WORKFORCE
16
Headcount or outcomes? choosing between TES and BPO By Willie Du Preez, Managing Director at PPO S outh African businesses know labour models well. But the difference between Business Process Outsourcing (BPO)
and Temporary Employment Services (TES) is often unclear. Both involve external partners and provide on-site staff, often in factory or warehouse settings. TES adds flexible headcount. BPO takes ownership of a process and delivers agreed outcomes. The value is in performance, not the number of staff. The key difference: buying extra hands (TES) versus buying results (BPO). TES provides labour. The client pays for hours worked, directs staff, and keeps the productivity risk. BPO delivers outputs, not hours. The BPO partner manages the process, meets targets, and optimises efficiency. With TES, the client keeps some liability and operational exposure. In BPO, accountability shifts to the partner, who owns the process and results. Understanding the practical difference Clarifying the real business need Before choosing, clarify what the business really needs—not just compare rates. Ask if the function can shift to output-based
work and if efficiency can be improved. Also consider whether the operation requires scalability and whether management should supervise staff or hold a partner accountable for results. Not every function suits output pricing, particularly when performance relies on external factors. However, for well-defined processes, output-based models can link costs to volume and make performance measurable.
costs to throughput. BPO and TES can work in parallel—stable roles on TES, high-volume on BPO. Measuring what matters Measurement differs: TES looks at attendance and headcount; BPO focuses on performance metrics. BPO tracks units produced, accuracy, efficiency, and cost per unit—not just presence, but results. The productivity question For businesses experiencing low growth and high costs, productivity is essential. TES is ideal for stabilising capacity, while BPO is better for measurable output, efficiency, and scalable costs. Moving from headcount to output fosters accountability and sustainable productivity. www.pposa.co.za
Designing for output, not attendance When output is the main metric, focus shifts to process efficiency and removing waste. In warehouses and factories, small improvements add up to big productivity gains. Incentives tied to performance benchmarks can boost output and accuracy. Why “TES 2.0” misses the point Calling BPO “TES 2.0” misses the point. If the client manages daily tasks, it’s still TES. True BPO means the client manages outputs, not people. BPO is not just labour supply—it’s a model to optimise work. Where BPO delivers the greatest impact BPO works best in high-volume, variable environments like e-commerce, manufacturing, or packaging, where efficiency gains matter most. Output-based models help scale with demand, aligning
TES adds flexible headcount. BPO takes ownership of a process and delivers agreed outcomes. The value is in performance, not the number of staff. The key difference: buying extra hands (TES) versus buying results (BPO).
MAY 2026 FEATURES
• Solar and Energy Efficiency • Earthing, Lightning, and Surge Protection • Lighting
Turning adversity into advantage: How constraints shaped the Stadialux Floodlight
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 15
JUNE 2026 FEATURES
This good optical design was an economic necessity translated into engineering discipline across the supply chain, production process and project deployment. Budget constraints and manufacturing ingenuity Capital expenditure limitations also influenced how Stadialux was industrialised. Tooling budgets were finite, meaning every jig, die and gauge had to justify its existence. Even when adjusted for inflation, the total tooling investment amounted to less than R1 million - remarkably modest for a product competing with global systems developed at vastly greater cost. This reality encouraged a manufacturing strategy built around a small number of highly precise tools and production processes that embedded quality directly into the product. The result was reduced variability, improved repeatability and lower long-term production costs. It also created a platform capable of scaling effectively once Stadialux began appearing in stadium projects involving hundreds of luminaires. Budget constraints didn’t limit ambition, they sharpened it.
lighting performance with fewer luminaires, lower installed power and reduced glare, Stadialux offered a different value proposition—particularly attractive in markets where infrastructure costs and energy efficiency were critical considerations. This reframing allowed a South African- designed product to compete internationally without enormous development budgets or dominant global brands. Turning adversity into advantage Looking back, it’s clear that Stadialux succeeded not despite its constraints, but because of them. The necessity to do more with less forced a level of integration, focus and discipline that many better-resourced projects never achieve. The result was a product that delivered measurable performance improvements, proved itself in demanding real-world environments and achieved international success. For engineers facing today’s challenges - whether in energy efficiency, sustainability or infrastructure - the lesson remains relevant. Constraint, when embraced, can become one of the most powerful drivers of innovation. And sometimes it produces a solution that quietly changes the game.
Constraint as a filter against complexity Another overlooked benefit of constraint is its ability to prevent unnecessary complexity. Stadialux didn’t attempt to solve every possible lighting problem. Instead, it focused on a single objective: delivering high-quality, long-throw stadium lighting with minimal wasted light and the smallest practical wind load on the shortest feasible mast structures. Features that didn’t contribute directly to this objective were deliberately excluded. This clarity helped avoid feature creep - a common failure mode in well-funded engineering projects - and resulted in a product that was easier to manufacture, aim, maintain and refine. Subsequent improvements were incremental and disciplined, preserving backward compatibility and protecting the integrity of the original design. Competing but not head-on Perhaps the most disruptive aspect of Stadialux is that it didn’t attempt to compete with established global manufacturers on their own terms. It didn’t t try to outspend them or out-scale them. Instead, it reframed the problem. By delivering comparable or better
• DBs, Switches, and Sockets • Tools and Tooling • Lighting
Editor: Minx Avrabos sparks@crown.co.za Advertising: Carin Hannay 072 142 5330 carinh@crown.co.za Design: Ano Shumba Publisher: Wilhelm du Plessis Published monthly by: Crown Publications (Pty) Ltd P O Box 140
Bedfordview, 2008 Tel: (011) 622-4770
e-mail: sparks@crown.co.za Website: www.crown.co.za Printed by: House of Print
Total Q4 2025: 9743 per month
The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the editor or the publisher.
This publication is distributed to electrical contractors, wholesalers, distributors, OEMs, panel builders, Eskom, mining electricians and consulting engineers (electrical) as well as libraries, members of IESSA and public utilities.
SPARKS ELECTRICAL NEWS
APRIL 2026
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker