I concur with some of the other posters - once you've let the money go you have no leverage. This applies to any vendor and not just offshore ones. Offshore vendors are just harder to sue...
Once concept we've used with a level of success is a warranty milestone. As someone else has suggested we do a 40-40-20 split with 40% of payment coming after deliver, 40% after testing concludes and 20% is held in a bank guarantee for a warranty period of one month.
If we don't get any production issues after one month they get their money. If we do and it costs to fix it, it comes out of their money (theoretically - but actually we negotiate).
I'm working for a large Telco doing roughly 80-120 IT projects every calendar year worth about $200M. Most of them get through in one way or another, but some fail spetacularly and all of them have ridiculous overheads, delays and frustrations.
Best example of a crash-and-burn is a transaction engine designed to process a simple text file from another company. Should have been 6 months/$500K, project actually folded at 2 years / $3M and now we're going round for a second bite at the cherry (but with a new project name!!!).
Why do they fail ? Lot's of reasons.
Sometimes the user's requirements are unclear. Sometimes we're using the wrong spanner for the job. Sometimes the team loses the plot and we get a jumbo jet when we wanted a paper air plane. And we're always under pressure on time, but that's business - if we don't get there first someone else will.
What's the root cause?
Complexity. We let our systems get too complex and now a two line code change can cost >$500K because the down stream effects will hit ten other systems that generate $1M/day of revenue.
The moral - KISS. Use the simplest solution for the job. Don't let the sales guy run away with it, don't let your geek-ego run away with it, don't let the user's get over excited and your project might just come in on time on budget. As someone else said... it isn't rocket science... or shouldn't be...
Good point. As much as we'd like to believe otherwise we're a tiny slice of the population. Canvassing opinions of slashdot will probably give you a feel for a certain demographic (propeller hat wearing, girlfriend-less, techno-weanies) but isn't representative of the greater unwashed masses.
Actually saw an interesting report in the UK about two years ago. It pointed out that in the UK, IT was growing at twice the rate of GDP. That meanst by 2010 the IT sector would form 100% of GDP.....
Obvious consequence - IT growth has got to slow. What does this mean long term? Less flashy jobs, less explosive growth based on new technologies and more growth through organic changes, restructures and mergers (of technology as well as businesses).
Doesn't mean that people are less mobile or there is less innovation, just that the 'market' is constricted so change comes from within and not from growth. Every gain has to be equalled by a loss somewhere else.
For me the problem isn't that software development isn't creative. It is, and a good bit of code can be a beautiful thing... I think the problem is I never get to see the end results.
I sit in a tiny room somewhere beavering away on code and somewhere, on another continent, in another office somebody actually uses what I write and goes "Wow! That's good!". Software is too intangible, the processes too complex and the rewards not visceral enough.
My current theory is I need a profession with more immediate gratification:-) I need a profession where I make something and some looks at it and goes "Wow! That's good!" and pats me on the back. I need that warm fuzzy feeling that I'm doing something good to get me out of bed in the morning...
The one big difference in games is the competitve market they're in. The software is just the same but the conditions are *much* tighter.
To give you an idea, I talked to a Project Manager from EA once who told me that the useful life of a computer game was six weeks.
They'd spend a year or two working on a game but if it didn't recoup it's cost in the first six weeks they were dead in the water. Past six weeks everyone moves off onto the next-new-thing and your game goes onto the back list.
Course if you make your money back in six weeks the rest is gravy and hopefully means bonuses all round...
That's what testers are for.... at least in commercial products.
Part of the problem OSS has is that all the kudos goes to the people who write the exciting stuff, the code. All the peripheral stuff like testing, writing manuals, etc gets short shrift.
Problem is that, as ESR points out, this is all the stuff that money takes care of in commercial software an OSS has no parallel.
We need a paradigm (!) which rewards people for all those peripheral jobs other than cutting code...
I think you're on the right track here. Technology is just a tool.
Most of the time it reduces stress but when it fails to work it adds to it.
The more complex the technology the more impact it has.
Hate to be a party pooper but didn't you consider leaving it there and calling the cops ?
If you had they might have been able to bust the individuals concerned and saved some innocents down the track a lot of grief.
This way you got 800 quid's worth of stolen electronics, the thief wrote off some capital investment and a couple of thousand/.'ers got some pre-pubescent excitement. Wahooo.
Interesting term "flash mob". The first time I encountered it was in the writing of sci-fi author, Larry Niven. In some of his series personal teleportation becomes ubiquitous giving rise to the 'flash mob'.
When a news broadcast reports a certain kind of story (riot, fire, etc) people start to teleport into watch the fun. The news reports the growing mob and before long it reaches critical mass and turns into a real riot as people take advantage by teleporting in and doing a quick bit of looting.
I'm not sure if Larry originated the term though ? Anyone know an ealier source ? Is it a 'real' phenomenon ?
Indeed, photography is 10% skill and 90% luck. You need the luck to capture the moment but if you don't have the technical skill with film you'll miss your opportunity. Digital gives you more opportunities for no additional cost.
I'm a 'good' photographer and my hit rate has gone from maybe 10% per 'shoot' (roll of film) to 50% per shoot (full flash card).
One important point that is overlooked is I get to post-process my own pictures with digital. That way, since I know what I was trying to achieve originally, I can rescue a less than perfect picture, where some ham-fisted instant lab operator would have torched it.
Okay maybe that wasn't the best reason to reject a resume but I have some sympathy with your management team.
I've been in positions as a hiring manager a couple of times now and when I started I was full of zeal and gave every resume I received its due attention. Now I realise when I advertise for a position I'm going to get on the order of hundreds of applications per position, I'm going to conduct maybe twenty or thirty interviews and my boss is going to be on my back the whole time.
I try and do my best to filter them on select criteria but if I have to choose between someone who spent the last year stacking shelves at Walmart and someone who spent the last year in an IT job... I know who's going to get the benefit of the doubt.
Applying for a job is a competition. While to you it feels like a personal affront if you don't get an interview (even though you can 'do' the job), to the business its about getting the best person for the job.
Use the most obvious implementation... - okay, good
Have regular code-review - Absolutely !
Hire a small number of first class programmers Concur! Small teams are better, Fred Brooks et al
Try to get the technical staff doing as much programming as possible. Don't bog them down with [management], [meetings], [conventions]or [documentation]
URK!!! Whoops, where did this one spring from ? 100% wrong. It's everything else we do that gives a context to coding and tells us whether or not we're writing good code. Coding should be the least important thing a developer does (behind things like understanding the client/problem, analysing the progblem, designing a solution and testing).
Test, test, test... - Aha! Now we're back on track...
As far as I am concerned, if a company makes money in a particular country, then it has an obligation to not just take money out of that country but put something back into it like...
Tax ???
You can't force a company to 'create' jobs in a country where they trade, it's nonsense. At best you can bar them from entering the market through something like tariffs.
I'm a firm believer in goverment taxation of profits for companies that outsource jobs outside of countries where they do the most business.
The US is the largest consumer market in the world ($spent/capita) so everyone should put money back into the US economy ? Or how about if I mine iron ore and ship it to China do I have to pay more tax/create more jobs in China ?
Protectionism doesn't make any sense whatsoever in a gloabl market - it only makes sense when you're protecting parochial interests in one country. Even then it doesn't make a lot of sense since if you have to protect the industry you've already lost the battle, it's just a matter of time.
Management bandwidth seems to be the number one problem with international engineering and development efforts.
I've been invovled with a couple over the years and very few have come off satisfactorily. In the main this was not because the grunt level developers couldn't communicate or weren't technically able enough it was more about a lack of control from management.
Either they couldn't specify the business objectives clearly enough or they simply didn't have a grasp on what was actually being done.
Managing a software project is difficult as it is. Managing one over time zones and across international boundaries just adds to the level of complexity. If you don't have the people to control it you're going to be up the creek without a paddle...
I worked under that illlusion in a University for four years before I came to the realisation that they are kind of upscale retirement homes for intelligent but socially dysfunctional individuals.
Best thing about Digital is that as a semi-pro (gifted amateur ?!?!?) it gives me more control over the post processing. Because I'm not a pro with a long standing relationship with a lab the results from film were always a bit random. With digital I'm in full control of the process from start to finish.
That alone raises my hit rate on a 'shoot' from something like 10% to nearer 50%
I've shot compact and SLR's in both digital and film for many years now and I find myself going back to SLR's all the time.
Why ? The glass in a compact camera just isn't up to scratch. I've used the same (effective) resolution in a compact and in an SLR and the SLR always comes up trumps. You just can't get enough photons through a tiny little compact lens.
The nice thing about SLR lenses too is that you can upgrade! You can start out with reasonably cheap lenses and then as you budget and interest grows you can upgrade to the higher end.
If you're interested in lenses check out photodo.com which has a lot independent lens test including MTF charts.
I don't have a secretary. I'm a geek, I have a six figure income and an incredibly stupid job title, I even wear a suit sometimes.
What am I doing wrong?
Agreed. I've always thought Barry's estimates were on the money.
Comes down to what you consider a bug ? If you think a bug is a spelling mistake on a web page then 1:5 is probably not far off (but bad enough!!!) If a bug is bad design decision in a mass market product then 1:1000 might be a bit on the light side...
They do it because lawyers are too expensive.
The old attitude was pretty much along the lines that the easy way to enforce the licence was through legal means.
Used to be that individual users might pirate the software, but they don't have a lot of cash so no point in chasing them. Just wait for a cash rich company to exceed their licence agreement and then politely ask them to cough up or sue their arse off. The small fish were just the cost of doing business (and as someone pointed out - good for spreading the word about the product).
Nowdays the cost of going after software pirates is so expensive that you need a short cut that doesn't involve lawyers.
With a live activation you can note discrepancies in a licensee's registrations very easily, have an account manager ring them up and bingo, one hundred new licenses sold on the spot!
I think we're going to see a divergence in the software market. Individuals will use increasingly better free software and companies will use increasingle more complicated, propritary software distributed by a smaller number of vendors.
Vive la difference!
I second the comment about taking as many photo's as possible and would suggest looking at as many as possible too!
Best books I ever encountered were I think John Hedgecoe's Basic and Advanced photography which covered pretty much everything.
Last thing - photo editing software is your darkroom and needs as much attention as taking the pictures! Best book I've found on the subject is "Photoshop for Photographers"
Slashdot Mirror
I concur with some of the other posters - once you've let the money go you have no leverage. This applies to any vendor and not just offshore ones. Offshore vendors are just harder to sue...
Once concept we've used with a level of success is a warranty milestone. As someone else has suggested we do a 40-40-20 split with 40% of payment coming after deliver, 40% after testing concludes and 20% is held in a bank guarantee for a warranty period of one month.
If we don't get any production issues after one month they get their money. If we do and it costs to fix it, it comes out of their money (theoretically - but actually we negotiate).
You've got to share the risk...
A friend of mine coined a name for that... an "apathist".
Apathists don't actively proclaim there isn't a god, they just don't care.
I'm working for a large Telco doing roughly 80-120 IT projects every calendar year worth about $200M. Most of them get through in one way or another, but some fail spetacularly and all of them have ridiculous overheads, delays and frustrations.
Best example of a crash-and-burn is a transaction engine designed to process a simple text file from another company. Should have been 6 months/$500K, project actually folded at 2 years / $3M and now we're going round for a second bite at the cherry (but with a new project name!!!).
Why do they fail ? Lot's of reasons.
Sometimes the user's requirements are unclear. Sometimes we're using the wrong spanner for the job. Sometimes the team loses the plot and we get a jumbo jet when we wanted a paper air plane. And we're always under pressure on time, but that's business - if we don't get there first someone else will.
What's the root cause?
Complexity. We let our systems get too complex and now a two line code change can cost >$500K because the down stream effects will hit ten other systems that generate $1M/day of revenue.
The moral - KISS. Use the simplest solution for the job. Don't let the sales guy run away with it, don't let your geek-ego run away with it, don't let the user's get over excited and your project might just come in on time on budget. As someone else said... it isn't rocket science... or shouldn't be...
Good point. As much as we'd like to believe otherwise we're a tiny slice of the population. Canvassing opinions of slashdot will probably give you a feel for a certain demographic (propeller hat wearing, girlfriend-less, techno-weanies) but isn't representative of the greater unwashed masses.
Actually saw an interesting report in the UK about two years ago. It pointed out that in the UK, IT was growing at twice the rate of GDP. That meanst by 2010 the IT sector would form 100% of GDP.....
Obvious consequence - IT growth has got to slow. What does this mean long term? Less flashy jobs, less explosive growth based on new technologies and more growth through organic changes, restructures and mergers (of technology as well as businesses).
Doesn't mean that people are less mobile or there is less innovation, just that the 'market' is constricted so change comes from within and not from growth. Every gain has to be equalled by a loss somewhere else.
Looks like we're all factory workers now...
No, out of bed...
For me the problem isn't that software development isn't creative. It is, and a good bit of code can be a beautiful thing... I think the problem is I never get to see the end results.
I sit in a tiny room somewhere beavering away on code and somewhere, on another continent, in another office somebody actually uses what I write and goes "Wow! That's good!". Software is too intangible, the processes too complex and the rewards not visceral enough.
My current theory is I need a profession with more immediate gratification :-) I need a profession where I make something and some looks at it and goes "Wow! That's good!" and pats me on the back. I need that warm fuzzy feeling that I'm doing something good to get me out of bed in the morning...
The one big difference in games is the competitve market they're in. The software is just the same but the conditions are *much* tighter.
To give you an idea, I talked to a Project Manager from EA once who told me that the useful life of a computer game was six weeks.
They'd spend a year or two working on a game but if it didn't recoup it's cost in the first six weeks they were dead in the water. Past six weeks everyone moves off onto the next-new-thing and your game goes onto the back list.
Course if you make your money back in six weeks the rest is gravy and hopefully means bonuses all round...
That's what testers are for.... at least in commercial products.
Part of the problem OSS has is that all the kudos goes to the people who write the exciting stuff, the code. All the peripheral stuff like testing, writing manuals, etc gets short shrift.
Problem is that, as ESR points out, this is all the stuff that money takes care of in commercial software an OSS has no parallel.
We need a paradigm (!) which rewards people for all those peripheral jobs other than cutting code...
I think you're on the right track here. Technology is just a tool.
Most of the time it reduces stress but when it fails to work it adds to it.
The more complex the technology the more impact it has.
Hate to be a party pooper but didn't you consider leaving it there and calling the cops ?
If you had they might have been able to bust the individuals concerned and saved some innocents down the track a lot of grief.
This way you got 800 quid's worth of stolen electronics, the thief wrote off some capital investment and a couple of thousand /.'ers got some pre-pubescent excitement. Wahooo.
Interesting term "flash mob". The first time I encountered it was in the writing of sci-fi author, Larry Niven. In some of his series personal teleportation becomes ubiquitous giving rise to the 'flash mob'.
When a news broadcast reports a certain kind of story (riot, fire, etc) people start to teleport into watch the fun. The news reports the growing mob and before long it reaches critical mass and turns into a real riot as people take advantage by teleporting in and doing a quick bit of looting.
I'm not sure if Larry originated the term though ? Anyone know an ealier source ? Is it a 'real' phenomenon ?
Indeed, photography is 10% skill and 90% luck. You need the luck to capture the moment but if you don't have the technical skill with film you'll miss your opportunity. Digital gives you more opportunities for no additional cost.
I'm a 'good' photographer and my hit rate has gone from maybe 10% per 'shoot' (roll of film) to 50% per shoot (full flash card).
One important point that is overlooked is I get to post-process my own pictures with digital. That way, since I know what I was trying to achieve originally, I can rescue a less than perfect picture, where some ham-fisted instant lab operator would have torched it.
Okay maybe that wasn't the best reason to reject a resume but I have some sympathy with your management team.
I've been in positions as a hiring manager a couple of times now and when I started I was full of zeal and gave every resume I received its due attention. Now I realise when I advertise for a position I'm going to get on the order of hundreds of applications per position, I'm going to conduct maybe twenty or thirty interviews and my boss is going to be on my back the whole time.
I try and do my best to filter them on select criteria but if I have to choose between someone who spent the last year stacking shelves at Walmart and someone who spent the last year in an IT job... I know who's going to get the benefit of the doubt.
Applying for a job is a competition. While to you it feels like a personal affront if you don't get an interview (even though you can 'do' the job), to the business its about getting the best person for the job.
Among the one's I've come to believe are:
Okay, let's look at them...
URK!!! Whoops, where did this one spring from ? 100% wrong. It's everything else we do that gives a context to coding and tells us whether or not we're writing good code. Coding should be the least important thing a developer does (behind things like understanding the client/problem, analysing the progblem, designing a solution and testing).
As far as I am concerned, if a company makes money in a particular country, then it has an obligation to not just take money out of that country but put something back into it like...
Tax ???
You can't force a company to 'create' jobs in a country where they trade, it's nonsense. At best you can bar them from entering the market through something like tariffs.
I'm a firm believer in goverment taxation of profits for companies that outsource jobs outside of countries where they do the most business.
The US is the largest consumer market in the world ($spent/capita) so everyone should put money back into the US economy ? Or how about if I mine iron ore and ship it to China do I have to pay more tax/create more jobs in China ?
Protectionism doesn't make any sense whatsoever in a gloabl market - it only makes sense when you're protecting parochial interests in one country. Even then it doesn't make a lot of sense since if you have to protect the industry you've already lost the battle, it's just a matter of time.
Management bandwidth seems to be the number one problem with international engineering and development efforts.
I've been invovled with a couple over the years and very few have come off satisfactorily. In the main this was not because the grunt level developers couldn't communicate or weren't technically able enough it was more about a lack of control from management.
Either they couldn't specify the business objectives clearly enough or they simply didn't have a grasp on what was actually being done.
Managing a software project is difficult as it is. Managing one over time zones and across international boundaries just adds to the level of complexity. If you don't have the people to control it you're going to be up the creek without a paddle...
What makes you think students are the customers?
I worked under that illlusion in a University for four years before I came to the realisation that they are kind of upscale retirement homes for intelligent but socially dysfunctional individuals.
Best thing about Digital is that as a semi-pro (gifted amateur ?!?!?) it gives me more control over the post processing. Because I'm not a pro with a long standing relationship with a lab the results from film were always a bit random. With digital I'm in full control of the process from start to finish.
That alone raises my hit rate on a 'shoot' from something like 10% to nearer 50%
Absolutely invest in the lenses not the body!
I've shot compact and SLR's in both digital and film for many years now and I find myself going back to SLR's all the time.
Why ? The glass in a compact camera just isn't up to scratch. I've used the same (effective) resolution in a compact and in an SLR and the SLR always comes up trumps. You just can't get enough photons through a tiny little compact lens.
The nice thing about SLR lenses too is that you can upgrade! You can start out with reasonably cheap lenses and then as you budget and interest grows you can upgrade to the higher end.
If you're interested in lenses check out photodo.com which has a lot independent lens test including MTF charts.
You have a secretary ?!??!?
I don't have a secretary. I'm a geek, I have a six figure income and an incredibly stupid job title, I even wear a suit sometimes.
What am I doing wrong?
Agreed. I've always thought Barry's estimates were on the money.
Comes down to what you consider a bug ? If you think a bug is a spelling mistake on a web page then 1:5 is probably not far off (but bad enough!!!) If a bug is bad design decision in a mass market product then 1:1000 might be a bit on the light side...
Don't look back! The lemmings are gaining on you!Wonder what the national sport in Iraq is going to be ?
They do it because lawyers are too expensive. The old attitude was pretty much along the lines that the easy way to enforce the licence was through legal means. Used to be that individual users might pirate the software, but they don't have a lot of cash so no point in chasing them. Just wait for a cash rich company to exceed their licence agreement and then politely ask them to cough up or sue their arse off. The small fish were just the cost of doing business (and as someone pointed out - good for spreading the word about the product). Nowdays the cost of going after software pirates is so expensive that you need a short cut that doesn't involve lawyers. With a live activation you can note discrepancies in a licensee's registrations very easily, have an account manager ring them up and bingo, one hundred new licenses sold on the spot! I think we're going to see a divergence in the software market. Individuals will use increasingly better free software and companies will use increasingle more complicated, propritary software distributed by a smaller number of vendors. Vive la difference!
I second the comment about taking as many photo's as possible and would suggest looking at as many as possible too! Best books I ever encountered were I think John Hedgecoe's Basic and Advanced photography which covered pretty much everything. Last thing - photo editing software is your darkroom and needs as much attention as taking the pictures! Best book I've found on the subject is "Photoshop for Photographers"