In many large companies, there is an area that is not so for their core competence. However, he is there and tends to exponential growth in terms of head count, the location, the boxes in the organizational chart. He binds and consumes millions of dollars and supplies will hopefully - but usually only to a limited measure - an added value. Here are some references to the area in question. He added, though he is only an internal service provider, often call the shots in the company. It shows the limits of his vision for what is possible and thus indirectly affects the company's strategy. It sets out processes, decides on the lines of communication within the company, controls information flows ... OK enough information. Here are the 1 million-euro question, because smaller amounts are rather rare in this area. From which division we are talking about is:
- staff
- Controlling
- IT
Now if you do not IT have checked, then your company is more the exception, or you have taken the decision that others - external service - IT can be better. Would your choice fallen on the IT, then please be comforted by the fact that not all companies that have outsourced their IT, so that really save money. You rightly ask, how can I make such a claim.
first the pure theory. G REASONS for outsourcing (selection):
- Higher concentration on core competencies
- lack of know-how or qualified employees
- mobility of jobs and data
- higher performance and better Performance
- Faster response to changes
- cost effectiveness / cost reduction
- IT costs calculated clearly
- No own investments (software, hardware, new technologies)
This list could be supplemented at will, nevertheless, would be a company that intended one or more of the above points to define itself as a strategic goal for a long time not immune from the end of IT spending more money.
Outsourcing is a strategic approach in a Make-or-buy decisions, here specifically for the buy-decision. relating to IT services externally to say, but also, the divisions that were previously responsible for IT, detach from the organization, either in the form of a subsidiary / spin off, by sale to an existing IT service provider, or simply by giving notice, the latter route is probably the most tedious. Whether a buy decision for IT services is the better choice depends in turn on various factors, such
- IT is not a core competence of the company - sounds simple, but for one or the other companies rather with a clear " Yes and no answer. " For source or Otto IT a core competency? At first glance, probably not, it's these companies but rather to logistics. But as the customer contact is made, orders are received and forwarded to suppliers? With the help of IT. In fact, are source, gasoline or even better Amazon information logistics.
- Supported by the IT business processes are characterized by low complexity and high stability, ie the need in use IT solutions are adjusted only rarely in terms of functionality, interfaces and architecture.
- The product and process owners in the company are in a position their professional (eg functions) and non-technical (eg performance) requirements to describe an IT system with sufficient detail (business concept).
- meet the IT solutions market-compatible, state-of-the-art standard solutions which were adjusted only to a small extent to the needs of the company by means of parameterization. Ooops - I have realized that now it is detailed, but you think in this context simply to SAP, Siebel etc.
rises even this list is not exhaustive. The points are but a show. IT outsourcing is a company whose IT system development is a highly dynamic properties, their development is determined by multiple pages, limited to only an understanding of IT have a high-risk alternative with many question marks, and may end up with many lost dollar sign and euro. Let me give you these examples.
A company operating an IT system which, although originally adapted from a standard solution, but developed over many years in receivership. Today the system is highly complex, has huge databases and interfaces to numerous third party systems. The associated problems are manifold. Necessary adjustments to the IT system can not be implemented at short notice. The operation of the system is costly because of an outdated architecture, example, costs for data transfer and storage. The system itself is characterized by high failure rates. The hardware for which the system is designed makes limp of age.
The company decides to save money. For this purpose, a project is placed, with the objective that the IT system is technically bring no changes to the functionality but for up to date. Shortly after the start of the project managers realize that they need to make the necessary adjustments in the system those who have originally developed. Some of them are already retired and for a lot of money temporarily as a "consultant" retrieved. The rest of the team is in good shape with great effort in reverse engineering. The project is ongoing. Difficulties in many places. New requirements for the system, which could influence the course of the project negatively, are avoided by a "frozen zone". Then wait, hope, fear, such as a birth, 9 months pregnant ... and then it's done. The new IT system is there, but not after 9 months but after a few years. It looks for the user is not really new. This was never intended. It is also not really fast and as for dropouts and crashes, warns the IT, that it is not the role of Futzifaltenbüglers should go. It's just how it is. And behind the facade? Still a self-development! Well, here and there we have hurried along with tape, nails and a little spit. As they say in old rusty cars: "It will only be preserved by the color." Stop! If this creates a false impression. We still talk from an albeit "outdated", but the new system. Do you know the game "overtaking without catching up." Recommended for highly nostalgic.
Now that the project is finished, one does not have all the old-old know-how carriers. They are released back into their well-earned retirement, involuntary accompanied by a number Projekt-/Systemspezialisten and testers, we will continue to employ it either. Because with the new architecture is much simpler and does everything faster, so at least the expectation. Therefore, we have now an external service provider is found, the system developed in the future. Outsourcing completed successfully? No, get to know because the external service, the system must only try to understand themselves, understand it (see above). Then the expected moment of all. The service, now officially a black belt in the system Harakiri estimates the costs for future adjustments. It follows what must follow. The cost of a change are far about the costs that are incurred in the past for a change. Now finally could access the outsourcing reputed advantage, namely, that yes, the system does not need to change permanently. These rest periods have cost the company much money sooner. The specialists were sitting around and waiting for new orders. Now you hire the service provider only in the specific case of need and this is paid only for the changes. Stupid is only when development cycles provide the new system because of the congestion and the requirement is not really optimal architecture, no "breaks" and, consequently, the service provider is permanently assigned. In this case, the company saves nothing, It even puts something on it. But the crux is to come. Since you do not trust the new service on the way to build a parallel control organization as a substitute for the old field of IT. And since the subject pages are not predisposed really technophile and will not be able according to the monitoring organization still sees as indispensable information transformer towards the service provider, with its administrative self-understanding (consider, coordinate, assess, coordinate, instruct, test, tune, ...) the system change process extended further.
And the end of outsourcing song "... unless charges have been nothing." Can They sing this song too?
