With all the debate about the merits of offshoring and the politics that go with it, few IT managers will stand on a soapbox and declare its benefits. But Baker and McKenzie's Martin Telfer is one such soul.
I interviewed Martin recently at length for a story on Baker and McKenzie's offshoring to Manila. While that example may not be 100 percent relevant to your organisation -- they own the centre -- Martin is a firm believer in the savings and efficiency that can be enjoyed from Manila.
Yet he's not so parochial that he can't see the other side of the coin. While Baker and McKenzie obviously has a big commitment to insourcing, Martin made some very valid points on the pros of outsourcing.
A common fear raised against outsourcing is the loss of control over your IT infrastructure. For some, this constitutes a big security risk.
But Martin argues: "What's so safe about being insourced anyway? You've probably got a better, tighter contractual agreement with your vendors than you have with your employees.
"Most employees can stick in their notice, use up their leave, and 10 days later, they're gone… So which is safer in the long run?"
Do you agree Martin makes a good point? Or have you had experiences that suggest otherwise?