Outsourcing and its cousin offshoring are transforming the business of IT. Outsourcing is nothing new: Every project for which IT hires outside consultants involves outsourcing. However, offshoring takes this model to the extreme, shifting the responsibility of projects and sometimes entire departments to foreign-based firms.

Traditional outsourcing, such as hiring consultants for special projects, has well-established benefits. The additional outside resources let your business undertake projects that your in-house IT staff doesn't have the time or possibly the expertise to handle. This type of outsourcing extends your IT organization's capabilities, letting IT focus on its core competencies. And the outsourcing is under your control, because part or all of the consulting work happens on site, letting consultants interact with IT personnel and end users.

But in the end, outsourcing is about cutting costs. And offshoring projects and entire IT departments to firms in countries that have much lower salaries and overhead expenses seems to offer the ultimate in cost savings. The dark side of offshoring, however, is apparent to anyone in the US IT industry.

Offshoring has hit the IT development sector the hardest, taking less of a toll on systems and database administration positions, although those jobs might be in danger in the future as companies look at more drastic cost-cutting measures. Lost jobs for skilled US workers, however, is the tip of the iceberg. Offshoring also reduces consumer spending as a result of unemployment and discourages future employees from entering the IT field.

In addition, companies that offshore IT might face missed project deadlines and reduced IT competitiveness. Communication between DBAs and project developers can be difficult enough when you're all in the same building. Throw in possible language barriers, cultural nuances, and different time zones, and you exacerbate the problem. Misunderstood project requirements lead to poor or wrong implementations, which in turn lead to extended project test cycles and missed deadlines. The result can be a loss of IT credibility with management and end users alike.

Another problem with offshoring: Many organizations that offshore IT still consider IT a cost center instead of an asset, overlooking the advantages a company can gain through effective use of technology. Technologies such as data warehousing and data mining, for example, can help businesses operate more efficiently, cut costs, and turn their line-of-business data into information they can use to find new revenue opportunities. But offshored IT resources typically aren't integrated as a crucial part of a business's strategic planning.

Then there's the thorny issue of security. It's hard enough to enforce security locally, with developers wanting sa rights and end users pasting passwords to their monitors with yellow sticky notes, let alone when your development group is halfway around the globe. Outsourcing a project entrusts important data and vital security information to the outsourcing agency, which lacks the vested interest in security that the company staff has. And one or more competing firms might be outsourcing their projects or IT organizations to the same agency.

Many well-known companies appear to have successfully offshored their IT organizations and dramatically cut expenses−at least in the short term. But such extreme outsourcing has its own set of costs.

End of Article




You must log on before posting a comment.

If you don't have a username & password, please register now.

Reader Comments

How true! Management should read about this article.

dnguyen27

Article Rating 4 out of 5

Companies which transfer their businesses to India or China or elsewhere are proving their lack of judgment in multiple risks. There are the OFFSHORING quality code software code or writing risks, Congressional penalties risks (federal loans ineligibility), goodwill losses, and public flight from their logo - risks, patent and trademark risks, and intellectual property leakage risks, international terrorism with blackmail and beheadings and slit American throats risks, war and turmoil and corruption and arson and truck bombs and assassinations and looting risks, time zone aggravations, language barriers (Hindi accented English), cultural differences, globe-spanning broadband communications breakdown risks, encryption risks, climate risks (122 degrees Fahrenheit in Hyderabad), electrical infrastructure risks, legal liability risks such as privacy violations of HIPAA in published news stories, etc.

And there are the issues which anger the PATRIOTIC Americans. Most likely, with the OFFSHORING of all of America's high tech jobs and America's manufacturing jobs, and America's state jobs, there is no Federal Withholding Tax going to my government. No employer Social Security fund payment (although corporate management still expects to collect Benefits). No Medicare funding. No Unemployment Compensation tax. No employee Group Health Benefits. No Workmen's Compensation coverage. No OSHA. No EOE. No ADA. No vacations. No Minimum Wage. No Minimum Age. No Sick Leave. No Unions. No Family Leave. No environmental protections for clean air and clean water. No overtime on the 41st hour. No state income tax on payroll, when there is no payroll.

Walter,walternodelman

Article Rating 4 out of 5

Regarding: <i> Companies which transfer their businesses to India or China or elsewhere are proving their lack of judgment in multiple risks. There are the OFFSHORING quality code software code or writing risks, Congressional penalties risks (federal loans ineligibility), goodwill losses, and public flight from their logo - risks, patent and trademark risks, and intellectual property leakage risks, international terrorism with blackmail and beheadings and slit American throats risks, war and turmoil and corruption and arson and truck bombs and assassinations and looting risks, time zone aggravations, language barriers (Hindi accented English), cultural differences, globe-spanning broadband communications breakdown risks, encryption risks, climate risks (122 degrees Fahrenheit in Hyderabad), electrical infrastructure risks, legal liability risks such as privacy violations of HIPAA in published news stories, etc. </i>

Sounds like doing business in New York.

Regarding: <i> no Federal Withholding Tax going to my government. No employer Social Security fund payment (although corporate management still expects to collect Benefits). No Medicare funding. No Unemployment Compensation tax. No employee Group Health Benefits. No Workmen's Compensation coverage. No OSHA. No EOE. No ADA. No vacations. No Minimum Wage. No Minimum Age. No Sick Leave. No Unions. No Family Leave. No environmental protections for clean air and clean water. No overtime on the 41st hour. No state income tax on payroll, when there is no payroll. </i>

And this is a bad thing?

Anonymous User

Article Rating 1 out of 5

The most successful offshore work that I have seen has been software maintenance. The least successful has been new development. The primary issue is that the offshore teams need to have explicit documentation and requirements to work with. And they code to these requirements without fail. This is their insurance that they have "done what they were told." Yes, I have heard this excuse for writing bad code. Whereas, new methodolgies such as Agile require that you think on your feet and deliver working solutions not just code to specs.

Anonymous User

Article Rating 4 out of 5

This article sounds pretty much like the usual excuses from an industry that's trying to resist change.

I can remember years ago when the railways woke up to the fact that diesels didn't need two men in the cab. The rail unions went on about how dangerous it would be not to have a back-up if the driver became incapacitated. Years later it was the same with the guards, the unions said they were essential for the safety of the passengers (tell that to anyone mugged on a commuter train).

It was obvious the unions were just scare-mongering and trying to come up with reasons to keep the unneccessary jobs.

This article sounds exactly the same sort of thing. Sure there are risks, just as there were if a train driver was incapacitated and the dead-man's switch didn't work. But you anticipate the risks and try to reduce them.

In case anyone is wondering, I'm a developer so I'm in a job that could well be going off-shore in years to come. I'll keep my fingers crossed it doesn't but I won't be using propaganda to try to stop it from happening.

Anonymous User

Article Rating 1 out of 5

Interesting perspective. <i>trying to resist change</i>. Ironically that's the problem with our industry. It is always changing. As a developer as well, I see offshore as the way for corporations to resist change and cut expenses. Companies who readily adopt new technologies and are not change adverse, tend to use less offshore. Just my 2 cents.

Anonymous User

Our company went through a phase of offshoring much of our software development a few years ago, before the practice became as widespread as it is now. We found it incredibly difficult, for the various reasons others have mentioned. The time zone difference was the toughest problem, leading to misunderstood written communication, delays, quality problems, etc. When we factored in all the resulting indirect costs, we concluded that offshoring is not cost effective. We now do almost all of our development in our California office, resulting in better quality products that are developed more quickly. I wonder if/when other companies will go through the same transition.

Anonymous User

Article Rating 4 out of 5

Out sourcing to countries like India which have diverse languages increases the influence of English language in these countries. This goes to the extent that 2-3 year old kids are taught in English as if it is their mother tongue! Which is a bigger cruelty on children than to educate them using foreign language as medium of instruction!

desaiajayd

Article Rating 5 out of 5

Microsoft recently outsourced some of SQL Server support to India. Balmer recently was in India enthusiastically crowing about Microsoft's embrace of offshoring development. When I wrote him and complained about this he wrote "I respectfully disagree." We must face the facts that businesses will offshore if the price is right. Citibank does it and your credit history is read by a short person with a funny accent and a set of values you don't embrace who works for peanuts. Our only defense is to provide superior software products and better service to our customers and employers. MS and Citibank have no loyalty to us or to America. We are on our own.

zenon

Article Rating 4 out of 5

I agree that offshoring does have its advantages and some even proven to be successful in terms of efficiency and cost cutting. But i respectfully disagree with desaiajayd to say that India have such fluent English like their mother tongue. I've dealt with a lot of people in India but I can't seems to understand about > 60% of the people I spoke to. They speak too fast on top of their local accent. I reckon this issue does not affect those who are already staying overseas.

Anonymous User

Oh come on, u represent some US company that goes to India to cut cost, a company that pays people 10 or 20 times les just because they are not americans. And u have de nerve to say that indians speak to fast and u can't understand them... well go ahead and learn indian.. that is the least thing u could do! u infatueted jerk!

Anonymous User

the 12/29 Anonymous is right. I've had hoards of probably illegal alien Indian recruiters call me trying to get me to work for peanuts in the USA because Verizon has outsourced all programming to an Indian company in Dallas. I can't understand the Indians and spend most of the phone call saying "What?!"

Anonymous User

The article is not well written it is more emotional than professional.I feel the topic was not well researched by the author.

Anonymous User

Article Rating 1 out of 5

No matter what the benefits of outsourcing to India is, (I'm not a manager and dealing on a lower level of technical) I've no clue what they're trying to say most of the time.

Anonymous User

Article Rating 3 out of 5

I have personally dealt with the Indians and the language barrier can definitely be a major problem. I believe that there should be a minimum language standard achieved by individual staff before these companies can use them to communicate with staff from other countries. If you can't communicate effectively eveything else is a waste of time and money.

Also, in reply to some of the change advocates at the beginning of this thread, why does everyone seem to assume that all change has to be good?

Anonymous User

Article Rating 4 out of 5

See More Comments  1   2