Today's acronyms become yesterday's anachronisms, buzzwords come and go ... and time marches on.
Meanwhile, technology changes, and the kit (growing in number, year on year) remains to be supported, and even
fixed.There remains only a relatively small number of what may even be (in the UK at least) a dwindling band of techs available (and dare I say, willing, capable and all the rest) to carry out such work.
Myself, I have always considered selling maintenance services into government hospitals in the UK a difficult "business model" (different rules may - and indeed,
do - apply in other parts of the world). The suits are always looking to save money, when what is often actually needed to reach a decent level of service are
more rather than less resources.
The bottom line is:- in-house is best (or, at least, should be) ... if it can be achieved.
Sometimes it can't, for any number of reasons (location, new builds, some sort of temporary or transitionary situation, failure to recruit,
etc., etc.). And that's when other methods may need to be employed (if only in the short term) in order to get the work done.
In my experience (in the UK) the "outsourced" model in general has met with some success only in what I would call "failing hospitals". That is, those who, for whatever reason*, have not been able to develop a decent crew in-house.
If anyone wants any more guidance on stuff like this ... feel free to get in touch!
*
Typically managerial incompetence.
