On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Outsourcing 2017: ITO, BPO and Cloud

Released on: Nov. 9, 2017
Running Time: 11:25:14

Information technology and business process outsourcing has quickly gone from being a new and novel approach to commonplace practice.  Managing a global business today virtually necessitates contracting with outside technology partners to manage various aspects of non-essential and even some core business functions.  As ITO, BPO and cloud solutions reach broad adoption across industries new entrants to the market continue to emerge, offering cheaper and faster alternatives to industry stalwarts. 

A maturing market for technology outsourcing solutions may offer clients the chance to achieve greater efficiencies, but how does that impact current agreements with existing vendors?  As lawyers, how do you design agreements to anticipate this possibility?  How do evolving privacy regulatory regimes influence your contracts?  As a vendor, what client concerns should you anticipate with respect to emerging technology, increased competition and heightened privacy and data security expectations?  What ethical obligations do lawyers on both sides need to keep top of mind throughout the negotiation process? 

These are important questions that attorneys operating in this evolving practice must anticipate, regardless of which side of the transaction they stand behind.  This timely and authoritative program will share practical insights on some of these questions and raise new issues that practitioners in the field should know.  
 
You will learn:

  • Managing global migration to the cloud - NEW
  • Addressing vendor management issues – NEW
  • Digitization of all phases of the sourcing contract - NEW
  • Outsourcing process, Master Services Agreement and renegotiating deals
  • Privacy and data security in outsourcing agreements
  • Understanding pricing and financial structures
  • Stepping into the supplier perspective
  • Spotting ethical issues in outsourcing agreements

Attorneys engaged in designing and negotiating technology agreements and professionals operating in ITO, BPO and cloud services should find this program helpful.

Lecture Topics [Total time 11:25:14]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Introduction* [00:03:06]
    John F. Delaney, William A. Tanenbaum
  • Outsourcing - Getting Deals Done in a Rapidly Changing World [01:05:49]
    Brad L. Peterson
  • Outsourcing - The Anatomy of a Master Services Agreement [01:02:24]
    John F. Delaney
  • Digitization Impacts on Sourcing Contracts [01:03:11]
    Lynn Lugo, Gregg I. Goldman, Samuel G. Kramer
  • Privacy and Data Security Issues in Outsourcing [01:00:17]
    Christine E. Lyon
  • Pricing and Financial Structures in Outsourcing [01:00:15]
    Edward J. Hansen
  • Outsourcing Deal Renegotiations [01:02:49]
    John F. Delaney, William A. Tanenbaum, Peter Sanborn, Johanna L. Werbach, Michael J. Cammarota
  • Intellectual Property Issues in Outsourcing [01:01:17]
    Elizabeth Zimmer
  • Case Study: Diligence for Global Migration to the Cloud [00:58:19]
    Peter R. George, David M. Ross
  • Supplier Perspectives: Strategies for Success [01:01:46]
    George Kimball
  • Vendor Management - What's New in Today's Outsourcing [01:07:25]
    William A. Tanenbaum, Jon Lightman
  • Ethics Issues in Negotiating Sourcing Deals [00:58:36]
    Janis M. Meyer

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • The Outsourcing Process (August 10, 2015)
    Brad L. Peterson
  • Supplier Perspectives: Strategies for Success
    George Kimball
  • PLI Case Study: Global Cloud Migration for the Extended Enterprise
    Adam Aft, Peter R. George, David M. Ross, Dennis Penepacker
  • Cloud Contract Survey 2016 (July 2017)
    Adam Aft, Michael S. Mensik, Peter R. George
  • Materials from Mayer Brown LLP
    Rebecca S. Eisner
  • Privacy and Data Security Issues in Outsourcing
    Christine E. Lyon
  • Pricing and Financial Structures in Outsourcing
    Jon Lightman
  • Intellectual Property and Outsourcing
    Anne K Sutton
  • Materials from Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
    Janis M. Meyer

Presentation Material


  • Getting Deals Done in a Rapidly Changing World
    Brad L. Peterson
  • Anatomy of a Master Services Agreement
    John F. Delaney
  • 2017 Cloud and Digital Disruptions Survey Results
    Gregg I. Goldman, Samuel G. Kramer, Lynn Lugo
  • Privacy and Data Security Issues in Outsourcing
    Christine E. Lyon
  • Pricing and Financial Structures in Outsourcing
    Edward J. Hansen
  • Intellectual Property Issues in Outsourcing
    Elizabeth Zimmer
  • PLI Case Study Diligence for Global Migration to the Cloud
    Peter R. George, David M. Ross
  • Supplier Perspectives: Strategies for Success
    George Kimball
  • Vendor Management Today, A New Model, and Integrating Data Services
    Jon Lightman, William A. Tanenbaum
  • Ethical Issues in Negotiating Sourcing Deals
    Janis M. Meyer
Co-Chair(s)
John F. Delaney ~ Morrison & Foerster LLP
William A. Tanenbaum ~ Polsinelli
Speaker(s)
Michael J. Cammarota ~ Managing Director - Associate General Counsel, Contracting, North America, Accenture LLP
Peter R. George ~ Baker & McKenzie LLP
Gregg I. Goldman ~ Executive Director - Global Outsourcing Lead IT, Contracting & Shared Services Legal, UBS
Edward J. Hansen ~ Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
George Kimball ~ Wiggin and Dana LLP
Samuel G. Kramer ~ Baker & McKenzie LLP
Jon Lightman ~ Life Sciences Practice Lead Director, ISG
Lynn Lugo ~ Senior Counsel, Global Technology Transactions, QuintilesIMS
Christine E. Lyon ~ Morrison & Foerster LLP
Janis M. Meyer ~ Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
Brad L. Peterson ~ Mayer Brown LLP
David M. Ross ~ Assistant General Counsel - IP and Global Technology Unit, MetLife
Peter Sanborn ~ Travelers
Johanna L. Werbach ~ Managing Director, Intellectual Property & Technology Law, Moody's Corporation
Elizabeth Zimmer ~ Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Outsourcing 2018: ITO, BPO and Cloud (New York, NY) Nov. 1 - 2, 2018
Outsourcing 2018: ITO, BPO and Cloud (Chicago, IL) Oct. 1 - 2, 2018

On-Demand  On-Demand Programs

TechLaw Institute 2018: The Digital Evolution Mar. 12, 2018

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Outsourcing 2018: ITO, BPO and Cloud  
TechLaw Institute 2018: The Digital Evolution James G Snell, Perkins Coie LLP
Philip Blum, CA Technologies
Marc S Roth, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
 
Outsourcing 2017: ITO, BPO and Cloud George Kimball, Wiggin & Dana LLP
William A Tanenbaum, Arent Fox LLP
John F Delaney, Morrison & Foerster LLP
Michael S Mensik, Baker & McKenzie LLP
Brad L Peterson, Mayer Brown LLP
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.