« Time to scratch that 7-year HRO itch | Main | Contemplating the BPO industry with Wipro's Ashutosh Vaidya »

May 03, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hi, Phil. Mike Corbett from IAOP here.

Although no ranking of an industry as diverse as ours is perfect, IAOP's Global Outsourcing 100 is used widely as a reference tool by our members and has in general been well received for its objective and open process.

Just some quick background for your readers. Our ranking is essentially a 'competition' where service providers decide to participate and are judged based on their response to an online application covering some 18 characteristics including size, growth, third-party recognitions and certifications, customer feedback (including in most cases actual letters of recommendation from their largest clients), employee management and executive experience. The scoring system is published and a panel of judges - all identified and almost all customers with actual buying experience - do the scoring. Highest score = highest ranking, it's that simple.

All of this is well documented on our site: http://www.outsourcingprofessional.org/content/23/152/1793/

Beyond a nominal $350 application fee that every participating company pays - whether they make the list or not - there is no outside sponsorship of the program. IAOP members and non-members participate equally. Only 3 of this year’s top ten are members. A full report is also available for purchase where we detail every company and how it scored in every area judged.

One interesting way that the program seems to contribute to our field is that many of the companies have told us that the application and its evaluation feedback actually helps them do a better job of collecting and packaging the most important information about their companies in a way that is more consistent and easier for all customers to digest and compare. It's the 'process' as much as the 'result' that seems to have a positive impact overall.

Finally, we'd be glad to add you, Vinnie and/or a volunteer or two from your readers to next year's judges panel. I can be reached at michael.corbett@outsourcingprofessional.org.

Thanks and keep up the good work!

Well it seems we are all in agreement. The unfortunate part is that it seems many analyst firms can't seem to subsist without taking money from providers. In most industries this would be called out immediately. I have no problem with rankings, if they are objective and use a proven, reliable method. But I can't think of one out there that passes the smell test.

Phil - you're being far too kind. These list-generators and award-givers are simply whores who feed off the marketing paranoia from vendors. They don't have the expertise to give real value to buyers, so choose to feed off the dirty vendor dollar instead, as they have no other business model, or clue what to do. The vendors are just playing the game to make themselves look good - however, the highest bidders are buying the better ratings and the top awards. The whole thing stinks. Please publish this comment.

John D.

Good commentary but too gentle. The 100 list is a joke. Colliers is a broker with little outsourcing. Provide any sticky revenue and suddenly “you are an outsourcer.”

Rankings would be useful if there were an unbiased, uncompensated evaluator. Most of the current rankings seem to have the highest ratings given to their subscribers and evaluators...maybe a coincidence, of course. It's disappointing to see "awards" given to companies with dissatisfied clients and difficult implementations. Who is making these decisions? It's embarassing at times.
PA

Gaurav,

Thanks for the input, and I agree with your assessment of some "analysts" being as guilty as the rank-masters of exploiting service provider marketeers (thank goodness only a minority at present).

I do worry for the direction of the analyst industry when we see deliberate "research" being produced to promote the highest bidder. Analysts are supposed to educate, not exploit.

I never produce rankings, but feel I advise my clients with all the datapoints they need to make decisions. People pay for information and advice they know is credible. If I had to resort to exploiting marketing dollars in such an obvious fashion, I would question whether I was a geniune "analyst" anymore, or merely a sandwichboard for vendors...

PF

Gaurav: I assume you're referring to that IDC report on Indian BPO providers? If so, that was a perfect example of a firm producing research to exploit marketing budgets, with no focus on delivering value to a buyer. I do hope Datamonitor does not choose to go down this path...

Stephen

Phil - you're spot-on with these observations. The motive behind these rankings is solely to extract marketing money from service providers, and as you and several others have pointed out, the data is often flawed.

However, I do think you let some of the analysts off lightly. One of the leading analyst firms recently put out rankings of BPO service providers which was badly misinformed. These providers will extract these rankings for their marketing purposes and leave off the name of the analyst responsible.

Gaurav

The comments to this entry are closed.

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Follow me on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Translator

    My Photo