The Local vs Overseas supplier debate – Factors to consider

In the world of HR Software Solutions, HR managers can opt for either a local or an overseas provider.

In general, companies cite factors such as quality, commitment, price, reputation, business culture compatibility and location when selecting a third party vendor. Additional factors like understanding goals, management of the business relationship and strong communication are also important for the ongoing success of the relationship.

The choice to go offshore or appoint locally can hinge on these factors, as well as language compatibility, security and privacy, the suppliers ability to support the company, and the legal culture.

ELMO’s solutions specialist, Jason Portelli, presented on this topic at the HR Tech Fest conference in Sydney on 30 November 2015 (download presentation). He acknowledged that while each organisation is unique, the local vs overseas supplier debate does highlight a few key commonalities all Australian and New Zealand companies share:

Implementation success 

Great communication and frequent liaison is critical when implementing a new Talent Management solution. The implementation process spans everything from requirement gathering, workflow mapping, system integration, testing and launching. It’s not just having a team ”on the ground” that makes it easier to negotiate this process, but that team’s comprehensive knowledge of the product AND local HR best practice. This is the contributor to success.

Effective support

Once the system has been launched, your workforce will require access to support. A local supplier who hosts the solution locally and offers local support will not only be available when you need them, but will relate to your situation, understand local terminology and generally be able to solve your problem faster.

Product compatibility

Workflows differ from organisation to organisation, and from country to country. Overseas solutions can offer some contextualisation to the APAC region, however, there is often limited customisation available to match existing local workflows.  A good example of this is the ELMO Onboarding solution has direct integration with the ATO, something an overseas solution is unable to offer.

This compatibility issue is even more pronounced if you are intending to scale your solution as your requirements change – a compatible, integrated and scalable system will keep pace with any organisational change, rather than attract additional development costs that will cost you not just money, but time too.

Appropriate terminology 

It’s often the little things that influence perception and the engagement of your workforce. We don’t use zip code we use post code. Our leaders aren’t VPs they are MDs. We spell organisation with an S, not a Z.  A level of personalisation is expected these days and not using the correct terminology implies a lack of local relevance.