An ex boss of mine who wrote a (the?) book on how to outsource always said
you don't outsource to save money, you outsource to add value.

Repeat after me: you don't outsource to save money, you outsource to add
value.

Say it again. To top management. At least once a week. Forever.

So you have to look at what the outsourcer can do that you can't. The most
obvious one is expertise - they are probably doing something all day every
day that you have to squeeze in amongst all the other things that eat into
your time. In my ex boss' case, the result was a total IT outsourcing
contract that said (not on these words) 'we expect you to advise us on ways
to save money. That may mean we spend less on you (the outsourcer), so here
is a bonus structure to compensate you for reducing your own income'.
Win-win.

Quite how this translates into ECM I've never had to explore, but if you get
the philosophy / strategy right the rest will follow.

My only other comment now is that I see the outsourcing scene changing
significantly over the last year, with organisations now looking much more
to outsource specific components or functions rather than going for total
outsourcing. So there may be aspects of ECM that you'd be better off keeping
in house, and others that you benefit from outsourcing.

Cheers

Glenn

Glenn Sanders MRMA
listservs: [log in to unmask]
work: [log in to unmask]
Australia

These views are mine alone. They may or may not be those of any
previous or present employers or clients. I don't know. If I'd asked
and they'd agreed, I would have signed it "Harry Peck and Co and
Glenn". Or whatever. But I haven't, so I didn't.

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance