India - still an outsourcing haven?
India's outsourcing sector comprises both business process and IT outsourcing, and it has been growing at an annual rate of about 37% over the last few years. Growth has jumped from approximately $3.1bn (£2.17bn) in 2004 to nearly $11bn (£7.7bn) in 2008. Yet, despite such a strong market to protect, a senior Indian special forces source described the response to the Mumbai terrorist attack as having "far too many command centres, with each one trying to best guess the other, [leading] to confusion and delayed operations", adding: "there appears to have been a lack of detailed, precise planning".
February 04, 2009 at 08:03 PM
5 minute read
Over the past four years, India's outsourcing sector has grown at an accelerated rate. Can business continue to succeed in a country where safety fears have become a common theme? Cynthia O'Donoghue reports
India's outsourcing sector comprises both business process and IT outsourcing, and it has been growing at an annual rate of about 37% over the last few years. Growth has jumped from approximately $3.1bn (£2.17bn) in 2004 to nearly $11bn (£7.7bn) in 2008. Yet, despite such a strong market to protect, a senior Indian special forces source described the response to the Mumbai terrorist attack as having "far too many command centres, with each one trying to best guess the other, [leading] to confusion and delayed operations", adding: "there appears to have been a lack of detailed, precise planning".
With India having captured nearly 37% of the global outsourcing market and with that market being supported by nearly 700,000 employees, India obviously has a vested interest in ensuring that its outsourcing market is not damaged by such terrorist attacks. India's outsourcing market has relied heavily on support from English-speaking countries, with the UK and North America together accounting for about 87% of India's outsourcing market revenues. North America, primarily the US, accounts for roughly two-thirds of the market alone. In addition, the value of the outsourcing deals to India increasingly exceeds $50m (£35m) per contract and the majority of those deals include IT infrastructure components and business-critical applications.
While one can never protect against every eventuality, India will need to correct its "lack of detailed, precise planning" in order to ensure that its outsourcing market is not damaged in either the short or long terms. That lesson is something that companies can also heed by including measures to protect their data and business-critical applications into outsourcing contracts. Those measures include ensuring that a company's outsourcing agreement has robust and detailed security, disaster recovery and business continuity requirements. For instance, it is best practice to have back-up storage and business continuity sites in separate cities from where the actual operations are located. Companies that outsource need to ensure they assess the impact on their business if they were to have an outsource operator hit by a terrorist attack or other disaster. The business continuity plan must include crisis management protocols, proper command structures and contain detailed planning to ensure the viability and practicality of the plan. Companies outsourcing their business critical operations must be able to participate in the testing of such procedures and have a full understanding of how much data loss would occur, and the length of time involved, before their outsource service provider is up and running again at a full-service level.
There are other protections that can be included in any outsource agreement, such as step-in rights that allow a company to take over and perform the services themselves or arrange for a different third party to deliver the services for an interim period. In an extreme instance where an outsource service provider could not perform the services at all, the company should have the ability to terminate the contract. The best measures of protecting a company's data and business critical applications are, however, always preventative. Provided a company has suitable safeguards in place to cope with a future disaster on a similar scale to the recent Mumbai attacks, there seems to be no legitimate reason for companies to rethink their outsourcing arrangements.
While it is likely that businesses will approach the Indian outsourcing market more cautiously in the short term because of the terrorist attack, Mumbai, like all other cities which have been the victim of terrorist attacks, such as New York, Madrid and London, will recover quickly. The Foreign Office reports as many as seven terrorist-related attacks across India since May 2008 alone, most of which failed to hit the headlines in Britain, let alone drive down the outsourcing industry's success. As tragic as the Mumbai terrorist attack was, it did not target operational business centres. Instead it was aimed at terrorising the population and the citizens of those countries most associated with the war on terror: Britain and the US. As with other attacks, the aim is to strike fear and succumbing to that fear must be resisted.
When contemplating an outsource to India, companies must bear in mind that there are many outsourcing providers spread across different areas, such as Chennai, Bangalore and Puna, to name a few. A large terrorist attack on one city should not be a reflection on the country as a whole or indeed as a sign of things to come. While the location of an outsource provider may be of some importance, the focus of any outsource must be on the benefit derived from the services being provided while at the same time ensuring that certain key protections are built into the contract. It is possible to mitigate damage from a terrorist attack and that starts with ensuring industry best practice security at any outsourcing provider's facilities and agreeing a detailed and robust disaster recovery and business continuity plan. India's outsourcing industry is well established and, when it makes good commercial sense for a company, outsourcing to India is still a good solution.
Cynthia O'Donoghue is a partner at Reed Smith.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': US Law Firm Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250