Post #252,642
4/19/06 5:36:54 PM
|
Skip, YOU haven't been reading
Read [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=252449|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=252449] and respond to that. Please.
Outsourcing can be good. Outsourcing can be bad. There are principles that you can use to identify which case you are in. Anyone who takes an absolute position on the topic - which you're doing right now - is certainly wrong at least some of the time.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #252,647
4/19/06 6:02:13 PM
|
On the contrary!
There just wasn't much to say to your post!
And my view isn't really absolute.
I've said there are times when it make sense - especially temporarily, in times of stress for the company and/or the department, when the company is too small to be able to support IT staff of their own...
But - the idea that outsourcing provides efficiencies that can't be achieved by the companies that purchasing outsourcing services? PERHAPS outsource providers might be necessary to remain competitive - if the knowledge is highly specialized/arcane (and not transferred or transferrable). This does NOT fit with the assertions I am dealing with - that IT is a commodity that should be outsourced when IT isn't the 'core competancy' of a business. That there is no 'performance hit', no negative side effects of having outsource workers working for 'another master'. That bottom line price is all that matters.
And as to your scripts to make 'bog-standard' stacks of software more efficient? I have my doubts that any such generic scripts could make a company more efficient than scripts designed to meet the specific business needs. It could be, I suppose. I've never seen it, though.
I guess the idea of IT being a commodity might be natural if all businesses were exactly the same, if business itself were a commodity - if there were no value in having a business that could differ and distinguish itself from it's competitors. If the only business advantage was to be exactly the same as the competition.
I just don't see that as being the case, though.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #252,651
4/19/06 6:28:38 PM
|
look at SAP, Oracle Financials, PeopleSoft
their model requires the business to adapt to them, so business financials become bog standard and the only method to distinquish business a from b is quality of provided service.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #252,653
4/19/06 6:53:45 PM
|
There's stuff like Sarbanes-Oxley too...
|
Post #252,688
4/19/06 11:50:50 PM
|
A new employee is coming Monday...
How long does it take you to set that employee up?
Among other things you'll need a new computer with all necessary software, personal account, email address, phone number, etc. The work involved is pretty standard and doesn't vary a whole lot between businesses. Also most of the grunt work can be automated.
If someone has efficient procedures and the right automation this will take a lot less time for that person. If someone has inefficient procedures and there are a lot of round trips until that employee has the right thing, it can take a lot longer.
An outsourced provider can amortize the cost of building that automation and procedures over more workplaces, and therefore should be able to provide the service for less. They obviously won't pass along the full savings. But they can have enough to pass on something. (In this study, an average of 15%.)
This is an example of how your Unless supporting more employees means lower cost... can be wrong in an IT example. An efficient outsourced provider needs fewer employees to do the same job because they are better at that job than your internal group was. Needing fewer people translates into being cheaper.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #252,725
4/20/06 7:33:56 AM
|
1 hour. Our procedures have it set up the day before.
It's ALWAYS ready when the employee sits at his desk on Monday. It IS automated. Even though different departments have different software, different levels of PC are given to different employees (decided by who's job can use 'older' PCs, who needs a laptop, etc. etc). Separations are handled the same way. We are always improving our scripts, procedures, and applications, too. IT is not static, a simple product to be purchased.
And if your internal people won't do it, get new people who will. They ARE there, obviously - the outsourcers have 'em, right? Scripts and automation are more effective and produce more when customized for the company. Having good people working for your company is a business advantage. Outsource workers do not work for your company - they work for the outsource company.
I'm sure outsourcers can provide adequate service. They might look better on a spreadsheet. This is not the whole story, however.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #252,753
4/20/06 10:39:09 AM
|
If you don't have good procedures and people...
is it better to hire an outsourcer or develop the people and procedures?
While it would be great to be great at everything, companies can't realistically do this. If the company is clueless about IT, and their management is clueless about IT, and IT simply isn't a core competency, then developing that competency will take a lot of time and energy. (Time as in years. And by the time they get there, they're likely to be behind the current state of the art.) Time during which that company will (as you've rightly pointed out) be at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis competitors who do have basic IT working better.
However a company whose IT is suboptimal doesn't have to take this path. Instead they can hire an outsourcer who is better at IT than they are. 3 months later they can have good enough IT that they no longer have the competitive disadvantage. People's computers will work, email will be up, backups will be taken. It won't be cheap, but it will be cheaper than what they are currently doing. It won't be the best possible, but it will be better than what they are currently doing.
This makes sense, and not just on the spreadsheet.
The key point is that it is always theoretically possible for a company to do stuff for itself better than an outside company can, but it isn't always realistically practical to do so. If your problem is amenable to standardization, then that gap between theory and practice is the wedge that can make outsourcing make sense.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #252,648
4/19/06 6:02:14 PM
4/19/06 6:02:35 PM
|
....
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
Edited by imric
April 19, 2006, 06:02:35 PM EDT
|
