As reported in News, oil giant Royal Dutch Shell has finally announced the completion of a three-way outsourcing deal for its technology and telecoms infrastructure, valued at more than $4 billion.

As expected, the networking and telecoms component is going to AT&T for $1.6 billion; the hosting and storage deal has been clinched by Deutsche Telekom subsidiary T-Systems for $1 billion; and the $1 billion computing services and operational integration contract has gone to EDS.

"Partnering with EDS, T-Systems and AT&T gives us greater ability to respond to the growing demands of our businesses. It allows Shell IT to focus on information technology that drives competitive position in the oil and gas market, whilst suppliers focus on improving essential IT capability," said Shell CIO Alan Matula.

Shell expects to keep layoffs to a minimum, it said in the announcement on 31st March, with 3,000 staff going to the outsourcers, and most of the remaining internal teams remaining with Shell.

Terms of the staff transfer have not been revealed, and the union Unite will be watching for any attempt to take on staff on reduced terms and conditions. The union slammed Shell earlier this year when the company inadvertently revealed that job losses would be on lesser terms than for other professional roles within the company.

So what can we learn from this affair? First and foremost that it has been extraordinarily badly handled.

Barely a week ago, Shell said it was undecided on the outsourcing decisions; this would have alarmed and confused an already demotivated IT workforce unnecessarily. In a downturn, especially, decisions about who you work for and under what terms and conditions can be stressful, especially if you have no control over them. Meanwhile, the internal rumour mill will have been working overtime.

In this type of situation – all-too familiar in takeovers, mergers and outsource deals – what normally happens is that by the time a decision has been made, the new employers inherit a depressed and uncooperative workforce at a time when the technical, operational, cultural and managerial aspects of the transfer are at their most complex, expensive and sensitive.

This is not a recipe for a successful outsourcing deal, particularly when your former employer is reporting multibillion-dollar profits in a flatlining economy – both based partly on the price of crude oil.

The other message of this deal is a risky one, long term. If IT is not core to a company such as Shell, then this follows the recent trend of companies redefining themselves around narrower and narrower points of focus. Ever more highly paid management teams guard the organisation's essential IP and brand, with everything else outsourced as a supporting, often low-cost, service.

IT experts risk becoming the 21st century typing pool, hidden not behind flimsy office partitions but behind a wall of management consultants. That doesn't strike me as a secure or healthy future.

CIOs and other executives involved in such decisions should read some of the technology noticeboards and follow the threads that concern their companies; they might not like what they read. These are your future employees; and it is your fault they feel that way.