Do you outsource?

I think a lot of the answer to this questions depend on what you mean by outsourcing. We're US based. If outsourcing means finding a US/Canadian/European programmer to contract a project vs hiring a US employee, I'd agree with many above that outsourcing can be less expensive than hiring, and equally effective.

But I think most people, rightly or wrongly, associate the term outsourcing with offshore outsourcing to countries with less expensive labor costs (Eastern Europe, South Asia).

In that case, obviously the cost is not comparable. Outsourcing of that variety dramatically less expensive, which is why most companies do it.

The great challenge, of course, is work quality and culture. Someone above noted that large, highly professional Indian outsourcing companies do a terrific job training people on skill, language, and work culture if their working for companies in, say, North America.

I'm sure that's true. For our part, any effort we've made to outsource has never worked. I suppose we just haven't found the right company or people. There have always been one of three problems - language and communication is difficult; skillsets for people we've hired have not been quite up to the same level as in-house folks; and often work culture / coding approach / problem solving culture is different; and actually just the timezone difference has proven to be an obstacle.

Given our globalized world, I think that pay rates have started to equalize for the same skill level. That is, if someone is a standard offshore outsourcing country is perfectly fluent in English, programs at the same level of proficiency as your in-house team, and has adopted the same kind of work culture - and this is now quite common - then contracting to them is basically no different than contracting to someone in the US. Pay converges to reflect value and while is still some price savings, it's not that dramatic.
 
foerster said:
I think a lot of the answer to this questions depend on what you mean by outsourcing. We're US based. If outsourcing means finding a US/Canadian/European programmer to contract a project vs hiring a US employee, I'd agree with many above that outsourcing can be less expensive than hiring, and equally effective.

But I think most people, rightly or wrongly, associate the term outsourcing with offshore outsourcing to countries with less expensive labor costs (Eastern Europe, South Asia).

In that case, obviously the cost is not comparable. Outsourcing of that variety dramatically less expensive, which is why most companies do it.

The great challenge, of course, is work quality and culture. Someone above noted that large, highly professional Indian outsourcing companies do a terrific job training people on skill, language, and work culture if their working for companies in, say, North America.

I'm sure that's true. For our part, any effort we've made to outsource has never worked. I suppose we just haven't found the right company or people. There have always been one of three problems - language and communication is difficult; skillsets for people we've hired have not been quite up to the same level as in-house folks; and often work culture / coding approach / problem solving culture is different; and actually just the timezone difference has proven to be an obstacle.

Given our globalized world, I think that pay rates have started to equalize for the same skill level. That is, if someone is a standard offshore outsourcing country is perfectly fluent in English, programs at the same level of proficiency as your in-house team, and has adopted the same kind of work culture - and this is now quite common - then contracting to them is basically no different than contracting to someone in the US. Pay converges to reflect value and while is still some price savings, it's not that dramatic.
Click to expand...


I think you are wrong.

It is simple. If you give work etc. to a person or company not directly on your payroll then you have outsourced to that company, even if the person/company is within the same office building
 
I do understand what you're saying. And you're absolutely correct if we're going for the textbook definition of outsourcing. No disagreement there.

I'm just saying that in popular language, people often use the term "outsourcing" with more meaning that the textbook definition - it's used to mean offshore outsourcing rather than just outsourcing.

I'm not making the case that's the appropriate use of the term. But I suspect that's the way the original poster may have meant it since it's so common.

I also raised that point because it seems people are answering the question in the thread differently largely depending on whether their using what you rightly identify as the textbook definition vs the popular meaning of offshoring.
 
Outsourcing is actually not a bad thing as long as the person you chose has the skills required. If the work is just one time, it would be handy to outsource. But if the job would take longer, it is wiser to train some of your staff for better results and easier management.

Mike :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Supporters

Back
Top