Ground Floor: I mentioned recently that having your phone conversations recorded was one of the hazards of being a trader (and of the humiliations involved in hearing them played back to you) but I've noticed that more and more companies are now doing this, ostensibly for "training and quality purposes".

I wish they'd record the bit where I'm screaming at the machine to say that I know that all their customer service operators are busy and I know that my call will be answered in rotation - but when the hell will that be?

If a company has invested in the technology to answer the telephone and allow me to choose from six options (although there is never usually the one that I want), then surely they can also tell me where I am in the queue and for how long more I have to listen to the strangled sounds of Greensleeves or (even worse) their latest advertising jingle.

I feel sorry for people in call centres, who undoubtedly take the brunt of customers' aggravations when they eventually get the opportunity to speak to a human being.

But the biggest problem, as a consumer, is that the corporate drive to be lean and mean has meant that the job has probably been outsourced anyway and, therefore, the human being we're finally getting to talk to isn't actually employed by the company with whom we wish to deal at all!

So telling them that you're never going to buy their product again means absolutely nothing. It is, after all, no skin off their collective noses.

I was thinking a lot about outsourcing recently, having been looking at the figures for China and India for the previous week's Ground Floor and knowing that it is a phenomenon that is here to stay.

Of course, outsourcing doesn't necessarily mean employing an overseas workforce - it can just as easily mean contracting out non-core business locally, which is something that many, many companies now do.

Outsourcing areas such as IT support and customer care (although I have to say that the latter is a bit of an oxymoron in many cases) is a reasonable step for some companies to take.

After all, it really doesn't matter where on earth the operator (or agent or representative or any of the many job descriptions that are used now) is located; the key element is to answer the phone and deal with the customer - once he or she has successfully made it to the top of the queue!

But is outsourcing always the right answer?

Clearly most companies look at it from a financial viewpoint and the payback is fairly compelling.

An initial investment at the beginning followed by cheaper operational costs in the future has to be a recipe for a leaner and meaner corporation. And if there are some teething troubles, well, the consumer has got used to that.

The truth is that we ring helplines more in hope than with any real expectation that we will receive the answer to our query from someone who actually knows what the problem is. And it's fairly pointless in getting frustrated with the person at the end of the telephone line who really can't help you at all. Apologetic they may be. But they're working for somebody else.

As a consumer, I would much rather companies didn't outsource at all. However, the question is would I be prepared to pay more for a product on the basis of excellent customer service? Clearly most companies feel that an almost adequate level of service and a cheaper product is sufficient.

And, while ex-employees and consumers may be less than happy, we have to assume that the companies themselves, faced with lower costs for the future, are ecstatic.

Apparently not all, however. According to a recent report in Computerworld, there is anecdotal (although not yet scientific) evidence that almost half of the companies which sign an outsourcing contract are dissatisfied at the end of the first year.

Even as more and more companies began to use outside contractors in many support areas, a further number reverted back to their original locations. The main reason given was customer dissatisfaction. I do wonder, however, how those customers managed to register their dissatisfaction - was it one of the options on the telephone choices?

There are other reasons for companies to feel less enthusiastic than at first about their decision and they stem, to a certain extent, from what the companies themselves are looking for. Many seem to want dramatic cost reduction and increased productivity and they want that to happen immediately.

But realistically they should be factoring in a period of time when productivity may be lower, not higher, as the new company gains experience. And that's probably the time when customer dissatisfaction is highest.

There can also be a lack of team spirit within the company, particularly if the work of a certain group is outsourced but they still need to use company facilities.

This is becoming more and more common as the company that has contracted them often wants the same level of commitment that they get from their actual employees.

Yet those outsourced workers will often have other contracts too. Why should they care more about one client than another?

As fewer and fewer employees have a direct input into the finished product, and fewer have a sense of ownership of the company itself, the task of motivating them becomes harder yet more important.

We all need a sense of pride and achievement in what we do. But that's a two-way stream. Companies have experience in making direct employees feel motivated and part of a team. There is a challenge still to be met in making their contracted employees feel the same way.

And the challenge is doing that in a positive way rather than simply threatening to relocate those jobs to yet another different place.