There are several systems bearing the name Galileo (IT outsourcing) - these are satellite navigation and a ticket booking system, the same name is given to the NASA probe. This article will also discuss the modern computer for divers bearing this name.
Many consider the very appearance of such a device on the market as a revolution in diving. Today it is the only device in the world that meets European standards for working at depths of up to 330 meters.
Ever since the announcement, Galileo has become overgrown with rumors and myths. Often people did not even see the device in their eyes, however, based on the announcements, they breed a vigorous activity to identify shortcomings. Let's take a look at the main misconceptions about the Galileo dive computer.
Galileo only supports three nitrox blends, so it is useless for true tech divers. Recently, the services of outsourcing companies have become more and more popular. True, not everyone accepts the involvement of outside experts when it comes to such an important functionality.
When concluding an IT outsourcing contract, you should be as careful as possible. After all, here, too, in small print, details can be described that will turn out to be important. And the contractor may deliberately not include something in the contract. Such a document is generally the basis for quality service.
The advantage of IT outsourcing is precisely that all agreements are sealed by a contract, and not by oral wishes. And it is necessary to be guided in the issue of servicing the information infrastructure by facts, and not by widespread myths.
Your specialist will solve problems faster. This misconception is quite common in practice. And you can understand where it came from. Your specialist is always present nearby, you can quickly involve him in the work. In practice, this belief turns out to be a myth. A situation may occur when several failures occur at once. In this case, the staff member will not be able to deal with all of them at the same time, he will first pay attention to one thing. But an outsourcing company, at the expense of a large staff, can take on several tasks at once. And its employees themselves have a lot of experience, as they constantly carry out such work. It is easier for outsourcers to understand why the problem has arisen. They do not have to puzzle for several hours over the issues of its occurrence. Each employee is usually a specialist in one area and is unable to understand everything about everything. The situation is similar with IT professionals. Someone works with servers and networks, and someone is engaged in website promotion. This is what determines for any company, even with its own IT staff, the need to attract additional employees. They help you implement complex solutions or fix problems. A large outsourcer can even take over the provision of replacement equipment, which will have a positive effect on troubleshooting time and reduce downtime. But the above is only the visible part of the iceberg behind which direct losses are hidden. More is hidden from direct gaze. Any IT infrastructure, if it is not initially thought out, gradually becomes unmanageable and starts to slow down the entire business. Systems integrators usually have extensive experience in modernizing IT infrastructure to meet business needs. The outsourcer can even act as the initiator of such changes. There is a direct interest here - the better and more reliably the system works, the less time it takes involved employees to maintain it. It is quite obvious that it is impossible to implement such changes without specialists and consultants with many years of experience in solving just such problems.
It is more profitable to hire a visiting system administrator. From a technical point of view, the job of such a specialist is a simple "filling holes". The administrator, having appeared at the enterprise, will only solve the accumulated problems. But such a scheme will not lead to anything good. The infrastructure created using this approach will not be able to exist stably and will gradually begin to crumble. Scaling it turns into a laborious and expensive process. A specialist who knows everything about everything (but little by little) will not be able to provide the required level of reliability and fault tolerance. And from the financial point of view, such cooperation does not seem justified. An incoming employee can get sick, quit, or even simply disappear. And nothing can be done about it - the person is not on the staff, there is no contractual relationship with him that implies responsibility. It is beneficial that you do not have to pay for sick leave and vacations, but you will have to spend time looking for a replacement. Worse if the administrator quit with a scandal. Then you will have to restore access to the management of the IT infrastructure. If you start to cooperate with an outsourcer, then such a scenario is excluded. The contract will not let the contractor disappear, and the beauty of outsourcing is that he has a lot of technical specialists, and they may well duplicate each other.
You can always control your specialist. This myth is based on the same assumptions as the first. It seems that if an employee is constantly in the office, then it is easy to control him. He can quickly provide the required information and progress reports. But if you think more deeply about this issue, it becomes clear that everything is far from so obvious. On-staff IT professionals risk only a fraction of their salary if they perform poorly. Agreements are usually oral - few people develop and actually use job descriptions. Employees usually try to avoid paperwork. The relationship between employer and people is often based on informal agreements. But an agreement is concluded with an outsourcing company, where all responsibilities are clearly spelled out. Coordination of all points of this document makes it possible to make the activities of the service company understandable and easily controllable. In today's IT services market, providers are mistrustful, and word of mouth is becoming the best advertisement. This leads to the fact that it is easier for the outsourcer to meet the client halfway than to ruin the reputation and lose potential clients.
You cannot trust your information to strangers. It is not clear where this myth came from at all. We have already mentioned that a full-time employee only risks his salary or entry in the work book. But the outsourcer bears full responsibility, because he signed the contract. In addition, there are risks of deteriorating reputation. What channels can leak information through? The most common option is the employees of the company themselves. The leak can be based on a technical nature - a census of the 1C database on a flash drive, and mechanical - a manual census of financial data. If in the first case we can talk about some kind of protection from the IT side, then in the second it is no longer. Another leakage channel is hacking. The third is the accidental or deliberate destruction of data by an employee of the company itself, although this is not entirely a leak, but something else. If the IT worker will be on the staff, then all the risks belong to the company itself. But in the case of cooperation with an outsourcer, they will be transferred to the contractor. When concluding a contract for IT services, the company undertakes to protect against hacking or technical theft of information, bearing full responsibility for this range of work. All that remains is to worry about the reliability of the recruited staff members, who will not photograph or rewrite sensitive data.
IT outsourcing is expensive. This myth can be debunked with simple calculations. Even if we assume that the payment for the services of a third-party office will be comparable to the salary of a system administrator, it is worth considering that you will not have to pay for vacation, sick leave, organize a separate workplace, or pay for communications. The company will not have to think about improving the qualifications of a specialist, about his training. But it is possible spending due to absenteeism, looking for a replacement, conducting interviews. It turns out that spending on an outsourcer will be half as much as on an employee. The benefits are obvious!
Outsourcers are usually young people who have created a legal entity to cover their activities. On the one hand, it is obvious that most of the specialists in this area are really young, especially against the background of most modern leaders. But after all, in the state, most of the IT specialists will also be young, only without that very legal entity. And any company usually goes through a stage when only a couple of young or not very specialists work in it. And what is wrong with a company that has few staff? In practice, there is nothing critical about this. Several people were able to organize, open a legal entity, create a website describing their services, manage their time and prefer to work creatively and not waste time on someone else's. Isn't this set of qualities the best characteristic? Is there any confidence that a full-time specialist would be able to behave in the same organized manner?
IT services are unnecessary when things are already working. This is a pretty dangerous myth. The fact that the infrastructure is working does not mean that it has no problems. Even in humans, most diseases are asymptomatic, so delay will result in increased difficulties. The situation is similar in IT. The longer everything works and does not break, the worse the consequences will be in the event of an accident. It must also be understood that the mere fact of a functioning information structure does not mean its optimal operation. It is impossible to customize it, since everything is left to chance. You have to understand that the best treatment is prevention.
There is no need to change anything if everything works fine anyway. If everything is really “normal”, then something should be changed at least for the sake of making everything “good” or “excellent”! This myth is rooted in conservative leaders who were still tempered by the Soviet Union. This view of IT outsourcing services speaks to a lack of awareness of the importance of information structure. Involving outside professionals will optimize many processes and reduce financial costs. And this approach is valid regardless of the type of company, be it a Soviet-style state enterprise or a modern office.
Enterprises will become dependent on an outsourcer. Is this addiction the worst? The business depends on electricity, water, mail and the Internet. But the dependence on a full-time specialist is several times higher. Does the director know a lot about the IT infrastructure of his enterprise? How often does a full-time specialist tell others about its features and purpose. He does not always sign the job description at all, and is there a requirement to provide the management with all the necessary documentation for the work, is the transfer of passwords and credentials stipulated? Will the organization be able to work if this employee for some reason does not come to work? But from an IT outsourcer it is possible and necessary to require in the contract the transfer of all data about the infrastructure of the enterprise. And there is no longer any dependence here. The contractor is bound by the contract and cannot ignore such a requirement.
The outsourcing company is not responsible. And what is the responsibility of the same in-house specialist, the head of the IT department or his employees? Could his salary suffer? Work book spoil? And what if the specialists worked unofficially? But the responsibility of the outsourcer is spelled out in the contract signed by both parties. The customer himself chooses what responsibility and for what his contractor should bear. And what compensation will the company receive if the server breaks on the eve of the project delivery? Would dismissing a black-marked administrator fix the situation? But in this case, the outsourcer can be held liable and claim for damages.
For a small company, IT outsourcing is not needed. This myth suggests that people do not know anything about the current state of the information structure of their enterprise and about its capabilities. With the help of such a versatile tool, you can perfectly optimize many business processes. It would be a mistake to demand from the IT specialist that "everything just works." The system can not only function in the background, but also work for people. The difference between outsourcing for small companies is that in this case there is a reduction in costs. In the case of large enterprises, we are talking about optimizing many business processes and monitoring the work of hundreds of employees. There is also an unobvious threat in this myth. Any IT infrastructure, even if left on its own, will grow with the business. Over time, it will become one big and intractable problem. Then you will have to invest so much money in it that it will block all the funds once saved on outsourcing.