Tag

Contact Centres

Browsing

Tech Providers Scaling Back in Australia: Contact Centres Left with Skeleton Operations

Over the past decade, Australia has become an attractive market for global tech providers selling into the contact centre space. With a focus on cloud solutions, AI integration and enhanced customer experience capabilities, international tech firms have capitalised on the country’s robust and growing demand for modernising contact centre operations.

However, recent shifts in global strategy are leading some of these tech giants to scale back their operations in Australia, leaving contact centres scrambling to adapt. Management and marketing was first to go, but now this trend has heightened and while long-term partners are seen as a positive if they are truly local with larger operations, the idea around support only including a handful of people has left many contact centre leaders concerned.

Selling Quotas Met, Focus Shifts

Australia’s contact centre industry, valued at billions annually, has long been a target for international tech companies. Providers like Genesys, NICE and even global players like

AWS and Microsoft have invested heavily in capturing market share, offering cutting-edge cloud-based Contact Centre as a Service (CCaaS) platforms. These platforms integrate artificial intelligence, customer analytics and omnichannel capabilities, appealing to Australian enterprises looking to optimise customer service.

The challenge has been that after meeting aggressive sales quotas, many of these tech providers are now pulling back. With revenue targets achieved and initial market saturation reached, they are scaling down their direct involvement, opting for skeleton operations instead of full- fledged support teams. This shift is driven in part by the high costs of maintaining large teams and infrastructure in a geographically isolated market like Australia, where sustaining extensive local operations is seen as economically inefficient once the primary sales push is completed.

The Impact on Australian Contact Centres

The consequences of these cutbacks are being felt across Australia’s contact centre industry. Companies that have integrated global tech solutions into their customer service workflows now find themselves relying on limited support. Skeleton operations often mean fewer in-country support staff, longer wait times for troubleshooting and a diminished local presence for product updates or strategic guidance.

This shift raises concerns about the future viability of these solutions in Australia, especially for companies that heavily depend on the continuous evolution of their contact centre technology. Australian businesses may face significant challenges in maintaining their systems without adequate local support, leading to potential disruptions in customer service operations.

Additionally, the reliance on international providers, without local teams in place, creates vulnerabilities. Should a tech provider decide to further reduce their presence or fully exit the market, Australian contact centres could find themselves scrambling to replace core systems at a high cost and under tight time constraints.

Local Providers Unable to Fill the Gap

The withdrawal of major global tech players is also exposing a gap in the Australian market—local tech providers lack the resources and capabilities to fill the void. While Australia has a robust tech ecosystem, few local companies can match the scale and innovation of global giants like AWS or Genesys. As a result, businesses may find themselves trapped in a tech dependency, reliant on global providers who no longer prioritise the region.

Smaller Australian tech firms may step in to offer niche solutions, but they often lack the comprehensive product suites and global expertise that international firms provide. This could lead to a fragmented market where contact centres must piece together multiple providers to achieve the same level of service integration they once had.

Skeleton Operations: A Strategic Decision

For global tech companies, this strategic withdrawal is not unique to Australia. It reflects a broader trend of scaling down localised operations in favour of a more centralised global support model. With the rise of remote work and cloud-based systems, many tech providers no longer see the need for large in-country teams to support their products. Instead, they are shifting to a model where remote teams, often based in lower-cost regions, handle support and operations.

The Future May Lead To Change In Buying Decisions

As tech providers pull back, Australian contact centres are faced with two paths forward: adapt or remain dependent on reduced support. Adapting may mean investing in training internal teams to manage and troubleshoot
systems independently or exploring hybrid solutions that combine local and international tech offerings. However, this comes with its own set of challenges, including increased operational complexity and higher costs.

For many, the alternative is remaining tied to global providers, but with fewer resources on the ground to help. This creates a precarious situation, where contact centres may struggle to maintain service levels and innovate at the pace needed to stay competitive in a fast-evolving industry.

Closing the Loopholes Legislation: By Fran Southward

What do you need to know ?

Over the past year, the Closing Loopholes Legislation has brought about some of the most significant changes to employment and industrial laws in Australia in decades. These sweeping reforms address fundamental aspects of the employer-employee relationship and could substantially impact workforce arrangements, costs and strategic planning for many organisations.

This reform program includes several changes that have received significant media coverage including the introduction of family and domestic violence protections in late 2023, changes to

the definition of employment, changes to casual employment and the pathways available to transition to full-time and part-time employment, and the right to disconnect, which came into effect August 2024.

Definition of Employee and Employer

These amendments introduce an interpretive principle for determining whether an individual is an ‘employee’ (as compared to an independent contractor), or a person is an ‘employer’ (as compared to a principal) for the purposes of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The changes in relation to this consideration, means there is a fairer test applied to determine this, and that the practical reality of the working relationship will be considered, as well as the written terms of any contract governing that relationship.

The Right to Disconnect

The ‘right to disconnect’ has now taken effect for most employees, noting that for employees of small businesses (businesses with less than 15 employees), this will take effect on 26th August 2025. The new regulation stipulates that employees are entitled to decline contact from their employer outside of working hours, provided their refusal is not deemed unreasonable. This ‘right to disconnect’ is a recognised workplace right, meaning employees should not face any negative consequences or adverse actions for refusing to take work-related calls or respond to work-related emails during their unpaid personal time, unless the refusal is considered unreasonable.

This shift in policy underscores a major shift in work-life boundaries and places new responsibilities on organisations to manage employee contact effectively.

What is ‘unreasonable’ I hear you ask? There are some circumstances where an employee’s refusal to monitor, read or respond to contact will be unreasonable. If the contact or attempted contact is required by law, it would be considered unreasonable for the employee to refuse. If the contact or attempted contact is not required by law, certain matters must be considered when deciding whether the employee’s refusal is unreasonable.

When will an employee’s refusal be unreasonable

An employee’s refusal to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact will be unreasonable if the contact or attempted contact is required by law.

If the contact or attempted contact is not required by law, considerations to determine whether the employee’s refusal is unreasonable would include understanding the reason for the contact and how it was made, particularly considering how much disruption it causes for the employee. Whether the employee receives any compensation within their employment contract to be available to work when the contact is made, or to work outside their ordinary hours. The role held by the employee and their level of responsibility, along with the employee’s personal circumstances including family or caring responsibilities.

There is an exemption from the right to disconnect from contact that is required under a law of the Commonwealth, State or Territory (e.g. some emergency services).

Tips for Discussing Workplace Changes

Open and regular communication is key to maintaining a work environment where everyone has a clear understanding of the expectations surrounding any new policies or legislative requirements. This can also help prevent any potential workplace issues from emerging.

Managers need to understand the workplace changes that will affect their employees and any of the practices currently in place. Organisations have an obligation to ensure changes are discussed, understood, and contextualised for their own environment. Whether you are a large organisation with your own HR department, or a smaller organisation with less formal support structures in place, the requirements and your liability remain the same.

Those with casual staff as part of their operating structure need to be on the front foot when it comes to the casual conversion pathway. This update has added further changes to the requirements for permanent transition options and it is important that when making workforce resource decisions you are aware of future obligations in relation to the workforce mix you are opting for.

If you currently engage independent contractors and you are not across the changes to the workforce definitions specifically regarding what constitutes an employee vs an independent contractor, it is important that you revisit this and ensure you are meeting your obligations under the Fair Work Act.

The right to disconnect is something that all non-small businesses need to be across. Organisations need to ensure they are training managers in relation to the obligations under the right to disconnect, and the importance of ensuring regular and open communication with team members about deadlines, workload expectations and working arrangements.

This should also involve reviewing employment contracts and policies to ensure they clearly outline expected working hours and the possibility of out-of-hours work. It’s important to discuss and set expectations around out-of-hours contact in a way that suits both the workplace and the employee’s role as both are responsible for ensuring an understanding when it comes to these changed regulations. Ideally, these conversations should take place before any out-of-hours contact occurs.

When someone might be expected to monitor, read or respond to contact.

Different roles within your organisation will have potentially different obligations when it comes to this so its important that you have thought about this in relation to roles and the responsibilities of these roles. A technical systems manager might need to take a call about a critical outage however they would not necessarily need to monitor emails. Your role as a manager is to think through what this means for the roles you are leading, then discuss and document these requirements.

Pay and conditions that may relate to out-of-hours contact

It is important to check the relevant award, enterprise agreement or employment contract for any entitlements that may apply.

Review cycle

This discussion should be had formally, and potentially conducted at the annual review process conducted within your organisation. Additionally, when employees shift into new roles this should be discussed to ensure understanding.

Internal policies, procedures and documentation

You should review your existing internal policies, procedures and documentation to ensure it includes any expectations regarding out of hours contact. This would include position descriptions.

In an era where customer experience is a key differentiator for businesses, contact centres sit at the front lines, serving as critical touchpoints between companies and their customers. Many organisations have invested heavily in sophisticated tech stacks to modernise their contact centres, often consolidating numerous functions—customer data management, automation, analytics, and communication channels—into a single platform or suite of tools. The intention is clear: simplify operations, reduce costs, and improve efficiency.

However, a growing number of contact centres are discovering that relying too heavily on a single technology stack—a practice known as “putting all eggs in one basket”—can lead to catastrophic failures. When that basket falters, it takes everything down with it, often crippling an organisation’s ability to interact with customers during the most critical moments. From data loss and operational downtime to security breaches and poor customer experiences, these failures are forcing companies to rethink their technological strategies.

75% of businesses relying on a single tech provider for their contact centres reported challenges with scalability and adapting to new technologies.

The Collapse of Tech-Stack Dependency

Several high-profile failures have illustrated the risks of placing complete reliance on a single vendor or platform. In late 2021, a well-known global telecommunications company experienced a five-hour outage in its contact centre systems. Customers in multiple regions were unable to access support, leading to thousands of missed inquiries. The company relied entirely on a single cloud provider, which managed its CRM, phone systems, and even the automated chatbots. When the cloud provider’s system went down, the entire infrastructure collapsed. The company faced weeks of damage control and lost revenue, with analysts estimating the financial impact to be in the range of $4 million.

The telecommunications company was far from alone. In the same year, a leading European financial services firm encountered a similar failure due to a single vendor’s software update that introduced critical bugs into the contact centre’s system. The result? Agents were left unable to access customer data, handle transactions, or communicate effectively with customers for two days, damaging trust and resulting in significant financial penalties from regulatory bodies.

Both of these cases highlight a fundamental problem: when a company ties its entire customer service operation to a single technology provider, any disruption to that provider can bring the entire system to a grinding halt. While the integration of multiple services into a singular platform can streamline operations and reduce costs in the short term, it createsa single point of failure that leaves contact centres highly vulnerable.

The Risks of Vendor Lock-In

The concept of vendor lock-in has long been a concern for businesses, but its consequences are more pronounced in contact centres due to the customer-facing nature of their work. Contact centres that lock themselves into one technology provider often lose the flexibility to adapt to changing market needs, implement innovative tools, or pivot in response to failures.

A survey conducted by Gartner found that 75% of businesses relying on a single tech provider for their contact centres reported challenges with scalability and adapting to new technologies, particularly as customer demands for omnichannel communication grow. When new channels such as social media or messaging apps gain prominence, businesses locked into outdated platforms struggle to integrate these services without massive overhauls.

Moreover, when organisations become overly reliant on one tech stack, they are subject to the pricing structures, service levels, and update schedules of the provider. If the vendor decides to raise prices or phase out certain functionalities, the business has little recourse without incurring massive migration costs. This creates a scenario where the vendor holds all the power, and the contact centre becomes a hostage to the decisions made by a single supplier.

Downtime Costs: The Financial Fallout

A significant but often underappreciated consequence
of a tech-stack failure in contact centres is the cost of downtime. According to research from IDC, the average cost of unplanned application downtime in contact centres ranges from $100,000 to $300,000 per hour, depending on the size and nature of the business. This figure does not even account for long-term damage to customer relationships, reputational harm, or regulatory penalties for service disruptions. For larger enterprises, these costs can quickly escalate. In 2022, a North American retailer with a heavily integrated contact centre platform experienced a nine-hour downtime, which led to an estimated $2.7 million in lost revenue from missed sales opportunities and service disruptions. The outage occurred due to a failure in their unified communications system, which was provided by a single vendor. Recovery was slow, and the company faced increased churn rates and decreased customer satisfaction scores in the months that followed.

The Shift Toward a Hybrid Technology Approach

In response to these failures, an increasing number of contact centres are shifting away from the monolithic approach of relying on a single vendor. Instead, they are adopting hybrid technology solutions that incorporate multiple systems from different providers. This decentralisation allows businesses to hedge against the risk of failure, as problems in one system do not necessarily lead to a total collapse of the contact centre’s operations.

For example, a financial services firm in the UK restructured its tech stack in 2023 after experiencing a series of outages related to its over-reliance on a single provider. The company adopted a hybrid system that combines multiple CRM platforms, telephony services, and AI-driven chatbots from different vendors. Not only has this improved the overall stability of their contact centre, but it also allowed the firm to more quickly adopt new technologies, like voice recognition and sentiment analysis, without waiting for updates from a single provider.

Gartner projects that by 2026, 60% of large contact centres will adopt a hybrid technology stack, moving away from the “all-in-one” solutions that have dominated the industry. Companies are increasingly realising that this multi-vendor approach not only reduces the risk of downtime but also fosters innovation and adaptability. As new communication channels, tools, and AI technologies emerge, contact centres with diversified tech stacks will be better positioned to integrate these innovations and meet evolving customer expectations.

Diversification as a Strategy for Stability

While the allure of an all-in-one technology solution is clear—simplified operations, lower short-term costs, and ease of management—the risks of putting all eggs in one basket are becoming too great for contact centres to ignore. The increasing complexity of customer interactions, the need for agility, and the high stakes of downtime mean that businesses can no longer afford to rely on a single provider for all their contact centre needs.

Diversifying the technology stack is not just a hedge against failure; it’s a strategic move that enables contact centres to remain agile, innovate more quickly, and deliver superior customer experiences. By embracing a hybrid approach, companies can mitigate the dangers of over-reliance and ensure that they are ready for whatever challenges and opportunities the future brings.

Diversifying the technology stack is not just a hedge against failure; it’s a strategic move that enables contact centres to remain agile, innovate more quickly, and deliver superior customer experiences.

 

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been changing the contact centre landscape for several years, with many organisations recognising its potential to improve customer service. Despite the growing enthusiasm, some companies are hesitant to adopt AI due to the high costs associated with advanced models. However, the contact centre industry appears poised to buck this trend. It is an exciting time to see the impact of AI in contact centres across the world.