It may well be that there are common bottlenecks in our analysis pipelines, which could be improved using better code, better working practice or better education. Having said that...
...80-90% of my time is spent gathering data, cleaning it up, getting it into a state where it can be analysed and learning how to use the tools to do the analysis.
So I'd argue that most bioinformatics (and indeed many other jobs) consists of boring, monotonous day-to-day tasks. It is not a problem to be solved: it's just "how things are."
To whom would you outsource such work? Companies specialising in boredom? People who don't mind being bored? Who would pay for that? It's quicker, easier and more practical simply to get on with it yourself.
J.C.R. Licklider figured this out over 50 years ago in Man-Computer Symbiosis. He analysed the time that he spent working on problems and wrote:
It soon became apparent that the main thing I did was to keep records, and the project would have become an infinite regress if the keeping of records had been carried through in the detail envisaged in the initial plan. It was not. Nevertheless, I obtained a picture of my activities that gave me pause. Perhaps my spectrum is not typical--I hope it is not, but I fear it is.
About 85 per cent of my "thinking" time was spent getting into a position to think, to make a decision, to learn something I needed to know. Much more time went into finding or obtaining information than into digesting it. Hours went into the plotting of graphs, and other hours into instructing an assistant how to plot. When the graphs were finished, the relations were obvious at once, but the plotting had to be done in order to make them so. At one point, it was necessary to compare six experimental determinations of a function relating speech-intelligibility to speech-to-noise ratio. No two experimenters had used the same definition or measure of speech-to-noise ratio. Several hours of calculating were required to get the data into comparable form. When they were in comparable form, it took only a few seconds to determine what I needed to know.
Throughout the period I examined, in short, my "thinking" time was devoted mainly to activities that were essentially clerical or mechanical: searching, calculating, plotting, transforming, determining the logical or dynamic consequences of a set of assumptions or hypotheses, preparing the way for a decision or an insight. Moreover, my choices of what to attempt and what not to attempt were determined to an embarrassingly great extent by considerations of clerical feasibility, not intellectual capability.
Could you make this question more precise? Most jobs involve some degree of boring, monotonous day-to-day work which is unavoidable, rather than a problem in need of solution. Perhaps we could focus on problems which could be solved faster by technological solutions, rather than a vague notion of "I am above this boring work."