Re: Years of under-investment
Sorry but no sane IT department would agree to outsource
A valid point, but not all are sane. In most cases, you're right that some "strategic thinker" considers it a good idea, but the IT department are usually complicit in their own demise by a near total failure to show the quality of what the in house team do, and to identify the inevitable consequences of outsourcing.
When a big outsource is being plotted, virtually no resource is put into the "case for the defence" nor any proper risk analysis.
Nobody is willing to stand up in front of the directors and point to the long history of outsourced fuck ups.
Nobody points at the cost benefit analysis and says "why are the quoted outsource costs per employee far below the vendor's average turnover per employee?"
Nobody asks "how and where do the vendor make their margins?"
Nobody points to the vast "goodwill" on the vendor's balance sheet and says "how can they be cheaper than us when they're loaded with so much ballast?"
Nobody analyses all the things the IT department currently do to identify the gaps between the SLA standard services and what the business wants.
Nobody points to the userous "non-standard request" charges or day rates hidden on page 164 of the contract, and subject to variation at the vendor's discretion.
Nobody shares the IT team's collective experience of outsources that failed, or cost more, or offloaded all the effort on to the operational business and harmed effectiveness, customer service and commercial agility.
So the IT department goes to the abbatoir quietly.