I've always been surprised at the sheer amount of work that's outsourced in software/IT.
Even companies that had staff of developers would often outsource work that should be part of their core competency. Without fail, every time, they ended up with a bill ~an order of magnitude higher than they'd pay if they were just hiring competent staff to deliver the project.
In many of these cases, these same firms would then hire another (lower quality) company to maintain it for them. This typically went as expected.
I could never understand the rationale for a lot of these cases.
"The existing staff is busy"--but they could have two hours of meetings with us daily?
"They don't have competence in those areas"--they're already using $CLOUD and $THAT_STUFF? It often was working with existing systems?
"Costs"--again, see above.
I really could not understand the motivation. I get it for clients that had no experience in what we were sent to do or got sold on something they didn't need, but a majority surely had or could get the resources to do the projects that were done, but opted not to, for whatever reason.
I've seen this kind of thing fail on many occasions.
If it's critical for your business, (ya know, not some LLM demo or something), you need ownership, otherwise you end up with a far larger cost of ownership and piles of logistical and quality problems.
I genuinely can't imagine a start-up doing this. Everything I've seen is private sector companies, most ~competent companies.
I'll say this, the cases where I have seen success in consulting (from the perspective of the 'buyer' is those that were intimately involved with the process from the start, providing feedback and pushing back when needed and taking initiative deliberately to "on board" so they could maintain and use whatever it was they got, and typically working alongside consultants)
You also have to basically avoid most consulting companies. I won't name them, but it's not hard to guess.
Even companies that had staff of developers would often outsource work that should be part of their core competency. Without fail, every time, they ended up with a bill ~an order of magnitude higher than they'd pay if they were just hiring competent staff to deliver the project.
In many of these cases, these same firms would then hire another (lower quality) company to maintain it for them. This typically went as expected.
I could never understand the rationale for a lot of these cases.
"The existing staff is busy"--but they could have two hours of meetings with us daily?
"They don't have competence in those areas"--they're already using $CLOUD and $THAT_STUFF? It often was working with existing systems?
"Costs"--again, see above.
I really could not understand the motivation. I get it for clients that had no experience in what we were sent to do or got sold on something they didn't need, but a majority surely had or could get the resources to do the projects that were done, but opted not to, for whatever reason.
I've seen this kind of thing fail on many occasions.
If it's critical for your business, (ya know, not some LLM demo or something), you need ownership, otherwise you end up with a far larger cost of ownership and piles of logistical and quality problems.
I genuinely can't imagine a start-up doing this. Everything I've seen is private sector companies, most ~competent companies.
I'll say this, the cases where I have seen success in consulting (from the perspective of the 'buyer' is those that were intimately involved with the process from the start, providing feedback and pushing back when needed and taking initiative deliberately to "on board" so they could maintain and use whatever it was they got, and typically working alongside consultants)
You also have to basically avoid most consulting companies. I won't name them, but it's not hard to guess.