....
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.
