> From a business standpoint, sure, it's about value but is there really
> value in outsourcing, or is it just cheaper?

Talent is talent. It all depends on what you need. If you can get what
you need cheaper and without hassle, generally that route wins.

> I did a contract at a company that had outsourced its Tech Writing to
> India but after seeing how poorly the Indians wrote English, they
> brought TW back to America.

I think you maybe just outsourced blindly. English is a standard
language in India, and just about everyone I know in India has a
better command of it than I do! ;-) Of course they speak the Queen's
English, which is a bit different from my Yank tongue. ;-)

> Another company I worked at outsourced QA to Russia, bragging to us how
> they saved 50%. But guess what! The Russians took twice as long to do
> anything and many times, the quality was not as good, so there went
> there 50% savings. Not to mention the low morale around the office by
> the Americans who saw their jobs going overseas. Many people spent more
> time gossiping about whose job was going next than doing work. Many
> other people around the office were just pissed all the time, thereby
> lowering their productivity, and others left, thereby screwing the
> company since they were needed.

Yes, quality is an issue, but my guess is that there were multiple
factors contributing to quality, from your company possibly not doing
its homework to outsource to the right talent to the remote group just
not having their act together (and everything in between).

What most companies forget is that "outsourcing" is nothing more than
hiring (contract or perm) in bulk in another location.

As for morale back "home", it's indeed an issue. Unfortunately there's
nothing you can do about the morale issue except not outsource, which
may cause jobs to be eliminated rather than go overseas...

It's a big puzzle, and one for which there is no easy solution.
However, that doesn't mean it's "our" place to sit around and mope
about it. What is everyone doing to remain marketable in this changing
economic and commercial landscape?

> For the government, it's a bad deal. They lose a lot of tax base when
> workers are laid off and don't pay as much in taxes, not to mention the
> loss in unemployment dollars they have to shell out.

I'll give you that, but I argue it's not merely outsourcing that's to
blame for unemployment.

> So I don't think it is such a great thing.

To each their own. But the issue is much bigger than keeping jobs
local. If the company can't get where it needs to go given their
funding and expenses...

Bill Swallow
HATT List Owner
WWP-Users List Owner
Senior Member STC, TechValley Chapter

Reply via email to