all I can say is that I hope more big companies offshore the hell out of everything, because that leaves a group of US workers here that can out produce them, leading to the creative destruction process that we need in tech.
I guess IBM suffered a major offshoring disaster with Chase. The truth is that outsourcing whole areas of the business, whatever business you are in, comes into vogue every few years. Even IT has been on the outsourcing list before, back in the late 80s I remember, (this was before offshoring) and tons of companies outsourced IT rather unsuccessfully leaving Dell and others to pick up the spoils. Outsourcing only works if you are a very vanilla player with no immediate needs for customizing parts of the business.
The troubling part for me about this offshoring trend is the ramifications it has for companies like cisco that I used to invest in (no longer). Imo the capex economy in the US is dead and buried due to offshoring.
"We believe managing our own technology infrastructure is best for the long-term growth and success of our company as well as our shareholders," said Austin Adams, chief information officer at J. P. Morgan Chase.
But yesterday's announcement made some analysts wonder whether I.B.M.'s technology outsourcing strategy - its response to what it calls the on-demand era - is as promising or as profitable as the company has led investors to believe.
"This was Palmisano's grand vision, and this was the reference account," said Fred Hickey, editor of The High-Tech Strategist, an investment newsletter in Nashua, N.H. "This whole on-demand strategy kicked off just a couple of years ago was predicated on these kinds of large accounts they were going to win. Now, not very long after starting it, they're pulling it back.
nytimes.com |
