|
RichardGrimmer wrote: Not getting into whether I agree with outsourcing!
Er ... your slip's showing so I kinda think you just did!
|
|
|
|
|
You need to define what you are outsourcing, hardware and infrastructure and/or software support and/or development etc. If you are outsourcing the lot then you have my sincerest sympathies. I work for an org that did that in the 90s, they lost their IP and competitive edge and have spent the last decade getting it back!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
You won't be doing agile with an outsourced team. It's not compatible, so don't even try. Although the team may do agile internally that's their business and not your direct concern. Always be very clear on:
1) What (Requirements)
2) How (Project Plan/Resource management)
3) When (Deadlines)
Even though the team may bitch and moan about it, insist on strong documentation especially for interfaces between sub-systems and external systems. On the other hand, don't bitch about late deliverables or things not working correctly at the end of a phone. Do it in person and do it as much as necessary; even if you have to live in their office for a while to get things back on track i.e. don't let a bad situation drift for the sake of a trip on an aeroplane or train.
Make sure you have a very strong testing function in-house to verify the deliverables. Do not rely on any third parties for this. Get official hand-over and on-going maintenance back in-house sooner rather than later. That's when you find out just how wrong the solution really is and, all too often, lengthy bug fixing cycles are used as an excuse for not delivering.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to impose frequent releases every iteration of your project. Every 1-2 weeks on Friday, they shorten feedback loops--you learn what you did right, what you did wrong, and what should be changed sooner--so you can act on this feedback improving further work faster
|
|
|
|
|
There's no point in insisting on an arbitrary sprints or cycles if you don't have the capability to receive and verify the work within that time frame. It is really bad to be testing version 1 and finding faults while your outsourced team is working on version 2 or 3 or 4 ...
|
|
|
|
|
Yes its really bad to be testing version 1 and development team working on version 2,3 or 4.
This should be restricted proceeding to version 2,3 or 4 until no feedback yet in version 1.
|
|
|
|
|
If you are outsourceing any more than very simple routine stuff then you are not what you say you are then you are not writing the software, your outsourcer is. God help you.
|
|
|
|
|
It truly depends on what you are looking for. What skill sets, and what the final deliverables (to you) and the final products (to your clients) will be. (Are they delivering a DLL a library or a whole chunk of a shipping application vs. a piece of a .Net website).
I run a small outsourcing team.
One of our rules is simple: "Most clients know what they want, but must be shown what they need!"
That last piece means we spend a lot more time up front defining what it is.
We have clients we have been working with for 16+ years, and get new projects every year. This is something you should look for. We often come in after a primary contractor has failed miserably.
Plan for it to cost 2-3x what doing it in house would cost. This is because of the upfront learning curves, tool sets, extra communications, meetings, testing, feedback, potentially failed integration.
BTW, we plan on failing our first integration tests! We have been doing this too long. And if it does not fail, then we will need that time to make sure there are no deeper issues, or to spend on tasks that were previously out of scope.
One of the services we offer is the problem solution. One of our clients needed to fix a ton of COBOL code (which is NOT our strong suit). We solved the problem, working with one of their people and assisted them in getting their team to handle the implementation.
Feel free to private email me from this reply. We are US and Russia based. I would be happy to discuss how to structure this, or restructure it to make it more workable. We have also served as PMs over other contractors for companies having issues with contractors.
Finally, it is NEVER about the Consulting Company. It is always about the specific team you get assigned. You want a team that has been successful, not a new team at XYZ Corp.
|
|
|
|
|
Our company used Chetu in India - what a debacle. Work that should have taken less than a month went on for several, and nothing usable delivered in that time until we pulled the plug. What they did deliver was amateurish at best, and no where near production quality.
I started with the company using Chetu later in that project, and while the code quality was terrible, the whole process could have managed better:
- Start with a small project first. See how they handle that, before giving them more important work to do. This will not only give you a sense of the quality of the work, but also how best to work with them.
- Develop a clearly defined specification for the work to be performed. It should be sufficiently detailed that there is no ambiguity as to what is to be delivered.
- Upon delivering the specification to the outsourcer, have them provide clear estimates as to timelines and deliverables. Negotiate with them if you are not satisfied with this estimates, until you have something that both you and outsourcer are comfortable with and agree to.
Remember, their business model is to generate as many billable hours as possible. Having a clear specification and time estimates are crucial, and should be made part of any agreement with the outsourcer. Otherwise you might find that the project never ends, and you having huge overruns in time and money.
|
|
|
|
|
I inherited a project done by Igate Patni in India. It was the *worst* code I have ever seen in almost 25 years of software development. It was about the level of a 10 year old child!
Though to be fair, the project had suffered from several years of no technical oversight and constant deadline pressure.
Outsourcers are only interested in meeting the specs, not in producing quality code. It is just that their priorities are different to yours.
Kind regards
Trevor D'Arcy-Evans
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, i've worked with Indian too.. They are very good in communication and discussing with specs which they sounded very good, techinal and pro but their code and the program they delivered is worst, it's like a freshman hi school project!
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, i've worked with Indian too.. They are very good in communication and discussing with specs which they sounded very good, techinal and pro but their code and the program they delivered is worst, it's like a freshman hi school project!
|
|
|
|
|
I've worked with Indian too.. They are very good in communication and discussing specs they sounded very good, professional and technical but in the end the code is worst and the application it is like created with a freshmen from hi school!
|
|
|
|
|
Richard,
For my projects for AT&T and Motorola I have had a great experience with sigma.software out of the Ukraine (they also have offices in Sweden, UK and US). I have nothing but positive to say about their work - they made my firm look very professional to these big clients.
I hope this helps.
Thanks!
Thank you,
Serge B.
modified 26-Feb-18 17:41pm.
|
|
|
|
|
One company I worked for outsourced (automated & manual) testing to EPAM in Belarus. They were *incredibly* good, with a standard of code & testing comparable to our own. I was gutted when the company was taken over by IBM who quickly stopped the contract.
|
|
|
|
|
Lexus did the magic[^]
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
We don't need no hoverboard.[^]
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
Right... Photoshop magic, perhaps. Move along, nothing to see... 
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, came into work and actually started doing some, have a clue based on what I am doing.
Martin Luther was exploring below with his shook up lens (10)
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
Kingfisher - Martin Luther king, look below underwater
|
|
|
|
|
Nope
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't know you were into caving! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Spelunking
Anagram of "up lens" and "King"
Presumably "King" from "Martin Luther King"
Which is a bit bloody sneaky f you ask me - being as there was a Martin Luther!
Don't think I'd have got it without the "Kingfisher" guess!
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
Is correct.
I am not down a cave at the moment, but I am experimenting with Splunk.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
I used to subscribe to Spelunker today.
PLUGH!
Plover
XYZZY
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
