
metrics,
partnership,
innovation,
BPO services,
Published on Fri Sep 11 2026
Updated on Fri Sep 11 2026
3 minute read
This is an interesting thought experiment that is worth exploring for anyone involved in buying or selling enterprise services. Think about two companies in your industry that essentially offer the same services, but in an entirely different way. Banking is a good example. There are several European banks that have been continuously operating for almost 300 years. You can imagine how some of these bank branches look. It’s all about personal service and relationships focused on interactions between bank employees and customers.
Now contrast this with a modern online banking service or a fintech like Klarna. The traditional bank has a business model that depends on trust, relationships, discretion, and a physical presence - actual bank branches with vaults. The fintech version of a banking service is designed around speed, convenience, automation, and control using digital services. Usually there is no branch network at all - everything is managed by the customer via an app. Most of us are already using banks or payment services like this, but if you look at the industry as a whole then there is a very wide spectrum from the white-glove service of a traditional bank in Switzerland to modern fintech.
This variety - even in a single industry - means that every bank will need help from their suppliers in a different way. Each company may have a different approach to how they manage their technology platforms, how they use AI, and what is their attitude towards service automation and customer experience? Each company will have a different vision of what they need to do for their customers today and what their vision of the future looks like. This leads to a fundamental problem with the traditional RFP-led supplier selection process, because it rarely captures the true needs of the company that creates the RFP.
When the client - in this case one of the banks - creates an RFP they will have some ideas of the processes they are using now and what they want to see from a supplier. They will often create a long list of questions asking ‘how would you do this?’ But this leads to a narrow pipeline. The client has already more or less defined how any solution should be designed, so all the responses to the RFP are just answering the specific questions asked. It becomes like a checkbox exercise. You are finding who is best at answering RFP documents, rather than who might have the best solution.
AI is making the situation even more challenging. The clients are creating RFPs with hundreds of questions - all designed by AI. Naturally, the supplier community feeds these questions into their own AI and asks it to respond. Who is being fooled here? Instead of creating this narrow path, defined by hundreds of questions, why don’t we take a different approach? I know it can work because I have seen it recently in Norway.
A startup was looking to find a supplier to take their customer experience to the next level. Their idea of building an RFP was to work with some consultants on where their business might grow in future - defining a vision, not just a list of questions. They presented this future vision to their potential partners and simply asked, ‘what are your ideas for how we can get to this place?’ It was consultative and intelligent and it allowed each of the shortlisted suppliers to see where the business wanted to go - so they could then be better informed when suggesting ideas. In this case the client is asking ‘imagine you are inside our business - what would you do?’

Created at Fri Oct 09 2026
10 min read
Customer satisfaction might be key to long-term business success, but satisfying today’s CFOs and board members to secure the necessary investments takes hard financial evidence. Discover what CX ROI really means in financial terms and why it’s so critical to your bottom line. We break down the four-step framework you’ll need to measure it in practice - from establishing baselines and determining CX levers, to linking them to financial outcomes and calculating net returns. We’l
This is a much stronger approach than the traditional long list of questions because it taps into the creativity, experience, and insight that all the shortlisted suppliers can offer. This approach also explicitly frames a vision of the future as the target. So it doesn’t matter if you are running a very traditional relationship-focused company or a modern app-based service. You can define the desired future state and then allow your potential partners to build a road map.
There are many critics of the traditional RFP process. It has always been designed to give the impression of objectivity - all those question responses can theoretically be compared - but really it just creates a barrier, it distorts what the client really wants. It reduces complex and strategic business-to-business relationships to a single checklist. Companies are all very different and their leaders will have varied aspirations for the future. As I introduced at the start, even companies in the same industry, offering a similar array of services, can be managing their business in dramatically different ways.
The traditional RFP really needs to change. If every supplier is forced through the same narrow tunnel of pre-written questions, then the buyer is not really testing imagination, experience, or strategic fit. They are testing who can complete the form most effectively - it’s entirely focused on the questions - not the service, creativity, or innovation. Companies today need partners who can challenge assumptions, interpret where the business is going, and help build a road map to get there. The future vision needs to be clear. It may change on the way, but at least a genuine partnership will be able to adapt and change direction on that journey.
You cannot find this kind of creative partner by asking everyone the same standard questions. The future of B2B supplier selection should not be about who gives the safest answer to the questions focused on how the business was running yesterday. It should be about who has the clearest vision for tomorrow.

Created at Mon Sep 28 2026
4 min read
DeepSeek was only founded in 2023. The company is based in Hangzhou, an important port city in Eastern China that has been a strategic hub along the Silk Roads for thousands of years. DeepSeek has been building large language models (LLMs) since the company was created, but the[ 2025 release of their R1 LLM challenged](https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/

Created at Fri Sep 25 2026
5 min read
An automated system has answered a customer’s question. The answer is accurate in itself, but it has missed the true reason for the contact. The customer has to explain the situation again, this time to human support. The support representative resolves the issue, but notices something else: the same misunderstanding keeps appearing across multiple customer journeys. When a mistake repeats at scale, who owns the lesson? And what should a global enterprise expect from a CX partner whose job inclu