Qantas-Accenture deal "may" send 1000 back-office jobs to India

[Melburnian1]

'AFR' and subsequently other Nine Group newspapers such as 'The Age' are reporting that in an AI (not Air India!) deal with consulting company Accenture, Qantas may shift up to 1000 jobs in finance, human resources and marketing to India.

The proposal is called 'Project IQ".

Transformation staffer Rachel Yangoyan is in charge of this initiative, but a final decision is yet to be made. She said discussions were at 'an early stage'.

The article points out that way back in 2006, QF signed a $188 million contract to transfer some technology roles to India, but last year unveiled an 'innovation hub' (whatever that means) in Adelaide where 'it is planned' to have 420 employees.

Although the fairly recent, much criticised hacker incident emanated from a mistake by a contractor in Manila, Philippines, other companies such as Wesfarmers have preferred Philippines as a location compared to India.

It would be interesting to know how many of the Australian staff currently in these roles in finance, human resources and marketing 'work from home'.

As some CEOs have stated or implied, many jobs that can be 'done from home' can just as efficiently, and at lower cost, be undertaken by contractors based in nations like Philippines, India and Sri Lanka.

 

[offshore171]

Is this the same Qantas that received $2.7 billion in government funds and Australian taxpayer-funded support during Covid?

 

[RooFlyer]

“I still call Australia home …”

 

[Vic]

Assume, send our QFF data to an offshore data centre in India. Because they never do scamming from India...

 

[TheInsider]

Is this the same Qantas that received $2.7 billion in government funds and Australian taxpayer-funded support during Covid?

Not a big difference, but out of that, $856 million was job keeper for staff.

 

[Warragul]

The choice of consultancy as well. They have a few significant failures or cost blowouts in Australia - Aged Care Agency, Home Affairs, Bureau of Meteorology.

 

[Saab34]

Tech changes have enabled many departments to be moved offshore. I’ve seen a lot of this recently, not just the stock standard IT department offshoring either.

This year my company has started moving parts of the commercial team to parts of Asia. A whole bunch of people who dealt with suppliers got the chop earlier this year and those jobs went to India and Phillipines.

Marketing is an interesting one though. HQs are definitely thinning out down under.

 

[dajop]

This is a glimpse of the future we haven’t fully grasped yet.

 

[AuSammy]

In a previous corporate life, out of all the contract / consulting houses we used, Accenture was the most overpriced and simultaneously incompetent organisation that I had to deal with.

 

[Daver6]

'AFR' and subsequently other Nine Group newspapers such as 'The Age' are reporting that in an AI (not Air India!) deal with consulting company Accenture, Qantas may shift up to 1000 jobs in finance, human resources and marketing to India.

The proposal is called 'Project IQ".

Transformation staffer Rachel Yangoyan is in charge of this initiative, but a final decision is yet to be made. She said discussions were at 'an early stage'.

The article points out that way back in 2006, QF signed a $188 million contract to transfer some technology roles to India, but last year unveiled an 'innovation hub' (whatever that means) in Adelaide where 'it is planned' to have 420 employees.

Although the fairly recent, much criticised hacker incident emanated from a mistake by a contractor in Manila, Philippines, other companies such as Wesfarmers have preferred Philippines as a location compared to India.

It would be interesting to know how many of the Australian staff currently in these roles in finance, human resources and marketing 'work from home'.

As some CEOs have stated or implied, many jobs that can be 'done from home' can just as efficiently, and at lower cost, be undertaken by contractors based in nations like Philippines, India and Sri Lanka.

This started to read like an article you'd see on the 1st April....

 

[piec]

This is a glimpse of the future we haven’t fully grasped yet.

This has been going on for decades already.

 

[dajop]

This has been going on for decades already.

The AI bit hasn’t. It takes “outsourcing” to a different dimension. .

 

[Melburnian1]

The AI bit hasn’t. It takes “outsourcing” to a different dimension. .

But AI is imperfect: one version said a person was a collection/lump of blueberries.

Rubbish in , rubbish out.

It can never 'think' like men and women: doesn't it fail on some nuances?

 

[dajop]

But AI is imperfect: one version said a person was a collection/lump of blueberries.

Rubbish in , rubbish out.

It can never 'think' like men and women: doesn't it fail on some nuances?

Yes. But it’s good at time consuming repetitive tasks based on information you feed it directly..

Of course it depends on the model and how much you pay but I’ve had some impressive results based not on universal data set but very specific Information I have.. So it wasn’t rubbish jn.

But agree if you are just using based on its universal training data, riddled with errors if you know anything about a topic. Definitely rubbish in … rubbish out.

But AI is imperfect: one version said a person was a collection/lump of blueberries.

Rubbish in , rubbish out.

It can never 'think' like men and women: doesn't it fail on some nuances?

Yes. But it’s good at time consuming repetitive tasks based on information you feed it directly..

Of course it depends on the model and how much you pay but I’ve had some impressive results based not on universal data set but very specific Information I have.. So it wasn’t rubbish jn.

But agree if you are just using based on its universal training data, riddled with errors if you know anything about a topic. Definitely rubbish in … rubbish out.

But AI is imperfect: one version said a person was a collection/lump of blueberries.

Rubbish in , rubbish out.

It can never 'think' like men and women: doesn't it fail on some nuances?

Yes. But it’s good at time consuming repetitive tasks based on information you feed it directly..

Of course it depends on the model and how much you pay but I’ve had some impressive results based not on universal data set but very specific Information I have.. So it wasn’t rubbish jn.

But agree if you are just using based on its universal training data, riddled with errors if you know anything about a topic. Definitely rubbish in … rubbish out.