 |
|
| CURRENT SECTION :: Jobs | |
|
 |
The UK’s financial giants yesterday defended their Indian call centre operations amid fresh concerns from British customers about data security and declining customer service. A damning internal report from insurer Norwich Union found shortcomings in its Indian call centres may potentially lead to losses of more than £10million, and fines from the FSA. HSBC was also accused this week of running a ‘first-class and second class system’ that sees affluent callers dealt with in the UK, while poorer ones are diverted to the sub-continent. The news coincides with an alert from consultant AT Kearney that the cost savings of offshore hotspots – the main incentive for big companies – have “declined almost universally.” Last month, 90% of European CIOs said they would prefer a more local supplier for their IT services, and almost a third cited a bad experience with firms in distant locations, like India. The survey from KPMG also found more than half of chief information officers planned to boost spending on suppliers in Central Eastern Europe, including Romania and Hungary. Despite the dominance of India and China as outsourcing locations, less than a third of the CIOs responding forecast similar increases in Asia’s emerging markets. Asked yesterday about Norwich Union’s troubled call centres in India, the National Outsourcing Association (NOA) hinted it was unfair to suggest the location was to blame. In the case of India, however, group chairman Martyn Hart said the country’s government is in the process of formalising its equivalent to the UK’s Data Protection Act. He told Contractor UK: “In the meantime, Indian companies are falling over themselves in a bid to demonstrate compliance. [The same is true of companies] in other offshore locations.” In the internal probe into its Indian call centre, Norwich Union found staff failed to use the company’s standard sales and customer advice training material. Senior managers are not clued up enough about their responsibilities under FSA rules, and the company’s information security policy was described as “only partially effective.” Commissioned by parent firm Aviva, the report urged work in three major areas: implementing and monitoring quality assurance processes; developing managers’ understanding, and implementing a culture of security awareness. A Norwich Union spokesman told CUK: “It is not a case of controls not being in place in these areas – it is a case of them not always being adequately enforced in some instances.” Mr Hart said the solution was closer management: “Companies often make the mistake that once a process is offshored, minimal management is needed, but this isn’t the case. “Because of the distance, increased management is required. This ensures that company procedures are adhered to in every [offshore] location, not only in Indian locations. In line with the recommendation, the insurer is now “well underway” with an action plan that details “specific accountabilities” to ensure targets are met in all three areas. Although managers need to enhance their understanding of their duties to head off possible fines from the FSA, the probe reported there were “no regulatory breaches,” NU said in a statement. Like HSBC, Norwich Union does not outsource call centre operations to an external provider - rather all call centre operatives are employees of the firm. However that hasn’t excluded Britain’s biggest bank from attracting criticism that its call centre system prioritises wealthy customers over less affluent ones. Eddy Weatherill, of the Independent Banking Advisory Service, reportedly said: “It is a fact that money drives the system. The opportunity to make more profit exits with those who have more funds in their accounts.” His comments to The Daily Mail refer to HSBC’s call routing system, which assesses each customer on the number of products at the bank, their credit rating and their monthly income. These factors, and others, determine whether the system directs their call to an onshore or offshore operative. An HSBC spokesman dismissed the claims: “It is not true that call routing is determined by any internal measure of customer behaviour or monetary value to the bank.” However under the system, a customer with more complex needs is more likely to be dealt with in the UK. As a general rule, it is understood these are the more affluent customers. Asked about such ‘point-scoring’ systems,’ the NOA said they now feature prominently in both onshore and offshore call centres. “Simple queries can be answered offshore (such as checking one’s balance) whilst more complicated queries (such as securing a loan) can be handled onshore” the association said. “A rich customer might well have a simple question, in which case they would be directed offshore, whilst a poorer customer might need more extensive help and guidance, and then their call would be handled onshore. [However] best practice would dictate that there is not a wealth bias in the way that these calls are handled.” Responding to questions, an HSBC spokesman said: “Where a customer indicates a desire to speak about a particularly complex product, for example a mortgage, they will typically be routed to a call centre in their domestic market.” Mar 28, 2007 Email this article Printer friendly page Previous Page
|
|
 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| All content © Contractor UK Limited | [Archive] | [Register for News Letter] | [Privacy Statement] | [Terms of Use] | [Top of Page] |