Revenge of the outsorced IT Staff

[GT98]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/01/outsourcing_porn/

Porn-surfing bank supremo Michael Soden was caught with his browser down last week by the very same staff he outsourced to HP at the start of his reign at the Bank of Ireland.

Soden hit the headlines last year in Ireland when staff took industrial action in protest of the department's shift to Hewlett Packard. Staff were unhappy about the prospect of becoming HP employees, as they had enjoyed considerable perks at the Bank of Ireland: favourable mortgage and loan deals for instance. Now it seems that he has been forced to resign thanks to the very department which he sent merrily on its way.

Staff informed the bank that they had discovered pornography on Soden's machine on Wednesday last week, during routine maintenance. Soden resigned his post on Saturday, after the internal investigation into the discovery was leaked to the local press.

It would be disingenuous to suggest that the "routine maintenance" was anything other than that, but it's clear that Soden's machine was thoroughly attended to.

The outsourcing move was Soden's second high-profile decision after his appointment as chief executive. His first was to update the acceptable use policy that prohibits staff from accessing porn using company equipment

DOH! LOL

[Umfriend]

Who convinces me Staff did not put the material on his machine themselves?

[Greebe]

Sounds like they not only got justice, but added a nice frothy head of whipped cream to it

[Ajax]

Hahaha, sweet...
The place where I work keeps talking about outsourcing, but it's a lot cheaper to keep us all in-house.

[KvHagedorn]

I hate these disingenuous words. I refuse to talk about "outsourcing", because it is simply a watered down corporate BS term for the slave trade.

[DukeP]

Hehehe..
Actually Outsoursing makes sense in a lot of contexts.

Its almost never cheaper if you look directly at the area, but if you count administration and management into it - it may make a lot of sense.


If your not sure about where and how Your company is making money, outsourcing anything not key, makes defining costs much, much more easy.

~~DukeP~~

[KvHagedorn]

If you're not sure about where and how your company is making money, you have no place running a business. This does describe too many executives, however.

[Chrono_Wanderer]

Originally posted by Umfriend
Who convinces me Staff did not put the material on his machine themselves?

exactly what i was thinking.

office politics...

[Umfriend]

If you're not sure about where and how your company is making money, you have no place running a business.

Could not agree more.

I hate these disingenuous words. I refuse to talk about "outsourcing", because it is simply a watered down corporate BS term for the slave trade.

I don't see how oustsourcing is slave trade any more than hiring...I just don't get it.

In my view, outsourcing is, theoretically, sensible in the sense that it enables businesss to manage the kind of activity that they are best at: I work at a bank, we suck at IT (did so when I was in IT, before it and thereafter) IMO, and some of it was now outsourced. Bankers don't know about IT, they know about banking and should concentrate on that (I mean, they don;t make the coca-cola in our office vending machines either, which is GOOD).

Practically, there are a lot of issues. Transaction costs is one. Service level Agreements take a lot of time to put together well (and by the time a client knows what it needs to put down in a SLA, they are finally gettign to grips with IT anyway, so it may not be that beneficial to OS anymore...). Monitoring, adjusting etc, lots of time and resources. Commitment of IT staff is (and should now) be towards their firm, they do no longer represent the corporate identity of the bank/any company). I think that in itself represents an opportunity cost, especially where corporate identity/pride is invested in.

In most of the cases I get the impression top-management is dissaisfied with services obtained vs the cost with their own IT (or other) staff, but fail to amend the situation. I think in such cases a fa greater benefit can be obtained if management would simply do what they are hired to do: align resources correctly, understading their business, IT and how they should work together. But that is a difficult taks in large organisations, and OS may appear an easier solution.

[LvR]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
If you're not sure about where and how your company is making money, you have no place running a business. This does describe too many executives, however.

and

I hate these disingenuous words. I refuse to talk about "outsourcing", because it is simply a watered down corporate BS term for the slave trade.

Just dont see how the same person are able to make both statements............

[KvHagedorn]

lol

I am not anti-business, I am anti-sleazebagdishonorable business.

[Marshmallowman]

Banks live or die on there computer and networks..not cultivating in-house IT expertise is to there own peril

[Umfriend]

Marshmellowman, I agree, although I must say that in my particular situation, I have rarely been impressed by our IT accomplishments.

KVH, why exactly is it sleazebagdishonorable business to outsource?

Years ago, we outsourced our cantine services. The thing was, AFAIK, that being a unionised business (in effect, most over here is), the were being paid banking salaries. OK, low salaray scales and all but still paid extremely well for cafeteria sevices. Only way to get around this was outsource it so that they would not fall under banking CLAs anymore.

[az]

I think this is KvHs argument: Outsourcing is mostly used to e able to lower salaries and/or lay off staff.

Though most businesses do outsource to a degree: Cleaning is almost always done by contractors. Nobody seems to have a problem with that.

But I agree, this outsourcing mania we witness at the moment is as senseless as the merger-mania we saw in the last years. Both can make sense, but too often are performed because it's the thing everybody does at the moment, and we want to keep the stockholders happy and the managers need something to do after all. And it's always a chance to lay off people relatively quietly.

AZ

[Umfriend]

I think this is KvHs argument: Outsourcing is mostly used to e able to lower salaries and/or lay off staff.

Though most businesses do outsource to a degree: Cleaning is almost always done by contractors. Nobody seems to have a problem with that.

I agree lowering costs (including by lowering salaries for same headcount) may be a goal. But another purpose that may be even more important is to allow management of outsourcer and outsourcee focus on their own core business, i.e. that what they are supposed to be good at.

I do expect a turnaround, i.e., businesses starting to re-integrate some activities one-way or the other in a few years. You can't just onyl have "right" moves, the question is whether overall, the gains are higher than the costs/losses. I think that at least will be true.

Still don't see how it is sleazebagdishonorable though.