91–100 of 255 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We can hire 'ten for one' in a country A. Rather: 'two for one'.
Why just two? The average salary in a western country is many times that in a third world country, and ten times is not that unusual.
Third world countries are developing, you should keep up with that.
The main KPI for BA's IT function is the percentage of jobs they have moved "nearshore" (to Krakow). Not that I think this is the Krakow workers' fault, mind you; rather this (and the string of similar IT incidents recently at BA) seems to fit the pattern of upper management focusing on driving down costs to the exclusion of everything else.
Krakow is a big tech center, is in the EU, and it's not obvious why moving jobs there would have anything to do with a drop in quality.
Not snark, just asking.
In the tech-related (but now fully mainstream, unlike a few years ago) news these days, there are a number of recurring themes. 1. Massive security breaches affecting major corporations, governments, and so on. 2. Massive IT outages, affecting corporations, governments and so forth. It doesn't take a lot of incidents to mark them as 'massive' since things are strongly centralized in this world. Meanwhile, in the last…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quantas, the airline of Australia, outsources its IT operations to IBM. They did not choose the cheapest alternative, but a reliable one. I believe IBM was responsible for the Australian census debacle in 2016. Hardly a ringing endorsement of their reliability, and not the only high-profile instance of them messing things up. "No one ever got fired for choosing IBM" though.
While I can't speak to the exact circumstances, IBM when it takes over operations often hires the IT staff of the firm it is taking over operations from and runs systems on multiple-year contracts. At any rate, I believe few would contest that IBM in general is a more reliable vendor than Tata, other Indian suppliers or say, offices in Poland. EDIT: Details on IBM and Australian census. http://www.abc.net.au/news/201…
How can they do that and save the client money at the same time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about Krakow per se. But when a company works towards specific targets like "90/10 supplier offshore ratio", rather than metrics based on quality or efficiency, I don't think quality comes first.
I agree with you on that. But I had to stick up for Krakow!
In the tech-related (but now fully mainstream, unlike a few years ago) news these days, there are a number of recurring themes. 1. Massive security breaches affecting major corporations, governments, and so on. 2. Massive IT outages, affecting corporations, governments and so forth. It doesn't take a lot of incidents to mark them as 'massive' since things are strongly centralized in this world. Meanwhile, in the last…
Is there any evidence that IT outsourcing has made matters worse? Or is it only worse if the provider is located offshore? Arguably, delegating IT operations to a proper IT company could improve security and reliability. We use a low cost offshore IT provider and we haven't had any security or reliability issues so far ( https://gsuite.google.com/ )
So if something like security or reliability isn't clearly stated in contracts (and it's extremely difficult to do that well) it is disregarded.
An outsourcing company is not going to spend money it doesn't have to, simple as that.
SAAS like gsuite is an entirely different prospect. you're buying a service from Google not outsourcing your IT to them. If google's service was insecure or unreliable no one would buy it.
In the tech-related (but now fully mainstream, unlike a few years ago) news these days, there are a number of recurring themes. 1. Massive security breaches affecting major corporations, governments, and so on. 2. Massive IT outages, affecting corporations, governments and so forth. It doesn't take a lot of incidents to mark them as 'massive' since things are strongly centralized in this world. Meanwhile, in the last…
The reason is simple: short term thinking driven by short term investors
Perhaps it really is cheaper to have a few outages than it is to built the sort of systems that never go down. Every "nine" you add gets more and more expensive.
Or perhaps the systems are so complex that it's just impossible for them to be fully reliable, and this is just one of the costs of having the ability to fly anywhere in the world, cheaply and at the drop of a hat, and to have it work 99% of the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quantas, the airline of Australia, outsources its IT operations to IBM. They did not choose the cheapest alternative, but a reliable one. I believe IBM was responsible for the Australian census debacle in 2016. Hardly a ringing endorsement of their reliability, and not the only high-profile instance of them messing things up. "No one ever got fired for choosing IBM" though.
IBM makes mistakes but IBM is massive. You expect some things to happen just by the sheer surface area they have. I'd trust IBM over random outsourced coding houses when it comes to IT Security.
for example https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/26/ibm_asks_contractor... doesn't sound like a company I'd want to trust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quantas, the airline of Australia, outsources its IT operations to IBM. They did not choose the cheapest alternative, but a reliable one. I believe IBM was responsible for the Australian census debacle in 2016. Hardly a ringing endorsement of their reliability, and not the only high-profile instance of them messing things up. "No one ever got fired for choosing IBM" though.
IBM makes mistakes but IBM is massive. You expect some things to happen just by the sheer surface area they have. I'd trust IBM over random outsourced coding houses when it comes to IT Security.
What is the conversation that makes this happen? "Yeah, let's go with IBM. The same problems might crop up, but they're a larger company."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I can't speak to the exact circumstances, IBM when it takes over operations often hires the IT staff of the firm it is taking over operations from and runs systems on multiple-year contracts. At any rate, I believe few would contest that IBM in general is a more reliable vendor than Tata, other Indian suppliers or say, offices in Poland. EDIT: Details on IBM and Australian census. http://www.abc.net.au/news/201…
> hires the IT staff of the firm it is taking over operations from How can they do that and save the client money at the same time?