Working for outsourcer vs being in-house IT

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Have any of you worked for both at different times, and would be willing to describe the contrast between working for an outsourcer and working as in-house IT?

I have put my CV out there, and getting a couple of calls from reqruiters, primarily because of the VCP and CCA, although they are interseted in my MS certs too. A lot of the roles are for outsourcing companies.

Much appreciated.

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

I have worked for a 'Managed Service' Provider before, and have to admit that I found it hard at times to cope with the politics of the position I was in.

I would often find that the advice I was offering the 'client', whom I worked with side by side daily, was in conflict to the advice I was 'recommended' to offer by my employer.

Having said the above though, it would depend massively on the outsourced role. My role was to manage the system and advise the customer how to develop it, not to simply manage a fully provisioned solution.

HTH.

 

I've worked for both, currently working for an outsourcing company about to change rolls to working back internally.

There are positives and negatives for both but this is what I have found.

1. Outsourcing companies: Alot of process and RFC's to follow. Defined SLA's and change control. This is great because it will often convert your back incase of any issues. You also tend to pick up alot of experience quicker when you do this type of role, mainly due to working with different networks / servers on a day to day basis so there are alot more variables. This can be quite stressful and confusing at times, however you do gain alot of experience with different products.

2. Internal: This for me is the nicest position to be in, you understand your own internal network and what products go where. You also get to become an expert at your products whether it be Cisco / Microsoft / Linux or whatever you do, since you are working with something constant you tend to get good at it quicker. I suppose the downside is you don't get to use products that your organisation does not own. Limiting your skills and experience to what you have internally.

Hope this clarifies. Both positions are work going for, try them and see which one suits you best.

 

I think it is best to work with outsourcer Because you have much learning in that and also you have many opportunities to get started your own business.Because you have a lot of experience with that.But you can't get proper benefits that are given to the employee that are working in any IT house.

 

You have to be careful in the definition of outsourcer and in-house, as outsourced is not always remotely sat in an office working on many different contracts and technologies.

I work for an outsource company, but I work in the office of the company. I previously worked for the same company but was Tupe'd across, but as a result I now work for an outsource company but still only have work related to the same technologies and environment that I was already working on.

Whether it's outsource or in house is irrelevant in my opinion. Any job you will come across new technologies, and indeed you should investigate new technologies, maybe you can suggest them to a company as service improvements and cost savings etc, there is nothing stopping you still working with and using new technologies either way.

 

A jobs a job at the end of the day, I don't see this type of work being really any different to a contractor working for a company via his own limited company (to all intents and purposes the contractor is the outsourcer).

 

My first job was as a field engineer for an "outsourcer", then I spent 10 years in "in house" IT for various companies and have recently moved back to an "outsourcer" or Managed Service Provider rather... I'm in server support / consultancy so have to fix stuff when it's broken, install new stuff and I'm getting out and about with customers more often now on project work.

I'd say that working for "in house" IT for a company is probably easier because you get to know the systems, know the people, know the common issues, etc. I wanted to get out of my internal IT job because I'd just finished 2.5 years or upgrades of everything and feared it would soon become boring. What's for definate is that working for a managed services provider in support and consultancy is never boring and you'll learn a lot more in a short space of time.