«

I've seen this first hand and agree with you.

A few years back I started on a "short term" contract with
a company in London, UK. The company had some very good
technically minded business people, but as a whole, the IT
department was a joke. Shortly after, it was decided to
outsource the whole of IT to a single third party, for
which the chosen supplier happened to be based "offshore".
It was calculated that the upheaval costs would be
recovered in just 2 years and from then on the
true "savings" would be realised. However the calculations
were simply pie in the sky, and were based on *ALL* IT
related personnel being "outsourced" as well. Naturally
when the people, business analyst's as well as the
techies, found out they all left, leaving the company with
no one with an understanding of the business left to
support the business! The "offshore" company had no
business people, only coders which meant that my client
had to employ expensive contract staff to replace the
permies who left, as the service agreement with
the "offshore" company required those type people to be
supplied to the "offshore" company!

Anyway, I'm still there on my "short term" contract,
almost 4 years later and the "offshore" company have been
booted into touch. Some of the original people have come
back and a completely new IT structure is now in place
which is 1000 times better than before. There are rumours
around that the whole venture wasted £35 million.

My view is that companies should look inward before
looking outward when trying to rationalise their IT
departments, as this is where the real savings can be
made.

David

>-----Original Message-----
>>Companies cycle through outsourcing and in-house
>>development every few years. There are advantages and
>>disadvantages to both and which option a particular
>>company goes with is largely decided by the opinion of
>>that company's CIO. And when a new CIO gets appointed,
>>the stance changes in accordance with the new CIO's
>>opinions.
>
>Exactly.
>
>The only reason companies see outsourcing as a way of
reducing costs
>is because they are incompetent at implementing and
maintaining an IT
>infrastructure. After all, who is in the best position to
provide
>business solutions for 'your' business, you or some
company down the
>street?
>
>Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3
>.
>

Exactly my point. Yet it continues......

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:46:31 -0800, "David"
<> wrote:

>I've seen this first hand and agree with you.
>
>A few years back I started on a "short term" contract with
>a company in London, UK. The company had some very good
>technically minded business people, but as a whole, the IT
>department was a joke. Shortly after, it was decided to
>outsource the whole of IT to a single third party, for
>which the chosen supplier happened to be based "offshore".
>It was calculated that the upheaval costs would be
>recovered in just 2 years and from then on the
>true "savings" would be realised. However the calculations
>were simply pie in the sky, and were based on *ALL* IT
>related personnel being "outsourced" as well. Naturally
>when the people, business analyst's as well as the
>techies, found out they all left, leaving the company with
>no one with an understanding of the business left to
>support the business! The "offshore" company had no
>business people, only coders which meant that my client
>had to employ expensive contract staff to replace the
>permies who left, as the service agreement with
>the "offshore" company required those type people to be
>supplied to the "offshore" company!
>
>Anyway, I'm still there on my "short term" contract,
>almost 4 years later and the "offshore" company have been
>booted into touch. Some of the original people have come
>back and a completely new IT structure is now in place
>which is 1000 times better than before. There are rumours
>around that the whole venture wasted £35 million.
>
>My view is that companies should look inward before
>looking outward when trying to rationalise their IT
>departments, as this is where the real savings can be
>made.
>
>David
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>>Companies cycle through outsourcing and in-house
>>>development every few years. There are advantages and
>>>disadvantages to both and which option a particular
>>>company goes with is largely decided by the opinion of
>>>that company's CIO. And when a new CIO gets appointed,
>>>the stance changes in accordance with the new CIO's
>>>opinions.
>>
>>Exactly.
>>
>>The only reason companies see outsourcing as a way of
>reducing costs
>>is because they are incompetent at implementing and
>maintaining an IT
>>infrastructure. After all, who is in the best position to
>provide
>>business solutions for 'your' business, you or some
>company down the
>>street?
>>
>>Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3
>>.
>>


Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3