Many reports, case studies, research papers have been published discussing the pros and cons of outsourcing. I have been reading, thinking on this particular subject for quite some time - i would say at least 7 years :). A pain is a pain - irrespective of whether an Indian or American or a Norwegian feels it. So its always hard to justify outsourcing completely, coz' someone looses the job and the wealth pattern shifts - philosophically speaking this is bound to happen... But how do we justify to the employees? When an organisation does it, some of them might accept and move on, a few crib and remain, a few quit, some are forced to quit, some grow hatred over the sourced in citizens. btw, this blog does not relate to any views of the company i work for or its intention to progress in this vein...
Couple of days back, as I 'drove' to my office in a stuffed M4 queue, i tuned into the local Asian radio channel... MissyD the DJ pitched the topic. Lots of westerners are turning to Indian, East European countries to get their health/medical related problems sorted out. The numbers from UK just for this year rose to 70K+... The DJ added that infact a few take a quick flight to Hungary for a dental check. Turkey, Singapore were in the top providers' list. The services includes anything from a heart surgery to dental care to laser eye ops. The DJ's objective on that topic was different. She was interested to know the service feedback...
But this set the ball rolling in my mind... the key benefits that the individual go for such medical services overseas are : cost-effective, better care & attention, no more long waiting times/list and above all good quality. (Sounds the same set of benefits for an organisational outsourcing)
Does this bring the above argument to a full circle? When people look to save a quarter when it matters to their individual monetary budget, why would the big organisations not do it? People want to save costs, get their services quicker and also in a better quality, why would the companies not do it - From a capitalistic view, companies are formed with a sole aim to make money. So they are better placed to source-out. Though this significant point does not answer the cons from an ethical and pure moral point of view, (business & moral? -oxymoron) it definitely counters the argument in a much better strength and would at least challenge the pseudo-nationalists who throw scorn and hatred on the sourcing-in country nationals.
Well. The point of controversy which is being put across wrt outsourcing is quality. May be, that is why the DJ has been asking for "feedback". As a service provider, Indian companies/Hospitals does a good job when it comes to saving some dough for the individuals or for the MNCs. But does it provide the real Quality which the individuals were getting before? No, Sir No. The service provider's might be incessantly bleating about quality, six sigma kinda things. Does it actually convert in to better service? IMHO, certainly not. They concentrate/talk too much on "providing quality" by means of following processes which eventually defeats the purpose itself.
ReplyDeleteargument may be valid both from employer and employee's point of view. employer is looking to cut costs and employee is worried about his job and the livelihood. while it is true that in this time of globalisation, one cannot put rules and restrictions on trade, there needs to be some regulations in place to protect the country and its people. I strongly support the companies looking to outsource to compete with others globally, Govt needs to come up with plans of how the existing workforce can be reused and I don't think there is any magic solution for this. everybody needs to learn to find new ways for survival.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
ReplyDeleteMy objective is different - its an emotional angle from a 360 perspective... neither my side nor your side or his side... i am trying to counter the individual who accepts a concept (in this case - outsourcing) to his favor, but talks against it when his organisation does it.
Re. quality: if a person can put his dear life onto foreign hands, then there must be a point - coz' one's life is more important than any business objective. Also I say always - quality is the last and most complex thing you could quantify...
ps. note, i am not arguing against or in favour - i am trying to challenge the emotional angle.
RK:
ReplyDeleteUK has TUPE rules for that, but if rules were to safegaurd we should not have thieves... rules i believe are always just rules...
I read through this and could feel that somehow we are missing the point. I don't think outsourcing is a 'new' concept at all. It has been there for ages and I guess it was better known as 'effeciency' in the earlier days. At the end of the day 'any' attempt at increasing the effeciency of a process will have an impact - In the industrialisation age - effeciency was driven by outsourcing to 'machines'. People cried foul even then, but then you cannot direct your ire towards machines. In the Information age, well a significant amount of effeciency is being driven by outsourcing to cost effective 'geographies'. Naturally people now have something more tangible to react to.
ReplyDeleteCost savings are incidental, what is paramount is the effeciency gains.
I think, the challenge is for the individuals as to whether they want to be victims of this evolutionary process or do they want to join in by moving to same side where their firms are moving to. i.e if jobs are moving to India, and there is shortage of skilled staff in India - then why not move to India? I think the next socially defining trend will be that of economic migration. Look around, it's already happening.
As an individual, I think it's your responsibility to make yourself indispensible or have a way out. If neither, then my friend, there is no one else to blame. Time and tide wait for none.
Just read the article. Great job. If you are looking for
ReplyDeletefreelance journalism
freelance manga
website design
freelance projects
Try using ICanFreelance.com