In my observation, outsourcing is caught in the middle here.
The work that was outsourced is (a) formulaic, (b) simple enough to be clearly documented, & (c) high-volume.
That's literally the wish list for good automation opportunities: why have a human automaton do something when a CPU can? Especially when you've already documented it ad nauseum.
And to large degree, this is a problem of large outsourcing shops' own making. They were content to get fat and dumb off labor arbitrage vs upskilling their talent and trying to provide higher value-add.
They all have their tiger teams, but the bulk revenue is putting lower-cost employees on higher-billable-rate contracts.
A core issue here, though, is that contracts add a wrinkle into the "automate everything" approach. Often, it is the clients themselves who resist adopting the automations proposed by the outsourcers.
It's why, when businesses say they want efficiency, I start with the Efficiency = Output / Cost equation and ask if they want to increase output, or decrease cost. Most companies buying outsourcing want to reduce cost, most outsourcing providers want to increase output.
The work that was outsourced is (a) formulaic, (b) simple enough to be clearly documented, & (c) high-volume.
That's literally the wish list for good automation opportunities: why have a human automaton do something when a CPU can? Especially when you've already documented it ad nauseum.
And to large degree, this is a problem of large outsourcing shops' own making. They were content to get fat and dumb off labor arbitrage vs upskilling their talent and trying to provide higher value-add.
They all have their tiger teams, but the bulk revenue is putting lower-cost employees on higher-billable-rate contracts.