Press "Enter" to skip to content

A Bit of History: Outsourced Development and Offshore Development

admin 0

outsourcing developers – Let us talk about where we have been, historically, as a business, when it comes to outsourced software development and offshore software development. In 1980’s and early 1990’s, in the US and in Europe, you’d big consulting companies including Andersen (remember them? I guess that they were happy to have ditched the Andersen title in favour of Accenture) who’d provide you a multi-million dollar bidding on your job. You’d hand them an RFP that described your system demands as you best known them (or else they’d help you specify the prerequisites by allowing you to use their systems analysts) and based on these prerequisites, the advisers would gauge that the work effort involved, cost it, and create your system for you. I really don’t think people used the term “outsourcing” to explain this, but that is exactly what it was. Back in the 1980’s, and to the 1990’s, Andersen Consulting was renowned for placing all of their youthful consultants-programmers-into “boot camp” and instructing them their methodology to performing software development. As I know it, Andersen’s methodology (known as Method-1) was basically a waterfall-based procedure.

Andersen and their contemporaries were not performing the job abroad, though. They would take action onshore with expensive developers, systems analysts, and project managers. Later on, at the middle and late-1990’s, we found several offshore-based companies, chiefly established in India, that could begin bidding on such jobs. Not the top-end jobs, but a number of the regular ones. This really took off before the year 2000, when there was lots of regular work to be performed in order to get systems prepared for Y2K. These companies used lots of overseas resources. The onshore consulting companies responded by getting their very own offshore resources in order that they could compete better on price. Along with the Indian companies got some consulting tools in the US so that they could work together with their customers, hands on. In doing this, they managed to slowly move up the food chain and operate on higher-value jobs. These companies all climbed, chiefly engaged in project-oriented applications consulting and development work-bidding on customer projects and implementing them with waterfall-based growth procedures. However there were a variety of nagging difficulties using this project-based strategy.

To begin with, project-based outsourced offshore growth tended to presume that all (or nearly all) of those requirements could be decided upfront (i.e., a waterfall development process). This would permit the outsourced service provider to supply a reasonably precise bidding, letting them deliver the job and make a reasonable profit. In fact, that is not entirely correct. In reality, a dirty little secret that everybody knew about, was that no one could completely find out all of the job requirements in advance, so the service providers would bid on the job, try to win this, and then because the machine demands changed, the service provider will issue all types of change orders specifying how much extra they would charge to satisfy the new requirements which arose during the course of their job, and the client would have to agree to those additional costs prior to those new requirements might be added into the job. Hence that the job timeline and cost could balloon, and everyone involved-the client, the ceremony provider-knew that was likely going to occur. Although that did not prevent everyone from getting worked up and angry about things as it did occur!

The project-based method of automating software development still exists, and it may be suitable for some scenarios (e.g., an extremely concentrated project in which you do not possess the particular skills necessary for a job in house, so you hire a consulting company that does), however for the most part it is a small dinosaur that does not match the times we reside. What strategy does match these occasions? I believe that it’s the Dedicated Offshore Development Team approach, employing an Agile development procedure. Employing this strategy, everybody only admits that nobody entirely knows the system demands at the onset of the job. However they decide that there is a long-run requirement to have an offshore development group work on the prerequisites, bit-by-bit, release-by-release. And farther, theAgile strategy provides a framework for the way the onshore and offshore teams may operate together, in a manner that promotes communication and fast issue resolution, and which is precisely what we will need to be certain that the offshore team does not get disconnected from the onshore group and produce the “incorrect” thing because of miscommunication and a inability to pinpoint all of the prerequisites up-front (as from the waterfall model).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *