Which Operating Model Is Right?

The choice between managed services and in-house IT is rarely all or nothing. The better question is which skills the organisation should own, where external expertise can speed up delivery and how the operating model supports growth, resilience and customer outcomes.

The wrong question is:

Should we outsource IT?

For most organisations, especially those running large transformation programmes, the answer is not a simple yes or no.

Some skills should remain under internal control. Others may be better delivered with external specialists. Some may only be needed for a short time. Others may become part of a long-term managed service.

The real decision is:

Which skills do we need to own, which should we support with external help, and which results can an external provider deliver more effectively?

That is a more useful way to think about the IT operating model.

Why external managed services can make sense

The strongest case for external services is not simply lower cost. During a transformation, the bigger benefits are often speed, specialist skills and flexibility.

A major programme may suddenly need expertise across architecture, integration, cloud platforms, data, DevOps, testing, migration and support. Building all of this internally can take months. In some cases, it may not make financial sense to build it at all.

A specialist provider can add skills quickly, then reduce its support as the programme moves into business-as-usual operations. This is useful when demand is temporary or changes over time.

An organisation may need 20 specialists during migration and integration, but only a small team once the new environment is stable. External support allows the organisation to scale for the programme without carrying the full cost forever.

Deloitte’s Global Outsourcing Survey provides useful context. It shows that outsourcing decisions are no longer driven only by cost. Access to talent, agility and specialist skills are also important. It also shows that organisations often move between internal and external delivery instead of choosing one model permanently.

External capability can protect transformation capacity

Internal teams often face a difficult conflict. They are expected to keep existing services running while also delivering major change. This creates competition for the same people.

The people who understand the current environment best are often the same people needed to design the future one. BAU incidents, daily priorities and regulatory deadlines usually come first.

As a result, transformation becomes a second job. This is one of the strongest reasons to use external support. External specialists can provide dedicated delivery capacity while internal teams continue to support the business.

A managed service can also take on selected operational tasks, giving internal teams more time to focus on change. For larger programmes, this can improve time-to-value.

Where external providers add the most value

External services tend to make the most sense when:

  • the skill is specialist and difficult to recruit;
  • demand is temporary or linked to a project;
  • speed matters to the business;
  • the organisation needs more capacity than it can build quickly;
  • external providers have stronger technical knowledge or proven delivery methods;
  • operational support needs to cover more skills or hours than an internal team can provide;
  • the organisation wants to speed up delivery without increasing permanent headcount.

The key point is that external support should solve a clear business problem. It should not be introduced simply because “outsourcing is cheaper”.

The risks of external managed services

External services also create risks. The first is dependency.

If a supplier designs the architecture, builds the platform, runs it and remains the only organisation that understands it, the customer has created a problem. That is not strategic outsourcing. It is lock-in.

A strong model should include:

  • clear documentation;
  • knowledge transfer;
  • internal ownership;
  • agreed exit plans;
  • access to key documents, code and intellectual property;
  • clear information about subcontractors and other dependencies.

The NCSC guidance on choosing a Managed Service Provider highlights the need to understand provider responsibilities, security, supply chains, incident handling and recovery.

Another risk is the loss of business knowledge. Internal teams understand why systems work the way they do. They know which processes are fragile, which customers are affected when something fails and which workaround keeps an important service running.

External providers do not arrive with that knowledge. They have to build it over time.

That is why the best external relationships are usually collaborative, not purely transactional.

You can outsource delivery. You cannot outsource accountability.

This distinction matters, especially for critical services.

A supplier can operate technology. It can manage integrations, run environments and support releases.

But the organisation remains responsible for the business result.

This is especially clear in regulated sectors. The FCA’s guidance on outsourcing and operational resilience states that firms remain responsible for risks linked to outsourced and third-party services. The same principle applies beyond financial services.

External delivery does not remove the need for internal ownership of:

  • technology strategy;
  • architecture principles;
  • data ownership;
  • risk appetite;
  • investment priorities;
  • customer outcomes;
  • supplier management.

These are business decisions, even when technology is used to deliver them.

Where in-house IT has the advantage

Internal teams bring something external suppliers cannot quickly copy: knowledge of the organisation.

They understand the business, customers, history and internal ways of working. That matters when technology is closely linked to how the organisation competes or serves customers. In-house capability is especially valuable when:

  • technology gives the business a clear advantage;
  • business knowledge is critical;
  • priorities change often;
  • the skill will be needed for many years;
  • internal ownership of data or architecture is essential;
  • building long-term internal skills is part of the strategy.

In these cases, developing internal expertise may create more value than buying the same skills from the market again and again.

But in-house does not automatically mean cheaper or safer

Internal capability also has limits. A complex organisation may need skills across:

  • cloud platforms;
  • enterprise applications;
  • integration;
  • data engineering;
  • automation;
  • DevOps;
  • security;
  • architecture;
  • testing;
  • service management.

Maintaining deep, permanent skills in every area is expensive. Recruitment can also slow down a programme.

If a transformation is delayed by six or nine months because key skills cannot be hired, the cost is more than the recruitment process. It may also mean delayed revenue, slower customer improvements or continued reliance on old systems.

This is why the right operating model should not be based on opinion alone. It should reflect business need, skills, speed and cost.

Large transformation programmes usually need a hybrid model

For major transformations, the strongest model is often neither fully in-house nor fully outsourced.

It is a hybrid model.

The organisation keeps control of strategy, business results, architecture, data ownership and risk. External providers add specialist skills, capacity and delivery experience where needed.

Over time, the balance can change. During discovery and architecture, the organisation may use specialist external advice. During build and migration, external support may increase.

After go-live, some skills may return in-house, while selected operational services move into Managed Services. This creates a more flexible model:

Own what matters strategically. Buy skills where they give the business speed, expertise or scale.

The UK Government Digital, Data and Technology Playbook describes similar models, including insource, bridge, borrow and outsource. It is a useful reference, but the wider principle is simple: the right model depends on the skill, the risk and the result required.

What does your customer actually care about?

This is easy to overcomplicate. Your customer does not care whether the person maintaining an integration is an employee, contractor or managed-service engineer. They care whether the service works.

They care whether:

  • changes arrive when needed;
  • disruption is kept to a minimum;
  • data is handled correctly;
  • problems are fixed quickly;
  • digital journeys are easy to use;
  • services remain reliable.

The operating model is therefore a way to achieve a result. It is not the result itself.

A cheaper sourcing model that slows delivery or weakens service quality is not always better value.

Likewise, a higher-cost external service may be sensible if it increases revenue, reduces risk or gives the organisation skills it could not build quickly enough.

A practical decision framework

Before deciding whether to keep a skill in-house or use an external provider, ask:

Question In-house may suit External service may suit 
 Is the skill a key source of competitive advantage?  Yes  Less likely
 Is specialist knowledge difficult to recruit?  Less likely  Yes
 Is demand temporary or likely to change?  Less likely  Yes
 Does speed of delivery matter to the business?  Depends on capacity   Often
 Is business knowledge needed every day?  Strong advantage  Needs close teamwork
 Is the work repeatable and operational?  Possible  Strong candidate
 Does the organisation need wider support or more resilience?   If scale allows it  Often
 Can the supplier be managed well?  Not applicable  Essential

There is no universal answer.

The important thing is to make the choice deliberately.

Where DigX fits

DigX is not simply a provider of extra IT resource. Its strongest role is helping organisations that need specialist skills in enterprise integration, data, Microsoft platforms and complex transformation delivery.

DigX works across areas including:

  • Azure Integration Services;
  • Integration Landing Zones;
  • enterprise data management;
  • Master Data Management;
  • Data Hubs and Data Pipelines;
  • architecture definition and technical assurance;
  • application Managed Services;
  • data and integration services.

This makes DigX a strong fit for organisations that want to keep strategic control but need extra skills to speed up transformation, improve delivery or run complex connected environments.

More on how DigX supports enterprise integration, on our Technical and Integration Services offering.

Organisations managing complex change, our Enterprise Digital Change capability supports transformation from strategy and architecture through to implementation.

Our Managed Services offering helps organisations run and improve application, data and integration environments after go-live.

For some clients, the need may be temporary: extra specialist support during discovery, design or delivery.

For others, selected services may move into an ongoing Managed Services model once the programme reaches production.

The objective is the same:

Give the organisation the skills it needs without weakening control of the business result.

Reviewing your technology operating model?

If your internal teams are stretched between BAU and transformation, specialist skills are slowing delivery, or you are deciding which services should remain in-house, DigX can help you assess where external support will create the most value.

We can support the move from architecture and transformation delivery through to ongoing Managed Services across integration, data and Microsoft environments. Contact us below:

Blog Contact