4 ms·

I don't believe in this anymore "Everyone outsources large portions of their IT, and they should. It’s called specialization and division of labor. If FedEx’s

by seivan 13y ago

I don't believe in this anymore "Everyone outsources large portions of their IT, and they should. It’s called specialization and division of labor. If FedEx’s core competence is not in IT, they should outsource their IT to people who know what they are doing." These days I believe each department of government that needs an iPhone application would do better to hire an iOS developer full time to maintain and polish the fuck out of it, continually.

mgkimsal 13y ago
I tend to agree here. The siren song of 'outsourcing' sounds great, but it's just moving the goal posts, really. The dept/org/staff still need to understand their internal problems well enough to document and communicate them properly, including translating to the outsourcing company. Hiring IT people internally to be there long term to really understand the agency/dept/org/staff and their problems from an IT perspective should be a requirement for any org. Without a competent person who understands IT and the business needs, and has a longer term investment in the business itself, there's little chance of being able to choose an appropriate outsourcing company to do the job (or indeed to define the job competently in the first place).
Dwolb 13y ago
It's interesting that a core competence of government isn't IT. How much does the government depend on IT to run its day-to-day business? If the answer is 'not much,' I can understand the opinion that work should be outsourced. If the answer is 'a lot,' then IT should be a core competence and the government should invest in acquiring in-house IT expertise. I'd guess the answer is 'a lot'.
- GVIrish 13y ago
  Currently government IT is operating under this idiotic idea that almost all IT should contracted out because : "We can fire contractors if they don't do a good job" "Contractors stay up to date on technology" "Contractors are cheaper because we don't have to pay for their government benefits" So for one, contracting companies that do a bad job may lose out on future work. But the reputation of the big companies is never hurt enough by this to get forced to improve. Even then, the fundamental problem is that government employees are very difficult to fire or even hold accountable so people think it's easier to hire contractors. When really the problem that needs to be solved is accountability in government. Secondly, even if developers who work for contractors stay more up to date, it's really irrelevant because the government is extremely slow to upgrade on anything. We're still running Windows XP in a lot of places. Third, if the bill rate for a developer is about 3-6 times what you'd pay a full time government developer, you're not really saving money on benefits. The thinking is that you only pay a contractor for a few years while they develop something for you, but IT is a continuing need. If your operation relies on software (which almost all of them do), you're going to be paying 3-5 times the cost per developer for the foreseeable future. Over time that certainly costs more than government employees.
huherto 13y ago
I agree with you. I have worked for a number of companies where you often hear "Our business is not software". Then they wander why they cannot do all the projects that would allow them to move fast, provide better service, or save money. Any company that is large enough needs to make software a core competency.
mseebach 13y ago
The key word is "portions". Likely the iPhone app you have in mind is a core business application and shouldn't be outsourced. Procuring and maintaining your exchange server, active directory, fileserver, HR and finance applications, networking, routers, wifi, security, desktop, laptops, printers and help desk for all of the above for a fixed annual price per seat? Oh, yes please. Of course you should still have a couple of competent guys who can make sure the contracts aren't stupid so you don't end up with 50 mb quotas on the mailserver and no way to increase them without huge penalties etc. But it's 1-3 guys on the COO staff, not an entire department.

by seivan 13y ago

mgkimsal 13y ago

I tend to agree here. The siren song of 'outsourcing' sounds great, but it's just moving the goal posts, really. The dept/org/staff still need to understand their internal problems well enough to document and communicate them properly, including translating to the outsourcing company. Hiring IT people internally to be there long term to really understand the agency/dept/org/staff and their problems from an IT perspective should be a requirement for any org. Without a competent person who understands IT and the business needs, and has a longer term investment in the business itself, there's little chance of being able to choose an appropriate outsourcing company to do the job (or indeed to define the job competently in the first place).

Dwolb 13y ago

It's interesting that a core competence of government isn't IT. How much does the government depend on IT to run its day-to-day business? If the answer is 'not much,' I can understand the opinion that work should be outsourced. If the answer is 'a lot,' then IT should be a core competence and the government should invest in acquiring in-house IT expertise. I'd guess the answer is 'a lot'.

GVIrish 13y ago
Currently government IT is operating under this idiotic idea that almost all IT should contracted out because : "We can fire contractors if they don't do a good job" "Contractors stay up to date on technology" "Contractors are cheaper because we don't have to pay for their government benefits" So for one, contracting companies that do a bad job may lose out on future work. But the reputation of the big companies is never hurt enough by this to get forced to improve. Even then, the fundamental problem is that government employees are very difficult to fire or even hold accountable so people think it's easier to hire contractors. When really the problem that needs to be solved is accountability in government. Secondly, even if developers who work for contractors stay more up to date, it's really irrelevant because the government is extremely slow to upgrade on anything. We're still running Windows XP in a lot of places. Third, if the bill rate for a developer is about 3-6 times what you'd pay a full time government developer, you're not really saving money on benefits. The thinking is that you only pay a contractor for a few years while they develop something for you, but IT is a continuing need. If your operation relies on software (which almost all of them do), you're going to be paying 3-5 times the cost per developer for the foreseeable future. Over time that certainly costs more than government employees.

huherto 13y ago

I agree with you. I have worked for a number of companies where you often hear "Our business is not software". Then they wander why they cannot do all the projects that would allow them to move fast, provide better service, or save money. Any company that is large enough needs to make software a core competency.

mseebach 13y ago

The key word is "portions". Likely the iPhone app you have in mind is a core business application and shouldn't be outsourced. Procuring and maintaining your exchange server, active directory, fileserver, HR and finance applications, networking, routers, wifi, security, desktop, laptops, printers and help desk for all of the above for a fixed annual price per seat? Oh, yes please. Of course you should still have a couple of competent guys who can make sure the contracts aren't stupid so you don't end up with 50 mb quotas on the mailserver and no way to increase them without huge penalties etc. But it's 1-3 guys on the COO staff, not an entire department.