Most comparisons of in-house and outsourced OpenText administration start in the wrong place. One column holds a salary. The other holds a supplier's monthly charge. Somebody subtracts one from the other and a decision follows.
That comparison is incomplete on both sides. A salary leaves out recruitment, onboarding, training, management time, absence cover and the coordination that happens between the platform, database and business teams. A supplier's charge leaves out the work that stays with you, the exclusions in the contract and the time your people spend managing the hand-offs.
This guide sets out a fairer method. It does not contain prices or benchmarks, because the honest answer depends on your estate. Instead it gives you a way to compare both models on the same work, the same ownership and the same cover, so that whichever answer you reach, you can defend it.
Why salary against supplier charge is incomplete
The simple comparison feels objective because it uses numbers that already exist. The trouble is that the numbers describe different things.
What does a salary-only view leave out?
An in-house administrator costs more than their salary. There is recruitment and the time it takes to fill the role, onboarding and the months before a new person knows the estate, training to keep skills current with each release, management time, and cover for holidays, sickness and departures. There is also coordination: the hours spent arranging work between the OpenText team, the database administrators and the business users who own content and permissions.
None of this is a reason to outsource. It is a reason to count it.
What does a supplier estimate leave out?
A supplier's proposal can look complete while leaving important work with you. Check the exclusions, the customer-side tasks, the dependencies on your own teams and the escalation routes. Ask which parts of the estate are covered by the SLA and which are not, and how much internal time it will take to coordinate with the supplier each month.
Why do the two numbers rarely describe the same work?
An in-house team often does more than anyone has written down, and a supplier scope often does less than the headline suggests. Until both are mapped against the same list of responsibilities, any difference between them is partly an illusion.
Start with the production estate, not the staffing model
The first step is to agree the comparison boundary. Decide which systems, responsibilities and coverage are in scope, and apply the same definition to both models.
Which systems should be in scope?
Include each component that is part of your production estate: Content Server, Archive Center and Extended ECM where you run them, the database underneath, and the integrations that exchange information with the platform, such as SAP. Keep routine production administration distinct from implementation projects and software licensing, which are separate decisions.
What does coverage mean in this comparison?
Coverage is who is available, when, and for what. An in-house team may cover office hours well and rely on goodwill outside them. A managed service will state its coverage in its SLA. For Nuca's tiers, the wording is precise: monitoring runs around the clock on every tier; critical-incident response 24×7×365 applies to Tier 2 and Tier 3; Tier 1 responds in core hours. Whatever you compare, use the same coverage assumption on both sides.
Map the operational workload
Use the responsibilities your team actually performs rather than a broad label such as "platform support".
What sits in each of the three areas?
- The OpenText platform: configuration, routine maintenance, patching, monitoring, incident handling and upgrades.
- The database underneath: database administration, backup and restore, performance and the coordination between application and database when something goes wrong.
- Business administration: users, permissions, categories, workflows and other business-facing settings.
Which work falls between teams?
The most expensive work is often the work nobody owns outright: the incident that might be the application or might be the database, the permission change that needs both a business decision and a technical one, the certificate that expires because it belonged to nobody. Record these boundary tasks explicitly, because they are where both models tend to leak time.
Make ownership explicit
For every task, record who does it and who owns the outcome. They are not always the same person.
What should the in-house view record?
Name the normal owner, the person or team covering planned absence, the capacity available, the state of handover notes and any work that has been deferred. Deferred work is a cost that has simply been moved into the future.
What should the supplier view record?
List the exclusions, the customer-side tasks, the dependencies and the escalation routes. Include the internal time needed to coordinate hand-offs. A responsibility without a named owner is not covered just because it appears in a proposal or a job description.
Build the cost worksheet
With scope, workload and ownership defined, you can build the comparison. Use a consistent period, record the evidence source for each in-house entry, mark estimates and state their assumptions.
| Lens | In-house: what to record | Outsourced: what to record | Evidence to keep |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct spend | Employment-related expenditure for the people involved | The contracted service charge | Payroll records, contract schedule |
| Internal time | Management, coordination, approvals, recruitment, onboarding, training | Retained administration and supplier coordination | Timesheets, service desk tickets |
| Continuity exposure | Effect of absence, vacancies and concentrated knowledge | Effect of supplier exclusions and hand-offs | Handover notes, deferred work lists |
| Scope boundary | Tasks performed but not written down | Exclusions and customer-side tasks | Runbooks, SLA, responsibility matrix |
How should internal time be counted?
Use the records you already hold: timesheets, service desk tickets, change records and calendars. Where time has to be estimated, say so and state the assumption. A worksheet that admits its estimates is more useful than one that hides them.
How do you avoid a misleading comparison?
Compare like with like. Do not set a fully staffed internal team with absence cover against a supplier tier with narrower coverage, or the reverse. Do not include implementation projects on one side only. And do not treat a quiet year as typical: a single incident or departure can change the picture.
Count continuity exposure
Continuity exposure is the cost of the things that could stop. It rarely appears on a budget line, which is exactly why it gets left out.
What is single-person dependency, and why does it matter?
Many OpenText estates depend on one experienced administrator. That works until the person is on holiday, unwell or handing in their notice. Record which tasks could pause, which would need another team's help and which would require knowledge to be rebuilt from scratch if that person were unavailable.
How do you show exposure without inventing numbers?
You do not need a figure to make exposure visible. List the tasks at risk, the business processes that depend on them and how long it would take someone else to become competent. That list is often more persuasive in a budget discussion than any estimate.
What changes with a managed service
A managed service changes the shape of the costs rather than simply moving them. Nuca's managed OpenText services put one SLA across the platform, the database underneath and business administration, for a fixed monthly fee.
What does one SLA change?
It removes the boundary disputes between teams, because one supplier is accountable for the whole stack. Onboarding takes thirty days and covers platform discovery, documentation review, runbook handover and an SLA baseline. If a target is missed, you receive a written post-incident review with the root cause.
Which tier fits which estate?
The tiers are Tier 1 Platform, Tier 2 Platform + Business and Tier 3 Full Lifecycle. Choose on the scope of work you mapped, not on the headline. If business administration was a large part of your in-house workload, a tier that excludes it will leave that cost with you.
When does in-house remain the better fit?
In-house administration can be the right answer when you have a stable team with more than one person who knows the estate, documented runbooks, tested cover for absence and enough capacity for upgrades as well as daily operations. If that is your position, the comparison will show it.
When a review helps before you decide
If you cannot complete the worksheet because nobody is sure what the estate actually needs, an independent view can help. Nuca's Estate Continuity Review examines the live production estate: the platform, the database underneath, ownership, patching and version currency, and single-person dependency. It takes two weeks elapsed and five senior days, and it is review only: nothing on production changes. The first step is a conversation, the 45-minute continuity check call.
Close
In-house and outsourced OpenText administration can both be the right answer. What makes the decision defensible is comparing them on the same estate, the same work, the same ownership and the same cover. Build the worksheet, keep the four lenses visible and be honest about what is estimated. The result will be a decision you can explain, not just a number you can quote.
If you are weighing up in-house against outsourced administration, we are here to discuss your options. A fair comparison starts from your own estate, and Nuca offers different levels of support, from interim cover to a full managed service, so you can cover only the gaps in your team. Book a 45-minute continuity check call and we will set out which level, if any, fits. To find out more first, see our managed OpenText services.
Frequently asked questions
Related reading