Another State Looks Offshore

Computerworld ^ | DECEMBER 22, 2003 | PATRICK THIBODEAU

[Bush2000]

These off-shore companies are *not* able to compete with me, period. The evidence is all around us in failed projects. That is becoming very, very clear. Yes, it's cheaper, short term -- because you don't get what you ordered. Short-term gain for management, long-term pain for the company. Works for me. Now that the stampede back on-shore is beginning, I like my position.

This so-called "stampede back on-shore" is a fantasy of yours, Harr. If anything, outsourcing is (sadly) accelerating:

More IT firms look overseas to cut costs

"Market research firm Giga Information Group is forecasting a boom in overseas outsourcing for the U.S. information technology industry. The research firm predicts IT outsourcing to India will grow by 25 percent this year, as companies seek to cut costs and improve quality. IT outsourcing is when a company farms out certain IT operations such as software development or data center management to another company.

Giga expects that companies will demand some portion of work be done in a foreign country in almost every major outsourcing deal during 2003.

[Bush2000]

Here's another article dated 24 December that further illustrates my point:

More and more tech jobs head overseas

Don't get me wrong: I'm not applauding or gloating or laughing about the loss of jobs. Quite the opposite, actually. But I also don't believe we should delude ourselves about what's happening -- something that you seem to be content to do.

[Dominic Harr]

Ah, yes, since it's in the news, it *must* be true.

Just F.Y.I. -- that wave has crested, and is now subsiding. It turns out I had no trouble competing with them. It turns out, there's about a 98% failure rate of all projects sent overseas. I worked in Project Control, don't forget.

As usual, when you see something in the mainstream press, that means it's *very* old news.

It's literally to the point that I *welcome* my competitors announcements of attempting to move some jobs off-shore. That is good news for me.

[Bush2000]

Ah, yes, since it's in the news, it *must* be true.

The news is more objective than your anecdotal BS, Harr.

Just F.Y.I. -- that wave has crested, and is now subsiding. It turns out I had no trouble competing with them. It turns out, there's about a 98% failure rate of all projects sent overseas.

Not according to actual trade data. Look, I know you're desperate to believe that this stuff isn't true: Delusion is your refuge.

I worked in Project Control, don't forget.

Rrrrright. At CSC -- the same company that is reportedly in the process of screwing up a major IRS project (CSC Excoriated Over IRS Work). "Project Control" (quotes intentional) ain't one of CSC's specialties, apparently.

As usual, when you see something in the mainstream press, that means it's *very* old news.

No, actually, you're old news.

It's literally to the point that I *welcome* my competitors announcements of attempting to move some jobs off-shore. That is good news for me.

Particularly if the IRS sh*tcans CSC's contract. CSC will need the money.

[Dominic Harr]

The news is more objective than your anecdotal BS, Harr.

Wow -- you actually said that?

The mainstream media . . . OBJECTIVE!?

So, it appears you'd say just about anything, make up any thing you had to, just to insult people who disagree with you. That statement is quite a whopper. And quite pathetic.

Happy New Year.

[Bush2000]

Wow -- you actually said that? The mainstream media . . . OBJECTIVE!?

Can you read? Can you think? Seriously, dude. This isn't difficult to understand:

The news is more objective than your anecdotal BS, Harr

That isn't to say that the media is objective, in itself. But it is certainly more objective and reliable than the utter tripe that issues from your mouth and keyboard.

[Dominic Harr]

The news is more objective than your anecdotal BS, Harr

Using 'news' and 'objective' in the same sentence, here on FR?

Not to mention, suggesting that a *reporter* is more accurate than an first-hand eye-witness . . .

Oy vey. You'd clearly say anything in your desperate need to insult others.

[Bush2000]

Not to mention, suggesting that a *reporter* is more accurate than an first-hand eye-witness . . .

You're no "eye-witness". You're an ideologically-driven bigot with an axe to grind.

[Dominic Harr]

You're no "eye-witness".

I put in 7 years with Project Control, where it was part of my job to gather information and metrics on all our division's projects. Several of those have attempted to use off-shore assets. In almost every case, it was a total failure and in most of those cases the work came back on-shore. In several cases, to me.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot -- you aren't interested in the truth, you were busy insulting me for your own entertainment, to boost your tiny ego. I'm guessing that's your substitute for achievement.

Do go on. You were saying? Something about the news being more objective than first-hand eye-witnesses?

[Bush2000]

I put in 7 years with Project Control... Several of those have attempted to use off-shore assets. In almost every case, it was a total failure and in most of those cases the work came back on-shore. In several cases, to me.

You expect me to be surprised that CSC failed, when I just linked you to an article detailing how CSC has been royally screwing up the management of a major IRS project?!? Non-sequitor. CSC's offshore failures do not necessarily follow from offshore outsourcing. The IRS contract is a perfect example of on-shore assets failing. No sale. Not only do you lack credibility but you have a serious conflict of interest, since you stand to lose with CSC outsourcing more work.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot -- you aren't interested in the truth...

Here's the thing, Harr. The people reading this thread are the ones who get to decide on what the truth is. And I've produced links to major publications to backup my statements. What have you produced? Nada. Zilch. Zero. Poof. Just some anecdotal BS from your past, which might possibly only corroborate that CSC can't manage software projects.

...you were busy insulting me for your own entertainment, to boost your tiny ego. I'm guessing that's your substitute for achievement.

Bzzzzzzt! Wrong again. I'm here to keep you from spewing lies and half-truths. The people in these forums deserve better than that. They have a right to know what's really happening in their industry. And you can't help them.

[Dominic Harr]

The people reading this thread are the ones who get to decide on what the truth is.

On FR, claiming the mainstream press is more accurate than first-hand experience is a Penalty -- 15 yards and loss of credibility.

Your 'links' are not persuasive.

Besides, anyone who has read just a few of your posts already realizes that your real purpose here is to insult people who disagree with you in a pathetic attempt to massage your sagging sense of self-worth.

Since you can't raise yourself up by your own works, you attempt to tear others down.

[Bush2000]

On FR, claiming the mainstream press is more accurate than first-hand experience is a Penalty -- 15 yards and loss of credibility.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Nice try. Too bad we know you. Your "first-hand experience" is wishful thinking.

Your 'links' are not persuasive.

Not to a bigot like you, already laboring under the delusion that American jobs aren't being lost to India, China, and Pakistan. People can read the linked articles and make up their own minds.

Since you can't raise yourself up by your own works, you attempt to tear others down.

As if you have any idea of what my own works are. Let's keep on topic. People on this thread aren't idiots. Some of them have lost job opportunities because of outsourcing. Some of them have trained replacements. Meanwhile, you want to tell them that either (a) it isn't happening and/or (b) not to worry about because the job-fairy will bring the jobs back when the Indians/Pakistanis/Chinese can't make it work. Pure fantasy, Harr.

'Night. I'm done.