Slashdot Mirror
In Favor of Homegrown IT Solutions
snydeq writes "Today's IT organizations turn too readily to vendors, eschewing homegrown solutions to their detriment, writes Deep End's Paul Venezia. 'Back when IT was "simple," several good programmers and support staff could run the whole show. Nowadays, [companies] buy hefty support contracts and shift the burden of maintaining and troubleshooting large parts of their IT infrastructure on to the vendors who may know their own product well, but have a hard time dealing with issues that may crop up during integration with other vendors' gear. ... Relying solely on support contracts and generic solutions is a good way to self-limit the agility and performance of any business. In short, more gurus equals less hand-wringing and stress all around.'"
When you treat people like second-class citizens by making them contracted labor, especially in IT, this shouldn't be a surprise.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The general in-house versus outsource vs commodity question here is a bit inextricably tied up in the more specific "enterprise software sucks" problem. I've seen moving from in-house solutions to third-party stuff work well, when it's good third-party stuff. For example, near the end of my time there, my university switched from an aging home-rolled email setup to a Zimbra installation, which, while not perfect, was generally better and more reliable. On the other hand, there is certainly plenty of crap that they pay Oracle and Microsoft $$$ to run that doesn't serve anyone's needs very well, or integrate with anything else.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
There are IT gurus out there with free time. Some of them are working in environments that have completely outsourced to vendors, and the gurus end up educating the vendor's minions, sometimes on the most basic operations. Personally I find it easier when I open a ticket with the vendor to copy/paste the exact commands for them to run on servers on which I no longer have root. It saves time.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
While having in-house solutions is great, but what happens when people move on? I work in the EDU part of the IT industry, and we have a particular system that was designed by a former employee, picked up by a second, redesigned by the same person, who denies that anything could be wrong with it. Support calls to them go unanswered, and they're rarely in the office. And they are one of the three Directors in IT. Personally, I work on our Windows 7 deployment, and all the underlying AutoIt scripts, plus the virtualization of our applications. I have trained all of my colleagues in what they may need in the event of my demise (or less worrisome event). And I get paid about $34k a year.
Those must be some bad MBA schools in your area. I got an MBA and I was never taught we should outsource everything.
We were taught to get venders when the requirements word distract the existing staff from their mission focus. I had to read case studies where outsourcing worked well and when it failed miserable and should have kept the inside staff. We were taught the complexities of global business and that American staff tend to be more productive and creative even though they cost more. How bean counting causes you to miss the good envestments. And a good HR policy means treating your workers right and at a good pay.
I am willing to bet there are less MBA but BBA who are out of a 4 year business with no experience, trying to save money by stepping on the backs of anyone who gets in their way. The MBA program is far more responsible.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Wrong. If you don't have the developer, then you don't need as much floor space for your office, you don't have to buy cubicle furniture, you don't need as large an IT staff, etc. Obviously if you get rid of one developer, you're not going to immediately save this money, but when you're looking at hiring a whole team of people versus contracting something out, you probably will (as for a whole team, you'll need to rent more floor space somewhere, unless your company happens to have a bunch of unused floor space, but most don't as that's wasteful).
Also, 401k, SS, and health insurance absolutely do immediately increase each employee's cost.
Hell sometimes you have to educate the vendor's minion's on what their product is supposed to do!
A high turnover of employees creates problems with in-house development and maintenance of software. The "organizational memory" -- how did we get here, what were the problems, how were they solved -- is lost.
In the U.S. military, cognizant personnel are often rotated to new assignments every 2-3 years. This has the same negative effect on long-term maintenance and evolution of software for military uses. For this reason, military software projects are (or at least were) out-sourced.
You do realize the one of REASONS the military rotates personal every few years is to avoid EXACTLY what you're referring to, right?
Losing any one person doesn't kill a project because there are multiple others with experience on it and no one person 'owns' the project.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
It depends on if you mean a vendor's 3rd party product versus outsourced programming.
If you hired an outside consultant and paid them by the hour to produce a custom piece of software, then I'd default to having the contract written up to include the source code as a deliverable. You might encounter resistance if its a big firm and they have reusable libraries they've created and don't want to share them. In this case the compromise might be to provide the compiled DLL's for these, but you are back at square one where you depend upon them to fix issues in those DLLs, but at least this way it reduces the dependencies.
When I think "Vendor" I think of someone who has some premade product, which seems to be what the article is refering to. I.e. its like going to a vending machine and saying I want the "Blah Blah Account Management Software". These products are usually sold to many different customers and thus have had a stream of revenue over a long period of time or for a large team to enhance the software over time. Thus they are somewhat large and even if there was a source code license option available from the vendor(although there usually isn't), the code base would probably be large and probably somewhat difficult to customize by internal staff.
Also, the cost to develop these vendor products is spread across many customers, but as the article author points out, you can pay dearly in the areas of integration and customization. You may find corner cases or new requirements down the line that the software simply cannot handle, and in my experience(having continuously been in one scenario or another dealing with a vendor for the last 5+ years) there are a lot of barriers to cross in getting the customization or fixes done.
If people are upset about the inability to customize the vendor product, then you need to go back to the stakeholders and say hey, "In light of new requirements, we clearly need a solution that 1) has some features that support these customization scenarios, OR 2) has a source code license and developers who have the skills and time to deal with implementing those customization(it's hard to know what you are getting yourself into until you actually see the source code), OR 3) roll our own solution." #3 can be a good option if you are only using a small subset of the vendor's product's features, which I've found to often be the case(since usually over time it has been enhanced to meet many customer's needs, but any single customer will only need a subset of these). Thus to roll your own solution isn't going to be nearly as complex, and may be a breath of fresh air for your users who can be overwhelmed by extra unneeded features/complexities.
I've also found that vendors put a premium on integration features. The more features they provide for integration, the more their fear that you or another vendor's product will stand in place of one of their extra "modules" that they wanted you to buy from them.
The company I work for has the best of both worlds. They go out and buy a $500,000 piece of Enterprise Software*, forgo the expensive contractors and dump the setup and configuration on 2 or 3 in-house developers, a project manager (who is usually an outside contractor who happens to be friends with an executive -- a budget locust, if you will) and an IT manager. After about a year the esteemed project manager moves on to the next project, the manager in charge gets promoted, the software is blamed for the lack of results and a new $500,000 purchase is made.
*For those that haven't used the stuff, Enterprise Software doesn't actually work out of the box. It's much like a do-it-yourself plane kit with lots of manuals on FAA regulations, a glossy guide full of pictures of planes "other customers" have built and a box full of parts (with a few random parts missing) but no actual assembly instructions.
It is better to outsource if you are outsourcing to people who are more competent than your in house staff. Unfortunately the people who make these decisions often are not sufficiently competent in IT to make an informed decision. My boss certainly never believes me when I tell him I'm more competent than those bozos.
From your post I take it that basic English skills are not required for your qualifications or job.
All of the major browsers should have spell-checked your post so really there is no excuse.
Doing that now with a product being developed by a major company which shall remain nameless. I'm having doubts the corporate culture is actually capable of engineering such a complex product. We'll see.
The biggest drag about contracted services is that, even if you are lucky and they actually save time rather than waste it, they have external costs in that some of your projects get hamstrung waiting for vendor fixes. The flip side of that is at least you don't ever drown in a sea of options.
Someone had to do it.
This is true, but you have to be selective. Sometimes pre-built solutions makes since.
I've seem way to many people try to build solutions when an off the shelf solution would have been easier and cheaper in the long run. (say after a failure, and sometimes before!)
If you need a mail server with lots of accounts, but no bells and whistles. Build it yourself. You need an mail server with all the bells and whistles. (calendaring, etc) Buy one off the shelf. You will save yourself a lot of head aches. (providing you're not stupid in implementing your off the shelf product)
I have a couple of name brand HA NAS devices. I also have a couple of Linux NFS servers running DRBD and heartbeat. I knew where to buy off the shelf and where I could do it myself.
A lot of the time it's because when shit hits the fan then management can shift blame to the vendor and/or support contract.
this is my sig
I'd like to see software "kits" for families of application domains. One purchases the software kit's source code and then customizes it, perhaps with an optional subscription to get future doo-dads.
Doing everything from scratch takes too long and buying pre-built solutions shoehorn you into something both missing features you need and that carries the baggage of features you don't.
Write them in common languages such as Dot.Net, Php, Java, etc.
However, enforcing licenses may be tricky.
Table-ized A.I.
In my MBA program, we discussed that outsourcing almost always costs more than insourcing for the simple matter that if it costs them $10 to do it, or costs you $$10 to do it, they'll mark it up 50% and sell you the service for $15, but if you'd had the capability to do it at cost, you'd be out $10. Oh, and that the single greatest "cost" of outsourcing is almost never counted. Risk. What's the risk the outsourcing company will close down? don't know? Then you shouldn't be relying on them for a business critical function. What's the risk that your competitor could pay off your outsource company to get access to your systems? Don't know? Then why are you outsourcing?
Learn to love Alaska
I understand that some environments can be more flexible or more dialed-in to company/user needs with a full time, active development staff doing everything homegrown.
But the talent pool for this sort of thing is woefully limited. I've seen "in-house" development groups come up with some of the nastiest, most byzantine pieces of crap-hackery you could possibly imagine. And there's ZERO planning for what to do when the system reaches obsolescence. And don't give me any crap about how it won't ever happen. It WILL. Then, what's the upgrade path? How do you get the data out? And a million other niggling little things.
There's also the problem of relying on a group of individuals like this. It's essentially a thinly disguised form of vendor lock-in. Save the vendor is a group of your own employees. And what happens if they all up and move on to greener pastures? How do you maintain the system? CAN it be maintained? Can it be extended? Can ANYTHING be done with the system without bringing it crashing down?
How do you know Joe WannaSecureMyJob didn't back-door the system?
Yes, a lot of these are concerns you face with vendors too. But with vendor approaches, if you dislike the direction the project is heading, you can kill it, cut out the vendor, and move on to something you find more acceptable.
Not saying it CAN'T work. Just that the level of care you have to take when risk managing is different from what you need with outside vendors.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
In my experience, the biggest difference in outsourcing operation of key software is that it forces internal customers to rethink their expectations. If software is maintained in-house, they expect it to fulfill their every whim. When the IT dept says "It will take 3 of our developers 6 months to do what you want", then say "Ok, we need it! Do it now!". But when they are dealing with a software vendor, and they say "It will cost you $175K to do what you want", they say "Hmm...well, that's kind of expensive, I'm not sure we need it".
When you have your own developers, they can tailor the technology to meet the needs of your business. When you purchase pre-packaged software, the business tailors its needs around the software.
The article was about contracting versus in house gurus, and every month it seems there is always an article about the lack of gurus, hence the comment.
I suspect the problem is corporate executives who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. There is a simple way to increase the supply of something: Pay more. If companies would pay competent IT people more money, then more people who would otherwise go on to be tax lawyers or securities traders will go into IT instead.
By contrast, what you hear in the media is the executives thinking with their MBA brains: If you want to increase supply, you can pay more... or you can go to the government and create artificial incentives to increase supply. More H1B visas. Government education subsidies for tech majors, to divert labor supply from occupations that pay the same or less than IT into IT. More supply at the same price.
The problem is that the latter doesn't create "gurus" -- it creates paper MCSEs. It makes the problem companies have in hiring competent staff that much harder, because you create a population of applicants who have degrees and certifications and even experience, yet have no earthly idea what they're doing. It attracts exactly those people who are too stupid to understand that a $1000 scholarship is a completely asinine way to make a career choice, instead of those who are smart enough to do just about anything and who make decisions based on forward thinking criteria like which career will allow them to afford a house in a neighborhood with better schools and a comfortable retirement.
It's the same disease that allows them to make the IT department a cost center: They count all of the salaries and equipment and ignore the productivity improvements that accrue to other departments as a result of their existence. Which makes it look like cutting staff or replacing them with less qualified but lower paid employees will save them money: The cost savings goes straight onto the spreadsheet, without accounting for the lost profits that will occur when a major system falls over and there is no longer anyone competent working there who can get it running before you lose a big client.
I'd +1 you ... if I had any mod points. One of the more lucid assessments I've had the pleasure to read.
And what does CS have to do with IT?
Perhaps they should have taught you reading comprehension. The OP did not say that the MBA program taught outsouce everything (I'm not even sure that he was referring to an MBA program, it appears to have been an IT management training program--at what level appears ambiguous). The OP said that the IT management training program he was part of taught a whole bunch of stuff such as outsourcing, best of breed, vendor support as primary skills and that actual IT skills as not terribly important (nice to have for an IT manager, but dispensable).
I have seen this in many areas, not just IT. The idea that management does not have to have any of the skills needed to do the jobs subordinate to them is very prevalent. While a manager does not need the skills to sub in for all of their subordinates (although it does help), they should be able to do the job of a significant number of their subordinates. Otherwise, they will have trouble recognizing the relative value of different staff members contributions.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison