blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px
#715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white
!important; } Companies that outsource their IT or any other function might
save money in the short term which will make the CEO a bundle of money over
that short term, based on stock performance. Over the long term, this is the
kind of failure they must be willing to accept. The same is true for CEO's who
replace the mainframe for smaller cheaper platforms. Saves them money in the
short term, until they get hacked.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Monday, May 29, 2017, 3:32 PM, Phil Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/after-it-outage-british-airways-union-blames-outsourced-it-jobs-in-india-for-problem/articleshow/58874334.cms
Well, that's better than "we lost a power supply and we built our system with
an obvious SPOF". Unless they're blaming the SPOF design on the Indians, of
course (still fully possible). Not sure "We outsourced and had no grown-up
oversight" is an excuse either.
The best example of a successful outsourcing (who shall remain nameless) that I
know of kept several senior staff to be the interface with the outsourcer. They
keep 'em (mostly) honest. Next-best is, of course, moving existing staff to the
outsourcer, but that "wears off" over time.
Remind me again why outsourcing is such a great idea... (yeah, yeah, I know the
reasoning, don't start).
...phsiii
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
