Why DIY?
Outsourcing makes many people shudder. But can we really explain why it’s so bad?
In the latest Cites & Insights, Walt Crawford points to a post about measuring staff time at The Other Librarian. In the post, Ryan Deschamps argues that just measuring the staff time it would take to complete a project in-house is not relevant. The only relevant measure is the time the staff person would be away from other valuable projects. In other words:
If you’d be taking that staff person away from a really valuable project, then I’d say you are justified in outsourcing. If that staff is just twiddling his or her thumbs then you are losing lots.
Deschamps brings up other issues too, such as the knowledge gained by doing work in-house, and the usability and maintainability of the system.
So, outsourcing is not inherently bad, but I think in many cases libraries turn to outsourcing without evaluating the true costs and benefits.
Of course, some things are just better done locally. Pasadena Now has been making headlines by outsourcing coverage of local meetings to journalists in India. This might seem to make financial sense, but I think it makes very little common sense to me. (Then again, it might not make financial sense either. I’ve known a lot of local newspaper correspondents, and they weren’t always making any more than the Indian journalists mentioned in the article.)
