A popular outsourcing rationalization has it that companies should “keep the core and outsource the rest.”
I call it rationalization rather than rationale because:
- There isn’t a shred of evidence to support it.
- It solves nothing: Outsource something you don’t know how to manage and you still don’t know how to manage it, only now, you’re badly managing a company that wants as much of your money as it can get.
- It suffers from recursion failure.
KJR has already covered the first two points—click on the links or buy yourself a copy of Outsourcing Debunked (Bob Lewis, 2011). But what’s recursion failure? Glad you asked.
Outsourcing is like anything else in business—to succeed, you have to be good at it.
But as anything that isn’t core must be outsourced, and as the notion that managing outsourcers might be a core competency is absurd, the only logical conclusion is that companies that outsource must outsource outsourcing management to an outsourcing management outsourcer.
To succeed at that, the company must be good at outsourcing outsourcing management. And so on, ad infinitum—recursion at its finest.
Okay, I wouldn’t want to try that logic on a business executive weighing the pros and cons of outsourcing, but it was fun, wasn’t it?
What isn’t fun: Why an increasing number of American business managers are receptive to the even-more absurd arguments in favor of IT outsourcing, both the traditional kind and its current commodity end-point, cloud computing.
Look, even those unenlightened IT shops that thought they had internal customers usually involved themselves in the business processes and practices they were helping improve through automation to some extent. Few business analysts strictly limited their conversations to “what do you want the software to do?”
IT outsourcers, in contrast, deliver software that fulfills requirements and meets specifications. If they do that, all is good with the world, whether or not the software does anything useful.
Deep down inside, every business executive who ever endorsed an IT outsource understood this difference, and yet it didn’t matter. They considered overseeing IT to be an aggravation, and so they willingly “kept the core and outsourced the rest.”
Now we have the cloud, and software as a service (SaaS). The “new” question is, “Why should we spend lots of time with IT on a CRM implementation when we can call Salesforce and be up and running the next day?”
What’s sad is that they know the answer to this seemingly rhetorical question: If they do this they’ll be up and running with what we used to call, in more enlightened times, an island of automation.
Multiple islands, really — as many as they have sales representatives configuring Salesforce as they prefer. Add to that a database that’s completely unusable for reporting and analytics, as each sales rep stashes the data they want in whatever data fields appear convenient for that purpose.
Heck, IT could do that in a day, too, if it was amateurish enough to be satisfied with an implementation that banal. It could buy Act! licenses for a fraction of what SalesForce would cost, too, installing the software on individual sales rep laptops with no attempt to integrate them.
Nothing to it.
We in IT have failed in at least three respects, and we’d better fix all three soon, or we won’t be around to say “I told you so.”
The first is that we thought business executives long-ago absorbed the islands-of-automation argument, so we stopped making it. They had absorbed it, but ideas have a half-life, and because we stopped repeating it, this idea long ago lost its potency.
The second is that we argue rather than discuss. Faced with a sales executive who is thinking about Salesforce, too many CIOs say, “You can’t do that. Here’s why …” instead of, “We can do that … in at least three different ways, depending on what you want to accomplish and how much you’re willing to invest to get it.”
Then there’s the third — failing to focus everyone in IT, from the CIO on down to every help desk analyst—on the importance of managing relationships throughout the company. Without this, nobody will give the CIO or anyone else the time to have these discussions, or the patience to listen to the to-them complex engineering issues we need them to engage in.
So of course they outsource, and go to the cloud without involving us.
We’ve given them no reason not to.
Bob,
While I’m generally in agreement with you on much of corporate America being too outsource-happy, I’m curious – do you see any segments of IT as being really good candidates for outsourcing/cloud solutions/SaaS/etc?
I’d argue that the strongest cases for all but the largest businesses are co-location (to provide 24/7 ping/power/pipe) and managed IDS/IPS services. In the case of infrastructure for the former, and staff for the latter, I think 99 times out of a 100 you’re looking at going outside.
Sure. It’s a matter of doing it for good and well-understood business and engineering reasons.
In particular, once a company becomes big enough to need a real data center, outsourcing either just the facility or the whole server infrastructure (including the use of a cloud-based solution) makes all sorts of sense.
Until, that is, the company becomes big enough that it has sufficient economies of scale that bringing the infrastructure in-house makes sense.
There are also plenty of situations where bringing in a systems integrator (there’s a new buzzword but I can’t bring it to mind) makes sense.
I tend to be most skeptical about a functional outsource for IT application development, integration, and support. This is where the direct business value comes from, and where deep business knowledge and relationships matter most.
A very timely article, especially in light of the announcement of Windows 2013 where saving documents to the cloud will be the default, rather than an option.
I’d like to add to your first point about ideas having a half-life. That’s true, but IT powers-that-be also need to remember that executives have a half-life that is approximately half that of an idea, so continual education is essential.
I’m no longer in the IT field (thank goodness), but now I own my own business so I’m the manager of everything. I’d ask the all-too-plentiful boneheads out there to remember that simply kowtowing to the offerings of the software publishers (my former industry) affects us little guys, too. I have no intention of EVER using the cloud (I hate that name, by the way), but at some point there may be no alternative. My reasons belong in a different discussion.
I also detest the “cloud” description and agree its a long discussion for another article.
Pingback: Fresh Links Sundae from David Lowe of Actionable ITSM | Actionable ITSM
While I strongly agree with point three “the importance of managing relationships throughout the company”, the point should be rephrased to state BUSINESS relationships. I worked in IT for a very long time and was one of the few who spent a portion of my time selling IT to my ‘clients’ from a “what’s in it for them” perspective. This resulted in my opinions having, from time to time, some weight (credibility?) with management.
CEO’s are having honey stuffed in their ears by people who specialize in doing so and, to be honest, much of it makes perfectly good sense regardless of the size of the company. BTW “islands of information” has never been a useful argument since isn’t that why we have an IT shop, to bring them all together? No, IT needs to be ahead of the pundits and salespersons and be presenting BUSINESS solutions to cloud services, even using them, but in a way that creates or maintains a competitive advantage. That is how IT remains relevant and sadly, that is so very rarely seen.