Quote:
Originally Posted by Krovikan
Working in IT/IS for as long as I have, any company that is sending IT offshore to save cost is in for a rude awakening. It'll end up costing the company more and they will get far less, then if they just kept it local.
|
I think there is a place for outsource, but has to be strategic. Working in the model for years now, I can confirm it isn’t more productive as in house in every case, but neither is in house more productive than offshore in every case.
From what I have seen is outsource is done mainly by executives to appease their boss or the share holders. Lower OpEx. You can’t win that one in a public company.
I think we just need to accept it isn’t going away and deal with it. Source the areas that are dead simple to start, give the provider room to earn more. Have a second provider for healthy Competition. That is key, as soon as the provider signs for years they begin roll off of top talent. Last lock in named talent, don’t do outcome based. You top performers have to stay, if not you get a D list cheap person.
I can write a book on doing this. Seen a lot over the years. I think a hybrid model is the way to balance cost and output. There is always room for top talent in house in IT but there is less space. Those in house that stay need to be watching outsource closely. You need them to know what motivates them and play the game. It actually can work, not ideally but is what it is.