I don't think that's an Indian outsourcing issue, so much as an artifact of the dynamics of the consulting environment.
Your above average talent gets trusted with high stakes, client-visible scenarios like new business development, RFP pitches, and high-visibility fire fighting. The roles tend to be a combination of subject matter expertise, solutions architect, client management, and sales.
Once you have a contract in hand, theoretically the engagement is structured at that point. It no longer needs the independent competence of members of your A Team, but rather competent project/program management, client/engagement management, and execution resources.
That's the stage where a lot of problems get introduced, and it's not always a result of cost cutting or profitability measures. A lot of it comes down to operational competency (both for the agency and the client), as well as the structure of the contract itself.
The biggest thing I've learned in my time consulting is what to do (and not do) when structuring a contract for a consulting/outsourcing engagement. Everything else cascades from there.
> That's the stage where a lot of problems get introduced
At enterprise scale it comes down to how well the consulting team can understand and worm their way into the business processes. They need an inside ally who can enable the consultants to navigate the silos, and not just some internal PHB barking orders.
Every enterprise org chart has a different flavor of dysfunction.
I worked at a consulting/product agency where the requirement was always to work at the same place as the client, and to have a client stakeholder embedded within directly within the team. The projects that felt the most successful were the ones where we got these requirements really right.
I think the problem stems more from the nature of technology itself.
I run a marketing consultancy. I can't really offload my work to cheaper talent because my deliverables can be easily evaluated. Good writing and good design, after all, are universally accessible.
But unless you're a programmer, you can't really make out good code from bad code.
It's not only that. The main problem is that it's virtually impossible to come up with specifications, which are precise enough that they can be implemented 1:1.
Outsourcing companies will aim for the lowest common denominator, which the contract allows and with which they can get away with.
Case in point? I can exactly tell you what the specs for the first time reporting system I worked with at MajorCorp said, without ever having seen those specs:
Must be able to enter hours
That's exactly what we could do. Enter hours. Not minutes, not ten minute intervals, not quarter - or half hours, no; hours.
When I get such a spec I hit back with questions. Send that to an outsourcer and they won't see any need to provide a yota more than what the spec says.
In other words: You entering a world of pain, which looks good on spreadsheet but really only that.
But unless you're a programmer, you can't really make out good code from bad code.
That's not always true. We recently dropped a small consulting company (~20 people, US based) that was awarded a small (but not necessarily trivial) project and really bungled things up. The end product was delayed numerous times, noticeably sluggish and riddled with bugs. It would have been an easy win for this company and would have led to more recurring work, but for whatever reason, they decided to assign the project to a single junior programmer without any oversight.
Comments
I don't think that's an Indian outsourcing issue, so much as an artifact of the dynamics of the consulting environment.
Your above average talent gets trusted with high stakes, client-visible scenarios like new business development, RFP pitches, and high-visibility fire fighting. The roles tend to be a combination of subject matter expertise, solutions architect, client management, and sales.
Once you have a contract in hand, theoretically the engagement is structured at that point. It no longer needs the independent competence of members of your A Team, but rather competent project/program management, client/engagement management, and execution resources.
That's the stage where a lot of problems get introduced, and it's not always a result of cost cutting or profitability measures. A lot of it comes down to operational competency (both for the agency and the client), as well as the structure of the contract itself.
The biggest thing I've learned in my time consulting is what to do (and not do) when structuring a contract for a consulting/outsourcing engagement. Everything else cascades from there.
> That's the stage where a lot of problems get introduced
At enterprise scale it comes down to how well the consulting team can understand and worm their way into the business processes. They need an inside ally who can enable the consultants to navigate the silos, and not just some internal PHB barking orders.
Every enterprise org chart has a different flavor of dysfunction.
I worked at a consulting/product agency where the requirement was always to work at the same place as the client, and to have a client stakeholder embedded within directly within the team. The projects that felt the most successful were the ones where we got these requirements really right.
I think the problem stems more from the nature of technology itself.
I run a marketing consultancy. I can't really offload my work to cheaper talent because my deliverables can be easily evaluated. Good writing and good design, after all, are universally accessible.
But unless you're a programmer, you can't really make out good code from bad code.
It's not only that. The main problem is that it's virtually impossible to come up with specifications, which are precise enough that they can be implemented 1:1.
Outsourcing companies will aim for the lowest common denominator, which the contract allows and with which they can get away with.
Case in point? I can exactly tell you what the specs for the first time reporting system I worked with at MajorCorp said, without ever having seen those specs:
Must be able to enter hours
That's exactly what we could do. Enter hours. Not minutes, not ten minute intervals, not quarter - or half hours, no; hours.
When I get such a spec I hit back with questions. Send that to an outsourcer and they won't see any need to provide a yota more than what the spec says.
In other words: You entering a world of pain, which looks good on spreadsheet but really only that.
That's not always true. We recently dropped a small consulting company (~20 people, US based) that was awarded a small (but not necessarily trivial) project and really bungled things up. The end product was delayed numerous times, noticeably sluggish and riddled with bugs. It would have been an easy win for this company and would have led to more recurring work, but for whatever reason, they decided to assign the project to a single junior programmer without any oversight.