Shift or fix?
To paraphrase the Bard: “To shift … or not to shift? That is the question.”
We could continue with “whether ’tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of unfixed processes in house or take arms against a sea of troubles and by outsourcing, end them” … but hark! Is that the sound of Shakespeare spinning in his grave? Methinks it is. Best, then, to tiptoe quietly back to the twenty-first century and let him rest in peace once more.
Besides, even with all his worldly wisdom, it’s quite likely that he wouldn’t have a suitable turn of phrase to describe the very modern quandary of whether or not to outsource a process which – to all extents and purposes – has become a headache.
It’s true that many businesses and organisations are now having to decide between fixing problem processes or outsourcing them, but much of that decision involves looking for in-house or onshore quick wins merely as a precursor to passing such processes further afield. These quick wins could be improvements in technology or in existing skills – cost permitting, of course.
But if the cost of actually creating those quick wins is excessive, then economically speaking it could well make sense to find a provider straight away instead, on the proviso that remaining processes are fixed while touchpoints with those processes outsourced or offshored are defined to maximise effectiveness.
That’s not to say there won’t be any need for future investment for improvements to those remaining, retained processes in terms of technology and skills, but how many of those businesses and organisations looking for those quick wins actually consider such an investment before committing to the time and expense involved in finding an appropriate provider?
And there, as a certain playwright would say, is the rub.