Seems the Government is planning to shake up the world of motoring and related matters.
Thoughts welcome!
tinyurl.com/opeljrf
Last edited by: Stuartli on Sun 30 Aug 15 at 17:16
|
Absolutely excellent and to be commended that they are looking at it.
I now wait to see the changes that they propose for final judgement.
|
There are already plenty of incompetent drivers cluttering up the roads and putting us all in danger. Why do they want to increase their numbers by making the driving test easier?
Bummer.
|
Better education and training would increase the pass rate AND the competence level.
|
|
The last thing we want or need is the pass rate increased.
|
|
Make it too difficult and you get more illegal uninsured road users.
|
>> Make it too difficult and you get more illegal uninsured road users.
don't want it more difficult., its fine now. Putting more incompetent drivers on the road just to make sure they are licensed and insured is no great idea.
|
>> don't want it more difficult., its fine now. Putting more incompetent drivers on the road
>> just to make sure they are licensed and insured is no great idea.
I think the idea is to use incentives or behavioural nudges to try and reduce the number failing because they're entered for the test prematurely.
|
>> I think the idea is to use incentives or behavioural nudges to try and reduce
>> the number failing because they're entered for the test prematurely.
Setting a safe standard, and expecting driver training suppliers to meet it or fold seems like a good idea to me.
Oh, thats what we have.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 30 Aug 15 at 19:18
|
>> Setting a safe standard, and expecting driver training suppliers to meet it or fold seems
>> like a good idea
And if the driver training supplier is Dad or the over confident student books their own test?
|
>> And if the driver training supplier is Dad
if he is any good they pass
>> or the over confident student books their
>> own test?
Then quite rightly if they don't meet the standard they should fail. Surely you can't see a problem with that?
|
The original report in the Indy says that they're having another go at the MoT, this time moving first test to four years. I don't think the failure rate on first test provides any evidence to support that change. As for closing vosa and driving test centres to free land for housing...,.... I think Chutzpa is the world I'm looking for.
Bet the Lord Chancellor wishes he thought of that to explain court and tribunal hearing centres being closed.
|
|
The fear of change, increasingly common these days, surprisingly.
|
"Under a separate review of the driving test, the format could even be changed so that drivers are required to follow sat nav instructions for a 20 minute period."
Fine, provided those instructions include at least one bogus instruction to go the wrong way down a one way street / on a railway line or somesuch. Proving you can blindly follow instructions isn't terribly useful IMHO.
|
Bear in mind, you don't need much understanding of English to pass the test at the moment, your first language could be Punjabi (273000 according to 2011 census), but finding a sat nav in that language could be difficult. Or you could be like me, deaf. No chance am I trying to follow screen instructions, far too dangerous. And apart from finding an address, which a printed out map on a bit of A4, no great need either.
A similar point has been made in the articles comment section too.
|
You can do your Driving test here in English, both practical and theory. I think they're not quite so intimidated by foreigners here though, nor so terrified that the foreigner might find an advantage somewhere.
I did mine in Spanish, but I'm told that the English one is pretty fair.
|
Mostly sensible.
Not keen on privatisation of testing. It will cost more and be dysfunctional.
|
>> Why?
Because someone has to make a profit out of it, and you still need a level of gov bureaucracy to oversee and police it. Either the cost of the test goes up, or the level of service goes down.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 30 Aug 15 at 22:44
|
|
Should we be consistent and nationalise MOT testing then? Would government testing centres be cheaper or provide a better service?
|
>> Should we be consistent and nationalise MOT testing then? Would government testing centres be cheaper
>> or provide a better service?
We are talking about privatisation, not nationalisation. The two are very different with vastly different cost implications as Corbyn would find out if he tried to renationalise the railways.
There is little private money (profit) to be made in driver testing. The majority of the cost is in staff, and you can't cut staff. (no tester, no test). So you have to make them more efficient. More tests perhaps? then you need to shorten the length of test.
The only way to make money out of testing drivers is to take more money off the drivers. You do that by raising the test fee (by a minimum of 50%) OR you combine testing and teaching into one service/facility. And there you have a conflict of interest and standards.
|
"There is little private money (profit) to be made in driver testing. The majority of the cost is in staff, and you can't cut staff. (no tester, no test)."
Exactly the same argument could be made for MOT testing.
There is no reason why driving schools could not employ testers in the same way that garages employ MOT testers. Savings would be made by selling off test centres and the administration being dealt with by the driving school.
The schools would no doubt welcome the prestige and additional customers generated by being an approved testing centre
You have to monitor government test centres at the moment for consistency. Inspecting private centres would be no different.
|
>>Savings would be made by selling off test centres and the administration being dealt with by the driving school.
So you believe that the test centres would be provided free and the administration just given?
They would both still be costs.
So you would have all the same costs, need to add a profit margin to it, and still think it would be cheaper? How?
Only if there are possible efficiencies. Well there's no synergy savings or increased economies of scale, no offshoring or changes in labour economies, the largest cost is personnel and that won't change and they'll still want the same money, so where are these savings going to come from?
Perhaps you are hoping to avoid investment requirements? Bit unlikely in a labour intensive service.
|
Yes there would still be costes but Driving schools already have the premises and administrative staff. The additional costs of booking driving tests would be fairly minimal as far as they are concerned The cost of the test already includes an element to cover the administrative costs and I am sure that the schools would be happy to charge the same or less than the current fee.
Compare wiht MOT - you can get a test for half the recommended fee.
|
Government department = COSTS
Private Company = [the same] COSTS + PROFIT MARGIN
If you are outsourcing/privatising to reduce the cost, unless you can see some way that the private company can and will reduce the costs sufficiently to provide their own profit margin, then you will fail.
Not "might", "WILL".
|
>>Compare wiht MOT - you can get a test for half the recommended fee
No, you can't.
What you can do is have the repairer bury half the costs of the test in your repair costs.
Just because it isn't itemised doesn't mean its free.
|
|
Well my half price MoT wasn't buried in my repair costs since there weren't any.
|
Shocking though it may be, their business is not based on your one MOT this one year.
Of all the MOTs they do, including any of your MOTs where you do pay for repairs, the cost is covered. And in those circumstances you will also be paying for the half price MOT you got this year.
Or do you truly believe its an act of benevolent charity?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 31 Aug 15 at 13:17
|
CGN will possibly never pay for repairs, there, which makes him a free or subsidised rider - but it doesn't mean that what he has paid is the economic price of the test.
I use an MOT-only place in High Wycombe; they very occasionally do a promotion at £40 a test, usually it's the full whack. They don't appear to be living high on the hog, though it's difficult to tell of course.
|
I consistently pay a MOT Fee of about £35, which is the standard 'trade rate'. This is the price paid by all the local (nonMoT qualified) traders who will not be providing any work to the garage in question. The only benefit maybe for trade purchase of tyres - although I guess that they have be competitive on those prices if the trader is to make anything when he passes the costs on to his customer.
Based on that model, I think we must conclude that the figure £35 will more than cover the MoT Garage costs with some 'profit'.
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Mon 31 Aug 15 at 14:08
|
|
Last place I took mine there seems to be a garage that does all the local non MoT garages MoTs. I can't believe that they make much money doing them even if they are flat out everyday.
|
Roughly it seems that an MOT costs a garage £30 - £35 to perform. Obviously that must vary considerably depending on where and what style of place is involved.
However, if someone is consistently charging MOTs at around that amount then there is something not considered or not seen.
It could be that otherwise the resource is idle and so it is marginally costed since there is no opportunity cost.
It could be that there is add-on or follow-on business. It could be that there are quota which must be met or increased costs are suffered. It could be a need for cash. Maybe other people are consistently being charged more. Who knows?
But I doubt there is a simple net profit in £35.
|
"Or do you truly believe its an act of benevolent charity."
Of course I don't but the end result I got my MoT half price. I suspect that even at that price they didn't lose money and of course by generating more MoT business they will also be indirectly generating more repair business. That's the business works.
I see no reason why a driving school that also provides driving tests should not be able to come up with an attractive and competitive price for a combined tuition and test package. I think that the major driving schools will be keen to take on the testing role.
|
>> by generating more MoT business they will also be indirectly generating more repair business.
That's what I said.
>> I see no reason why a driving school that also provides driving tests should not
>> be able to come up with an attractive and competitive price for a combined tuition
>> and test package. I think that the major driving schools will be keen to take
>> on the testing role.
They may be willing, they may be able to, although I am sceptical.
However, is that a service that we want reduced to economic performance metrics?
|
"However, is that a service that we want reduced to economic performance metrics?"
No we want a convenient, reasonably priced and efficiently run testing service. Something that the Government conspicuously fails to provide. At £75 for the practical and £25 for the theory and a long wait (currently 12 weeks in Norwich for the practical) the current system needs changing.
|
|
So beyter fixed than privatised? .
|
So beyter fixed than privatised? .
Well the government have had long enough to sort it out haven't they? Clearly incapable of fixing it. Time for a new broom.
|
>>Clearly incapable of fixing it. Time for a new broom.
Its one approach. It wouldn't be my idea of a good reason, but that attitude does help support an entire industry so every cloud...
|
>> "However, is that a service that we want reduced to economic performance metrics?"
>>
>> No we want a convenient, reasonably priced and efficiently run testing service. Something that the
>> Government conspicuously fails to provide. At £75 for the practical and £25 for the theory
>> and a long wait (currently 12 weeks in Norwich for the practical) the current system
>> needs changing.
No it don't. There is nothing wrong with those metrics you have provided.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 31 Aug 15 at 15:42
|
>> I see no reason why a driving school that also provides driving tests should not
>> be able to come up with an attractive and competitive price for a combined tuition
>> and test package. I think that the major driving schools will be keen to take
>> on the testing role.
I see no reason why they should even have to think about it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current set up. Nothing needs fixing.
|
"There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current set up. Nothing needs fixing. "
"what's the waiting list like round your way?
|
Check it out.
Do you think waiting list of 14 weeks or more are acceptable and do not need fixing?
www.driving-test-cancellations-4all.co.uk/driving-test-centre-waiting-times.htm
|
>> Check it out.
>>
>> Do you think waiting list of 14 weeks or more are acceptable
Yes I do. Assuming you want to drive, do you really think you can learn to drive and be ready to pass a test in in less than 14 weeks?
Say you fail, do you really think all your faults are going to be fixed in 48 hours?
A long wait for a driving test is actually beneficial for the standards of driving in the UK, which by the way, being the best in the world as proved by our fatality rates, indicates to me nothing needs fixing.
I am really surprised you think you can make a case otherwise.
|
"Assuming you want to drive, do you really think you can learn to drive and be ready to pass a test in in less than 14 weeks? "
I doubt that many people need as long 14 weeks. At two lessons a week that's 28 lessons, more than enough for most.
You shouldn't need to apply for a test until you think that you can pass. Not at day one of your tuition because there is a huge waiting list
As for needing to pay for 28 weeks of tuition if you fail first time, that's just preposterous
|
Oh I don't disagree that the service could be much improved and probably should be.
I am unconvinced, however, that privatisation / outsourcing will achieve that.
|
>>
>> "Assuming you want to drive, do you really think you can learn to drive and
>> be ready to pass a test in in less than 14 weeks? "
>>
>> I doubt that many people need as long 14 weeks. At two lessons a week
>> that's 28 lessons, more than enough for most.
I think that was about par for the people I know, one lesson a week being the norm. So I don't think many would be inconvienced that I know of.
I'm not sure what the waiting time was when I did my test, I think it might have been 6 weeks.
|
>> As for needing to pay for 28 weeks of tuition if you fail first time,
>> that's just preposterous
Just as preposterous as you putting words in my mouth in a poor attempt to shore up your argument. I didn't say that.
And I see you haven't rebuffed the point about the driving standards in the UK and the need to change......
|
>> Check it out.
>>
>> Do you think waiting list of 14 weeks or more are acceptable and do not
>> need fixing?
>>
>> www.driving-test-cancellations-4all.co.uk/driving-test-centre-waiting-times.htm
>>
It's 9 weeks around here.
|
>> Do you think waiting list of 14 weeks or more are acceptable and do not need fixing?
Yes, it needs fixing but by controlling the crowd at the border :o) Govt. rarely addresses root cause of a problem.
|
GC Norwich wrote -
"Yes there would still be costes but Driving schools already have the premises and administrative staff. The additional costs of booking driving tests would be fairly minimal as far as they are concerned The cost of the test already includes an element to cover the administrative costs and I am sure that the schools would be happy to charge the same or less than the current fee."
You're joking?
Most driving schools are one or two man bands and the nearest thing they have to an office or premises is a mobile phone and a diary in the car. Even the AA does not have local offices and if BSM still do I haven't seen one for years.
The theory test was privatised when I was still instructing and corruption was rife. DSA examiners were appalled when they saw how it was being run. Testing and instructing HAVE to be kept separate and the only way to ensure uniformity of standards is to have one independent testing body with all it's examiners subject to the same standards and level of supervision - and we already have that with the DSA who do a good job, for all their faults.
As Zero points out, the only way to make a profit from conducting driving tests is to have the fee set at a level which covers the cost and has a surplus on top.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Mon 31 Aug 15 at 18:14
|
>> Should we be consistent and nationalise MOT testing then? Would government testing centres be cheaper
>> or provide a better service?
>>
They already do it that way in NI.
|
>> They already do it that way in NI.
The advantage is that the tester has no incentive to find faults that need to be fixed. One reason that folks advocate using the local authority testing station where such facilities are available.
|
>>
>> >> They already do it that way in NI.
>>
>> The advantage is that the tester has no incentive to find faults that need to
>> be fixed. One reason that folks advocate using the local authority testing station where such
>> facilities are available.
>>
Yes here you've got an option, well some people anyway. I know someone who only uses the council depo for testing. I'm not sure if our council offers the service, it would be too far anyway for me to bother with.
|
>> Why?
Basically - you either set up competitive supply for testing, in which case you risk getting something like what happened with exam boards - a race to the bottom standard, and possibly suppliers promoting driving - which we don't need. Or, you dole out regional franchises and regulate it, so you lose any benefit of putting it out to the market.
The main 'advantage' of most privatisations is the competition to provide capital, which typically floods in - your funding problem has just gone away. At a price, that is. The lenders/investors are in it for the profit - so somebody ends up paying more; potentially a lot more - see PFI in its various guises, which are really no different to any of us financing a lifestyle we can't afford with debt. And it ends the same way, with the borrower being poorer than he would have been had he paid his way.
There's the familiar argument of course that the private sector is more efficient, or at least more effective, and that makes up for the cost of private profits. Sometimes that works - but it's hard to see how it would here, where the competitive market approach would be difficult to manage, and the regulated approach just ends up creating a cost-plus model.
I would say most privatisations have either failed, or have fixed some problems that could have been fixed without selling (or buying, as with the railways) them off.
|
>> I would say most privatisations have either failed, or have fixed some problems that could have been fixed without selling (or buying, as with the railways) them off.
Concur.
|
>>I would say most privatisations have either failed, or have fixed some problems that could have been fixed without selling (or buying, as with the railways) them off.>>
You've overlooked the fact that the private sector is the one that creates the wealth in the first place which, in turn, allows the Government to provide and fund the vital public sector services such as the NHS, fire and ambulance, police and many other necessary bodies.
Governments don't create wealth producing jobs nor does it have any money of its own other than that of taxpayers, raised through direct and indirect taxes - essentially also the same for local councils (in turn being given a large proportion of revenues by the Government).
|
>> You've overlooked the fact that the private sector is the one that creates the wealth
>> in the first place
You have no idea what I have or haven't overlooked.
|
|
Sorry Stuartli, that was a bit rude. No excuse.
|
>> Sorry Stuartli, that was a bit rude. No excuse.>>
Don't worry in the slightest about it. I've had far, far worse...:-) :-)
|
>>I would say most privatisations have either failed, or have fixed some problems that
>> could have been fixed without selling (or buying, as with the railways) them off.
First you would have to agree what was wrong that needed fixing.
The typical argument is about cost and efficiency. Typically privatisation will fix cost & efficiency. 'Course, there are rubbish privatisations, but that can be fixed too.
The trouble is, then everybody complains about problems which are not related to cost and efficiency; for example breadth of service.
A private company will not willingly run 10 buses a day to a village with a population of two people and a goat. Or give expensive cancer drugs to someone who is probably going to die. etc. etc. etc.
Do we want an efficient police force, or an effective one? Do we want a cheap health service or a caring one? Do we want an efficient driving test service, or do we want a highly attentive one?
>> There's the familiar argument of course that the private sector is more efficient, or at
>>least more effective
It can be both. "Effectiveness" is a judgement of performance against goals. For that, you will have to have actually decided what you want it to do and how you will judge/measure it. And 2% cheaper than last year is a dumb metric for a public service.
If one ignores economies of scale or geographic relocation of costs, it is essentially 40% more expensive to outsource something than it is to do it properly in house.
The huge issue is "doing it properly". Something which is beyond most public organisations.
|
Don't really disagree with any of that Mark.
Fact, or at least my opinion! remains that the driver for most privatisations and a lot of 'outsourcing' is that it saves capital.
Is your 40% cost figure for outsourcing the received wisdom? I'd be interested in how that typically breaks down - I'm involved in a review of a function at the moment which will be disrupted by a Head Office move, and may result in the loss of some knowledge and experience. Outsourcing is a possible response.
My instinct is that it will cost more, and at least in the short term reduce quality, but that is gut feel not reasoning or real insight at the moment.
|
>>Is your 40% cost figure for outsourcing the received wisdom?
Yes. although you will find the outsourcers will explain to you why that isn't true.
Essentially if a bloke to clean the floor costs you £500p.w. then he will cost the outsourcer £500p.w. If you need to manage him, then so do they.
But they want a profit margin.
Here is an IT example; (IT because its easily quantifiable/qualifiable).
A company asked my advice on outsourcing and this was the advice I gave them. Speak to your staff, tell them that for the next three months they will fill in timesheets with a granuality of 15 minutes allocating their activity to a series of codes that you have created (which will align with the scope of what you think you will outsource). Tell them that anybody who doesn't do it, or who lies, or who in anyway corrupts the figures will be instantly fired.
However, there is a code called "Damned busy, but what I was doing doesn't fit into an existing code" and that they are free to use it.
You will find that about 25% of their time will be booked to that code. That is 25% that you would have failed to outsource, which would represent the future cost savings of the supplier, or his increased revenue as you realised and had to pay extra to get it done.
I utterly detest bad outsourcing deals - which is most of them. however, good deals are possible.
Mistakes wot are made...
Specify the scope in absolute detail failing to remember that your business evolves over the years. When doing it yourself if you need less of skill a and more of skill b, you'll just recruit/train that way. Your outsourcer will regrettably inform you that whilst you have skill a idle, there's nothing he can do about that for three years, but by the way you need to pay him extra for skill b.
Your own employees grow with time. They become better at their jobs, branch out into other jobs, perhaps progress in your company. When they work for your supplier, then every time they get better and more experienced at their job they will be replaced by someone who is at the level you are paying for, while they are moved onto another account for a greater profit margin. You will be left with those who will not grow, who will no do anything other than follow their job description. Unless you pay more....
I could go on for days....
There are good reasons for doing outsourcing and there are good ways to do it, but this is a huge subject. In any case, protecting yourself against disruption from a move is most unlikely to be a good reason.
If you wish, send me an email, I will respond with another email address and I will offer whatever help I can. A freebie which may one day cost you a beer.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 31 Aug 15 at 01:13
|
Having worked as an IT outsourcer I can tell you how we make it pay*
Simply Its all about the scope.
Up front we and you will scope out the service you want. Note what you want and what you are currently getting are NOT the same. Woe betide you if you haven't scoped out properly what you think you are getting and what you want in the future, because we will have scoped out what you are currently getting and put a cost (to us) on it.
you and us, we agree the scope, and we sign it and you get stuck with it for 10 years.
We then strip out your fixed costs (equipment and services) because we already have them and will reduce them by employing our economy of scale. (in layman's terms we shoehorn it into what we already have) and present that to you as your cost saving. Along with your staff costs. We take your staff, and assure you that they will be well looked after under TUPE. They wont, there are many ways to manage them out, they and their cost (to us) will be gone inside two years max.
And suddenly you find that your staff were some of your best assets. They knew your business, they made it work, they were Marks invisible uncounted glue he referred to and they have gone. you didn't scope what they were doing, so we aint going to do it. Its a real bitch to get them back specially if you want to end the outsource service.
Ok the basic service is now outsourced, your directors think they have saved a fortune. Business changes (as it does) You want new services? you want to take advantage of new technology? you want extra capacity? you want less capacity? This is where you find out about the dreaded RFS
Its called a "Request for Service" Its so important to us that we have employed a specialist, called an RFS Manager"
In short its his job to put a cost on it, then a profit on it, then pass it to you. Here is the rub, If its not in scope, its going to cost you, and this is our growth engine.
The worse thing about IT outsourcing is however, that you suddenly find out that IT is not a commodity, it was in some way a core part of your business. And you have now lost the ability to leverage it or use it to change and grow your business. Now you are completely outsourced you held to hostage.
Chunks of IT are a commodity. Put them out to a managed service(s) on short term contracts (three years max) but keep a tight grip on your core data and infrastructure.
|
Thanks Mark. I wasn't thinking especially deeply last night.
The function I am thinking of is small scale, being a small department (4 or 5 FTE) of a large company, which is another dimension to the question. Quality and compliance are paramount and the cost is immaterial in the great scheme (provided nothing goes wrong, which nobody ever budgets for...) so the 40% question, while I am curious, probably isn't a big factor here, or shouldn't be.
|
>>Quality and compliance are paramount and the cost is immaterial in the great scheme
So there is no cost driver to outsourcing. If the question is then one of security of service it is more complex.
If the skill is generally available and main stream, then outsourcing may well give you the level of protection you require - in fact is probably a goood approach. However, pay close attention to the metrics, the SLA and in particular the basis for charge.
Also consider carefully not only the assurances of the supplier, but their actual strategy and process which will maintain that service if a resources leaves / dies / retires.
If the skill is not generally available and relies upon the experience and historic knowledge of the people currently working there, outsourcing is not likely to be a solution.
Pay them a ton of money and give yourselves 12 months to change the situation so that you can manage without them. Documentation, knowledge transfer, process simplification etc. etc.
They will leave one day, better they do it when you're ready for it than wait for them to catch you on the hop.
It is good, and my, my practice to remove / move / fire / let go seemingly irreplaceable people at the earliest opportunity for exactly that reason. Especially those that think they are.
|
>>Is your 40% cost figure for outsourcing the received wisdom
p.s. that isn't what I said;
I said outsourcing is 40% more expensive than doing it properly in-house.
You may not be doing it properly.
|
>> I would say most privatisations have either failed, or have fixed some problems that could
>> have been fixed without selling (or buying, as with the railways) them off.
I would disagree with that. There was a lot of state ownership of services and industry that should not have been in place and under private finance and management has either rightly gone, or flourished and improved.
However, logically, the drive to privatisation has to stop somewhere and the state has a duty to perform certain functions. We have reached that point. There is little or nothing left to privatise.
|
Privatisation, if looked at properly* was a good thing.
Lets take the railway. Hugely underinvested, no commercial focus, no planning for the future, lack of management control.
In short the service was poor, the prices were high, the future was bleak. The main problem was lack of the huge amount of money that was required to move a vital service into the next century.
After privatisation the service we get is VASTLY improved over what we had, by a huge margin. Ok you you could argue that the government hasn't saved any money and in truth they are probably spending as much as they used to, but they didn't have to fork out anything like the huge amount of investment to get us where we are now.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 31 Aug 15 at 08:14
|
Which is one of the justifications for outsourcing;
1) You cannot, or do not wish to, do it properly yourself.
Railways fell right into that category. As did British Airways and British Leyland.
|
>> Which is one of the justifications for outsourcing;
>>
What other reaons are there, if as you say it costs about 40% more? I note that you did say if done properly it was more expensive.
I remember when it was done at our place, we ended up doing all the work for the company that took over. At first we had quite a few consultants brought in, who seemed to use the UK's supply of post it notes on a daily basis. Then we had our own trained up in how to change, implimented all the changes, trained all their personnel up. Then it got moved to their place and everyone get re-employed elsewhere. It took about 3 years or so from the beginning to the end. Even from the beginning everyone could see which way the wind was blowing, denied at every meeting by the head sheds of course.
|
Wish to reduce manpower and costs but not damage your own reputation
The skills required for the change are not ones you will require in the future.
Wish to change shape or style of comapny for future sale or merger.
Wish to change the image or style of the company for strategic reasons.
Lack of understanding or competence in management to be able to understand outsourcing and believe it will be cost saving.
There's more, but its hard typing in a phon .
|
|
Cheers, I think it'd be the first and last reasons.
|
There are also decent reasons for outsourcing;
Skills availability;
There may well be skills that you need to have available, but don't need to use often. For example, a company need quite a range of IT skills, but perhaps only a few IT people.
There can be minority activities; a particular piece of maintenance for example.
These can be much cheaper, much higher quality, more effective and much more attractive to both employer and the employee as outsourced services.
No added value;
There are areas where the best you can do is to do it right. Any variance from that is wrong / worse.
e.g. Payroll (NOT HR). There are no add on services, there is no possibility to over perform. You get it right or you don't. That should be outsourced as it is a cost/efficiency exercise.
Fast change;
If you needs are changing quickly, then retraining, redundancy and recruitment, skills development and over staffing may be entirely impractical. Outsourcing to someone who has a far larger pool to draw from may make sense.
Protect your staff;
Your company may be failing, changing or for sale, it may be that you no longer need the skills your staff have, it may be that you can not offer some staff a career path;
They may be far better off, happier and therefore perform better in an OS environment.
Scope/Expenditure control;
It can be very difficult to control IT expenditure in an environment where all the Finance Director needs to do is insist that the IT group carry out a project. That's just a politicla battle and very difficult to manage.
Outsource that group, and now when the Finance Director wants a project he has to justify writing a check to an external supplier.
That tends to clamp down on projects very quickly.
Outsourcing forces people to write cheques for what they want. That tends to force limits where previously there was a lack of control.
Problem control;
People say that you cannot / should not outsource a problem. This is rubbish. Outsourcing can be a fine way of resolving an issue. What you cannot / should not do is outsource and unknown problem.
I could go an and on (can you tell?). The point is that outsourcing may or may not be a good thing. It depends on why you're doing it, what you expect to achieve out of it, the quality of your contract, metrics, and mutual benefit for you and the supplier.
Most people don't know what they want to achieve and don't know how to do it.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 31 Aug 15 at 13:02
|
Motoring reforms proposed by Government - No FM2R
