On 04/22/2015 07:03 AM, John McKown wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Elardus Engelbrecht < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Tom Brennan wrote: >> >>> The word "resource" hadn't been used for a person yet, and managers ran >> projects themselves and knew who was best for each particular task. What a >> strange world it was. >> >> True. I see outsourcing as: 'Let other companies do my work which is NOT >> my core business or which is cheaper to let others do it'. >> >> So, cleaning of buildings, gardening, sewer unblocking, guards, catering, >> etc. are usually outsourced here in sunny South Africa. >> >> I know of a bank, which has folded many years later, which outsourced all >> its IT to an outside company. ALL of it, mainframe, network, PC, printing, >> staff managing those equipment, etc. were transferred to that company. [1] >> >> That despite their IT is part of *core business*. > > >> Go figure. >> > > That scenario is _exactly_ what the company that I work for wants. As I > understand it, they only want people as employees who are "company > specific". This would be people like high level managers, actuaries, end > user application designers and programmers (some of whom are consultants). > Other workers, like maintenance, IT "infrastructure", new customer & claims > "keyers" are to be supplied by other companies. They also don't want to own > any real estate, just rent office space. But they don't seem to be able to > find a buyer for the building we're in. So they have outsourced building > management. Basically they want only "resources" with relate _directly_ to > the product we sell (insurance), not any "supporting role" resources. I > guess like they buy electricity and sewer as a commodity. IT, et al., are > just commodities. I can see their point. I guess. > > > >> >> Groete / Greetings >> Elardus Engelbrecht >> >> [1] - I know it, because I found out that grimy slimy truth during job >> hunting in 1990 around... >> >> -- > If you sent twitter messages while exploring, are you on a textpedition? > > He's about as useful as a wax frying pan. > > 10 to the 12th power microphones = 1 Megaphone > > Maranatha! <>< > John McKown
I would second the sentiment that it would not be a wise move to outsource IT when that is a part of the "core business". With web presence being such a key component of customer service these days, I would think that would make IT a part of the core business for any entity where providing services to customers is a major component of their business. Last time I checked most State governments were heavily involved in providing services to their customers/tax-payers. Putting part of your core business out of your direct control makes it much more difficult to adapt when the inevitable need for change occurs. Outsourcing one part of your IT can restrict future ability to adopt the most cost-effective IT solution to change. The limitations of typical outsourcing contracts will make changing any outsourced component of IT more difficult and probably more expensive -- so there will be strong pressure to resist changing that component even when that might otherwise be the best approach.. -- Joel C. Ewing, Bentonville, AR [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
