Actually the article states that it is cheap and does not address any other aspects. My point was that it could be viewed as biased and it is a disservice to due diligence. You infered the rest. It is obviously an elephant that countless businesses fail to see because the failed project still stream in day by day.
It sounds like you're wanting to the article to stray from the original content and either enter into an anti-outsource rant or ignore an elephant that everyone knows is in the room.