The Backdoor of Double Outsourcing
The backdoor of double outsourcing — and how the pension sector can reclaim its transformative capacity
summary: The backdoor of double outsourcing — and how the pension sector can reclaim its transformative capacity
The pension sector is on the brink of a fundamental transformation. With the Future of Pensions Act (WTP), adopted in 2024 after intense parliamentary debate, the course has been irrevocably changed. This is no longer about administrative adjustments or technical migrations; the sector is being asked to reinvent itself.
What we observe is that many pension administration organisations have already followed their initial reflex: hiring programme teams, who in turn engage external experts. What starts as pragmatic support often evolves into a chain of outsourcing, in which not only the execution but also the ownership is transferred. And that’s where the danger lies — in the often unspoken trap of double outsourcing.
1. The mechanics of double outsourcing
Double outsourcing is rarely a conscious strategy. It’s a pattern that unfolds quietly. It begins with an understandable decision: the internal organisation lacks the expertise needed to execute the WTP transition. A programme team is set up, often operating outside the daily business.
That team — under pressure to deliver — outsources much of the substantive execution to external consultants, IT vendors and change specialists. In doing so, not just the work but also the responsibility shifts. The organisation becomes a spectator of its own transformation.
The result: * Loss of ownership – change is experienced as something that happens “elsewhere.” * Knowledge fragmentation – external parties build insight, but it disappears when they leave. * Weak implementation – employees feel no connection to the change, making the outcome fragile once support ends.
This pattern may be understandable, but it is fatal in the long run. A sector that becomes too dependent on external capacity not only loses control, but also its capacity to adapt.
2. The paradox of responsibility without proximity
For pension administrators, this leads to a painful paradox. They remain formally responsible for a transformation they no longer truly hold.
Parliamentary debates leading up to the adoption of the WTP made clear how vital trust is. Pension funds and society expect not just compliant service providers, but agile and future-proof partners. And trust cannot be built with dashboards and certificates — it rests in the internal capacity to carry change from within.
When change programmes are placed outside the organisation, that internal capacity is snowed under. What remains is a façade of control — project plans, dashboards, external steering groups — while employees watch from the sidelines.
3. The undercurrent: from technical project to cultural transition
Many pension organisations reduce the WTP transition to a technical operation: migrating participant data, reconfiguring systems, adjusting processes.
But the real transformation runs deeper. This shift touches on: * Professional identity – people must rediscover their role in a faster-moving, more relational context. * Ownership awareness – responsibility can’t be delegated to project teams; it must be embedded in daily work. * Learning culture – organisations must learn to navigate uncertainty, shifting insights, and iterative implementation.
Ignoring this undercurrent risks delivering a “paper transition”: formally correct, but without emotional or cultural ownership.
4. What’s needed: a learning delivery organisation
True capacity for change doesn’t come from more external resources — it emerges from strengthening internal change capability. That requires a fundamentally different approach:
Ownership anchored in the line
Change initiatives must remain connected to the core organisation. It is the employees who must live the new practices — not the hired project team.
External expertise as catalyst, not replacement
Consultants can add value, but only when their mandate is to empower, not to replace. Their task is to support the internal learning process, not to take over the transformation.
Learning as a core competence
This isn’t a one-off change project. It is the start of a prolonged period of adaptation. That requires a culture where experimentation, reflection and adjustment are routine.
Connecting technical and human dimensions
Every technical change must be rooted in a broader shift in behaviour, collaboration and ownership. Without that connection, transformation remains surface-level and unstable.
5. The road ahead
The pension sector has a unique opportunity — not just to implement a new system, but to reconfigure its very capacity for change.
This begins with a fundamental question:
Will we continue outsourcing change, or will we build organisations that can lead, learn and adapt from within?
The first path offers an illusion of certainty — as long as the external partners stay. The second path is more demanding, but more powerful: a transformation grounded in internal growth, where employees are not observers, but stewards of a new system and a renewed culture.
Final reflection – a quiet invitation
In the years ahead, pension organisations will face a tension: between regulatory pressure and the need for internal embedding. That tension holds the key to authentic transformation.
Perhaps the most important question isn’t: “How do we complete this project on time?”
But rather: “How do we emerge from this transformation stronger than we entered it?”
Those who dare to ask that question are stepping into a different arena. In that arena, the WTP is no longer an external obligation, but a catalyst for deeper movement — towards delivery organisations that are not just compliant, but capable, connected, and ready for the future.
René de Baaij & Kees-Jan van Vliet
