"In the story in the article, I would have refocused the team on the product platform (assuming those skills werent there to begin with) and thought long and hard about my dependence on skills for 'mainstream' systems that didnt make me any money. They had effectively invested in skills and capabilities that didnt offer a competitive advantage."
This is the dangerous part of your recommendation. The focus only on the things that make you money. Most of a business doesn't make you money, but it does permit the existence of the part which does. You have to look at each part that doesn't make you money, decide whether it is needed, and for the most of them that are, how you're going to pay for it. Lots of those things can be outsourced safely, but each outsourcing carries costs as well as benefits.
It's the responsibility of people like CIOs to do that kind of analysis. They have to be connected to their "back office" work because nobody else is going to do it. They need to know what outsourced IT is like, and whether the company can handle the costs involved. Outsourced support is sometimes doable but carries risks as described in the first reply to you. Outsourced administration is usually not because it involves a lot of information you need if ever something goes wrong. Outsourced hardware (AKA cloud) is reasonable but you have to spend some time checking out the financials because the cloud providers won't protect you. Outsourced design can work if you have someone internal who can take designs from multiple people and deploy them, but if the outsourced design people are doing that, then it's hard to replace them when needed. Outsourced development will work in the short-term but you could end up with a dependence on the provider if you're not careful right now. Those are things that somebody has to know and decide, and the operations people who never worked with it won't be familiar with the details.