And you are telling me that the same cannot be said for management? (BTW, please spare me the crypto-racist argument that "Indians can't do management").
Sure - in fact you'll need management at the outsource end to interface with the inhouse staff.
Why do you assume all outsourcing is done in India - although they are very capable, there are plenty of other places to outsource.
I assume you mean "fungibility" rather than "fungability" and I'm not quite sure what you mean. An OSS project often has a very dedicated team working on it rather than transient labourers.
Yea - I'm not into spell checking. What I meant was the nature of OSS development - distributed developemnt, work done on a as needed basis is very similar to outsourced projects.
You only replace expensive coders with expensive requirements gathering people plus Third World coders. And you greatly increase the chance of miscommunication since natural language is inherently ambiguous. The only unambiguous document produced is the code itself.
I think your desire to offshore no matter what the cost to the business is dogmatic but I have enjoyed this exchange!
One of the key mistakes, INHO, softwrae projects make is they don't do the in depth requiremenst definition up frona and make sure that is in line with the business needs - no matter where the coding is done.
My point is not that every job should be outsourced, rather that anyone who thinks that beacuse they have a technical skill they are safe from being replaced by cheaper labor elsewhere, especially as communications becomes more seamless. Any job wher ethe labor cost is the significant cost of production is always goinfg to be analyzed for ways to cut costs.
oysourcing should be a business decison based on cost effectiveness. Sometimes it's better to do work in house.
"Which is why expensive managemnet will be kept onsite and the grunt work offshored"
Coding is grunt work? Are you joking? That kind of contempt for the code (ie, that which serves the customer) is what leads to 75% of IT projects failing.
My statement does not reflect contempt for coders or the code - rather reflects my view that while writing code requires a specific technical skill sets, it is by its very nature a strong candidate for outsourcing because:
Labor costs are a signiicant percentage of the production cost
The skills can be found in lower costs areas of production
As global communications become less intrusive (i.e. video conferencing becomes les like a rerun of "MMMMAAA MAX HHHHEADROOM" and more like a normal conversation, the need for everyone to be local greatlty diminishes.
As fro teh 75% number, ny experience is taht IT projects fail because:
companies fail to define what exactly they want at the start of the project they fail to realize taht for many large scale projects they are buying a way of doing business and if it doesn't match their way they will have problems projects grow like ameobas to try to become everything to everybody they hire consultants to do teh work based on a low bid model that ensures the consultants are driven to modify the scope of the project to make money (just like any good construction project, the money's in the changes which is why companies often give away the basic work to get the job knowing the client will have to modify the scope to get what they need)
In short, they fail because they are not planned and managed properly, no matter how great the coders are.
The code is way more important than the management.
hardly - good management provvides direction, resources, identifies and gets needed skill sets and drives the project to completion on budget and schedule.
Code that never gets completed is useless, no matter how elegant or feature laden the project "will" be, someday.
You only have to look at the open source community (entire number of managers: 0) to see how great coders don't need managers to make great software.
Well, I'd consider teh people who decide what features go into the next kernel managers, but I agree OSS is a good example of what a lose knit community can accomplish. There is some impressive code, but at the same time there are:
multiple interpretations of the same idea features not yet implemented but desired by end users projects that die from lack of interest
all things that are simply too expensive in a commercial environment; which is why you have managers
Don't get me wrong, I'm a supporter of OSS, but the idea that it represents the future model for software development is not correct, IMHO.
It does point out the fungability of coding - here is a group of people spread around the world producing usable code - a stong argument for outsourcing coding to low production cost areas But so few projects these days require the coder to just code.
True - the challenge is to seperate the coding skills from the otehr ones so you can lower teh total development cost.
I say we ditch free trade and call for fair trade. If we forced American corporations to pay a minimum wage and minimum benefits to foreign workers, you and I would be able to compete much better
Your assuming that they would continue to do the work they currently outsource - they may just decide it's too expensive and cut back, resulting in less inovation and fewer jobs.
or, they could outsource to non-US owned companies which would not be forced to pay US wages and benefits - transfering technology and still leaving the jobs offshore (my guess i staht they'd create holding companies in a mor efriendly venue , say Switzerland, so the offshore company is a Swiss owned firm, not a US owned firm.)
If your saying any company that imports foriegn made goods should pay US wages to their workers - be prepared for your standard of living to go down when the price of goods goes up while your wages stagnate. The US could do the same thing by adding tariffs to bring prices in line with what a US manufacturerd product would cost - the net effect to the company would be the same as a foriegn minimum wage law since production in the US would cost the same as producing the good abroad. You might want to Google for Smoot - Hawley to see how it could work...
In the end, "fair trade" is just a buzzward for protectionism.
and the foreign workers (albeit fewer of them) would be much better off for it as well.
Of course, all those laid off workers who used to have a decent standard of living, by local standards, may disagreewith you. But to use your arguement, why not let companies offshore at will, since it means cheaper goods making Americans who buy them better off (albiet more o ftehm than those who lose their job to offshoring).
Those ads in the sunday paper where they promise to give you the product free/10% cash back/whatever if you find the same product at a competitor for less? They can do this because the manufacturers make essentially identical products but sell them with different model numbers to competing electronics stores -- so the models are unique to the chain carrying them. Usually this is called price protection and it's something the supplier will often guarantee in a specific market.
While manufacturers will give a store a special model #, that's not common nor the reason for price match promise. Stores do the price match because:
1. It convinces customers to buy now because it "protects" them from seeing the same thing elsewhere for less - in economic terms, it lowers the search cost because you don't have to check every store fo rthe best deal before you buy, making it rational to buy now.
2. More importantly, it keeps prices higher without collusion. Why? Beacuse each store nows if it lowers its prices, their competitors will not only match them but give the buyer an extra 10% - which drives the sale to the competitor unless the lower priced store drops it price to match the 10% extra - reducing the return even more. Even then, you can often still go to the competitor, show the receipt and get yet another 10%. As a result, both store wind up with less revenue - and one not only loses a sale but has the return costs as well.
It also prevents stores from dropping prices unilaterally, because if they lower their price, they also have to refund the diference to their customers as well - ever notice the "even if it's us that is cheaper" wording - that enforces maintaining price points (and predictablity in pricing for stoires) because to lower them is to reduce your revenue retroactively.
The net result is that it makes sense to keep prices higher and match them rather than engage in a price war. Everyone makes more money that way.
So why do special model #'s? Well, imagine you are a chain of electronic stores who has a major discount chain as a competitor. The discount chain can sell DVD palyers as a loss leader or at lower prices to drive business or because they have a more efficient supply chain. If they have a different model number you no longer compete with them directly - anyone who wants a price match is informed that they sell a different model - and you can expalin why yours is better and you should buy it here.
Sales is all about psychology and economics, and your best bet is to convince women the product will make them prettier / slimmer / younger looking and men that it will help them get laid.
I can hire inexpensive lawyers offshore to research, answer questions, prepare briefs under the lead of a local attorney.
You can but whether you should is moot. You forget about the management overhead in co-ordinating these people. Ever tried to manage somebody in another country? It's not easy. Unless there are dozens of people on the team, it is more cost-effective to have them on-site.
Yes, and it's not easy - but with email, IM, video conferencing it sure is possible to pull together an effective team - something that is getting easier as technology advances. What I see as becoming more common is having an expensive expert onsite backed up by less expensive remote support. The expert guides there work - and as communications become more seemless the less of a need for tehm to work face to face.
Remember: management is the most expensive resource on an IT project. If you offshore your programmers but need to increase your management, you are not likely to make savings (unless the number of programmers you offshore is huge - see my previous post).
Which is why expensive managemnet will be kept onsite and the grunt work offshored as long as the total cost is less than doing it in house. I'd bet the smart companies are building management talent offshore as well, to act as ths link between their teams and the onsite talent.
On-site teams are also far more effective.
Not necessarily - it depends on the work being done, the skill of the workers. If all you are doing is writing code to spec, it's immaterial if your doing it onsite or in Bangalore or Kiev.
Architectural principles are the same the World over. But who would seriously consider building a house with their architect in - say - South Africa?
But you could do it with an architect onsite who has an architect in South aferica do the HVAC / Lighting/etc. - you really don't see th estaff toiling away, and as long as th work meets code and spec who cares where it is done.
My point is that many professions that think they are immune are in for a real surprise.
Look at Siemens and what they are doing with telecommunications.
Can you be more specific?
SIEMENs has moved a significant proportion of its handset design work to China - the engineering work is as good as German, at a much lower price. Germany specs and sells it, China designs and builds.
That should be a wakeup call to Germany - they thought that German engineering would keep jobs there, but are finding out that is not good enough.
That's not what you hear in this forum when the discussion turns to desktops, then OSS has too many which are too different.
But none of tehm are innovative, ratehr they take teh existing desktop metaphor ond copy it in somewhat different ways.
What software does Emacs copy? VIM, Apache, PHP, Webmin, etc, etc?
Leaving emacs out, those others addressed address specific niches by providing greater benefit than many existing programs sucha s Apache for servers - my point exactly. Apache, for example, allows a hardware manufacturer to cut costs by reducing software cost and maintain functionality required to do the job. But your appealing to a limited set of users with some technical ability, not a broad group of users who just want to open documenst they get in the mail.
I think you mistake the popularity of packages such as Gnome and KDE, which try to win Windows converts, for a general trend.
My point is, if OSS wants to become a desktop alternative, rather than a good solution in specific niches, it needs to be innovative rather than mearly redo existing feature sets.
Once you have written the program, and it has gained a popular footing with the public, you can bootstrap support services around it. It's hard, and 9 out of 10 such efforts will likely fail (just as 9 out of 10 new businesses fail). But you're going to write the software anyway if you're scratching your own itch (which is most-often why I write software), and when it's good enough and useful enough to enough people, you will have yourself a viable business.
Of course, if it is viable as an OSS project, every established OSS vendor can support it as well - making it harder for you to get in, especially if teh program has undergone revision by numerous otehr programmers on the way to be a success.
There are plenty of companies that pioneered cool technology only to lose out once it became popular.
Remember that proprietary software that is widely used is widely used for a reason - the features are actually useful. You expect Free Software authors to avoid useful features because proprietary software has them as well?
No, my point is simply cloning features may not be enough to overcome an entrenched standard, because it offers no compelling reason to switch, especially since the clone's feature set is often less complete.
To break the grip of an entrenched standard, you need a better, more productive way of doing the same thing that convinces people they gain something by switching from the existing infrastructure to a new one.
If I just want to do the same thing, why bother to switch?
If your selling support, It'll be cheaper to hire a bunch of cheap offshore techies to answer phones and provide support.... Just don't plan on being a high paid US programmer when equally good talent is cheaper elsewhere.
Nope! Just because the software is free does not mean you don't need on-site programmers. On the contrary, they become more important.
Take this as example:
Laws are free to use. Buying a book on law is almost free ($50 max). But there is no chance that lawyers (practitioners of law) will go out of business.
Similarly, software may be free but that does not mean we don't need programmers (practitioners of software engineering). Somebody has to add value to that free software to give the company a competitive advantage.
Whatsmore, here in England, thanks to out colonial heritage, we have lots of lawyers elsewhere in the World who can practise English law. But who offshores their lawyers to - for example - the Bahamas? (The Bahamas has as its highest court of appeal, the English Privy Council). Sure, Bahaman lawyers are cheaper but it's much more cost effective to employ somebody who is sitting next to you.
however, I can hire inexpensive lawyers offshore to research, answer questions, prepare briefs under the lead of a local attorney. What you may see is a step pyramid - a highly skilled practitioner backed up by a legion of cheap but effective offshore staff.
What that remove sis the learning opportunity for teh young lawyer who used to do that research - so firms would be much more picky in hiring since the cost will be higher and the must get a good partner out of the deal.
Look at Siemens and what tehy are doing with telecommunications.
Please stop that stupid "don't copy" whine. If you want to gain the market, you _have_ to copy Microsoft, whether it's good or bad.
You're assumption that you must copy to gain marketshare is self-defeating. OSS products will have a hard time becoming a real force by implying being like MS - there are few complelling reasons to switch. As long as you copy, you'll always be compared to MS and the shortcomings pointed out as reasons to go with the original.
Interestingly. MS is the best fast follower around - but they have the advantage of ruling the desktop, so they can afford to wait and incorporate features as they see fit - that's what being the defacto standard gives them.
Now, come up with a better way, and then you can create a real case for switching. Until then, your just playing catchup.
Apple has doen quite well by innovating - their mistake was that they refuse to license their OS so the cost of switching is so high that people tend to stick with what they have. Those that do switch do so because Apple offers them something better.
OTOH, the cost to switch to Linux is relatively small - yet it is nothing but a niche player on the desktop - because you get all the hassles of Linux without any really great leaps in what you can do.
Now imagine what a phenomenal product GIMP would be in the eyes of graphic artists who now use photoshop if only the people who had complained about it could be bothered to FIX what they see as problems. A few small years worth of effort in total, very little from each person who has seen something wrong, and the free tool would have surpassed the proprietary one years ago. Instead, all we get are more complaints.
First - notice the POV - complain - right away it's a negative relationship. Pointing out improvements is a way to get OSS better - and a valuable contribution as if someone wrote code - because it makes a tool more useful.
Second - everyone can't code at the level needed to fix problems - which in the OSS community seems to put people one step up from Bill Gates. OTOH, smart CSS vendors spend time listening to users so they can make their software better - a model OSS should adopt more.
Third - Someone else suggested a business could hire someone to fix problems. Sure, but why bother when a CSS alternative is cheaper, and I don't risk having the code I paid for wind up on a competitor's desk. Imagine the OSS community ifsomeone develped code for a company, latter released it under the GPL, and the original company said 'we own that - you can't use it because it was a work for hire and by the way, anyone using it owes us money.' Actually, you don't even have to imagine the response...
Finally - where is the real innovation in OSS - most of it appears to be attempts duplicat existing CSS software, rather than coming up with something new and better. Instead of originality, we get knock offs. Sure, they may be good, but that won't be enough to become a real presence. Everyone knocks MS for copying and refining ideas, then copies MS' model for tehir OSS software.
OTOH - look at Apple - they innovate, because thy can expect to make money off of their ideas. If maintenance fees where where the real money is, they'd be giving away OSX and have it running every possible platform.
You seem to be making the misconception that "free software" means "gratis software" - this is incorrect.
"Free Software" refers to freedom, not price. I can sell my piece of free software at any price I like, whether you choose to buy it of course, is your own freedom.
I think he hit th enail on the head - how many times do you see someone looking for an OSS aka "free" counterpart to a CSS aka "cost money" product? They're looking for free as in no cost, not as in I can mod it. That perception will limit entry and ultimately stifle innovation. How many innovative, vs "let's copy the functionality of product X" OSs programs are out there?
For example; a business selling a database product may choose to release it as free software, and offer a gratis download, but offer a support/maintainance license for a fee. The software is still free, and the money from support/maintainance licenses can pay for things like offices, developers, food, water, bills, etc:)
Well, beyond the hurdle that someone has to develop OSS programs so you can sell maintenance is the cost of support issue.
If your selling support, It'll be cheaper to hire a bunch of cheap offshore techies to answer phones and provide support. Keep a few US based staff to do installs (supplement them with off shore progarmers on a limited entry basis) and you have a model for making money on maintenance.
Just don't plan on being a high paid US programmer when equally good talent is cheaper elsewhere.
It's not theat OSS is a bad model, but it is a bit self limiting.
When I was on SSBN 655, many folks would take a box or two of their favorite soda's to sea with them. (All we had for soda was fountain machines with generic (cola, lemon-lime, etc.) syrups. It's nice to have a taste of home when you are [mumble] feet under the North Alantic.)
That brings back memories - we had the real thing (tm), and to this day it still doesn't taste right without that hint of hydraulic fluid.
So have I - the best ride was when a coworker mistakenly took the ceiling for the deck and rapidly discovered his mistake during the 2g pullout. He looked for the duct tape next time.
Riding up front was cooler - floating against the harness while the Gulf is filling the cockpit windows.
We had one poor engineer who spent an entire flight in her seat - she got violently airsick during takeoff and never recovered.
Cosmetics that blatantly do not deliver the "age protection" they claim to...
Actually, they claim to reduce the "appearence" of aging, so they technically can deliver what they promis e- a little chemical that tightens the skin slightly to reduce the wrinkled look and they've done what they say.
"The key is to license Indian trained MD's in the US - a process that is relatively straightforward;"
Straightforward?! You have no idea how hard it is to get a medical license in the US. There is a huge series of hard tests (that are not cheap) that each candidate has to go through. It's anything but straightforward especially since the medical education over there is not up to par. This is why students who travel elsewhere for medschool (after being rejected by US schools) will almost never be licensed to practice in the US.
First of all, I said straightforwd which is not the same as easy. Despite the hurdles, foreign trained doctors do get US licenses. I also take issue with the idea that all foreign medical training is substandard and somehow foriegn doctors are incapable of doing the same quality of work as a US trained doctor.
This work that is being "outsourced" is outsourced to expats!
Currently. My point is that there s nothing to prevent companies from outsourcing highly skilled professions as well. In fact, there are several possibilities to do so:
1. Hire retiring US licensed doctors that may want to return to their home country
2. Use doctors in countries where the medical training is consider equivalent to the US but where socialized medicine reduces doctors wages
In eithe rcase, the net effect will be to keep downward pressure on US wages, which is bad for doctoirs but good for consumers.
Some professions, such as pilots, have already reacted to the outsourcing threat by cooperating across borders on wage issues - otherwise you'd see US carriers switching to foreign flagged airplanes to reduce costs on non-domestic travel (just as shippers did so long ago).
But back to my point - any profession that thinks it is not at risk for wage competition had better be protecte dby real strong regulation, and even then may find themselve surprised.
"Even so, companies are offshoring medical work to highly trained Indian doctors - work such as radiologists reading xrays, since the information is easily transmitted electronically and India has a large base of well trained doctors who are cheaper than US ones."
Nonsense. Radiologists MUST be licensed in US.
The key is to license Indian trained MD's in the US - a process that is relatively straightforward; and then have them return to India as US licensed doctors. The key to offshoring is to find a way to develop a talent pool that provides services at a competitive pric e- and I doubt there are many professional services taht are immune.
Is there any OS content management / creation systems available? Having one would help bring content online, if only beacuse soemone would avoid teh steep fees for licenses.
Since we, as computer scientists, do not have any kind of licensing and anyone can start programming, we are at a disadvantage. Most other professions (including engineering) do have licensing boards and they restrict the number of licensed people which means that they are able to increase their pay.
As an engineer, I find several errors in your statement. First, very few engineers need to be licensed to practice their craft - most employeers I've worked for or with didn't care if you were a PE. That is one challenge PE organizations face - young engineers have no incentive to take the EIT or PE exams, since it adds nothing to their employability, except in a few specialities (Civil comes to mind). Which brings me to teh second point - most PE orgs would love to license more - and have no restictions on teh number of licenses they issue.
I guess that's what we'll all have to do. Medical doctors will ALWAYS be paid well since they restrict the number of students and make sure you're licensed to practice medicine. We will all be replaced by cheap labor overseas... we're training them now anyway to take our jobs away.
Even so, companies are offshoring medical work to highly trained Indian doctors - work such as radiologists reading xrays, since the information is easily transmitted electronically and India has a large base of well trained doctors who are cheaper than US ones.
As for doctor's pay, a Stanford MBA has as good or better ROI than their MD, especially considering the investment in time and money to get the MD vs the MBA. Sure, some specialities make a lot of money as MDs - but so do MBAs in cosnulting or I Banking. And for every cardiac surgeon, there's a lot more pediatricans and famly practice doctors who probably make in year what the other pays in taxes.
So, while licensing has helped MD's maintain salaries (the real reason for licensing), it's not eliminated the competition from off-shoring nor a guarantee that salaries will not move downward or flatten.
As a side note - some comapnies even eperimented with sending patients oversees for expensive procedures taht could be effectively done for less el;sewhere - don't know how common that is, but it';s the professional version of building dashboards in Brazil and reimporting the parts to put in a US car.
I know it's not a directly the same but knowledge is knowledge whether you learn it in a classroom or the working world. Doesn't work experience and actual application of knowledge whether learned online or in the classroom make any employeer happy?
The degree is what economists call a "signal" - it provides a prosepctive employer with valuable information, and at a negligible cost. The University admission has acted as a prescreen, saying this person meets some minimal qualifications. The degree says this person is will stick to a project to achieve a goal; is trainable, and has some basic skill sets. Thorugh in a GPA and it indicates how hard a person is willing to work.
Grantes, it's not perfrct, especially at the individual level; but it doe sact as a good screen oveall, which is why a degree is fast becoming the entry point for most jobs.
Can someone learn as much online - maybe; but they are much more of an unknown quantity.
Then there's teh network value, which is another advantage of a degree.
Face it, a BS from MIT or MBA from Chicago carries a lot more weight than "I did the online courses..."
If I say "there's going to be a major convention in London", I would assume London, England - not London, Ontario, Canada - and expect others to assume the same.
That depends on your location - having lived in Ohio and Georgia (US, not as in Stalin), someone saying they are going to hold a meeting in London or Rome repectfully would not necessarily immediately mean a flight across the pond.
Actually, my other point was that you could build one of these things *without* attrating a lot of attention or rousing the interest of the authorities. There's nothing involved in the construction of an LCCM that would ring alarm bells anywhere.
I'm not sure that is completely true - building a large model airplane (which is essentially what you are doing) is not unlikely to go unnoticed - add to that that it is a stranger doing it , close to what might be an attractive target, just might attract the authorities - especially post 0/11 where formerly unnoticed acts become suspcious.
And your chances of using a hijacked or hired business jet to deliver a payload would seem to be pretty limited if this story is any indicator.
well, given the recent event at Reagan's memorial, it seems there still are some problems with IFF. My point was that there are plenty of ways to deliver an equal payload that require less noticable actions prior to the attack.
With a flight time of less than 10 minutes to its target and a small radar signature, an LCCM would have a much higher probability of success without the need for martyrdom.
How accurate will it be, especially since a test launch is pretty much out of the question? The V-1 basicly hit a random target, and even with a much more sophisticated GPS based guidance system you're still dealing with control system resposne and stability issues.
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but that there are more low-tech ways for a terrorist to attack that are much more probable.
From the looks of it, he's building a modern V-1, an dteh tech used is not vastly different from that used in model aircraft. larger scale perhaps, but even taht is questionable when you look at some of the large scale a/c (sucha sthe B-52) modellers have built.
Besides, why build a cruise missile, which requires you stayin in one place and buying a bunch of stuff taht may arouse the interest of teh authorities when you could steal a biz jet, deliver a larger payload, and do the planning in dispersed locations?
IFAIR, in the cartoon series that continued the story line, where they discovered teh Romulians were not human cross breeds as originally though.
I am a trained engineer and am appalled by the science in ST. Not the made up part, but the bending of known rules. Now, if only they'd fix the science in ST XI, I mean, they even have shadows in space when a shuttle passes between the Eterprise and a sun. Everyone nows neither light nor sound propogate invacuum.
Slashdot Mirror
And you are telling me that the same cannot be said for management? (BTW, please spare me the crypto-racist argument that "Indians can't do management").
Sure - in fact you'll need management at the outsource end to interface with the inhouse staff.
Why do you assume all outsourcing is done in India - although they are very capable, there are plenty of other places to outsource.
I assume you mean "fungibility" rather than "fungability" and I'm not quite sure what you mean. An OSS project often has a very dedicated team working on it rather than transient labourers.
Yea - I'm not into spell checking. What I meant was the nature of OSS development - distributed developemnt, work done on a as needed basis is very similar to outsourced projects.
You only replace expensive coders with expensive requirements gathering people plus Third World coders. And you greatly increase the chance of miscommunication since natural language is inherently ambiguous. The only unambiguous document produced is the code itself.
I think your desire to offshore no matter what the cost to the business is dogmatic but I have enjoyed this exchange!
One of the key mistakes, INHO, softwrae projects make is they don't do the in depth requiremenst definition up frona and make sure that is in line with the business needs - no matter where the coding is done.
My point is not that every job should be outsourced, rather that anyone who thinks that beacuse they have a technical skill they are safe from being replaced by cheaper labor elsewhere, especially as communications becomes more seamless. Any job wher ethe labor cost is the significant cost of production is always goinfg to be analyzed for ways to cut costs.
oysourcing should be a business decison based on cost effectiveness. Sometimes it's better to do work in house.
"Which is why expensive managemnet will be kept onsite and the grunt work offshored"
Coding is grunt work? Are you joking? That kind of contempt for the code (ie, that which serves the customer) is what leads to 75% of IT projects failing.
My statement does not reflect contempt for coders or the code - rather reflects my view that while writing code requires a specific technical skill sets, it is by its very nature a strong candidate for outsourcing because:
Labor costs are a signiicant percentage of the production cost
The skills can be found in lower costs areas of production
As global communications become less intrusive (i.e. video conferencing becomes les like a rerun of "MMMMAAA MAX HHHHEADROOM" and more like a normal conversation, the need for everyone to be local greatlty diminishes.
As fro teh 75% number, ny experience is taht IT projects fail because:
companies fail to define what exactly they want at the start of the project
they fail to realize taht for many large scale projects they are buying a way of doing business and if it doesn't match their way they will have problems
projects grow like ameobas to try to become everything to everybody
they hire consultants to do teh work based on a low bid model that ensures the consultants are driven to modify the scope of the project to make money (just like any good construction project, the money's in the changes which is why companies often give away the basic work to get the job knowing the client will have to modify the scope to get what they need)
In short, they fail because they are not planned and managed properly, no matter how great the coders are.
The code is way more important than the management.
hardly - good management provvides direction, resources, identifies and gets needed skill sets and drives the project to completion on budget and schedule.
Code that never gets completed is useless, no matter how elegant or feature laden the project "will" be, someday.
You only have to look at the open source community (entire number of managers: 0) to see how great coders don't need managers to make great software.
Well, I'd consider teh people who decide what features go into the next kernel managers, but I agree OSS is a good example of what a lose knit community can accomplish. There is some impressive code, but at the same time there are:
multiple interpretations of the same idea
features not yet implemented but desired by end users
projects that die from lack of interest
all things that are simply too expensive in a commercial environment; which is why you have managers
Don't get me wrong, I'm a supporter of OSS, but the idea that it represents the future model for software development is not correct, IMHO.
It does point out the fungability of coding - here is a group of people spread around the world producing usable code - a stong argument for outsourcing coding to low production cost areas
But so few projects these days require the coder to just code.
True - the challenge is to seperate the coding skills from the otehr ones so you can lower teh total development cost.
I say we ditch free trade and call for fair trade. If we forced American corporations to pay a minimum wage and minimum benefits to foreign workers, you and I would be able to compete much better
Your assuming that they would continue to do the work they currently outsource - they may just decide it's too expensive and cut back, resulting in less inovation and fewer jobs.
or, they could outsource to non-US owned companies which would not be forced to pay US wages and benefits - transfering technology and still leaving the jobs offshore (my guess i staht they'd create holding companies in a mor efriendly venue , say Switzerland, so the offshore company is a Swiss owned firm, not a US owned firm.)
If your saying any company that imports foriegn made goods should pay US wages to their workers - be prepared for your standard of living to go down when the price of goods goes up while your wages stagnate. The US could do the same thing by adding tariffs to bring prices in line with what a US manufacturerd product would cost - the net effect to the company would be the same as a foriegn minimum wage law since production in the US would cost the same as producing the good abroad. You might want to Google for Smoot - Hawley to see how it could work...
In the end, "fair trade" is just a buzzward for protectionism.
and the foreign workers (albeit fewer of them) would be much better off for it as well.
Of course, all those laid off workers who used to have a decent standard of living, by local standards, may disagreewith you. But to use your arguement, why not let companies offshore at will, since it means cheaper goods making Americans who buy them better off (albiet more o ftehm than those who lose their job to offshoring).
Those ads in the sunday paper where they promise to give you the product free/10% cash back/whatever if you find the same product at a competitor for less? They can do this because the manufacturers make essentially identical products but sell them with different model numbers to competing electronics stores -- so the models are unique to the chain carrying them. Usually this is called price protection and it's something the supplier will often guarantee in a specific market.
While manufacturers will give a store a special model #, that's not common nor the reason for price match promise. Stores do the price match because:
1. It convinces customers to buy now because it "protects" them from seeing the same thing elsewhere for less - in economic terms, it lowers the search cost because you don't have to check every store fo rthe best deal before you buy, making it rational to buy now.
2. More importantly, it keeps prices higher without collusion. Why? Beacuse each store nows if it lowers its prices, their competitors will not only match them but give the buyer an extra 10% - which drives the sale to the competitor unless the lower priced store drops it price to match the 10% extra - reducing the return even more. Even then, you can often still go to the competitor, show the receipt and get yet another 10%. As a result, both store wind up with less revenue - and one not only loses a sale but has the return costs as well.
It also prevents stores from dropping prices unilaterally, because if they lower their price, they also have to refund the diference to their customers as well - ever notice the "even if it's us that is cheaper" wording - that enforces maintaining price points (and predictablity in pricing for stoires) because to lower them is to reduce your revenue retroactively.
The net result is that it makes sense to keep prices higher and match them rather than engage in a price war. Everyone makes more money that way.
So why do special model #'s? Well, imagine you are a chain of electronic stores who has a major discount chain as a competitor. The discount chain can sell DVD palyers as a loss leader or at lower prices to drive business or because they have a more efficient supply chain. If they have a different model number you no longer compete with them directly - anyone who wants a price match is informed that they sell a different model - and you can expalin why yours is better and you should buy it here.
Sales is all about psychology and economics, and your best bet is to convince women the product will make them prettier / slimmer / younger looking and men that it will help them get laid.
I can hire inexpensive lawyers offshore to research, answer questions, prepare briefs under the lead of a local attorney.
/etc. - you really don't see th estaff toiling away, and as long as th work meets code and spec who cares where it is done.
You can but whether you should is moot. You forget about the management overhead in co-ordinating these people. Ever tried to manage somebody in another country? It's not easy. Unless there are dozens of people on the team, it is more cost-effective to have them on-site.
Yes, and it's not easy - but with email, IM, video conferencing it sure is possible to pull together an effective team - something that is getting easier as technology advances. What I see as becoming more common is having an expensive expert onsite backed up by less expensive remote support. The expert guides there work - and as communications become more seemless the less of a need for tehm to work face to face.
Remember: management is the most expensive resource on an IT project. If you offshore your programmers but need to increase your management, you are not likely to make savings (unless the number of programmers you offshore is huge - see my previous post).
Which is why expensive managemnet will be kept onsite and the grunt work offshored as long as the total cost is less than doing it in house. I'd bet the smart companies are building management talent offshore as well, to act as ths link between their teams and the onsite talent.
On-site teams are also far more effective.
Not necessarily - it depends on the work being done, the skill of the workers. If all you are doing is writing code to spec, it's immaterial if your doing it onsite or in Bangalore or Kiev.
Architectural principles are the same the World over. But who would seriously consider building a house with their architect in - say - South Africa?
But you could do it with an architect onsite who has an architect in South aferica do the HVAC / Lighting
My point is that many professions that think they are immune are in for a real surprise.
Look at Siemens and what they are doing with telecommunications.
Can you be more specific?
SIEMENs has moved a significant proportion of its handset design work to China - the engineering work is as good as German, at a much lower price. Germany specs and sells it, China designs and builds.
That should be a wakeup call to Germany - they thought that German engineering would keep jobs there, but are finding out that is not good enough.
That's not what you hear in this forum when the discussion turns to desktops, then OSS has too many which are too different.
But none of tehm are innovative, ratehr they take teh existing desktop metaphor ond copy it in somewhat different ways.
What software does Emacs copy? VIM, Apache, PHP, Webmin, etc, etc?
Leaving emacs out, those others addressed address specific niches by providing greater benefit than many existing programs sucha s Apache for servers - my point exactly. Apache, for example, allows a hardware manufacturer to cut costs by reducing software cost and maintain functionality required to do the job. But your appealing to a limited set of users with some technical ability, not a broad group of users who just want to open documenst they get in the mail.
I think you mistake the popularity of packages such as Gnome and KDE, which try to win Windows converts, for a general trend.
My point is, if OSS wants to become a desktop alternative, rather than a good solution in specific niches, it needs to be innovative rather than mearly redo existing feature sets.
Once you have written the program, and it has gained a popular footing with the public, you can bootstrap support services around it. It's hard, and 9 out of 10 such efforts will likely fail (just as 9 out of 10 new businesses fail). But you're going to write the software anyway if you're scratching your own itch (which is most-often why I write software), and when it's good enough and useful enough to enough people, you will have yourself a viable business.
Of course, if it is viable as an OSS project, every established OSS vendor can support it as well - making it harder for you to get in, especially if teh program has undergone revision by numerous otehr programmers on the way to be a success.
There are plenty of companies that pioneered cool technology only to lose out once it became popular.
Remember that proprietary software that is widely used is widely used for a reason - the features are actually useful. You expect Free Software authors to avoid useful features because proprietary software has them as well?
No, my point is simply cloning features may not be enough to overcome an entrenched standard, because it offers no compelling reason to switch, especially since the clone's feature set is often less complete.
To break the grip of an entrenched standard, you need a better, more productive way of doing the same thing that convinces people they gain something by switching from the existing infrastructure to a new one.
If I just want to do the same thing, why bother to switch?
If your selling support, It'll be cheaper to hire a bunch of cheap offshore techies to answer phones and provide support.... Just don't plan on being a high paid US programmer when equally good talent is cheaper elsewhere.
Nope! Just because the software is free does not mean you don't need on-site programmers. On the contrary, they become more important.
Take this as example:
Laws are free to use. Buying a book on law is almost free ($50 max). But there is no chance that lawyers (practitioners of law) will go out of business.
Similarly, software may be free but that does not mean we don't need programmers (practitioners of software engineering). Somebody has to add value to that free software to give the company a competitive advantage.
Whatsmore, here in England, thanks to out colonial heritage, we have lots of lawyers elsewhere in the World who can practise English law. But who offshores their lawyers to - for example - the Bahamas? (The Bahamas has as its highest court of appeal, the English Privy Council). Sure, Bahaman lawyers are cheaper but it's much more cost effective to employ somebody who is sitting next to you.
however, I can hire inexpensive lawyers offshore to research, answer questions, prepare briefs under the lead of a local attorney. What you may see is a step pyramid - a highly skilled practitioner backed up by a legion of cheap but effective offshore staff.
What that remove sis the learning opportunity for teh young lawyer who used to do that research - so firms would be much more picky in hiring since the cost will be higher and the must get a good partner out of the deal.
Look at Siemens and what tehy are doing with telecommunications.
OTOH - look at Apple
Yeah.. they own the PC market, isn't it ? NOT
Please stop that stupid "don't copy" whine. If you want to gain the market, you _have_ to copy Microsoft, whether it's good or bad.
You're assumption that you must copy to gain marketshare is self-defeating. OSS products will have a hard time becoming a real force by implying being like MS - there are few complelling reasons to switch. As long as you copy, you'll always be compared to MS and the shortcomings pointed out as reasons to go with the original.
Interestingly. MS is the best fast follower around - but they have the advantage of ruling the desktop, so they can afford to wait and incorporate features as they see fit - that's what being the defacto standard gives them.
Now, come up with a better way, and then you can create a real case for switching. Until then, your just playing catchup.
Apple has doen quite well by innovating - their mistake was that they refuse to license their OS so the cost of switching is so high that people tend to stick with what they have. Those that do switch do so because Apple offers them something better.
OTOH, the cost to switch to Linux is relatively small - yet it is nothing but a niche player on the desktop - because you get all the hassles of Linux without any really great leaps in what you can do.
Now imagine what a phenomenal product GIMP would be in the eyes of graphic artists who now use photoshop if only the people who had complained about it could be bothered to FIX what they see as problems. A few small years worth of effort in total, very little from each person who has seen something wrong, and the free tool would have surpassed the proprietary one years ago. Instead, all we get are more complaints.
First - notice the POV - complain - right away it's a negative relationship. Pointing out improvements is a way to get OSS better - and a valuable contribution as if someone wrote code - because it makes a tool more useful.
Second - everyone can't code at the level needed to fix problems - which in the OSS community seems to put people one step up from Bill Gates. OTOH, smart CSS vendors spend time listening to users so they can make their software better - a model OSS should adopt more.
Third - Someone else suggested a business could hire someone to fix problems. Sure, but why bother when a CSS alternative is cheaper, and I don't risk having the code I paid for wind up on a competitor's desk. Imagine the OSS community ifsomeone develped code for a company, latter released it under the GPL, and the original company said 'we own that - you can't use it because it was a work for hire and by the way, anyone using it owes us money.' Actually, you don't even have to imagine the response...
Finally - where is the real innovation in OSS - most of it appears to be attempts duplicat existing CSS software, rather than coming up with something new and better. Instead of originality, we get knock offs. Sure, they may be good, but that won't be enough to become a real presence. Everyone knocks MS for copying and refining ideas, then copies MS' model for tehir OSS software.
OTOH - look at Apple - they innovate, because thy can expect to make money off of their ideas. If maintenance fees where where the real money is, they'd be giving away OSX and have it running every possible platform.
You seem to be making the misconception that "free software" means "gratis software" - this is incorrect.
/maintainance licenses can pay for things like offices, developers, food, water, bills, etc :)
"Free Software" refers to freedom, not price. I can sell my piece of free software at any price I like, whether you choose to buy it of course, is your own freedom.
I think he hit th enail on the head - how many times do you see someone looking for an OSS aka "free" counterpart to a CSS aka "cost money" product? They're looking for free as in no cost, not as in I can mod it. That perception will limit entry and ultimately stifle innovation. How many innovative, vs "let's copy the functionality of product X" OSs programs are out there?
For example; a business selling a database product may choose to release it as free software, and offer a gratis download, but offer a support/maintainance license for a fee. The software is still free, and the money from support
Well, beyond the hurdle that someone has to develop OSS programs so you can sell maintenance is the cost of support issue.
If your selling support, It'll be cheaper to hire a bunch of cheap offshore techies to answer phones and provide support. Keep a few US based staff to do installs (supplement them with off shore progarmers on a limited entry basis) and you have a model for making money on maintenance.
Just don't plan on being a high paid US programmer when equally good talent is cheaper elsewhere.
It's not theat OSS is a bad model, but it is a bit self limiting.
When I was on SSBN 655, many folks would take a box or two of their favorite soda's to sea with them. (All we had for soda was fountain machines with generic (cola, lemon-lime, etc.) syrups. It's nice to have a taste of home when you are [mumble] feet under the North Alantic.)
That brings back memories - we had the real thing (tm), and to this day it still doesn't taste right without that hint of hydraulic fluid.
SSBN 633 Blue
So have I - the best ride was when a coworker mistakenly took the ceiling for the deck and rapidly discovered his mistake during the 2g pullout. He looked for the duct tape next time.
Riding up front was cooler - floating against the harness while the Gulf is filling the cockpit windows.
We had one poor engineer who spent an entire flight in her seat - she got violently airsick during takeoff and never recovered.
Cosmetics that blatantly do not deliver the "age protection" they claim to...
Actually, they claim to reduce the "appearence" of aging, so they technically can deliver what they promis e- a little chemical that tightens the skin slightly to reduce the wrinkled look and they've done what they say.
"The key is to license Indian trained MD's in the US - a process that is relatively straightforward;"
Straightforward?! You have no idea how hard it is to get a medical license in the US. There is a huge series of hard tests (that are not cheap) that each candidate has to go through. It's anything but straightforward especially since the medical education over there is not up to par. This is why students who travel elsewhere for medschool (after being rejected by US schools) will almost never be licensed to practice in the US.
First of all, I said straightforwd which is not the same as easy. Despite the hurdles, foreign trained doctors do get US licenses. I also take issue with the idea that all foreign medical training is substandard and somehow foriegn doctors are incapable of doing the same quality of work as a US trained doctor.
This work that is being "outsourced" is outsourced to expats!
Currently. My point is that there s nothing to prevent companies from outsourcing highly skilled professions as well. In fact, there are several possibilities to do so:
1. Hire retiring US licensed doctors that may want to return to their home country
2. Use doctors in countries where the medical training is consider equivalent to the US but where socialized medicine reduces doctors wages
In eithe rcase, the net effect will be to keep downward pressure on US wages, which is bad for doctoirs but good for consumers.
Some professions, such as pilots, have already reacted to the outsourcing threat by cooperating across borders on wage issues - otherwise you'd see US carriers switching to foreign flagged airplanes to reduce costs on non-domestic travel (just as shippers did so long ago).
But back to my point - any profession that thinks it is not at risk for wage competition had better be protecte dby real strong regulation, and even then may find themselve surprised.
"Even so, companies are offshoring medical work to highly trained Indian doctors - work such as radiologists reading xrays, since the information is easily transmitted electronically and India has a large base of well trained doctors who are cheaper than US ones."
Nonsense. Radiologists MUST be licensed in US.
The key is to license Indian trained MD's in the US - a process that is relatively straightforward; and then have them return to India as US licensed doctors. The key to offshoring is to find a way to develop a talent pool that provides services at a competitive pric e- and I doubt there are many professional services taht are immune.
OK, slightly OT:
Is there any OS content management / creation systems available? Having one would help bring content online, if only beacuse soemone would avoid teh steep fees for licenses.
Since we, as computer scientists, do not have any kind of licensing and anyone can start programming, we are at a disadvantage. Most other professions (including engineering) do have licensing boards and they restrict the number of licensed people which means that they are able to increase their pay.
As an engineer, I find several errors in your statement. First, very few engineers need to be licensed to practice their craft - most employeers I've worked for or with didn't care if you were a PE. That is one challenge PE organizations face - young engineers have no incentive to take the EIT or PE exams, since it adds nothing to their employability, except in a few specialities (Civil comes to mind). Which brings me to teh second point - most PE orgs would love to license more - and have no restictions on teh number of licenses they issue.
I guess that's what we'll all have to do. Medical doctors will ALWAYS be paid well since they restrict the number of students and make sure you're licensed to practice medicine. We will all be replaced by cheap labor overseas... we're training them now anyway to take our jobs away.
Even so, companies are offshoring medical work to highly trained Indian doctors - work such as radiologists reading xrays, since the information is easily transmitted electronically and India has a large base of well trained doctors who are cheaper than US ones.
As for doctor's pay, a Stanford MBA has as good or better ROI than their MD, especially considering the investment in time and money to get the MD vs the MBA. Sure, some specialities make a lot of money as MDs - but so do MBAs in cosnulting or I Banking. And for every cardiac surgeon, there's a lot more pediatricans and famly practice doctors who probably make in year what the other pays in taxes.
So, while licensing has helped MD's maintain salaries (the real reason for licensing), it's not eliminated the competition from off-shoring nor a guarantee that salaries will not move downward or flatten.
As a side note - some comapnies even eperimented with sending patients oversees for expensive procedures taht could be effectively done for less el;sewhere - don't know how common that is, but it';s the professional version of building dashboards in Brazil and reimporting the parts to put in a US car.
I know it's not a directly the same but knowledge is knowledge whether you learn it in a classroom or the working world. Doesn't work experience and actual application of knowledge whether learned online or in the classroom make any employeer happy?
The degree is what economists call a "signal" - it provides a prosepctive employer with valuable information, and at a negligible cost. The University admission has acted as a prescreen, saying this person meets some minimal qualifications. The degree says this person is will stick to a project to achieve a goal; is trainable, and has some basic skill sets. Thorugh in a GPA and it indicates how hard a person is willing to work.
Grantes, it's not perfrct, especially at the individual level; but it doe sact as a good screen oveall, which is why a degree is fast becoming the entry point for most jobs.
Can someone learn as much online - maybe; but they are much more of an unknown quantity.
Then there's teh network value, which is another advantage of a degree.
Face it, a BS from MIT or MBA from Chicago carries a lot more weight than "I did the online courses..."
If I say "there's going to be a major convention in London", I would assume London, England - not London, Ontario, Canada - and expect others to assume the same.
That depends on your location - having lived in Ohio and Georgia (US, not as in Stalin), someone saying they are going to hold a meeting in London or Rome repectfully would not necessarily immediately mean a flight across the pond.
Actually, my other point was that you could build one of these things *without* attrating a lot of attention or rousing the interest of the authorities. There's nothing involved in the construction of an LCCM that would ring alarm bells anywhere.
I'm not sure that is completely true - building a large model airplane (which is essentially what you are doing) is not unlikely to go unnoticed - add to that that it is a stranger doing it , close to what might be an attractive target, just might attract the authorities - especially post 0/11 where formerly unnoticed acts become suspcious.
And your chances of using a hijacked or hired business jet to deliver a payload would seem to be pretty limited if this story is any indicator.
well, given the recent event at Reagan's memorial, it seems there still are some problems with IFF. My point was that there are plenty of ways to deliver an equal payload that require less noticable actions prior to the attack.
With a flight time of less than 10 minutes to its target and a small radar signature, an LCCM would have a much higher probability of success without the need for martyrdom.
How accurate will it be, especially since a test launch is pretty much out of the question? The V-1 basicly hit a random target, and even with a much more sophisticated GPS based guidance system you're still dealing with control system resposne and stability issues.
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but that there are more low-tech ways for a terrorist to attack that are much more probable.
From the looks of it, he's building a modern V-1, an dteh tech used is not vastly different from that used in model aircraft. larger scale perhaps, but even taht is questionable when you look at some of the large scale a/c (sucha sthe B-52) modellers have built.
Besides, why build a cruise missile, which requires you stayin in one place and buying a bunch of stuff taht may arouse the interest of teh authorities when you could steal a biz jet, deliver a larger payload, and do the planning in dispersed locations?
IFAIR, in the cartoon series that continued the story line, where they discovered teh Romulians were not human cross breeds as originally though.
I am a trained engineer and am appalled by the science in ST. Not the made up part, but the bending of known rules. Now, if only they'd fix the science in ST XI, I mean, they even have shadows in space when a shuttle passes between the Eterprise and a sun. Everyone nows neither light nor sound propogate invacuum.
After-tax corporate income is at its highest level since 1929. Here's a test...what bad thing happened in 1929?
The US Government mistakenly though a tight money poicy was correct.