back
3 comments
Running a decentralized workforce in the 90s was not viable for most people for obvious reasons. Today, tools are better, and more widely available, but more importantly the overall demographic of the technical workforce has improved by orders of magnitude. This is the foundation of why outsourcing is able to be an attractive (and more importantly viable) solution.

In the 1990s finding competent well rounded developers was throwing darts at a board. With the advent of modern frameworks and standards, and the increase in global capacity for technology development, outsourcing now makes a lot of sense, for a lot of people.

(article should have mentioned online collaboration specifically as well).

I wish my former employer was willing outsource services. While the customer base grew from two to twenty, the staff size trippled, the IT staff eventually doubled.

It takes strategy and vision to outsource and manage the IT house. But, you've got to hold on to somebody to run the outsourced IT shop and hold them to your standards and keep them on your strategic course. An IT project manager of sorts.

And while it takes money (expense instead of payroll and training), be prepared to spend it. IT isn't something you try to afford, it's something you can't afford not to do right.

If you find yourself working in an IT shop where every smart solution (keeping to the strategy) is too expensive, look around and consider getting out. They're on the path to bungle it.

I still find it is a double-edged sword. It totally depends on the company you hire. Plus, the time-zone differences with, say, working with folks in India vs. working with folks in Canada is important. It all boils down to competency, execution, and communication. In some cases, it has worked very well for me. In others, it has been horribly bad. It's still a gamble today, as far as I'm concerned.