This article (at least the portion posted here) is unclear on what they mean, that is my objection. I take them to mean by "outsourcing" the practice of outsourcing offshore. Otherwise there would be little point to the article.
Typically outsourcing break down thus:
Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) which could be a call center but could be check clearing,Human resources or and other business function that is not core to the profit making structure of the business. IT development is generally not considered a BPO because it is not really a business faction.
Sub Contracting Product/infrastructure development This is generally not done on a permanent basis and applies to IT. It is outsourcing if it goes out of the host country by my definition, otherwise it is just subcontracting. But this is not just buying a component, there is some sort of design and/or fabrication value add from client input.
Consultations These are consultations that apply to the country of the firm. It would not, for instance, be outsourcing to hire a American lawyer facilitate doing business in America. I realize there are gray areas here when it comes to tech development, but the IBM consultancy case would often come here.
The problem with your definition is that someone like IBM consulting has world wide offices to handle the consultations that apply locally and these local offices have their own resources and often keep their own books. they may even be local subsidiaries depending on tax and tariff laws in the host country. So to say IBM is getting work "outsourced and offshored to the US" would not really be true. All of the large and middle consultancies do this. The small ones do not because they cannot compete in the local market. On top of this, we would not know were IBM might have some of their resources. So it confounds issues.
So I think my point still stands regarding this article. They may be right but they do not give enough information to make out what the real impact of outsourcing/shoring has on the US economy and, as seems to be the point, good jobs in the US. Thus the article looks more to be a polemic raather than a presentation of fact.