for them. This approach, considered a managed OSS approach, allows the IIC the best of both worlds, enabling it to choose its vendors and functions without all of the long-term headaches. One risk in this approach is that the outsourcers that provide such services generally have "sweet spot" applications. In other words, they have expertise with some OSS packages, but not others, introducing an element of risk because of unfamiliarity with the differentiating specifics of an OSS application. Similarly, many new outsourcers, such as pure-play ASPs, are mostly concept companies. They often do not have much of anything concrete to call their own. Most of these OSS ASPs do business by reselling application software packages and leasing hosting facilities. They are often virtual companies and therefore risky, especially as long-term partners. On the positive side, the ASP option frees an IIC from making a major commitment to specific OSS vendors. The ASP may not always provide the best functional fit, but it can provide some superior economies of scale and better time-to-market than an in-house development project or best-of-breed implementation. ASPs are not the only OSS outsourcers. There are a number of vendors, especially in the billing arena, that offer their applications as a service. These companies, traditionally known as service bureaus, tend to maintain large data and processing centers similar to ASPs. The primary difference is that these vendors provide and support their own applications, and generally, own their data centers. These companies tend to be more stable, established and reliable, but committing to one means making a long term commitment to one vendor's product with little control over development or differentiation. Some IICs will choose to outsource their OSS right away. Though this can mitigate risk and make financial sense, it will not always provide the best combination of functionality. Also, if outsourcing right away, an IIC might not know exactly how its organization operates, how its cu