Business-Process-as-a-Service is transforming into a central operating model, prompting organisations to address new legal, operational and risk challenges in their contracts as they embrace scalable, outcome-driven cloud-based workflows.
Business‑Process‑as‑a‑Service is evolving from a niche offering into a mainstream operating model as organisations seek scalable, technology‑enabled ways to convert routine workflows into measurable business outcomes. What be...
Continue Reading This Article
Enjoy this article as well as all of our content, including reports, news, tips and more.
By registering or signing into your SRM Today account, you agree to SRM Today's Terms of Use and consent to the processing of your personal information as described in our Privacy Policy.
gan as a combination of cloud software and outsourced labour is being reconceived as an integrated service that combines platforms, automation and process ownership, bringing fresh benefits but also fresh legal and operational frictions for both buyers and suppliers.
According to Gartner, BPaaS delivers business process outsourcing from the cloud, typically on a multitenant basis with consumption‑ or subscription‑style pricing, and often embeds automation so that human work is not overtly dedicated to any single client. That cloud‑native construction underpins many of the commercial advantages firms cite: lower total cost of ownership, elastic capacity and a pay‑for‑use economics that aligns capacity with demand. Vendors such as Virtusa and Cognizant describe BPaaS as an end‑to‑end construct that couples industry knowledge, digital engineering and people to run non‑core activities from payments and compliance to IT incident management.
But the marriage of platform and process changes the contours of risk. When a single supplier controls both the underlying technology and the operational execution, contractual frameworks must recognise two distinct performance domains. Technology obligations, platform uptime, latency, backup and disaster‑recovery capabilities, require different metrics, remedies and monitoring than process deliverables such as accuracy, turnaround and fidelity to business rules. Separating those obligations in service agreements reduces ambiguity over which failure caused an operational disruption and what remedial steps are appropriate.
A second practical shift is toward outcome‑based commercial models. Industry commentary, including analysis by JD Supra and CIO, highlights the trend of linking fees to business results rather than simple availability. Outcome pricing can better align incentives but also raises the stakes for precise definitions: contracts must specify the exact metric of success, the measurement methodology, the governance cadence for reviewing performance, and escalation and dispute resolution pathways when platform defects impede process outcomes. Where automation technologies such as robotic process automation contribute to savings, commercial terms should address how those gains are measured and shared across parties.
Regulatory and privacy exposures intensify in a BPaaS arrangement. With data and process logic concentrated in a single supplier’s environment, compliance controls must be more prescriptive than in stand‑alone SaaS or traditional BPO deals. Contracts should grant expanded audit rights beyond standard attestations, mandate recurring certifications of security and process controls, and require ongoing compliance training for supplier personnel. These steps are particularly important where laws such as GDPR, the California Consumer Privacy Act or sectoral rules like HIPAA or GLBA apply.
Intellectual property rights present another recurring flashpoint. BPaaS engagements often weave together pre‑existing platforms, vendor proprietary modules and new artefacts born of collaborative work, process templates, analytics models or customised integrations. Clear drafting is essential: the supplier’s underlying software typically remains its licensed property, while novel outputs produced for the client should be allocated in a manner that reflects commercial contribution and future use rights. Contracts must set out licence scope, post‑termination access to deliverables, and who may exploit enhancements after the engagement ends.
Exit planning needs to be treated as a live part of the deal, not an afterthought. Because BPaaS implementations embed deeply into workflows, migrating services can be operationally complex and costly. Agreements should define transition‑out duties, knowledge transfer obligations, interim service continuity measures and the mechanics for returning or deleting client data. Early and detailed transitional planning reduces the risk of business interruption and makes disengagement predictable.
Market research points to continued expansion of the sector. Mordor Intelligence projects strong compound annual growth for BPaaS as cloud adoption, artificial intelligence and regulatory demands accelerate uptake. That growth will broaden vendor options and increase competitive pressure, but it is unlikely to reduce the need for careful contracting and governance; it may, in fact, make those disciplines more important as more critical functions are placed into managed cloud processes.
For organisations contemplating BPaaS, the practical takeaway is that these arrangements are partnerships rather than commodity purchases. Buyers and suppliers should invest in clear, differentiated SLAs for platform and process, mutually agreed outcome definitions, rigorous compliance provisions, transparent IP allocations and detailed exit mechanics. Treated deliberately, BPaaS can deliver scalable efficiency and measurable results; left vague, it can concentrate risk and generate costly disputes.
Source: Noah Wire Services
