James Thew - Fotolia
- Celso Mello, Reliance Home Comfort
Outsourcing has been a controversial -- if sometimes effective -- way to reduce IT costs. Companies save money by paying for services that are not their core competence, such as IT infrastructure services. By taking over work for many other companies, outsourcers can drive efficiency, negotiate volume discounts, reduce risk, automate and attract top talent, which can reduce unit costs in a way that their customers could not match.
Outsourcing is supposed to be a viable option to companies looking to reduce cost of some noncore functions, such as IT infrastructure services. But curiously, outsourcing doesn't always result in lower costs. As a CIO at my company, I have championed IT infrastructure outsourcing projects twice in the past 10 years, and in both cases costs ended up higher than before the outsourcing. How to reconcile this?
To start, let's consider the corporate finance concept in this: Outsourcers have to cover their overhead and taxes and still remain profitable to exist. The arbitrage enjoyed by the outsourcer from economies of scale is not sufficient to offset this mark-up. Well-managed, tight IT shops don't have the same cost burden, which nullifies the cost savings premise of outsourcing.
Does outsourcing automatically save money?
To identify whether outsourcing can save money, you need to establish a comparable cost baseline, and that is typically miscalculated. Outsourcing shops are structured in a different way from in-house IT shops, and costs are charged for differently. Here are a couple of examples:
- In-house IT resources usually play many roles, while outsourcer resources are highly specialized. For example, a typical in-house server administrator does both support and project work, takes care of email and sometimes security as well. An outsourcing contract typically includes only service-level agreements (SLAs) surrounding support activities. Project work is charged extra on a time-and-money basis.
- Outsourcing services include features that in-house IT shops can't afford or justify. Outsourcers, for example, can systematically refresh all hardware every five years, while in-house IT shops might extend the life of equipment and pay for a refresh far less frequently.
These factors can understate in-house IT costs when compared with outsourcing costs. To sign the contract, outsourcers will match current costs however they were calculated, knowing they will profit along the contract through change orders or simply growth. Unlike in-house IT costs, outsourcing fees grow linearly with the growth of servers, storage and helpdesk calls. At my current company, for example, server and storage needs are growing on average at 17% annually. If left unchecked, outsourcing costs would grow at the same rate year after year (17% annually equals 87% increase on a five-year contract).
Finally, alignment is a factor. As with any business, outsourcing companies have an incentive to make money, not necessarily to save clients money. More revenue for the outsourcer means more cost for the customer, which means the outsourcer and the client have completely opposite goals.
While cost savings are not intrinsic to outsourcing, scalability, stability and quality are. In-house IT shops have a hard time justifying refresh or upgrade projects that don't have tangible business benefits, while outsourcers can do that simply to mitigate risk. In-house IT shops stretch resources beyond the limit to cope with ever-changing business priorities and limited funding, while outsourcers follow proven methodologies and best practices. Outsourcers invest in infrastructure with plenty of room to grow, so integrating a large acquisition, for example, becomes a lot easier when IT infrastructure is outsourced.
Cost savings can be achieved as a result of outsourcing, though, through concerted effort by both parties on initiatives to reduce volume, such as self-service password resets, database server consolidation, cloud offerings and data archiving. In fact, cloud computing has changed the IT infrastructure outsourcing scenario significantly by packaging services with a well-understood monthly cost and clear SLAs. But cost reduction is not always a consequence of going to the cloud, but it can be achieved through consolidation, rationalization and control, all driven by the in-house team, very much like traditional IT infrastructure outsourcing.
Outsourcers that can't align with customers' cost reduction agendas because they're concerned about the impact to revenue are likely to see their customers go at the first opportunity. Disappointed with their outsourcers, these customers will repatriate services to save costs, only to revert to prior scalability and quality challenges.
However, outsourcers that are willing to establish true partnerships with their customers and see beyond the short-term revenue impact will remain profitable by taking advantage of the margin provided by economies of scale, multiplied by the growth of their customers' success. That's where the value proposition of outsourcing resides.
CRM project: What's in it for the users?
Does your IT hiring strategy need direction?
Sales and marketing must be aligned for CRM success
What CRM skills does your company need?
Dig Deeper on Contact center management
Why are so many organisations bringing outsourced IT back in-house?
Five local authorities around the country agree shared services contract
Outsource IT support without losing control
AstraZeneca to bring IT in-house but remain offshore