“Outsourcing CMM Programming? That’ll Never Work For Us.” (And Other Myths Costing You Money)

Every quality manager has the same gut reaction when someone mentions outsourcing CMM programming: “Sure, that works for simple parts. But OUR parts are different. OUR requirements are unique. An outside programmer could never understand what we need.”

That’s a common concern we hear from shops of all sizes.

The interesting part? Many of those shops have since embraced remote CMM programming services and found their workflows transformed — faster turnarounds, higher quality, and less stress.

Let’s break down these myths holding your shop back—and reveal what’s really happening when shops decide to innovate.

MYTH #1 Outside Programmers Won’t Understand Our Complex Parts

The concern: “We deal with aerospace turbine parts and GD&T tolerances tighter than most shops ever see. Outsiders could never program that.”

The truth: Remote CMM programmers typically possess diverse experience across industries—medical, automotive, defense, and precision manufacturing. This breadth often surpasses the exposure of in-house teams.

They frequently handle parts even more complex than yours.

Bottom line: Complexity isn’t a barrier—it’s exactly why skilled remote programmers exist; to tackle challenging parts that often slow down internal teams.

MYTH #2 It’ll Take Forever to Explain What We Need

The worry: “Explaining every inspection requirement and tolerance will take longer than programming it ourselves.”

The reality: Top PC-DMIS outsourcing services use streamlined intake forms designed to capture your needs in under 5 minutes.

This is a fraction of the time your programmer spends writing the code.

“I was amazed. Uploaded files late Friday, minimal comments, and received a perfect program Monday morning. They pulled specs directly from the drawings like pros.” — Quality Engineer

Myth busted: Remote programmers are specialists who read technical drawings daily; they don’t need hand-holding.

MYTH #3 They Won’t Get Our Tolerances Right

The fear: “One incorrect tolerance and we’re shipping faulty aerospace parts. Too risky.”

The fact: Remote programmers tend to be more conservative and precise:

• They follow print specs strictly—no shortcuts.
• They lack internal pressure to approve marginal parts.
• Their reputation depends on precision across many clients.
• They apply standardized GD&T reading, not shop habits.

The irony: Many clients discover their in-house programs had inconsistencies introducing risk.

MYTH #4 It’s More Expensive Than Doing It In-House

The myth: “We pay a salaried programmer, so outsourcing can’t be cheaper.”

What most forget: True in-house costs include:

• Portion of programmer’s salary per program
• Opportunity costs from delayed other tasks
• Debugging time for errors
• Training and ramp-up for unfamiliar parts

On-demand outsourcing only costs when used. Salaried programmers cost money 24/7, even when idle.

“Outsourcing seemed pricey—until I calculated total internal costs including delays and inefficiencies. Outsourcing is more cost-effective.” — Operations Manager

MYTH #5 What If the Program Doesn’t Work on Our Machine?

Concern: “Programs might crash or damage machines, leaving us to fix issues alone.”

Reality: Trusted services provide thoroughly tested programs and ongoing support:

• PC-DMIS simulation verifies programs before delivery
• Programs adhere to industry best practices
• Support is available for adjustments
• First-run success rates often exceed 95%, often better than internal teams

MYTH #6 We’ll Lose Control of Our Quality Process

Concern: “Outsourcing means losing control over quality.”

Fact: Outsourcing programming labor does NOT mean outsourcing quality control. You retain full control:

• Decide what and how to inspect
• Set inspection requirements
• Accept or reject parts
• Own all documentation and results

You’re delegating the coding work—freeing your team to focus on quality decisions.

“We didn’t lose control—we gained valuable capacity.” — Quality Director

MYTH #7 Security and IP Concerns Make This Impossible

Fear: “Sending proprietary data outside risks IP theft or compliance issues.”

Reality: Professional services meet strict security standards:

• NDAs for every client
• Secure transfers and data handling
• No data retention after completion
• Compliance with ITAR, ISO, AS9100 where required

Your designs already move through emails, vendors, and contractors. These professionals often implement stronger controls than many shops.

If aerospace trusts it, so can you.

MYTH #8 This Only Works for Simple, High-Volume Parts

Belief: “Outsourcing is for repetitive jobs, not our custom, one-off parts.”

Truth: On-demand programming excels in low-volume, high-mix situations:

• Internal programmers spend disproportionate time on one-offs
• Many programs never get reused
• Other jobs get delayed

Remote services shine here by:

• Charging only for what you use
• Eliminating wasted salary on learning curves
• Providing access to specialists familiar with diverse parts
• Letting your internal team focus on recurring production

“Outsourcing one-offs freed our internal team to focus on repeat jobs, improving overall throughput.” — Job Shop Owner

The irony: Remote programming is most valuable exactly where you thought it wouldn’t work.

MYTH #9 We’d Lose Our Competitive Advantage

Fear: “CMM expertise is our edge; outsourcing would lose that.”

Reality check: Many competitors already use remote programming—they just don’t advertise it.

Your advantage comes from:

• Faster turnaround times
• Scalable capacity for surges
• Winning complex contracts with specialist expertise
• Consistent, high-quality output regardless of staffing changes

Leading companies outsource non-core functions all the time. Smart shops focus on what truly differentiates them.

MYTH #10 If It Was Really Better, Everyone Would Use It

Truth: They do—but many keep it quiet to maintain an edge.

“At a recent conference, half the attendees had been outsourcing CMM programming for years yet no one talks about it.” — Quality Manager

The Real Risk (That Nobody Talks About)

What’s the real risk? Not using on-demand CMM programming and staying stuck in bottlenecks.

You risk:

• Losing contracts due to long lead times
• Burnout among scarce internal expertise
• Inability to scale when work surges
• Single points of failure when key staff leave or get sick
• Lost revenue waiting on programming capacity

What Shops Actually Say After Making the Switch

The pattern: Skepticism before, regret they didn’t try sooner after.

The One Myth That’s Actually True

“This feels risky because it’s a change from what we’re used to.”

That fear is real — change is uncomfortable.

But the question is: Which risk is greater?

• Continuing to lose work to faster competitors?
• Relying on single-person bottlenecks?
• Turning down work due to capacity limits?
• Paying high salaries for positions hard to fill?

The biggest risk isn’t trying remote programming—it’s assuming the current approach is sustainable while the world moves on.

How to Test This Without Risking It All

You don’t need to overhaul everything right away. Try a risk-free test:

“I sent our toughest part just to prove them wrong. The result? A flawless program and now I outsource 20 parts a month.” — Skeptical Quality Manager

The Bottom Line (That Nobody Wants to Admit)

Objections often come from fear:

• Fear of admitting you need help
• Fear new methods won’t work perfectly
• Fear of looking wrong if it fails
• Fear of explaining change internally

But the real risk is sticking with the status quo—letting competitors win, burning out staff, and losing opportunities.

Your Next Move (If You’re Ready)

The myths are debunked and the path forward is clear.

Choose to:

• Keep doing what you’re doing and watch others pull ahead
• Test one program with remote services and decide based on results
• Ignore the facts and risk falling behind quietly

Most winners picked option two years ago. Which will you choose?

Every myth was created by someone who never tried it. Every success story was made by someone who did.

Testimonial & Endorsement Disclaimer:
The testimonials and endorsements presented on this site reflect individual experiences and views that may not be typical or representative of everyone’s results. Some testimonials may be reenacted or portrayed by representatives or actors for illustrative and educational purposes. While these portrayals aim to demonstrate common outcomes, individual experiences and results vary due to many factors. Testimonials are voluntarily provided and may involve compensation or other considerations, which are disclosed where applicable. These testimonials do not constitute guarantees or warranties of any kind. Please consider these experiences as part of your overall assessment when evaluating our products or services.