There is a lot of resistance, universally it seems, to the concept that outsourcing is different to in-house development/administration. It doesn't even seem like its a knowledge issue, but rather willful ignorance. Cost, convenience, and less likelihood to be blame for faults is more important than security and control.

To take one example, only government entity that I know that don't outsource email would be the military, and even there I doubt the in-house use is 100%.

It's darwinian; if you don't deliver the savings you are out. One solution would be rigorous research that demonstrated that insourced onshore operations were more effective and cheaper in the long run. But no such research exists, is that because it's hard to do or is it because the result is that offshoring and outsourcing is cheaper and as good?

no its because vested interests want to prove that outsourcing is all rainbows and unicorns.

Ronald Coarse won a Nobel Prize for his work on transaction costs, and how those (usually hidden) costs should be considered when companies externalize business functions.

Coase’s writings and teachings lead directly to the idea of accounting for all costs in any business or outsourcing endeavor, or “Total Cost of Ownership.”

That's just an example of "vested interests" proving that outsourcing is not all rainbows and unicorns.

One thing I've noted is the budget and effort that outsourcers put into killing corporate IT. Not only in the frank effort (as in one outsourcer ringing my CEO and telling him that I was "a problem" luckily my CEO thought this was hugely funny) but also more with more subtlety - sponsoring research that is aimed at undermining incumbent IT. For example, cost metrics derived from peer studies that show that everyone is spending too much - there's money on the table to be had. This generates a cycle of cutting, internal and then when the money is not delivered in full consultants are brought in to "help access the value".

In house has no budget for this, we rely on the public space and academia for validation and fair insight. It's telling that Coarse was active from the 30's to the 70's as was J.K. Galbraith who wrote about the technostructure. Managerial capitalism has been slaughtered, bits of it are flopping around weakly. It seems to me that the neo-liberal replacement has helped billions out of poverty in China, India, Indonesia and so on, but this is an unstable situation. It's not clear that the greater good can continue to be served if the economies of the west cannot be reconstructed to provide far larger numbers of stable, interesting and reasonably well paying jobs. Neo-liberalism has failed in that sense and seems not to have anything to say about it apart from "tough, you lot had it too good for too long and now you have to be as rich or poor as people in India and China." Which implies dictatorship.

There's a really good breakdown of the Swedish Security Service's (Säpo) report on this case in Swedish, written by a knowledgeable journalist. It's fairly ok in English through Google translate. http://www.breakit.se/artikel/8326/jag-laste-sapos-gransknin...

Our leaders have no incentives to solve these problems. Most of the leadership class today get to their positions not by trying to address any such problems. The skills they pick up along the way have nothing to do with what's reqd in these cases.

Funny thing about that article is that they're themselves using google analytics