Contracting outsourced services with collaborative key performance indicators

While service outsourcing may benefit from the application of performance‐based contracts (PBCs), the implementation of such contracts is usually challenging. Service performance is often not only dependent on supplier effort but also on the behavior of the buying firm. Existing research on performance‐based contracting provides very limited understanding on how this challenge may be overcome. This article describes a design science research project that develops a novel approach to buyer–supplier contracting, using collaborative key performance indicators (KPIs). Collaborative KPIs evaluate and reward not only the supplier contribution to customer performance but also the customer's behavior to enable this. In this way, performance‐based contracting can also be applied to settings where supplier and customer activities are interdependent, while traditional contracting theories suggest that output controls are not effective under such conditions. In the collaborative KPI contracting process, indicators measure both supplier and customer (buying firm) performance and promote collaboration by being defined through a collaborative process and by focusing on end‐of‐process indicators. The article discusses the original case setting of a telecommunication service provider experiencing critical problems in outsourcing IT services. The initial intervention implementing this contracting approach produced substantial improvements, both in performance and in the relationship between buyer and supplier. Subsequently, the approach was tested and evaluated in two other settings, resulting in a set of actionable propositions on the efficacy of collaborative KPI contracting. Our study demonstrates how defining, monitoring, and incentivizing the performance of specific processes at the buying firm can help alleviate the limitations of traditional performance‐based contracting when the supplier's liability for service performance is difficult to verify

Einstürzende Neubauten – Statikprobleme im Säulenmodell der Alterssicherung

Politische Debatten und wissenschaftliche Analysen über die Entwicklung der Alterssicherung in Deutschland orientieren sich an dem “Drei-Säulen-Modell“ als Metapher für die Gesamtstruktur der Altersvorsorge. Derzeitig entspricht die bundesdeutsche Alterssicherung aber eher einem Viersäulentempel mit höchst unterschiedlicher Stärke der einzelnen Säulen. Die Grundsicherung ist als vierte Säule hinzugekommen, die Gesetzliche Rentenversicherung ist nach wie vor die stärkste und tragende Säule, die betriebliche Alterssicherung schwächelt und der Aufbau einer starken dritten Säule (“Riester-Rente“) zur Kompensation der Leistungsreduktionen in der GRV ist gescheitert. Die jüngsten Reformüberlegungen zur betrieblichen Alterssicherung sind von der Vorstellung eines Zwei-Säulen-Modells getragen. Aus den internationalen Organisationen (OECD, EU) kommen dagegen Konzepte, die Sicherung im Alter an sechs Hauptquellen der Versorgung mit Gütern, Dienstleistungen und Einkommen zu orientieren.   Decline of the Three Pillar Model in German Pension Policy Political debates as well as scientific studies on the development of pension schemes in Germany are based on the “three-pillar model” as a metaphor for the system of old-age provision. Currently, the German pension system corresponds rather to a four-pillar building with very different strengths of the individual columns. The basic provision at old age has been added as the fourth pillar in 2001, the compulsory public pension insurance (GRV) continues to be the strongest pillar, the occupational pensions system shows signs of weakness and the construction of a strong third pillar (“Riester pension”) to compensate for the benefit reduction in the GRV has failed. The recent reform efforts in the field of occupational pensions are justified by the idea of a two-pillar model. By contrast, international organizations (OECD, EU) have pushed conceptions to rest old-age provision systems upon six different sources of the supply of goods, services and income