Serving a client alongside a competing BPO vendor — where the client actively compares performance between the two and can shift volume based on results — adds an ongoing comparison pressure distinct from a sole-source contract’s fixed benchmarks, because the standard being measured against is a moving target set by whatever the other vendor happens to be doing, not a stable, predictable number.
Why a Moving Comparison Is Harder to Regulate Around Than a Fixed Target
A sole-source contract’s SLA is a known, stable number — agents and supervisors can regulate around a fixed target even under pressure. A competing-vendor arrangement means the bar is whatever the other vendor is currently achieving, a number the BPO’s own team can’t see directly and has no control over, which makes the pressure feel more open-ended and less resolvable than hitting a defined number would.
What This Does to How Wins Get Framed Internally
In a competing-vendor arrangement, good performance is often framed internally in comparative terms — “beating” the other vendor — rather than simply “meeting the standard.” That framing can motivate short-term effort, but it also means a good month can still feel insufficient if the competing vendor did even better, denying the team a stable sense of having succeeded.
Why Volume-Shifting Consequences Raise the Stakes Further
Where the client can shift call volume between vendors based on relative performance, underperformance doesn’t just risk a penalty — it risks losing business to the specific competitor being compared against, adding a felt existential stake to routine performance metrics that a single-vendor SLA penalty structure doesn’t carry in the same way.
What Reduces This Pressure Without Ending the Competitive Arrangement
Framing internal goals around the team’s own consistent standard, rather than solely around beating the other vendor, gives agents a stable target to regulate around even while the comparative arrangement continues at the leadership level — separating the account-management-level competitive dynamic from the floor-level performance conversation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does competing-vendor pressure always hurt performance?
Not inherently — some teams respond well to competitive framing, but the open-ended, moving-target nature of the comparison raises regulation cost compared to a fixed, known benchmark.
Should agents know they’re being compared to another vendor?
Some awareness is often unavoidable, but framing internal goals around a stable, controllable standard rather than the comparison itself reduces the floor-level cost.
How does ORS™ address competing-vendor pressure?
ORS™ (Operational Regulation Systems) separates the account-level competitive dynamic from floor-level goals, giving agents a stable standard to regulate around regardless of the comparative arrangement above them.
Related Reading
Read more on how SLA penalties change agent regulation pressure and the relationship between a BPO’s contract win/loss rate and its ability to invest in regulation. ORS™ (Operational Regulation Systems) was built by Matthew F. Stevens.