On 21 April 2015 at 06:51, Timothy Sipples <[email protected]> wrote:
> To pick another analogy, I don't think I've ever seen a rail system where the
> locomotive is outsourced but the train cars continue to be run in-house, or
> vice versa.
Well I imagine things are much different in Singapore. Here in North
America the majority of rail cars are not owned by the company who
owns the locomotive. Rails, locomotives, cars, and train crews can all
be owned and/or managed by different organizations. It seems to work
rather better than the 19th century rail monopolies.
> To pick yet another example, building cleaning is often outsourced -- but
> the whole service is outsourced, with a clear, measurable set of objectives
> ("clean buildings"). Would you ever outsource only mopping the floors but
> keep sweeping, dusting, and wiping in-house? That'd be a predictable
> disaster, wouldn't it?
Perhaps. On the other hand the window cleaning in this building is
done by a window cleaning company, but other external and internal
cleaning is done either in-house or by other companies who don't do
exterior windows. Based on recent observation this seems to also be
the model for other nearby office buildings. It too seems to work
pretty well, perhaps because exterior window cleaning is a very
specialized business.
I don't actually disagree much with your views on IT outsourcing, but
your analogies range from weak to facile.
Tony H.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
