Outsourcing is seen as a panacea because it is believed you can offload worrying about the details. All too often this means the outsourcing process itself is handed over to people who don't (or don't want to) know the details. Hence we get fiascos like this.
The result is we are likely to have an Olympics with an overt military presence. Still this should make a lot of overseas visitors feel at home.
Oh, and the New Statesman is explicitly left wing in its politics, I guess for many Americans this may be the first time they have been exposed to left wing opinions as distinct from the Republican Party definition of left wing which seems to be "less right wing than I am".
> Outsourcing is seen as a panacea because it is believed you can offload worrying about the details. All too often this means the outsourcing process itself is handed over to people who don't (or don't want to) know the details. Hence we get fiascos like this.
You're absolutely correct, but it does not follow from instances such as this that outsourcing is itself the root of all evil, as this author would have us believe.
Furthermore, the case in question is hardly an example of poorly managed outsourcing. G4S were, by all accounts, the most suitable firm for the Olympics security contract. That said, it is a largely unprecedented event, and not unsurprisingly they underestimated the task, and couldn't get enough staff trained in time.
Taxpayers don't stand to lose out as a result of this. G4S are to blame, and G4S will have to eat the cost of sorting the matter out; taking a loss of up to £50m on the contract, it has been reported.
> The result is we are likely to have an Olympics with an overt military presence. Still this should make a lot of overseas visitors feel at home.
13,500 military personnel were already scheduled to provide security for the Olympics, and the government has only committed an additional 3,500 in response to the G4S revelations.
> Furthermore, the case in question is hardly an example of poorly managed outsourcing. G4S were, by all accounts, the most suitable firm for the Olympics security contract. That said, it is a largely unprecedented event, and not unsurprisingly they underestimated the task, and couldn't get enough staff trained in time.
Yes, it's not as though this event happens every 4 years...
In fact, G4S managed to spectacularly mess up the security of the recent Jubilee celebrations, as was widely reported. When you add that to the utter mismanagement or the (despicable) asylum detention centres, and on and on... they're as qualified to provide services in the same way Capita are qualified to provide IT consultancy.
But on the poorly managed part, Teresa May claimed the contract was routinely monitored. and yet this is still a surprise to her, 3 weeks from the start of the event!
Comments
Outsourcing is seen as a panacea because it is believed you can offload worrying about the details. All too often this means the outsourcing process itself is handed over to people who don't (or don't want to) know the details. Hence we get fiascos like this.
The result is we are likely to have an Olympics with an overt military presence. Still this should make a lot of overseas visitors feel at home.
Oh, and the New Statesman is explicitly left wing in its politics, I guess for many Americans this may be the first time they have been exposed to left wing opinions as distinct from the Republican Party definition of left wing which seems to be "less right wing than I am".
> Outsourcing is seen as a panacea because it is believed you can offload worrying about the details. All too often this means the outsourcing process itself is handed over to people who don't (or don't want to) know the details. Hence we get fiascos like this.
You're absolutely correct, but it does not follow from instances such as this that outsourcing is itself the root of all evil, as this author would have us believe.
Furthermore, the case in question is hardly an example of poorly managed outsourcing. G4S were, by all accounts, the most suitable firm for the Olympics security contract. That said, it is a largely unprecedented event, and not unsurprisingly they underestimated the task, and couldn't get enough staff trained in time.
Taxpayers don't stand to lose out as a result of this. G4S are to blame, and G4S will have to eat the cost of sorting the matter out; taking a loss of up to £50m on the contract, it has been reported.
> The result is we are likely to have an Olympics with an overt military presence. Still this should make a lot of overseas visitors feel at home.
13,500 military personnel were already scheduled to provide security for the Olympics, and the government has only committed an additional 3,500 in response to the G4S revelations.
> Furthermore, the case in question is hardly an example of poorly managed outsourcing. G4S were, by all accounts, the most suitable firm for the Olympics security contract. That said, it is a largely unprecedented event, and not unsurprisingly they underestimated the task, and couldn't get enough staff trained in time.
Yes, it's not as though this event happens every 4 years...
In fact, G4S managed to spectacularly mess up the security of the recent Jubilee celebrations, as was widely reported. When you add that to the utter mismanagement or the (despicable) asylum detention centres, and on and on... they're as qualified to provide services in the same way Capita are qualified to provide IT consultancy.
But on the poorly managed part, Teresa May claimed the contract was routinely monitored. and yet this is still a surprise to her, 3 weeks from the start of the event!