<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: HRO Can Force Large-Scale Change &#8212; Strong Change Management Still Required</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.gartner.com/jim_holincheck/2007/06/04/hro-can-force-large-scale-change-strong-change-management-still-required/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.gartner.com/jim_holincheck/2007/06/04/hro-can-force-large-scale-change-strong-change-management-still-required/</link>
	<description>A member of the Gartner Blog Network</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:20:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Holincheck</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gartner.com/jim_holincheck/2007/06/04/hro-can-force-large-scale-change-strong-change-management-still-required/comment-page-1/#comment-130</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Holincheck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:06:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.gartner.com/jim_holincheck/2007/06/04/hro-can-force-large-scale-change-strong-change-management-still-required/#comment-130</guid>
		<description>That is a good point on the motivation.  I agree with it.  My point is simply that there are significant change challenges regardless of how an organization chooses to change (BPO or organic process change).  The fact that companies are looking beyond purely cost savings makes that challenge even greater for BPO.

BPO may be a catalyst for change that otherwise would not be able to happen (for the reasons in your post).  However, choosing to go with BPO does not automatically guarantee a successful transformation.     That was really my point. Change management is critical in any transformation (which I guess is stating the obvious, but I am not sure buyers think that way all of the time).
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is a good point on the motivation.  I agree with it.  My point is simply that there are significant change challenges regardless of how an organization chooses to change (BPO or organic process change).  The fact that companies are looking beyond purely cost savings makes that challenge even greater for BPO.</p>
<p>BPO may be a catalyst for change that otherwise would not be able to happen (for the reasons in your post).  However, choosing to go with BPO does not automatically guarantee a successful transformation.     That was really my point. Change management is critical in any transformation (which I guess is stating the obvious, but I am not sure buyers think that way all of the time).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil Fersht</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gartner.com/jim_holincheck/2007/06/04/hro-can-force-large-scale-change-strong-change-management-still-required/comment-page-1/#comment-129</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil Fersht</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:17:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.gartner.com/jim_holincheck/2007/06/04/hro-can-force-large-scale-change-strong-change-management-still-required/#comment-129</guid>
		<description>Jim - good comments.  My view is that HRO has really changed in the last couple of years.  After 9/11, CEOs wanted quick savings to hit the bottom line, and inexperienced HRO providers were willing to grant them front-loaded contracts to enable that do happen.  Nowadays, you&#039;d be hard-pressed to find an HRO customer who only did this to save money (in fact, recent research shows most of the recent deals barely effected any cost savings after transformation costs were taken into account).  All in all, we&#039;re really talking about widespread HR transformation underpinned by new sourcing models - and (hopefully) better technology as a result.  The long-term effect of this is to make HR a more important and strategic function in the organization - let&#039;s just hope today&#039;s providers can bring the three key elements together to make this happen:  the people, the processes and the technology.

Cheers!
Phil
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim &#8211; good comments.  My view is that HRO has really changed in the last couple of years.  After 9/11, CEOs wanted quick savings to hit the bottom line, and inexperienced HRO providers were willing to grant them front-loaded contracts to enable that do happen.  Nowadays, you&#8217;d be hard-pressed to find an HRO customer who only did this to save money (in fact, recent research shows most of the recent deals barely effected any cost savings after transformation costs were taken into account).  All in all, we&#8217;re really talking about widespread HR transformation underpinned by new sourcing models &#8211; and (hopefully) better technology as a result.  The long-term effect of this is to make HR a more important and strategic function in the organization &#8211; let&#8217;s just hope today&#8217;s providers can bring the three key elements together to make this happen:  the people, the processes and the technology.</p>
<p>Cheers!<br />
Phil</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

