In-house programmers or outsourcing?

Question

Project management

How to evaluate the choice between in-house employees and outsourcing? What to consider? What are the risks in both cases?
It is necessary to refine and maintain websites and accounting software in the field.

Answer 1

Full-time programmers:
+ work in the long term (after development, there will be support from the same people)
+ sit in your office (communication in the team is easier and more)
- they need to pay a fixed salary (as a rule, for example, in St. Petersburg it will cost you from 50 ( junior) up to 150 (senior) thousand per month per person)
- you need to provide a workplace (desk, chair, computer, etc.)
- they rarely work more than a working day (although if you pay extra for processing, they will)
Outsourcing:
+ can devote more time to your project (as a rule), because he does not spend time on the road, etc., and also works on his own equipment and spends his own electricity
+ You pay only for the work done
+/- They build their own work schedule, here, on the one hand, they can work on weekends, at night, etc., on the other hand, they can arrange a day off for themselves, say on Wednesday
- After the project is completed, they will leave you, or subsequent support will cost separate money
- Team communications are remote, besides, if you do not immediately hire a ready-made team (which is more expensive), then the team will most likely not work well and will not strive for this.
Choose

Answer 2

Finding good "Outsourcers" is very difficult. This is usually very poor quality work.
(they work on the principle of doing something and getting more)
And for their poor-quality work done in the future, you will pay more, which will cover all the saved expenses.
Good full-time programmers will cost a lot, but it's better to have 5 good programmers than 10 bad ones.
If the volume of tasks is uneven (such as 1 month is a big load, and there is nothing special to do for 2 months).
It makes sense to keep a small number of full-time programmers and attract "Outsourcers", but on the principle that full-time programmers have full control over the work of outsourcers.

Answer 3

1. Regularity of work, scope of work.
Established ones are cheaper if there are constant volumes of work.
2. Qualification and complexity of work.
An outsourcer is easier to hire even if he is highly qualified.
Highly qualified full-time staff - this should be a really huge need and complex long-term tasks with appropriate budgets.
In 1990 - then yes, everyone kept their programmers and everyone sawed their software.
At the beginning of 2000, they kept their own admins, and sometimes programmers.
Outsourcing is now the norm.
They became smarter and began to count money.
A full-time programmer guarantees nothing.
It is difficult to keep a full-time programmer alone - he is professionally bored.
If the tasks allow / require to keep 3 or more qualified people, then staff members are already profitable.
Otherwise, you won't even be able to control them properly.

Answer 4

I have experience working with in-house and outsourcers in the company. There are gouges everywhere. It all depends on the person and how you build work processes (setting a task, controlling time resources, etc.). Therefore, my first advice is "Look what will be easier for you to control: remote or regular." In the end, we chose the "full-time remote employee" path. Since our products are complex and sometimes a month is not enough to enter into all processes. Here the advantages are that if you are in Moscow, then you can find a good competent colleague for a moderate salary. Plus, you don’t need to chew on the task or detailed technical specifications, the person in the subject and by the name of the ticket already understands 80% of all work. Yes, after 3-4 months we began to communicate with a remote employee practically only through the ticket system.

Answer 5

There cannot be a clear answer here. Lots of conditions.

Answer 6

From my experience of working both in outsourcing and in the state, I can say the following:
outsourcers can easily and suddenly dump from the project, often without saying a word
they can openly hack (write shitty code for example), since there are no managers / boss standing behind their backs
, they can work at night in a half-asleep state, since during the day the wife and children interfere with work
and much more. A good outsourcer is easy to find, but it will cost much more.
UPD: for the rest of the team, this means the following:
- solid and ubiquitous shit code
- lack of a single programming style
- long delving into the source code
In general, this is called a mess.

Answer 7

(c) There is such a profession - to sit at work.

Answer 8

If there are constant large volumes of work - staffers.
If there are separate works of increased complexity that staff members cannot handle - outsourcers, in addition to staff members.
If there are constant sharp jumps in the volume of work for a short time - outsourcers, in addition to full-time employees.
If the amount of work is small - outsourcers.
If the amount of work is for a single programmer, I do not recommend it. He will wither in loneliness. Both quality and speed will fall and there will be no one to check it. And if something happens to him, it will be very problematic to deal with him.

Answer 9

If your business is mostly non-IT, then outsourcing is certainly more profitable. As Milfgard said, the ability to pay when there is money and not pay when there is no money is very important for the survival of a business.
If this support of websites and accounting software is the main work of the company, then outsourcing is a bad idea.

Answer 10

If there is a lot of work, then a full-time one will be ten times cheaper than one who comes from time to time and disappears for weeks, it’s not clear who. If there is not enough work, then you can give it to outsourcers.

Answer 11

If the volume of work is large and regular, and approximately more or less qualifications are required, your own is more profitable.
If the work is episodic, outsourcing is beneficial.
If the work requires huge jumps in qualifications, a stranger is beneficial (feeding your own highly qualified every day, even when you could get by with a cheap employee, is very expensive).