Outsourcing: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|Technology|}}
A great boon for [[management consultants]], but a chocolate starfish for anyone else.
A great boon for [[management consultants]], but a chocolate starfish for anyone else.


Line 10: Line 11:
*it's low value, not no value.
*it's low value, not no value.


{{seealso}}
{{Outsourcing}}
*[[Service level agreement]]
{{egg}}
{{egg}}
{{draft}}
{{draft}}

Revision as of 11:24, 8 May 2019

The JC pontificates about technology
An occasional series.


Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.


A great boon for management consultants, but a chocolate starfish for anyone else.

Management consultancy textbooks will glowingly quote Anthony Burgess: “A sure sign of an amateur is too much detail to compensate for too little life”.

Management consultants aren’t generally much good with literature. Much less detail. This they take as a mandate to ignore the messy intractable details of a business process, and instead look at the big picture. A good rule of thumb, they say, is Pareto's 80/20 rule: 20% of the activities will consume 80% of the costs. 80% of the revenue will come from 20% of the clients. And so on.

Step one - undoubtedly right - leads to step 2: if we could only identify what that 80% is, we could relocate it to a cheaper means of production and bingo - easy cost savings.

What this misses

  • it's low value, not no value.

See also