RSS
Twitter
Realizing The Additional Expense Of Offshoring
from the no-surprise-there dept
Srinivasan Patel writes in with a link to the latest in a long line of stories talking about how offshoring isn't as cheap as people make it out to be. This isn't a surprise, at all. We've been saying this since people first started freaking out about offshoring last year. What's amusing, though, is that all the people who have been the most vehement against offshoring and for protectionism are the ones hyping up these articles - even though they actually give support to the idea that protectionism isn't needed.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
You get 1/6 of what you paid for.
You get what you pay for.
You hire someone for 1/6th of what a skilled technology worker usually gets & you can expect 1/6th of the amount of satisfaction.
http://www.yourjobisgoingtoindia.com/
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: You get 1/6 of what you paid for.
http://www.itpaa.org/
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
The thing that blows my mind about this who off-shoring thing is that people are completely ignoring the productivity numbers. Seriously. American programmers might make more, but as a rule, they generate better product in shorter amounts of time, with less explaining, and fewer mistakes. It stems from the fact that Americans are English speakers and the project managers are generally English speakers. Indians, are not English speakers and need to go through more to understand what's going on with a given project. If productivity can be sacrificed for the sake of saving a couple of bucks, the companies doing it will find that the over all quality and customer satisfaction with their products will go down proportionately. But what do I know?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
Get over it. Off shoring is here to stay unless the legislate to make it illegal. Just hope your company has the wisdom to recognize what is practical and productive to offshore and what isn't. Then hope your job is as important as you think it is.
Luckily, I still have a strong back that is willing to labor. Physical presence doesn't offshore well.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
Creton
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: No Subject Given
Actually the word is spelled "cretin".
It is best to spell epithets questioning the intellectual capacity of one with whom you disagree correctly, else you yourself might end up looking like a slack-wit.
Or an idiot; moron; fool; imbecile; retard; stupid; tool; dolt; blockhead; donkey; dumbass; fuckwit; boob; dimwit; dork; dunce; ignoramus; jerk; simpleton; buffoon; nincompoop; nitwit;ass; asshole; dipshit; dope; dumbbell; dunderhead; fathead; half-wit; jackass; lunkhead; ninny; numskull; oaf; buffoon; birdbrain; or bonehead.
Love,
Rick
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Offshoring and outsourcing.
I wish people would be a little more selective in their use of language. What the first person in the article was complaining about was "offshore outsourcing". I could walk out the door and down the road and outsource a project to an incompetent company. This would be "onshore outsourcing".
There are two sorts of "offshoring" and the dynamics for both are different. One model is intra company offshoring which is what companies like IBM and GE have done. You can bet that, from the companies point of view, this model is quite successful.
The other model is offshore outsourcing. With this model the problems are similar to onshore outsourcing. If you method of selecting a company involves the use of a coin then the results are likely to be the same irrespective of whether the company is onshore or offshore.
However, in both models, there is an approx. 10:1 ratio in labor costs. Ultimately this means that onshore software developement cannot survive.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment