad situation can never be recaptured.

Be sure to check out SRS’ new Source Relationships Not Deals Seminar . . .

“This seminar bridges the disconnect between executive vision and practical front line execution. It is unlike any I have seen or been a part of.”

30

If the number of workers will be affected by outsourcing, which can be the case in certain situations, then you require an HR strategy to go along side it.  Once again, outsourcing is not a human resources alignment strategy

The job losses mentioned in the article are probably surplus  due to an economy on a downward cycle. The government could decide to keep them if they wanted to. Blaming them on outsourcing is just the wrong thing to do.

Renown outsourcing relationship and management expert Andy Akrouche discussing a February 20th, 2012 Canadian Business article “Analysis: Layoff talk sidestepped in outsourcing“

When you have been in this field for a certain length of time and hear something long enough – over, and over and over again, you can actually start to believe it.

Such is the case with outsourcing in that along with shared services, the strategy has often been villanized as being the reason for workforce reductions.  This is of course not entirely untrue but not for the reasons one might suspect.

Unfortunately, far too many organizations have missed the point and the benefits of an outsourcing strategy by oversimplifying the process to one of merely transferring responsibilities for key enterprise functions to a third party in an effort to boost bottom line financial performance – especially during a down economic period.  Do not get me wrong, cost reduction is a definite element of a successful outsourcing strategy, however by making this the sole focal point is tantamount to only seeing the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

In essence, outsourcing’s perceived benefits have been reduced to the ridiculous in the extreme in that it is viewed as being a reactionary tool as opposed to a proactive realignment of company capabilities that collectively, when managed properly, deliver substantially improved levels of service and increase profitability.

Sadly, the former perspective is the one that like the article to which Akrouche refers, is the usual headline grabbing angle most stories take.

In truth, outsourcing is an incredibly important vehicle provided that it is recognized as being as much an HR transformation strategy as it is a cost reduction mechanism.

Over the next week I will be taking an in depth look at outsourcing and shared services through a series of posts.

In the meantime, I would encourage you to share your experiences with outsourcing whether it be through either direct or indirect involvement.

Be sure to check out SRS’ new Source Relationships Not Deals Seminar . . .

“This seminar bridges the disconnect between executive vision and practical front line execution. It is unlike any I have seen or been a part of.”

30

When I was asked to review a new seminar on outsourcing contracting I have to admit that the been there – done that sentiment almost immediately came to mind.  It is not that I am naturally cynical, it is just that so many seminars relating to the contracting process seem to advocate a dot the “I’s” and cross the “T’s” adversarial approach that does little if anything to ensure a successful outcome.  And when I use the term outcome I am not talking about the actual award of a contract to a selected vendor but, the actual structure of the contract itself in the critical area of a full and true disclosure of capabilities and how the parties will work together to achieve a mutually satisfactory outcome.

Let’s face it, and I am not just talking about outsourcing here but most complex contracting exercises, the vast majority fall far short of meeting the expected results.

Now a big part of the problem is the fact that the entire contracting process itself is seriously flawed in that it actually promotes both parties to the agreement to as IACCM CEO Tim Cummins once so eloquently put it “lie” about their respective capabilities.  (Note: refer to the March 9th, 2011 post in the Procurement Insights blog “Absence of Truth in Bidding Post Should Get Everyone in the Contracting Pews Standing Up and Shouting AMEN!“)

Or to put it another way, the contracting process has little to do with relationship building and more to do with getting the upper hand, one over the other.  This isn’t exactly laying the foundation for a collaborative effort, something by the way that is crucial to the effectiveness of an outsourcing or shared services agreement.

No wonder such a high percentage of contracts fail to achieve the expected results!  For a more detailed overview of said challenges, check out my interview with Phil Fersht (Sources For Horses and Other Outsourcing Insights).

This brings us back to the point of today’s blog post which is the new seminar from the Strategic Relationships Solutions people, and why on this rare occasion I am an enthusiastic supporter for their new seminar.

Over the next week I will at length review the highlights from their 2-Day Source Relationships Not Deals seminar and invite you to offer your thoughts on the course.

30