chicagoAnalyst
MIS
Has anyone else read the artice with the above name, in the September issue of Business 2.0 magazine? It's the first + thing about tech emplyment I've read in a while...
ChicagoAnalyst
ChicagoAnalyst
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Chriss Miller on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
The Coming Job Boom 14
- Thread starter chicagoAnalyst
- Start date
- Status
Stevehewitt
IS-IT--Management
I've read some stuff in the last few weeks or so in Computer Weekly. (Dunno if its just a UK thing.)
Not only stuff about the coming job boom but also IT budgets are set to rise a fair bit too!
Steve.
Not only stuff about the coming job boom but also IT budgets are set to rise a fair bit too!
Steve.
I doubt it'll be like the late 90's. Managers still remember HTML coders demanding (and getting) 6-figure salaries, and won't want to repeat that. I think IT employment is set to rise, but the hiring will be fairly selective (probably what they should have been doing all along!) Time to polish those skills and buff-up your reputation!
Chip H.
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first
Chip H.
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first
-
4
- #4
dilettante
MIS
Just read the article - online. Though I get the rag here I generally trash it as junk mail. I sure never paid for it nor requested it. I always assumed it was the house organ of a pyramid scheme by the same name a cousin in Texas tried to get me into a couple of years ago.
Looks like a lot of "blah, blah, blah" to me. It raises and then baselessly waves away numerous issues that show why there is no such boom coming. Keep in mind that most factors they cite as contributing to a "boom" are their predictions of a "bust" in the labor supply. Hardly the same thing at all.
For example few people retiring early in the coming decade will be truly retiring - they'll have no alternative but to keep working because they need to keep beans on the table and pay college bills for their kids. I wonder how many people realize that in the US an 18-24 year old student can only borrow a small fraction of their college funding - the rest being foisted directly upon their parents now, bearing interest from the day of the first draw against those loans?
Likewise waved away like Marie Antoinette prescribing cake for the starving masses was the shipping of work offshore and bringing in of foreign indentured servants under L1 and H1-B programs.
And of course I didn't see a thing about any changes in demand for labor due to an upswing in IT spending anytime soon. It was all expressed in terms of a market outlook 10 years out. Sort of a long term to be making any predictions over, wouldn't you agree?
The dead giveaway here for me is the way Business 2.0 columnists repeatedly refer to college education as "skills training" directly, obliquely, and through things like the captions under charts. This puts us right back into the 1980s, where secondary and post-secondary education was pressed to become a series of "skills camps" to produce worker-bees for American industrialists. It is all about producing a more rigidly class-based society instead of an educated and socially-mobile one.
I wonder if the article is merely propaganda intended to quiet rumblings toward labor organization in the ranks of IT workers. For those of you who can still remember anything about the early 20th century labor movement in the US:
"You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die."
Is Biz 2.0 merely part of today's "Sally Army?"
How is that for overreaction? ;-)
P.S. - My plug for the day as "cool site" is:
Looks like a lot of "blah, blah, blah" to me. It raises and then baselessly waves away numerous issues that show why there is no such boom coming. Keep in mind that most factors they cite as contributing to a "boom" are their predictions of a "bust" in the labor supply. Hardly the same thing at all.
For example few people retiring early in the coming decade will be truly retiring - they'll have no alternative but to keep working because they need to keep beans on the table and pay college bills for their kids. I wonder how many people realize that in the US an 18-24 year old student can only borrow a small fraction of their college funding - the rest being foisted directly upon their parents now, bearing interest from the day of the first draw against those loans?
Likewise waved away like Marie Antoinette prescribing cake for the starving masses was the shipping of work offshore and bringing in of foreign indentured servants under L1 and H1-B programs.
And of course I didn't see a thing about any changes in demand for labor due to an upswing in IT spending anytime soon. It was all expressed in terms of a market outlook 10 years out. Sort of a long term to be making any predictions over, wouldn't you agree?
The dead giveaway here for me is the way Business 2.0 columnists repeatedly refer to college education as "skills training" directly, obliquely, and through things like the captions under charts. This puts us right back into the 1980s, where secondary and post-secondary education was pressed to become a series of "skills camps" to produce worker-bees for American industrialists. It is all about producing a more rigidly class-based society instead of an educated and socially-mobile one.
I wonder if the article is merely propaganda intended to quiet rumblings toward labor organization in the ranks of IT workers. For those of you who can still remember anything about the early 20th century labor movement in the US:
"You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die."
Is Biz 2.0 merely part of today's "Sally Army?"
How is that for overreaction? ;-)
P.S. - My plug for the day as "cool site" is:
dilettante
Wow, how do you REALLY feel? I think there is a lot of wishful thinking right now and everyone is waiting for the "job Messiah" to return. Any flicker of hope gets us going. I pray that there is a turn-around soon.
Jim
Wow, how do you REALLY feel? I think there is a lot of wishful thinking right now and everyone is waiting for the "job Messiah" to return. Any flicker of hope gets us going. I pray that there is a turn-around soon.
Jim
I have read many articles on a similar vein claiming the IT industry will pick up in the near future as well recently, and quite honestly I will only beleive it when I see evidence of it with my own eyes.
For example, the number of posts on the UK job boards have increased recently, but this could be fake posts in order to get people onto the books (illegal under UK advertising regulations) or duplicated posts.
When recruitment agencies start contacting me asking if it is OK to send off my CV to companies with regard to specific posts, or when I start getting interviews for permanent posts then I consider the recovery has started.
To summarise my situation: Since August 2002 I have had 1 day of paid work (through being in the right place at the right time), two interviews for other posts (nothing came of either) and I am still waiting for promised returned phonecalls from July - I have given up waiting for it.
John
For example, the number of posts on the UK job boards have increased recently, but this could be fake posts in order to get people onto the books (illegal under UK advertising regulations) or duplicated posts.
When recruitment agencies start contacting me asking if it is OK to send off my CV to companies with regard to specific posts, or when I start getting interviews for permanent posts then I consider the recovery has started.
To summarise my situation: Since August 2002 I have had 1 day of paid work (through being in the right place at the right time), two interviews for other posts (nothing came of either) and I am still waiting for promised returned phonecalls from July - I have given up waiting for it.
John
-
1
- #7
The Barn Door of IT jobs was taken off it's hinges with the rush to outsourcing. These jobs, whether they be in India, China, the former Soviet republics--they're NOT coming back. It was a natural occurence, one that we must accept, even though it hurts our own bottom line. So as far a a labor shortage, look at the teeming masses in those countries and I think it'll be a long time before we see a shortage.
I used to try to convince my boss that I could telecomute, so I could avoid rush-hour a few times a week. If *I* can do the job over the wire, so can an overseas coder at quarter the cost. I now stress how important it is for me to have the face time with the end users, etc.
What we'll see over the next 5 years or so, in my opinion, is the stabilization of wages between the US and India. Those $20 per hour consulting rates you've heard about will go up to $40~, and the $80-$100 rates that were typical of say, a VB coder, will bottom out in the $50-$60 range(I'm talking a Firm's rate, not an independant). Here, the 'face time' advantage should bridge the smaller cost gap and IT employment will rise (or at least stop falling)
Other than that, there is *nothing* substantial--barring some new proprietary-to-the-US, must-have killer-app--in the near future that's going to cause any job boom.
--Jsteph
I used to try to convince my boss that I could telecomute, so I could avoid rush-hour a few times a week. If *I* can do the job over the wire, so can an overseas coder at quarter the cost. I now stress how important it is for me to have the face time with the end users, etc.
What we'll see over the next 5 years or so, in my opinion, is the stabilization of wages between the US and India. Those $20 per hour consulting rates you've heard about will go up to $40~, and the $80-$100 rates that were typical of say, a VB coder, will bottom out in the $50-$60 range(I'm talking a Firm's rate, not an independant). Here, the 'face time' advantage should bridge the smaller cost gap and IT employment will rise (or at least stop falling)
Other than that, there is *nothing* substantial--barring some new proprietary-to-the-US, must-have killer-app--in the near future that's going to cause any job boom.
--Jsteph
unixtechie
MIS
Nobody can "predict" the future of the economy, however, the BLS and other economists use data and "forecast" events.
Although I cannot believe 100% what any article says, one has to read numerous studies and ALL the data to come to a conclusion. That being said, my guess is that all of the studies, by the BLS and even the article in the magazine are closer to being accurate than the "arm-chair economists" here who are giving "opinions" with nothing to back up their "guesses."
Although I cannot believe 100% what any article says, one has to read numerous studies and ALL the data to come to a conclusion. That being said, my guess is that all of the studies, by the BLS and even the article in the magazine are closer to being accurate than the "arm-chair economists" here who are giving "opinions" with nothing to back up their "guesses."
-
1
- Thread starter
- #9
chicagoAnalyst
MIS
Well, the company I work for is doing the outsource-to-india thing right now for new development, and is finding that with lower costs come slower speed. The native US techie from the ERP vendor can do in half a day what it takes one of these cheaper folks from India to do in 5 to 7 days. This is being pointed out to management...and when speed is an issue, the work is being shifted away from those folks.
I think the point made in the Business 2.0 article about the outsourcing 'stats' is quite valid: all the media coverage about outsourcing to India seems to quote the same single 'expert' - Forrester, an outsourcing company with a vested interest in people believing that the outsourcing approach to getting systems work done is both cheaper and inevitable. Neither may actually be true.
ChicagoAnalyst
I think the point made in the Business 2.0 article about the outsourcing 'stats' is quite valid: all the media coverage about outsourcing to India seems to quote the same single 'expert' - Forrester, an outsourcing company with a vested interest in people believing that the outsourcing approach to getting systems work done is both cheaper and inevitable. Neither may actually be true.
ChicagoAnalyst
<< when speed is an issue, the work is being shifted...>>
What about the total cost? Even at cheaper rates, 5 days can't be cheaper than 5 hours. Hopefully more people will take into consideration that a 100 hour project at $80 per hour is cheaper than $20 per hour if it takes the outsourced labor 500 hours to do the project.
And the extra management effort in outsourcing--you still need some sort of liason dealing with the overseas crew--that costs money & time. It seems to me that outsourcing would only make economic sense for larger projects of 1000 hours or more, when all of the overhead is taken into consideration.
--jsteph
What about the total cost? Even at cheaper rates, 5 days can't be cheaper than 5 hours. Hopefully more people will take into consideration that a 100 hour project at $80 per hour is cheaper than $20 per hour if it takes the outsourced labor 500 hours to do the project.
And the extra management effort in outsourcing--you still need some sort of liason dealing with the overseas crew--that costs money & time. It seems to me that outsourcing would only make economic sense for larger projects of 1000 hours or more, when all of the overhead is taken into consideration.
--jsteph
- Thread starter
- #11
chicagoAnalyst
MIS
You are certainly correct about the overhead...a few weeks into this oddshoring experiment, we company analysts pointed out that the specs required by the Indian programmers were at such a detailed level (pseudo code), that it took many times longer to write them than it would to do a higher level spec for an in-house programmer who knows our business and has no language barrier.
We got permission to go ahead and just code the enhancement (we are installing a large ERP system) ourselves if writing the long offshore version of the spec would take longer than just specing AND coding the whole thing in our usual way ourself.
Management will figure this out - the question is merely 'how soon'? My previous employer got caught up in the (non-offshored) outsourcing fad of 8-10 years ago. It took them about 6 years to figure out their mistake, get rid of the outsourcer, and bring it all back in house.
As for very large development projects being good choices to offshore, I have a friend whose employer (a large insurance company) attemped to do that with a several million dollar project about 2 years ago. Managing the vendor was critical - the system delivered by the outsourcer didn't do (functionally) what it needed to do. When the company sent it back as unacceptable, the outsourcer stated that they had fulfilled the letter of their contract - the code 'compliled' (never mind what it did). My friend's company had to re-do the whole project again on-shore, taking a total loss (other than the wisedom gained) on the outsourcer's work.
True, that example is only a sample size of one, but it appears to me (from the Business 2.0 article) that, much of the media is quoting only a sample size of one with their view as well.
ChicagoAnalyst
We got permission to go ahead and just code the enhancement (we are installing a large ERP system) ourselves if writing the long offshore version of the spec would take longer than just specing AND coding the whole thing in our usual way ourself.
Management will figure this out - the question is merely 'how soon'? My previous employer got caught up in the (non-offshored) outsourcing fad of 8-10 years ago. It took them about 6 years to figure out their mistake, get rid of the outsourcer, and bring it all back in house.
As for very large development projects being good choices to offshore, I have a friend whose employer (a large insurance company) attemped to do that with a several million dollar project about 2 years ago. Managing the vendor was critical - the system delivered by the outsourcer didn't do (functionally) what it needed to do. When the company sent it back as unacceptable, the outsourcer stated that they had fulfilled the letter of their contract - the code 'compliled' (never mind what it did). My friend's company had to re-do the whole project again on-shore, taking a total loss (other than the wisedom gained) on the outsourcer's work.
True, that example is only a sample size of one, but it appears to me (from the Business 2.0 article) that, much of the media is quoting only a sample size of one with their view as well.
ChicagoAnalyst
-
6
- #12
I recently read an excellent article in CIO magazine at that supports ChicagoAnalyst's views.
In the 60's, 70's and 80's, methodologies such as Structured Design and Development ruled the day. Those methodologies required a huge up-front investment in analysis, design, and detailed specifications.
As we moved from the 80's to the 90's, development methodologies such as Rapid Prototyping began to steal the scene. Why? Because customers are horrible at specifying systems. Both buyers and developers came to rely on the code-a-little, test-a-little, get-feedback system development cycle that obviates the need for excruciatingly detailed specs but demands frequent interaction between the customer and the developer.
The software industry changed methodologies because of the inability to get proper specifications to work from. The software consumer who thinks he can create proper specs for cheaper offshore labor is a fool: history proves it.
In the 60's, 70's and 80's, methodologies such as Structured Design and Development ruled the day. Those methodologies required a huge up-front investment in analysis, design, and detailed specifications.
As we moved from the 80's to the 90's, development methodologies such as Rapid Prototyping began to steal the scene. Why? Because customers are horrible at specifying systems. Both buyers and developers came to rely on the code-a-little, test-a-little, get-feedback system development cycle that obviates the need for excruciatingly detailed specs but demands frequent interaction between the customer and the developer.
The software industry changed methodologies because of the inability to get proper specifications to work from. The software consumer who thinks he can create proper specs for cheaper offshore labor is a fool: history proves it.
See articles "UNION NOW" and "CHICKEN LITTLE WAS RIGHT" at
Also, see:
Let me know your reactions.
Thanks!
Also, see:
Let me know your reactions.
Thanks!
Both of the SD Mag articles begin with peculiar ironies.
Chicken Little Was Right
In 1992, Edward Yourdon’s The Decline and Fall of the American Programmer (Prentice Hall) warned that American software professionals were in danger of being replaced by offshore developers. With the U.S. IT industry clearly dominating the world software market throughout the 1990s, Yourdon’s target, as well as his timing, was off: It wasn’t the American programmer who became extinct in the 1990s, it’s the traditional programmer fading away in the 2000s.
Decades ago, Yourdon made a career of evangelization -- writing books, training, consulting -- all espousing those very same "traditional" methods that would cause what is referred to here as the extinction of the American programmer. If you sew the seeds of destruction, are you really a prophet when you say, "The end is near!"?
Union Now
In 1914, Henry Ford transformed American society by paying his factory workers the then-unheard-of wage of five dollars a day and reducing the work shift from nine to eight hours. This lesson has faded from the minds of corporate America, particularly in the 21st century analog of 20th century Detroit: Silicon Valley.
First let's correct an inference here: fifty years before Ford had a factory or workers, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers was formed and negotiated with the railroad industry for an eight-hour work-day. This because the railroads were literally killing engineers by working them until they dropped and crashed trains. That's how much regard business has for human life. And you can thank the BLE for your eight-hour work-day today. (Unless you're a programmer and you're still worked until you drop or something crashes. )
The forgotten lesson from Henry Ford is that if you're producing consumer goods, you must pay your workers enough to afford the goods. Nobody can stay in business mass-producing goods that no one can afford to buy. This is simple pragmatism.
Henry Ford was not a champion of the worker by any stretch of the imagination. When his workers unionized, he hired goons to "disrupt" union demonstrations; to beat, maim, and kill the organizers and their supporters so as to intimidate the workers.
By many measures Ford was a despicable human being. (You can read about him elsewhere.) Citing him as a worker's hero in a call to unionization is as ignorant as it would be to credit Hitler as a founder of modern-day Israel.
Chicken Little Was Right
In 1992, Edward Yourdon’s The Decline and Fall of the American Programmer (Prentice Hall) warned that American software professionals were in danger of being replaced by offshore developers. With the U.S. IT industry clearly dominating the world software market throughout the 1990s, Yourdon’s target, as well as his timing, was off: It wasn’t the American programmer who became extinct in the 1990s, it’s the traditional programmer fading away in the 2000s.
Decades ago, Yourdon made a career of evangelization -- writing books, training, consulting -- all espousing those very same "traditional" methods that would cause what is referred to here as the extinction of the American programmer. If you sew the seeds of destruction, are you really a prophet when you say, "The end is near!"?
Union Now
In 1914, Henry Ford transformed American society by paying his factory workers the then-unheard-of wage of five dollars a day and reducing the work shift from nine to eight hours. This lesson has faded from the minds of corporate America, particularly in the 21st century analog of 20th century Detroit: Silicon Valley.
First let's correct an inference here: fifty years before Ford had a factory or workers, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers was formed and negotiated with the railroad industry for an eight-hour work-day. This because the railroads were literally killing engineers by working them until they dropped and crashed trains. That's how much regard business has for human life. And you can thank the BLE for your eight-hour work-day today. (Unless you're a programmer and you're still worked until you drop or something crashes.
)The forgotten lesson from Henry Ford is that if you're producing consumer goods, you must pay your workers enough to afford the goods. Nobody can stay in business mass-producing goods that no one can afford to buy. This is simple pragmatism.
Henry Ford was not a champion of the worker by any stretch of the imagination. When his workers unionized, he hired goons to "disrupt" union demonstrations; to beat, maim, and kill the organizers and their supporters so as to intimidate the workers.
By many measures Ford was a despicable human being. (You can read about him elsewhere.) Citing him as a worker's hero in a call to unionization is as ignorant as it would be to credit Hitler as a founder of modern-day Israel.
I was hoping to see a little more interest in this thread. Here are two follow-ups to my previous post.
The ACM TechNews digest quotes the Wall Street Journal (10/06/03) P. A2:
Yourdon, now a director at Indian software firm iGate, is again forecasting a bleak outlook for American programmers. "It's almost like I've become a turncoat for issuing a warning, and the only ones listening were foreigners," he remarks. Yourdon projects that the least productive U.S. software professionals, which account for 20 percent of the American IT workforce, will vanish because of their consistent failure to update their skills and raise their efficiency.
So, not only has Yourdon done an about-face *twice*, but he's an executive at an off-shoring firm. Well, why not have the fox make predictions about the hen-house! Is *that* ethical?
Second, Paul Krugman wrote an interesting Op-Ed piece about the "Lump of Labor" in today's NY Times. Find it here:
--harebrain
The ACM TechNews digest quotes the Wall Street Journal (10/06/03) P. A2:
Yourdon, now a director at Indian software firm iGate, is again forecasting a bleak outlook for American programmers. "It's almost like I've become a turncoat for issuing a warning, and the only ones listening were foreigners," he remarks. Yourdon projects that the least productive U.S. software professionals, which account for 20 percent of the American IT workforce, will vanish because of their consistent failure to update their skills and raise their efficiency.
So, not only has Yourdon done an about-face *twice*, but he's an executive at an off-shoring firm. Well, why not have the fox make predictions about the hen-house! Is *that* ethical?
Second, Paul Krugman wrote an interesting Op-Ed piece about the "Lump of Labor" in today's NY Times. Find it here:
--harebrain
dilettante
MIS
I'm not sure what Yourdan is smoking these days anyway.
I think it's incredible to imagine that all American programmers constitute anywhere near 20% of the IT workforce here. The term "IT workforce" is used so broadly today as to be nearly meaningless.
Then again perhaps Yourdan was using the phrase in the older sense. If so, I suspect his figure of 20% is being very generous. But things are no better among the H1-B programmers I've dealt with.
I think it's incredible to imagine that all American programmers constitute anywhere near 20% of the IT workforce here. The term "IT workforce" is used so broadly today as to be nearly meaningless.
Then again perhaps Yourdan was using the phrase in the older sense. If so, I suspect his figure of 20% is being very generous. But things are no better among the H1-B programmers I've dealt with.
That passage I quoted is terribly ambiguous. Unfortunately for us readers, muddled writing seems to be the norm whenever journalists throw percentages and statistics around. The WSJ is among the worst offenders on this.
I suspect what he really meant (and this is the third meaning I've deduced from the above quote) is that the bottom 20% of IT workers in the US, in terms of productivity, will be forced out of the field.
But why should we believe him, when he has a big financial stake in that very outcome? I guess the WSJ editors didn't think of that, either.
I suspect what he really meant (and this is the third meaning I've deduced from the above quote) is that the bottom 20% of IT workers in the US, in terms of productivity, will be forced out of the field.
But why should we believe him, when he has a big financial stake in that very outcome? I guess the WSJ editors didn't think of that, either.
dilettante
MIS
Yeah, I need to clarify some of my own mutterings above.
The H1-B and L1 programmers I have dealt with, as a group, are no better than the U.S. programmers I've dealt with... but no worse either. What I have noticed is that even the weak ones seem to actually want to be programming, as opposed to many of the U.S. programmers who treat it like they're on some assembly line and may as well be watching their soaps or sports at home.
Since I don't work directly with any remote, offshore programmers regularly I cannot comment on whether they weed out their bad apples better than we do here.
The H1-B and L1 programmers I have dealt with, as a group, are no better than the U.S. programmers I've dealt with... but no worse either. What I have noticed is that even the weak ones seem to actually want to be programming, as opposed to many of the U.S. programmers who treat it like they're on some assembly line and may as well be watching their soaps or sports at home.
Since I don't work directly with any remote, offshore programmers regularly I cannot comment on whether they weed out their bad apples better than we do here.
dilettante
MIS
Hmm... I'd missed this one though. Maybe others have already seen it. Sorry if this is a redundant post.
I'm not sure about the 20% figure, but he has a point: I've seen that the first to go when the ax swings in an IT shop *are* the bottom percentage in terms of productivity. These are the ones who got into it for the wrong reasons.
They were hired, and not immediatly fired, because the shortage of IT people was so great during the dotcom boom that a warm body was better than none at all. Now that things are tight, poor programming stands out.
All he is saying that of the entire IT workforce (which includes analysts, managers, testers, etc) that the least productive 20% will get canned. Which does NOT necessarily mean that 20% of IT people are unproductive--it just means that whereever you draw that 20% line--the ones below will go.
My guess is that he sees that there is going to be more 'giant sucking sounds' of IT jobs going overseas, and only the best 80%--who have updated their skills, etc,--will remain here
And as I said in an earlier post--some of these offshore shops may take 4 times the # hours to do a project--but the guy who approves the decision only sees the lower 'per hour' rate, and after the project is done and the net cost was the same or higher--how can he compare it to what it would have taken locals to do unless they did a very similar project locally in the past?
That is and was always a big problem with software projects--estimating. It is nearly impossible to be accurate, and I'd say the vast majority of projects I've seen our firm do, (and projects we've lost--as I found out later), have gone enough over the estimate to the point where another bidder might have won--if they had been able to do the project within their estimate. So an Indian firm, if they're not bidding T&M, may give, say 1000 hours at $25 per hour, but I'd be very interested to see the average number of hours over-estimate that these projects go.
--jsteph
They were hired, and not immediatly fired, because the shortage of IT people was so great during the dotcom boom that a warm body was better than none at all. Now that things are tight, poor programming stands out.
All he is saying that of the entire IT workforce (which includes analysts, managers, testers, etc) that the least productive 20% will get canned. Which does NOT necessarily mean that 20% of IT people are unproductive--it just means that whereever you draw that 20% line--the ones below will go.
My guess is that he sees that there is going to be more 'giant sucking sounds' of IT jobs going overseas, and only the best 80%--who have updated their skills, etc,--will remain here
And as I said in an earlier post--some of these offshore shops may take 4 times the # hours to do a project--but the guy who approves the decision only sees the lower 'per hour' rate, and after the project is done and the net cost was the same or higher--how can he compare it to what it would have taken locals to do unless they did a very similar project locally in the past?
That is and was always a big problem with software projects--estimating. It is nearly impossible to be accurate, and I'd say the vast majority of projects I've seen our firm do, (and projects we've lost--as I found out later), have gone enough over the estimate to the point where another bidder might have won--if they had been able to do the project within their estimate. So an Indian firm, if they're not bidding T&M, may give, say 1000 hours at $25 per hour, but I'd be very interested to see the average number of hours over-estimate that these projects go.
--jsteph
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question