4 hard truths of multivendor outsourcing
Often,
the
stonewalled
vendor
will
be
hesitant
to
complain,
on
the
grounds
that
this
might
look
a
lot
like
they’re
playing
inter-vendor
politics
themselves.
Often,
the
stonewalled
vendor
will
be
hesitant
to
complain,
on
the
grounds
that
this
might
look
a
lot
like
they’re
playing
inter-vendor
politics
themselves.
And
there’s
another
layer
of
complexity
to
deal
with
when
trying
to
prevent,
or
at
least
manage,
inter-vendor
politics:
In
addition
to
one
vendor
trying
to
torpedo
a
rival
by
failing
to
fulfill
data
requests,
there
are
times
a
vendor
will
request
data
from
a
rival
in
order
to
uncover
something
damaging
about
that
vendor’s
performance.
The
annoying
solution
to
inter-vendor
politics
is
to
insert
yourself
into
any
and
all
inter-vendor
interactions.
Because
Vendor
A
refusing
to
provide
information
to
Vendor
B
is
one
thing.
Refusing
to
provide
it
to
you?
It’s
your
data.
Exit
mitigation
migraines
Here
in
the
USA
our
entire
system
of
economics
is
built
on
a
single
empowerment,
namely,
that
a
customer
can
threaten
to
take
their
business
elsewhere.
When
it
comes
to
IT
services
vendors,
however,
this
can
be
a
hollow
threat.
To
be
effective,
an
IT
services
vendor’s
employees
have
to
engage
in
the
osmotic
process
of
learning
their
customer
—
its
key
staff
and
their
quirks
and
temperament
just
as
much
as
the
application
portfolio
and
integration
architecture.
Once
a
services
vendor
is
firmly
entrenched,
transferring
that
incumbent’s
tribal
knowledge
to
a
replacement
vendor
would
be,
to
put
it
gently,
a
non-trivial
task,
and
that’s
just
the
quantitative
view.
The
political
dimension
exacerbates
the
problem:
Why
would
you
expect
a
vendor
you’re
kicking
to
the
curb
make
it
any
easier
than
necessary
for
their
replacement
to
succeed?
Fair’s
fair,
though.
The
same
was
true
for
the
IT
staff
the
CIO
kicked
to
the
curb
during
the
outsource.
And
beyond
the
political
angle,
in
many
cases
the
services
vendor
will
have
installed
its
own
toolkits
to
help
in
fulfilling
its
responsibilities.
It
will
take
that
toolkit
with
it
should
you
decide
to
make
a
change.
So
on
top
of
all
the
rest
of
your
exit
mitigation
planning,
make
sure
your
contract
includes
an
obligation
to
leave
these
toolkits
in
place
for
a
long
enough
transition
that
the
replacement
vendor
has
the
time
it
will
need
to
install
its
own
proprietary
toolkit.
In
any
event,
prudent
CIOs
have
two
possible
exit
strategies,
and
they’re
complementary,
not
dichotomous.
The
first:
Keep
a
small
cadre
of
IT
professionals
on
staff
to
work
alongside
each
vendor.
That
way,
if
circumstances
dictate,
they
can
smooth
the
transition
to
the
next
vendor.
And
the
second?
Keep
a
close
enough
eye
on
your
vendors
that
you
can
circumvent
the
need
to
replace
any
of
them
in
the
first
place.
It’s
a
quandary.
Managing
outsourcing
vendors
is
arguably
more
complicated
than
in-house
management
and
staff,
because
CIOs
who
have
outsourced
IT
services
have
fewer
management
tools
at
their
disposal
than
those
who
need
to
lead
employees.
After
all,
when
you
have
to
deal
with
poorly
performing
employees
you
can
call
on
HR.
But
when
you’re
dealing
with
a
poorly
performing
vendor,
in
contrast,
who
do
you
have
to
call
on?
That
would
be
your
company’s
general
counsel,
who
would
be
no
happier
about
being
called
in
than
you’d
be
in
calling
them.
About Author
