|
In fact, outsourcing always looks better than it is. Why? Because then the important function is lost to the business that now has to depend on a business that, frankly, doesn't give a shit beyond getting paid and really can't be removed without high transition costs, if ever.
The first outsourcing I was made familiar with was law departments. Big corporations would look at the bills from law firms and say, "why are we paying law firms when we can have an in house legal department?" Ten years later, there would be new managment that said, "why are we paying a huge bloated legal staff when we could just pay an outside firm for the services we need?". Rinse, repeat.
But when a vital function like engineering or accounting is sent to India, you can't bring it back later.
For an overseas outsourcing, what happens if it isn't right in the service sector? Who fixes it, and how? It's not like a container of hammers that you can just reject and not pay for.
And what about liability? Who gets sued if the drawings are wrong, or the accounting is bad? Not the Indian firm.
What I tell people is to get out in front and do what India can't do: a quality job with people who can get fired if they fuck up, and lower costs in whatever way you can. The accounting department doesn't need to go to India. It needs to go to a low cost building.
|