The question "In-source or Outsource?" has been heard of a lot lately. Such talks became noticeable to me just last semester when a professor asked our opinion about the said issue and I distinctly remember choosing "outsource". As I remembered, that on defense to my answer I have given reasons such as getting higher quality services at a lower cost. But then, I also said that choosing whether using in-source or outsource depends on certain details such as which is more suited for the environment it will be done in or what the system to be done is. It is a fact that sometimes in-house is better or well suited for "this" or "that" type of system than outsource and vice versa.
It feels quite funny that the given question "How can you determine if outsourcing is advantageous to your organization?" is like a question suggested from my past remark (which I restated above for those who haven't read my past post). In the past I have only read about outsource and in-source, thus having no actual personal experience (or proof to support my past answer) to this matter but a certain event happened in the university that I have suddenly realized the advantages of outsource.
Cutting the long story short, two of our professors where commissioned by the university to make/ improve a system in the school. This incident have created an avenue to observe what effects does in-house have and this issue have been subjected to discussion between my classmates, friends and I. In this given situation, I can say that outsourcing would be more advantageous and highly recommended.
Why?
In one of our discussions, we have discussed certain points in which could support this thought. In a university like ours where the professors and staff are just enough to handle all classes it is certainly incapacitating to lose even one professor/staff over a period of time. My classmates and I, though very proud and happy that two of our professors were chosen to develop a system for the school, it can’t be helped that we feel a bit downhill losing two of our great professors (who were supposedly teaching us two major subjects this semester). I think that some believed in source was cheaper and advantageous in this situation since the system is needed very quickly and getting one who knows how the university runs will certainly save time and money.
Well, those maybe true in that perspective but then how about the additional expenses the university have to pay the substitute teachers whom were commissioned to cover the classes left behind by our other professors. Seeing and experiencing how we, my classmates and I were affected by this transition like our classes were held a bit to a stop for a time and the confusion on who will be teaching us and the changing of teaching patterns to which we were subjected were not only inconvenient for our part but also for our college.
Some jobs were left undone, or idle which would not happen if outsource was applied. Some of use even thought that the overall expenses that the university dishes out in this in-house would be equal or maybe a bit greater compared to if they used outsource. Please note that I or we are not questioning the decision of the university for we are only referring to the events we have heard and experienced, it is just our opinion over this matter.
One ought to choose outsource when i such situations:
* The activity isn't central to generating profits or competitive success.
* The job is a routine one that wastes valuable time and energy.
* The task is a need that's only temporary or that recurs in cycles.
* It's less expensive to have someone else do it than to do it in-house.
* The activity can be done cheaper in-house, but drains resources that could be better used elsewhere.
* The skill required is so specialized that it's impractical to have a regular employee do it.
* The activity isn't one that people enjoy doing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment