cost claims and the law...

Been a long time since last post.  It's been a busy period since the start of 2011.

Mostly because we are in a period of turmoil when apparently every man and his dog is trying to get into our site for "outsourcing".  Even though that is most definitely not what we are doing.  But never let reality interfere with a good dose of marketing...

We've seen a lot of "cloud computing" and SaaS offers.  But also extended to services.

The funny thing of course is when we actually see the prices being proposed, it quickly becomes clear that the whole SaaS and cloud thing is nothing more nothing less than a complete rip-off, proposed and promoted by folks who haven't got a clue what IT is all about.

I'm quite sure I'm an "original", but when the entire SaaS replacement for one of our applications costs per year twice to three times what we currently pay in combined maintenance and support fees, someone has to do a lot of explaining as to *exactly where* is the ROI coming from?

But we already knew this was going to be the case. 

And claims along the lines of "outsource the expensive dbas" do little to reassure anyone that these people know what they are talking about.  If nothing else because the so-called "expensive" dbas are a tiny fraction of the total costs AND are shared by ALL applications.

But more on that right now.

You see, for the last umpteen years we have been hearing the IT pundits claiming how expensive it is to hire personnel. 

Then we check what the service providers and hiring agencies are charging for their contract services - around $1500/day for a reasonably capable professional. 

And we check how much are the hiring agencies paying for a person of the same calibre - around $500/day.

Call me a mathematical genius if you like, but I can see a discrepancy there of nearly $1000/day.  Where is all that moolah going to? 

 Ah yes: the "hidden costs" you say?  Let me enlighten you about those. 

Around three weeks ago a seminal court case in NSW was won by the contractor.  Who happened to be nailed by a hiring agency for going direct with a client.   Apparently, there was a clause in the contract that claimed this was illegal.

It turns out - after 2 years in court! - that not only is it perfectly legal for a contractor to go direct, but also ALL exclusivity clauses in hiring agency contracts are completely illegal, invalid and unenforceable, as of the end of that court case.

And one of the more convincing arguments  in favour of the contractor was that it was her who negotiated the last two renewals: the hiring agency simply rubber-stamped them while continuing to charge the huge margins.

"hidden costs", eh? 

More like TOTAL RIP-OFF, in plain old English...

I'll bet there will be a lot of noses out of joint over that one!  But I predict the days of $1000/day mark-up by hiring companies will soon be gone. 

Of course: in the process we'll be treated to another bout of offshoring at $200/day.

But anyone buying into that sort of deal better be aware of the old adage:

"you pay peanuts, you get..."!

Anyways, enough of the politics of IT in this state.  It's really not worth wasting any time on, for its sheer stupidity.

This showed up recently near our local coffee shop:

Yikes!    :)

And for those who watched the movie, this was recently at the Australian Museum:


Catchyalata, folks!