While I can't speak to the exact circumstances, IBM when it takes over operations often hires the IT staff of the firm it is taking over operations from and runs systems on multiple-year contracts.
At any rate, I believe few would contest that IBM in general is a more reliable vendor than Tata, other Indian suppliers or say, offices in Poland.
It's pretty funny how in this thread IBM is conflated with decent quality IT outsourcing and Poland with poor quality, while IBM's outsourcing is done out of Poland (among other countries).
IBM has the resources and infrastructure others firms don't have. It can afford to pay higher rates for the top IT people and it has the software and management and the backup in the US to ensure that projects are performed properly.
But as a rule, Poland, India, ...other cheaper locales don't offer the quality of the US, Israel, ....look to the places where the world's top software/computer chip design/hardware is being designed and built. There is a correlation.
For example, Israel has a population of only 8 million yet creates more original software and startups (purchased by developed nations) than all of India. India buys hi-tech military technology from Israel (and the US).
If you're going to down vote, please state the reason. The truth is that tiny Israel has more high tech software/hardware than any other nation except the US. There is definitely a difference in software quality.
> IBM when it takes over operations often hires the IT staff of the firm it is taking over operations from and runs systems on multiple-year contracts.
And typically has them laid off in 3 - 5 years and replaced by IBM offshore resources or subcontractors.
How can they do that and save the client money at the same time?
Because the staff they transferred over are used to train cheaper replacements then laid off after 2 years. That is the plan all along, tho' the staff will never be told it upfront.
And presumably short term too, so even if they did hire the whole hierarchy, if they replace it with one having a quarter of the cost in a couple of years then they profit long term?
> IBM when it takes over operations often hires the IT staff of the firm it is taking over operations from and runs systems on multiple-year contracts.
I've seen this happen many times and it's always been successful. They can replicate the business processes they've honed over time whilst keeping that important business knowledge. It's also often better for the staff as they can hand off that knowledge and move internally within IBM to new and more challenging roles without switching employers.
I've seen this happen too. But people who wanted to work for company X for whatever reason, not for IBM (or whoever).
Now they work for IBM, and all the things they did above-and-beyond their job description are now billable. Now their incentive isn't to help company X that they wanted to work for, but to screw company X for every nickel-and-dime because that's where their new employer's revenue comes from. And they know all the skeletons in the closet and all the pain points.
Stab good people in the back and you make powerful enemies, the managers of all the company X's out there never learn this lesson.
Interesting. In IT circles IBM is generally regarded as "worst of class", due to continual waves of firing competent employees, outsourcing, and many other dodgy practises. A recent example (there are many, many more):
At any rate, I believe few would contest that IBM in general is a more reliable vendor than Tata, other Indian suppliers or say, offices in Poland.
EDIT: Details on IBM and Australian census. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-25/turning-router-off-and...