often cited by its supporters and opponents.

[tanjimajuha20]

An internal company knows better what IT solutions are needed for its own product.
The "daughters" work with a small margin of 3-5%, while a third-party contractor, when working on order, expects a profit of 50-100% or more.
By developing a product in-house, corporations are confident that they will receive guaranteed technical support at a predictable price.
Independent developers make arguments against insourcing:

The non-competitive transfer cambodia whatsapp number database of orders to an IT subsidiary creates non-market pricing.
An IT subsidiary uses the resources of the parent company, so the development of a captive company is cheaper than the products of independent companies that pay for everything.
A small client base does not allow for timely detection of errors, increasing the time it takes to finalize a product.
It is no coincidence that the West has placed its bets on outsourcing, so it is necessary to create domestic analogues of SAP and Sclumberger.
"Aren't captive companies afraid of being left without new technologies, doing the same thing - basic digitalization, digital platforms, analytics systems for corporations, and therefore outside the real IT market, where new generation technologies are born at the expense of commercial companies' profits?" - a question "from the floor" asked by Vladimir Zakharov, CEO of Datana, invigorated the discussion. - Our market companies are not able to engage in visionary work, new generation technologies, because there is a fight for basic digitalization and for a penny margin."

Representatives of IT subsidiaries agreed that they are experiencing a crisis of ideas, and to counter it, for example, they provide clients with research and development (R&D) work at their own expense.

Some acknowledged that it is not always possible to recruit effective staff for captive companies.

"To improve the situation, we selected 10 partners and created a digital laboratory, where we give professionals to work out our hypotheses. They return with a worked out case and examples from world experience," answered Artem Petrov.

Vladimir Zakharov explained his position to a ComNews correspondent: "All captive IT companies are engaged in basic things: they build a common architecture of systems, make them cooperate with each other. Then shareholders will come to them and ask how to increase efficiency. But they will have nothing to offer. Next-level technologies are created on the open market. And now captive companies are pulling the blanket of this activity onto themselves. The money goes not to the IT market, but to metallurgists, machine builders - holdings, within which these IT "daughters" work. It turns out that the IT market is not developing. It evolves if there is an exchange of goods and services, and the margin goes to the development of new technologies."

But the main resource of the IT industry is people, believes Vladimir Zakharov.

"Captive companies accumulate a lot of people, and this will sooner or later lead to a crisis of personnel shortage in some areas. I participated in several round tables, talked with government representatives, proposing to distribute people among vendors through business support mechanisms. Without prohibiting captive companies from working, we need to stimulate the open market. Then the products will be mature, technological and modern. Due to this, it is possible to ensure market competition with foreign companies. Otherwise, IT subsidiaries will create "good solutions" that have no market value," Vladimir Zakharov concluded.