High-end functions like software development are rapidly gaining acceptance as off shore candidates. And as the pattern of off shoring migrates from low-end to high-end work, the challenges faced by the management have moved from dealing with political backlash to more operational issues like retaining managerial control and gaining operational efficiency. As application development becomes increasingly dispersed, those running these projects face a new twist to the age-old challenge of managing distributed software projects. Traditional team management techniques, like scorecards and site meetings, are ineffective and impossible to scale in a world where teams span vast physical, temporal, cultural, and organisational barriers. Managers are finding it increasingly hard to get the facts needed to build a reliable picture of projects and to make informed decisions. Building software in a flat world, characterises this loss of control as a major obstacle to working in a globally distributed environment. I suggest that this problem is experienced by 35 per cent of organisations engaged in off shoring today.
The Duke Booz Allen study agrees with this assessment, suggesting that loss of managerial control has trumped cultural and political issues as the primary challenge for offshore projects today. Absence of factual insight can lead to missed deadlines, budget creep, and a fundamental erosion of trust and goodwill in relationships. The result? Companies waste billions of dollars each year in project overruns, cancellations and missed business goals. This white paper outlines a way for organisations to build a modern framework for managing distributed teams that overcomes the structural challenges of working across far-flung locations, and ensures projects come in as expected—on time, on budget and on target with business goals. This framework reuses your existing development infrastructure to restore visibility and empowered decision making within your globally distributed software development projects.
A tale of two modelsRecent hype has blurred the distinctions in offshore development models, making anything offshore nearly synonymous with outsourcing. While offshore outsourcing has garnered most of the attention, customers are also beginning to engage in a model Gartner Group calls ’offshore insourcing’, where companies own and operate the staff, infrastructure and processes by way of organic growth or through acquisitions in offshore locations. While both approaches have different costs and benefits, both are united by the same challenge in maintaining visibility, trust and control when traditional management techniques are applied. The challenges inherent in managing a global team have driven some customers to altogether rethink the notion of outsourcing to offshore third-party suppliers. The number of customers planning to use offshore suppliers is at its lowest in two years: 64 per cent compared to 85 per cent in 2004, according to the Diamond Cluster International 2006 global IT outsourcing study. Customers are breaking outsource contracts in record numbers because of discontent with suppliers’ performance and a feeling that outsourcing deals fail to live up to the anticipated benefits. In fact, 47 per cent were terminated prematurely during the last year, as compared to 21 per cent two years ago. But the reality is that adopting an offshore in sourcing model doesn’t necessarily resolve these challenges. The physical distribution of teams—in source or outsource—negatively impacts visibility and control, making it considerably harder to lead, manage and make informed decisions. "You can’t manage what you can’t measure" is the famous mantra of author of the book
Metrics – Reclaiming Visibility and Control. This message is profound in its simplicity, and it has inspired many to adopt a metrics-based approach to management. However, many organisations were ultimately disappointed with their early metrics initiatives. It’s not uncommon to hear managers lament about metrics programs gone awry. Metrics are said to be artificial, inaccurate, costly to collect, and even unethical. And despite the tremendous importance of metrics, many organisations have resigned themselves to failure because of a negative experience with first-generation initiatives. Some of the key limitations of first-generation metrics programs include:
Manual – All data is hand-keyed by people, which is time-consuming and distracting.
Static – Provides a snapshot in time, but doesn’t reflect the dynamism of a project. Subjective – Data input is based on individual interpretations, assumptions and biases.
Coarse – Provides high-level information, but limited detail or context at the process level.
In comparable – Data collection approaches vary from project to project, which limits comparability.
Inaccurate, inconsistent or unempirical metrics can lead to poor project performance and damaged relationships. The key to making offshore projects work is process transparency; transparency brings more predictable outcomes and higher levels of trust. Without process transparency, those running distributed teams are effectively blind, Companies whose instincts have gone stale are like patients with local anesthesia let free to wander the world. They are rational, coherent and aware of their predicament, yet numb. They can no longer sense the world around them.
Company automatically and unobtrusively collects activity-based data from developer tools and delivers on-demand analytics to individuals and teams. These analytics deliver insight into the time spent on specific activities, and provides a basis for understanding team effort and overall project velocity.
Offshore challenges
The following challenges excerpted from Diamond Cluster’s 2006 global IT outsourcing study reflect five of the top challenges managers need to overcome to successfully manage offshore projects. For each of these challenges, there is a relatively simple metrics-based solution:
Limited visibility into day-to-day delivery status
Accurate project data enables you to see where development team members are spending their time, whether there’s a skills shortage, or whether best practices and processes are being followed. Outsourcers who share this sort of data with their clients witness higher levels of trust and lower attrition rates.
Slippage in project deadlines
Accurate and up-to-date visibility into the effort and investments being made provides powerful insight into the focus of individuals and teams and a basis for ensuring alignment with overall project goals
Inadequate work estimation capabilities
Too often, estimation is based on artificial units of measure such as elapsed time. But the reality is that elapsed time is a very inaccurate proxy for estimating the time it will take to build software. Elapsed time estimates typically over or under account for multi-tasking and environmental distractions. Organisations need an empirical basis for estimating the effort required to complete a work effort based on the actual ’active’ time it take to complete a work effort.
Ensuring use of best practices
Best practices ensure you can consistently replicate successful work patterns. But the reality is that measuring best-practice adherence is very difficult in a distributed environment. Activity-based metrics can help you achieve visibility into process alignment and work patterns.
This provides a basis for managing the blend, pace and sequence of work. Inadequate skill proficiency and experience, understanding the breadth, depth and location of specialised skills is easier said than done in large organisations. Use activity-based metrics to document individuals’ experience with tools, technologies and activities in the development life cycle.
Inadequate skill proficiency and experience
Understanding the breadth, depth and location of specialised skills is easier said than done in large organisations. Use activity-based metrics to document individuals’ experience with tools, technologies and activities in the development life cycle.
source:- merinews.com/
