On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:36:39 -0500, Joel Ewing wrote:
>
>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.
>
Too often the outsourcing is to web developing specialists with
inadequate familiarity with the enterprise's core business. They
focus on form rather than content.
A couple anecdotes:
A (non-IT) professional told me he had been approached by a novice
web developer who offered to author a web site at no charge, expecting
compensation in expeience and referrals. The professional accepted,
informally, without making an appointment for a planning meeting.
Some days later, the developer called him:
"I have your web site ready!"
"We haven't even discussed the design."
"I don't need to do that; I just read some books and put something
together for you."
...
A man I know who works (second job) as a web developer was approached by
a prospective client:
"When can we get together to discuss the design and content you want?"
"I don't want to discuss that stuff. I just want you to build me a web
site."
...
Client B should be referred to developer A. It appears that web sites
are commodities.
>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.
>
I wonder whether IBM's transition from Publibz to InfoCenter to Knowledge
Center involved much outsorcering? But KC is not overweight in form nor
lacking in content. It's just a dreadful user interface.
>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..
>
Two employers ago, our service delivery website consisted of a directory
tree, organized by product accessed by an HTTPD (Apache?) Change
team developers delivered PTFs by email, SENDFILE, or TRANSMIT to an
ad-hoc daemon which analyzed them and sorted them into directories
by parsing the ++PTF headers. I don't know what customer entitlements
were enforced (but why would anyone steal a PTF?) Then management
brought in the web site developers with their Content Management
System, tuned better for quarterly updates than for daily PTFs. At
the insistence of Systems Development, an automated interface to the
content management system was provided, largely bypassing its
controls. The HTTPD was moved from Solaris to Windows ("No one
ever lost his job for recommending ...") The search function largely
failed -- the indexing task ran 24*7 and never caught up.
I have never worked in an environment where problem reporting,
patch development, and service delivery were fully integrated. Some
vendors provide integrated solutions. Internal politics has always
resulted in choosing two or more, always poorly matched.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
