There's a third reason companies outsource. It allows them to have the
illusion of fixed, low IT costs.
Often in larger companies, they don't separate the cost of projects from
operating expenses. The basic outsourcing contract includes infrastructure
support only, everything else they do is
2a. Outsourcing because you cannot hire anyone competent. Example is my
son-in-law's previous employer. He quit, moved to Buffalo to take a
pretty good job with the Federal Public Defender's office. But, his
company has been unable to hire anyone competent to take his place. In
this case this is a
On 01/24/2013 12:38 PM, Shirley Márquez Dúlcey wrote:
Of course, when you outsource for expertise, you're really outsourcing to
save money. Because you get somebody part-time or temporary instead of
hiring a fulltime person for that role. At least ... I find in sales for my
own services,
I have worked in some companies where, when getting ready for a major
upgrade, they
hired contractors. To do the 'support and maintenance' of the 'old
stuff' whey the employees
do the new development, and when they are ready, they roll into
production and become
the support staff. When the old
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:38:50PM -0500, Shirley Márquez Dúlcey wrote:
That assumes that your company needs enough of that role to justify a
full time person. A common reason for outsourcing is that a company
only needs a small amount of a skill, not enough to justify bringing
in a person for
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 05:54:42PM +, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss-
bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of Dan Ritter
Will they live or die over whether an engineer is inspired and
dedicated and works
So I've only read the most recent posts, but I think there are two different
ways of looking at this:
1. Outsourcing to save money (this seems to be the most common)
2. Outsourcing for expertise.
We actually do the latter, and often interact with the former. The painful
part of the process is
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:14:13PM -0500, Tom Metro wrote:
A while back Dan Ritter wrote:
Dave Berry wrote:
Does anyone know of companies that offer linux server and website
support? ... Our servers are remotely hosted by a colo company...
There are companies which do that, but let me
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 08:58:29 -0500
Grant M. gmonga...@napc.com wrote:
Last point: GOOD Linux system engineers are very difficult to come
by. Competant Linux admins are out there, but it's not always easy to
tell them from mediocre Linux admins. Tinkerers calling themselves
admins, and admins
From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss-
bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of Grant M.
So I've only read the most recent posts, but I think there are two different
ways of looking at this:
1. Outsourcing to save money (this seems to be the most common)
2.
Of course, when you outsource for expertise, you're really outsourcing to
save money. Because you get somebody part-time or temporary instead of
hiring a fulltime person for that role. At least ... I find in sales for my
own services, that's one of the most compelling points to pitch to
From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss-
bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of Dan Ritter
Will they live or die over whether an engineer is inspired and
dedicated and works overnight fixing a problem or implementing a feature?
If so, then it is a mistake
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu)
b...@nedharvey.com wrote:
From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss-
bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of Dan Ritter
Will they live or die over whether an engineer is inspired and
dedicated and works
A while back Dan Ritter wrote:
Dave Berry wrote:
Does anyone know of companies that offer linux server and website
support? ... Our servers are remotely hosted by a colo company...
There are companies which do that, but let me caution you: do
not outsource your core competency. This may be a
14 matches
Mail list logo
