CSC axes another 640 UK IT workers Bungling IT services firm CSC is to lay off a further 640 IT workers in the UK on top of the 500 bods it is shaving from its NHS account. "We can confirm that we have started a formal 90-day consultation process in the UK which could reduce the number of people working in our UK business by an anticipated number of 640 people …
Why do we have to outsource these contracts to overseas companies? We've certainly got the required skills in the UK, and with CSC laying off a good portion of their IT workforce in the UK it's not exactly going to be difficult to find employees to carry out the work.
All too often we're seeing overseas companies winning UK government and infrastructure contracts, companies who have little first-hand knowledge of the UK, and who ultimately funnel the (excessive) profits out of the UK thereby damaging our economy.
want to pay double for your car/house/whatever insurance? how about an extra third on your council tax bill? nope? well there you go.
its all well and good going "buy british" but when it comes down to it people vote with there wallets and that means the jobs go to bangalore where they can hire 5 people for the cost of 1 here(quality doesn't come into it in MBA land its all about the size of your team)
You'll never get a senior management role in the public sector, with that attitude.
Ditching your staff, then having them rehired (on worse conditions) by an inefficient private sector organisation, with one eye on its bottom line, and no eyes on your needs, is the way to go. OK, so services get worse, but at least you'll have a nice fat kickback to enjoy, and your PA can keep you insulated from the goings on in the real world.
Bitter? Moi?
Can anyone state exactly how much cost savings there have been with the outsourcing of ICT from government hands to the private sector?
I ask because I seem to remember that was the rallying cry back in the day when these contracts went out to the private sector...how the private sector was more efficient, innovative, reactive to trends etc.
I suspect that the answer is pretty much 'bollocks all'.
Pint coz ....well its a pint innit?
"Can anyone state exactly how much cost savings there have been with the outsourcing of ICT from government hands to the private sector?"
Not without using a minus sign. You think the answer is "pretty much bollocks all". During my involvement with a procurement process in the NHS, where I several times pointed out that for the same money you could get people in-house and have some change left-over, I know for a fact that money was lost through outsourcing to private companies. It was eventually made clear that I was there to lend legitimacy to the process (as a representative of my group) rather than to actually be of use.
Really, the entire idea of outsourcing: that Cost of Work + Private Profit < Cost of Work is dubious. It presuposes a wonderful level of improved efficiency to be introduced by virtue of Private Enterprise. There's a lot of wastage in the NHS, but not sure it's enough to counter the literal billions of profit that various companies have made out it.
Oh, and that outsourced company they eventually hired? They were a complete joke, failed in their role and then walked off at the end of the year with the money. All because - and I quote from one of the people on the decision board - "by outsourcing it, it's not our responsibility".
And incidentally,
Outsourcing has it's uses;
1. gain economies of scale (small 100 man insurance company outsources infrastructure yes, NHS or major comercial firm no)
2. gain access to specialist skills or services (e.g. outsouce security services, yes for most non trans-national companies, no for government and major corporates)
3. retain strategic staff on critical functions (e.g. doctors treat patients, not clean floors), basically ditching the donkey work onto somebody on a lower pay grade, but you need to check (1) first
"1. gain economies of scale (small 100 man insurance company outsources infrastructure yes, NHS or major comercial firm no)"
I'm glad you pointed out that it isn't appropriate for all. Another thing is that economies of scale don't apply to all things. Making widgets? Yes - economy of scale reduces per-unit costs. Tech support, training, things like that: They don't scale so well. If one person can help ten people per day, then that doesn't change because you put them all in the same office. Not in the same way that mass production of machinery does for example. And oftentimes, things scale in a negative way. For example, our small IT support group (I wasn't one of them by the way, I was management elsewhere at that point) knew the local practices, knew how they worked and what they needed and because they were local could prioritise routes, co-ordinate work between themselves and generally perform like small groups of intelligent people can. The outsourced IT support had none of these things. It was just slightly more people supporting a lot more users with none of the local non-centralized intelligence and this bizarre expectation that "economies of scale" would reduce the amount of hours one person took to solve one problem.
In other cases, outsourcing can make sense as you say. Don't disagree. But in this case I know because it was eventually said, that the reason for outsourcing was so that responsibilty didn't lie with people in the NHS. At least in their heads. I still hold them responsible.
Voluntary reductions mean the best people leave because they can find work elsewhere. Layoffs mean you can get rid of deadweight.
I would guess the latter would make things better, the former would make things worse.
Personally, I would consider anyone released by the CSC bodyshop to be lucky. They pay crap and treat people like crap and produce crap work.
This bemoans the manager types who just wants to replace John doe with 15 non nationals.
Too many hired permanently who are native born to the company.
CSC ideologies will not work in france or any country suffering a horde influx of non nationals.
UK Plc is afraid to do things itself because it means accepting responsibility. Outsourcing shifts that responsibility at great cost. In the process the responsibility is muddied because nobody is ever culpable for feck ups.
In a recent meeting I heard a quote from yours truly of £40,000 for a server for three years. Sounds pricey to me. We'll probably buy five. Seriously.
Liability only transfers if it is written into the contracts.
Classic example is OS copyright. OS sues the copyright license holder, even if it was a sub-contracted 3rd party that breach the terms of license.
Unless you put in your contract with your 3rd party "media specialist" an indemnitty clause, just try getting back the £40k you have to cough up to OS.
Actually, the person your replying to is right. Having been present in a series of procurment meetings, I can tell you that the reason was explicitly (but off-the-record) about being able to deny responsibility. People complain to them that things aren't good, they just point at the outsourced company and say: "not our fault. They promised better". In practice, attaching blame to someone for making a bad choice in who to hire, is a lot harder than directly blaming them for mismanagement. And they know this.
Easier to fire a supplier for a cock up than firing the entire IT department no?
After you've fired the IT department you can't then sue them for damages, loss of profit etc etc
Outsourcing gives you those options, plus many more before you get to that point.
I am guessing most of you work in very small companies....
In that case why aren't the British Government suing CSC regarding the NHS system for what appears to be gross incompetence?
The Answer?
The contract will be written to hugely favour CSC in all eventualities. The article mentions CSC threatened legal action and the contract was eventually reduced from £1bn to £900m. It's like being mugged for £100 and then agreeing to not press charges if the mugger gives you back a tenner.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
