Business English Outsourcing

Outsourcing – A Daft Idea?

I have never been a big fan of all the Outsourcing fashion that came into vogue around 2000-01 with untold savings promised by getting non-core-parts of a company’s business managed and conducted by outside personnel and structures.

Now I am starting to think there is something potentially quite daft about the whole idea. Let’s say there are three types of Outsourcing:

(a) One-to-many: for example the relationship between a company and courier services;

(b) Many-to-one: for example all the clients of news- and data-gathering enterprises such as Reuters;

(c) One-to-one: the modern way of Outsourcing, when for example part or the whole of the IT functions are managed by a single external company.

Now, in case (a) the client has the upper hand, as it can shift business from one courier company to another in an instant and for whatever reason. Service has to be pretty good to prevent that.

Also in case (b) the clients are reasonably safe: even if costs can go high in a situation of quasi-monopoly, any problem on the Reuters or Bloomberg side would cause a massive uproar. Once again, service has to be as good as needed.

Unfortunately, that does not necessarily happen in case (c): the external company, in fact, does know its contract is large and complex and it covers many aspects without which the outsourcing company’s business will fail. And the latter has to invest much money and time just to start the process, whilst exiting from the contract is almost just as expensive and long an endeavour.

The end result then is that in (c) it’s the service provider that obtains the power to make expensive decisions for its client, for example justifying an incredibly complex hardware or data processing arrangement on the basis of unverified risk scenarios.


Of course nothing is fixed, nothing is preordained. The opposite strategy may in fact be just as bad, when Insourcing means creating a self-sustaining internal apparatus of un-necessary costs and complexity, also called “the IT Department”.

Still it would be great news the day when companies, especially the largest ones including the public sector, will consider the downsides properly and protect themselves (i.e., their shareholders’ interests) against being taken advantage of by their Outsourcing Partner

Perhaps it is time for a new business field: independent outsourcing auditors.

Cambiamento Climatico Catastrofismo Clima Italiano Riscaldamento Globale Scienza

La Parola Fine Al “Consenso Climatico IPCC”

Il Dr. John Everett:

  • Ha lavorato nell’IPCC (l’organismo internazionale dell’ONU che si occupa di cambiamento climatico) dal 1988 al 2000 come Lead Author e Co-Chair
  • E’ stato premiato dall’istituto americano NOAA nel 1996 per il suo lavoro su cambiamenti climatici e pesci
  • E’ attualmente “Reviewer” per l’IPCC
  • Non ha mai ricevuto fondi dall’industria petrolifera
  • Pubblica le sue analisi al sito

Ebbene, costui che non so con quale coraggio potrebbe mai essere tacciato di “negazionismo“, ha parlato molto chiaramente di fronte a una commissione parlamentare della Camera dei Rappresentanti USA il 17 Aprile scorso (links ed estratti in inglese riportati in calce).

Per chi non volesse perdere tempo: sul sito “Climate Change Facts” il Dr. Everett ha un paragrafo intitolato: “The Present and Projected Increases Are Not Huge” vale a dire “Gli Aumenti di Temperatura Presenti e Previsti Non Sono Grandi” e scrive delle parole di saggezza molto pratica:

We should respond prudently to the threats from climate change. These actions should include things that make sense in their own right and which will be important whether the Earth warms or cools in the near future

Dovremmo rispondere prudentemente alle minacce da cambiamento climatico. Queste azioni dovrebbero includere cose che sono sensate di per se’ e che saranno importanti sia che la Terra si riscaldi, sia che si raffreddi nel prossimo futuro“.

E meno male che erano solo Lindzen, Pielke Sr., Chrichton e altri quattro stupidi me incluso, gli unici rimasti a non idolatrare l’IPCC…


I have some concerns about some few species near the margins of their suitable habitat range, such as polar bears. But I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even further warming, than the next ice age that will bring temperatures much colder than even today.

Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing. No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more. Whichever it is, our actions should be prudent.

The one degree F. rise since 1860 is virtually noise in this rapidly changing system. Sea level has been inexorably rising since the last glaciation lost its grip a mere 10,000 years ago.

Most people agree that there has been a warming of 1 degree Fahrenheit in the instrumental record of 150 years. Those in the “IPCC-oriented consensus” believe it is due to mankind’s increased CO2 and other gas emissions […] Scientists in the “other consensus” believe that, even if the 1 degree change is accurate (and is not just “noise”), the CO2 rise can, at most, explain a piece of the temperature rise