I sat down to lambaste what I view as the outsourcing of thought by management teams, but then I got to thinking about NIHS (Not Invented Here Syndrome) in some organizations, and the (often concurrent) complete outsourcing of thought to consultants and hype mongers.

Where is the balance of internal capability and external expertise?

I think the scales get tipped one way or another by motivation. I’ve been brought onboard for two broad categories of needs. I don’t have names for these two groups, other than to say there are two of them.

Type 1 #

• Temporarily fill capability gaps (development, security, infrastructure)
• Provide an unbiased opinion (is our approach viable?)
• Boost horsepower (new products and markets)
• Train and mentor
• App Rationalization (we have all these systems, they overlap in some places but fail to integrate in others)

Type 2 #

• Provide plausible deniability (the consultants told us to do this thing we were probably going to do anyways)
• Win arguments (appeals to authority)
• Compliance or regulatory requirements (ISO 9001, SOC 2 Type 2, privacy laws, HIPAA)
• Boost horsepower (tech debt logjams)
• Keep the ship afloat (SRE, SysOps, Duct Tape)
• Implement a hyped technology for marketing or shareholders (crypto, AI)
• Fix outsourcing disasters (we found a company that would provide us developers for $40/hour, but communication has been bad and the system is faulty)

There is perhaps a third type on this axis, where the goal is to exhaust the current fiscal period’s budget so it doesn’t get slashed at the next review cycle. These are a crap shoot and a comical bureaucratic necessity.

I am trying to not apply normative judgment two these two categories, I’m not even claiming that they’re dimensionally the same (they are not - there are tons of dimensions these things could be judged by).

What I do know is that Type 1 engagements are characterized by forward-thinking and open-mindedness. They are initiated by a management which is engaged and expanding. Positive outcomes propel the organization forward.

Type 2 engagements are characterized by a hurriedness. Management is involved only insofar as they want to know when the battle has been won or the problem has been solved. They are reactive, and everyone involved would prefer to not be involved.