Outsourcing goals too short sighted, say analysts

Andy McCue, ZDNet UK

23 November 2007 10:10 AM

Tags: outsourcing, contract, gartner, cohen, linda

Cutting costs remains the primary reason for most organisations outsourcing IT infrastructure, but savings are often unsustainable or unrealistic, says Gartner analyst, Linda Cohen.

Placing too much emphasis on cost reduction can lead to dissatisfaction because the savings are either unsustainable or never achieved, said Gartner analyst, Linda Cohen.

This is because the economy of scale and cash injection benefits from outsourcing often disappear after the first year of the contract.

Want to know more?

    For all the latest news, analysis and opinion on outsourcing issues, click here

"You can only expect to receive that cash infusion once; by the second or third year, those 'economies' are forgotten about, the people originally involved have moved on and all too often the value of the relationship begins to wane," said Cohen.

The falling cost of technology and services also means some long-term infrastructure outsourcing contracts lock companies into higher prices than what could be achieved in a contract negotiation today.

Gartner said the more realistic goals for outsourcing are: to control cost over time and enhance the IT department's ability to budget, to provide access to specialised skills and resources, to enable the internal IT organisation to focus on core mission-critical and business-differentiating services, to improve service delivery, and to gain access to scalability.

Cohen said: "There is no doubt that cost is a significant factor in any outsourcing arrangement. However, organisations need to take a longer-term view of what an outsourcing relationship can accomplish for their operations overall."

Like this article? Click below to send it to your mobile for free!

Talkback 4 comments

  1. Outsource simon -- 23/11/07

    Maybe organisations should outsource their Senior Execs to India. Not only would they would save multi-millions $, they would get better management outcomes.

    1. Skills shortage in Senior Management Anonymous -- 26/11/07

      Most companies are being royally screwed by IT vendors and (especially!) consultants. This is due to a variety of causes, but mainly demographic and social changes.
      The result is that the good qualified IT folks either have to sacrifice their career to stay with a company, or move on to "bums on seats" contracting for good $. If a good IT person actually tries to gain seniority in a company, they are judged and compared on "soft skills", NOT IT decision making. (which is clearly not even measured!) End result: best "soft-skills" people make IT decisions in most companies. Any surprise that these "people persons" make bad architectural decisions with regard to technology, and favour people relationships instead of good organisational structure and governance.
      We have "Project managers" with no idea of the critical path, "Architects" that have never built complex software...and the worst..."managers" who cannot grasp the details of the subject they are supposed to manage. (due to being promoted to their level of incompetance.)
      India and China will kick our arse next decade!

  2. Board Directors Short-Sighted too! Malcolm Moore -- 24/11/07

    Imported Executive Directors commonly make the fatal mistake of outsourcing their businesses core business - primarly because they are focussed on maximising the return on their (short-term) investment.

    This mistake is perpetuated by allowing Board members to be on the Boards of more than one business and/or have 'limited' knowledge of what the core business really is and what is imperative to drive the business.

    There is no way that a Board member can be functionally useful if that person is reporting to say three or more Boards - unless that person is working 18 hours 7 day every week. Do the math!

    When you outsource, you lose an immense amount of intelligence from your business, and you lose the flexibility to change the business direction with changing market conditions.

    The problem is that "Core Business" is usually defined far too tightly by those that are too inexperienced - and/or by those that never should be in Executive Management positions (as they have never worked their way through the company business - or they have been imported from a different line of business).

    One of the most common mistakes is of Privatising Infrastructure Businesses (that is those that have service lives counted in decades not months) is that the 'new directors' are focussed on returns based on months - not decades, and while outsourcing addresses an immediate issue, a few years later the fails to return the expected productivity because the 'baby has been thrown out with the bathwater'!

    Transport infrastructure (including telecommunications) is a classic scene where privatisation has not provided productivity due to outsourcing, and it has resulted with incredible material and intelligent human waste together with comparitavely far higher end user costs for the much less services.

    Rocketing road tolls, narrow motorways, unnecessary duplicated infrastructures, towering Internet costs and minimum service standards are all characteristics of outsourcing core business like planning, installation, construction and maintenance, and the opportunity cost funds are wasted on Directors, Advertising and Marketing all of which are very far from core business.

    1. Core business Simon -- 26/11/07

      Part of the problem is that in my industry (Banking) IT is still not regarded as "core business". There is little investment or strategic thinking given to non-core business. There is much talk about BI and leveraging information assets but little understanding of the business advantage to be leveraged from these assets.
      When executives look at IT, they only see a big cost centre that can be grafted elsewhere and cut cost. Our business leaders are worfully ignorant on the true value of IT to their organisations, as they are ignorant of the micro-economics of IT (ie developer in India does not deliver the same as a developer in Sydney)

Add your opinion


Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Renai LeMay Australian Govt funds IT start-ups
    This week Australia's Federal Government announced it had allocated $3.6 million in funding to 57 local research projects so that they could be commercialised, with many of them being web or IT-related start-ups.
  • Array Google should come clean on datacentres
    It's nice that Google says it has put an effort into making its datacentres more energy efficient, but the search giant's pledges won't mean much until it discloses just how many of the beasties it's actually running.
  • Array US shows what OPEL could have been
    Sprint's WiMAX roll-out in Baltimore will prove the Australian government's decision to worm its way out of the Opel WiMAX contract was a short-sighted, and ultimately damaging, political stunt that has benefited nobody.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured