On Jan 16, 2008 12:16 PM, James G. Sack (jim) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bob La Quey wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2008 9:03 AM, Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Definition is hard > >>> to outsource depending as it does on the "customer" who often > >>> must be worked with face to face. Implementation OTOH is > >>> realtively easy to outsource if one has a good solid definition, > >>> which is, of course, a _big_ if. > > > > First I completely agree that your list does a good > > job of defining the problem. I do _not_ think that > > you avoid the probem by avoiding outsourcing. You > > have these problems whether you outsource or not. > > The all-to-common situation is that some PHB says let's outsource, and > nobody clues him/her in. Sometimes it gets all "arranged" by > intermediaries who are equally clueless, and then some lowly techhead is > told to "make it work". Almost invariably, it doesn't. > > > > > So let's take them one by one. > > <total snippage> > > > Regards, > ..jim
I agree that lousy management is the rule not the exception. It does not follow though that lousy management will do any better a job with their own internal program development. Plenty of systems get botched without outsourcing the botch :;-( BobLQ -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
