I do a lot of reading about next-generation strategies, trends and tactics being employed by leading procurement organizations. Often, I find myself confronted by the notion of “best-in-class.”
Third-party risk management is worth doing well—not only to protect your institution’s reputation, resources, and customers, but also because third-party risk management is part of safety and soundness exams. The effectiveness of a third-party risk management program is seen as an indicator of overall management capabilities. The design of third-party risk programs varies across institutions.
There can be differences in:
Since the financial crisis of 2008, the financial services industry has been inundated with new rules and regulations that have consumed resources and increased spend on compliance. All of this is occurring at a time when the industry has also been under increasing competition from financial technology (fintech) firms. Whilst the fintech industry is booming by providing new innovative products at a rapid pace, traditional incumbents have appeared less agile at adopting these.
When the Internet arrived, we said, “The world is no longer flat! This changes everything!” Then we went back to building centralized systems – something we still do today. Examples of centralized systems are our ERPs, enterprise payment systems and government platforms. Recent commercial examples include Google, Facebook and Uber.
Alignment to business needs during the Request for Proposal (RFP) phase of any sourcing event is critical, but perhaps more so when it comes to capital building projects given some of the changes procurement professionals face within their stakeholder community. In most companies, the plant facility's engineering teams are composed of lifelong veterans within the industry who have executed numerous projects – some successful and others, well, not so much. This inconsistency of results tends to make these individuals rather risk adverse and fixed in a traditional way of thinking.
The managed services market has been an interesting one to watch from a consultant’s point of view. There was a heavy trend towards outsourcing many key areas within IT, only for the pendulum to begin swinging to the other end of the spectrum where clients are now pulling some (or all) of those same services back in-house. Nevertheless, your organization is likely to use some level of managed services within the IT organization given constraints on budget, resources or expertise.
Avery W. Katz, professor of law at Columbia Law School, tackles the conundrum of “incomplete” contracts. The challenge? How organizations can fashion a contract that is both economically flexible enough for a business relationship to move forward efficiently and legally secure enough to satisfy the parties’ legal departments.
Offshoring and outsourcing don’t exist in a vacuum. These are processes that take advantage of and are influenced by technology, politics and the larger economy. Look at the last big round of offshoring at the start of the century. It didn’t just “happen” without any reason. Very specific changes facilitated this age of outsourcing.
Ever since humans began using robots to tackle tasks, there have been naysayers predicting everything from all human jobs being written off by 2020, to complete world domination by a race of self-aware machine overlords.
Measuring the value of an outsourcing company for your own service requirements can be a surprisingly disorienting task to complete. But beyond its complexity, it also involves a lot of responsibility. Your decision is likely to affect your organisation’s strength and efficiency for the upcoming months, if not years. Making a good choice will mean the right level of support that will help your organisation grow. But selecting a wrong partner can be highly detrimental to the health of your business.