It has been years since we have been servicing shareware authors with our software programming expertise. I believe it is called OPD "Outsourced Product Development", the new buzz word in the IT services market but hey I didnt even know it was called that !
But getting back to the point, all that time during our various associations with shareware authors I always envied a shareware author for having the vision , guts and persistence to come up with an unique idea, ensure it becomes a reality (with a little bit of our help :-)) and then offer it to the world via the medium of the internet. Thier products are small software utilities with simple concepts behind them that are really really helpful to general computer users. So a user can go to one of these shareware download sites, download an evaluation copy, if they like it , they pay for it via the internet and the whole process was complete. Neat, Slick and Simple .....
Who can deny that a shareware product defines ingenituity and brilliance of its author. In the world of outsourced IT programming services, huge software product corporations, billions of dollors of production, R&D , marketing and sales, I have always found the very existence of the small/tiny shareware utility and its author very very REFRESHING.
Here is an individual or a very tiny group of individuals, with a very limited budget equipped with just an idea and a dream to offer it as shareware. No large development teams, no large QA teams, a neglible or non exisitant marketing budget but yet an idea, a utility that if you get your hands on, it becomes a very integral part of your computer operations. Simple and yet extremely effective and it is *exactly* what the user wants.
This to me is what software development is really about and this is to me gives the birth of "KILLER PRODUCT", a product that is accessible to everyone, affordble to everyone and does what it promises.
I am not a anti BIG COMPANY/CORPORATION activist and but who can deny the fact that billions of dollors , a huge team and massive marketing in general will not give that KILLER SOFTWARE PRODUCT !! You need an idea and a passion to deliver it.
Long live the shareware utility and the its author !
PS>
Seeing all the wonderful work some of my clients have authored all these years, I have decided (with a little prodding from my directors to take a risk ) my company should also attempt to make a shareware product ( http://www.cyspl.com/files/products.html ) , if for nothing else but as an exercise to try to expose me & my company to what computing skills & customer relationships should really be about.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Friday, December 08, 2006
Your job is so small and yet you expect quality of service !!
A couple of weeks ago we ordered some modular furniture. Their initially pitch to me was with great enthusiam thinking we are a multi-national company who were intending to buy 100s of tables. As it slowly dawned on them this was not going to be a big order for them (we only wanted 3 tables) thier whole attitude suddenly changed.
Even tough we had been given a commitment as well as an inital advance, there seemed to some kind of reluctance of execution. We had to go after them for everthing, from the finalization of the proposal, the quotation and delivery dates...we felt we were being done a *favour* by them of selling us *just* 2-3 tables.
They finally actually even went to extent of telling us that our order was too small for them. They took own time to deliver the tables. We even rejected one of them due to poor quality and asked for a replacement. The replacement never came on the grounds that we were too finicky about the finish and they gave us back the money for the desk we had rejected.
So not only were we told that our job was *too small* for them but also that we were being outrageous for demanding quality equivalent to the price we were paying.
To me this is *biggest* mistake we in business make.... letting go of business or not give enough attention to business because we happen to be doing well & we dont need these small orders .
Business is Business and there is no question of big or small. If you are getting paid for the job as per your expectations and you have made a commitment to do it, there is NO excuse for not doing it nor giving it all the attention & quality required.
There might be an arguement there are times when orders and thier execution are not practical for your scale of operations but lest we forget it was us who got the order, it was us who quoted for it and it was us who knew the size of the order initially... if we knew it was too small then we should have never taken it in the first place.
Do not insult a prospective client with our definations of *big* & *small*. It is a task to be done which for the client is important and which they are ready to pay fairly for it so we have no right to reject the order as if it is thier fault it does not fit into your scale / present situation of operations.
Maybe at one point of time these orders were something we survived on and grew on and I am sure at that point of time they were consider life saving, path breaking orders so we should always keep this in mind. Our scale of operations and thier practical implications might have changed, not the nature of the task and not its value. It is bad business in the long run as I personally feel an attitude that says "oh this order is too small for me ...." is the beginning of the end of an enterprise.
You might say that it is a matter of symantices and how you word it but all of us know business is how you feel about things and about "gut feeling" and if you start feeling that you are above certain types of order not because it is impractical to do so but you are doing so well that you dont need smaller orders then you are asking for trouble....
Even tough we had been given a commitment as well as an inital advance, there seemed to some kind of reluctance of execution. We had to go after them for everthing, from the finalization of the proposal, the quotation and delivery dates...we felt we were being done a *favour* by them of selling us *just* 2-3 tables.
They finally actually even went to extent of telling us that our order was too small for them. They took own time to deliver the tables. We even rejected one of them due to poor quality and asked for a replacement. The replacement never came on the grounds that we were too finicky about the finish and they gave us back the money for the desk we had rejected.
So not only were we told that our job was *too small* for them but also that we were being outrageous for demanding quality equivalent to the price we were paying.
To me this is *biggest* mistake we in business make.... letting go of business or not give enough attention to business because we happen to be doing well & we dont need these small orders .
Business is Business and there is no question of big or small. If you are getting paid for the job as per your expectations and you have made a commitment to do it, there is NO excuse for not doing it nor giving it all the attention & quality required.
There might be an arguement there are times when orders and thier execution are not practical for your scale of operations but lest we forget it was us who got the order, it was us who quoted for it and it was us who knew the size of the order initially... if we knew it was too small then we should have never taken it in the first place.
Do not insult a prospective client with our definations of *big* & *small*. It is a task to be done which for the client is important and which they are ready to pay fairly for it so we have no right to reject the order as if it is thier fault it does not fit into your scale / present situation of operations.
Maybe at one point of time these orders were something we survived on and grew on and I am sure at that point of time they were consider life saving, path breaking orders so we should always keep this in mind. Our scale of operations and thier practical implications might have changed, not the nature of the task and not its value. It is bad business in the long run as I personally feel an attitude that says "oh this order is too small for me ...." is the beginning of the end of an enterprise.
You might say that it is a matter of symantices and how you word it but all of us know business is how you feel about things and about "gut feeling" and if you start feeling that you are above certain types of order not because it is impractical to do so but you are doing so well that you dont need smaller orders then you are asking for trouble....
Monday, October 09, 2006
Dont become just a computer engineer...
I have been in the field of computers now for over 15 years yet unknown to a lot of people I am not formally trained in the field of computers. I hold a Bachelor's Degree in CIVIL ENGINEERING with a specialization in Computer Aided Design as well as a Diploma in Computer Aided Engineering from AutoDESK.
Anyway for some reason people do believe I should know a lot of about the industry and come with thier children seeking advice (at thier own peril :-)) of whether their sons/daughters should do Computer Engineering. Everyone is doing Computer Engineering , there are huge opportunities for Computer Engineers and these engineers are getting great salaries. Much to thier suprise and dismay I am totally against anyone just becoming a computer engineer or doing computer engineering as one's primary graduation degree. I know I am in the business of software which largely depends on computer engineers etc. etc. but reality is slightly different.
The boom we are currently having in India with IT is very very favourable for Computer Engineers bypassing all other fields by huge margins. But how long this is going to last is something that needs to be considered. Also what needs to be considered is the kind of work we are doing. In most cases we just implementors for work that has already been spec'd and designed by others. We must realize just coding is the easiest part of everything and can be done by anybody as all you need to do is to follow instructions. Tommorrow if your company found someone else to do the implementation at a cheaper rate they would not hesitate to use that person instead of you as you are not really important or critical to them, you are just an implementor and now there is a cheaper implementor so there goes your job. You are not offering any further value to your employer. It is the person who wrote the instructions that implementors follow that the company will try to keep and retain as they are not easy to come by.
Now picture the scenario where you were implementing a software in the mechanical field and you were also a mechanical engineer. Dont you think you would be adding more value to yourself as not only did you know computer programming but you also knew everything about mechanical design and processes hence being involved not only in its implementation but also in requirement definations, design & analysis and hence becomes one of the people who writes the master instructions that implementors follow.
Another example could be you are a part of a team that does banking software, your value would truly be increased if you had some formal education in the field of banking too.You need additional qualifications over and above just being a computer engineer otherwise you are running out of time if you are happy just being a coder.
Chose a domain, get formal education in that domain as well as be a computer engineer, that is the way to go...
Anyway for some reason people do believe I should know a lot of about the industry and come with thier children seeking advice (at thier own peril :-)) of whether their sons/daughters should do Computer Engineering. Everyone is doing Computer Engineering , there are huge opportunities for Computer Engineers and these engineers are getting great salaries. Much to thier suprise and dismay I am totally against anyone just becoming a computer engineer or doing computer engineering as one's primary graduation degree. I know I am in the business of software which largely depends on computer engineers etc. etc. but reality is slightly different.
The boom we are currently having in India with IT is very very favourable for Computer Engineers bypassing all other fields by huge margins. But how long this is going to last is something that needs to be considered. Also what needs to be considered is the kind of work we are doing. In most cases we just implementors for work that has already been spec'd and designed by others. We must realize just coding is the easiest part of everything and can be done by anybody as all you need to do is to follow instructions. Tommorrow if your company found someone else to do the implementation at a cheaper rate they would not hesitate to use that person instead of you as you are not really important or critical to them, you are just an implementor and now there is a cheaper implementor so there goes your job. You are not offering any further value to your employer. It is the person who wrote the instructions that implementors follow that the company will try to keep and retain as they are not easy to come by.
Now picture the scenario where you were implementing a software in the mechanical field and you were also a mechanical engineer. Dont you think you would be adding more value to yourself as not only did you know computer programming but you also knew everything about mechanical design and processes hence being involved not only in its implementation but also in requirement definations, design & analysis and hence becomes one of the people who writes the master instructions that implementors follow.
Another example could be you are a part of a team that does banking software, your value would truly be increased if you had some formal education in the field of banking too.You need additional qualifications over and above just being a computer engineer otherwise you are running out of time if you are happy just being a coder.
Chose a domain, get formal education in that domain as well as be a computer engineer, that is the way to go...
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Why software engineers in smaller companies are better .....
Its been a long time since I wrote for my blog, its been a hectic couple of weeks but finally got the time to add to my ramblings on the software development sector.
Everytime we recruit/interview a software engineer from a larger company, many a time I see a very distinct difference between that particular individual and the software engineers of my company in relation to thier technical acumen and general programming skills. My engineers are way ahead in thier knowledge and capabilities. Now if I recruit/interview an individual from a software company that is approximately the size of my company or smaller this difference is negligible.
Why is this ?!
- A software programmer coming from a larger company is supposed to be exposed to skills, expertise and infrastracture that usually small software companies can only dream about.
- They work under senior architects/programmers/design analysists who are supposed to be very very experienced and these "experienced" people whose salaries we would never be able to afford.
-A software programmer coming from larger company is supposed to be exposed to best practises and guides such as ISO & CMM which makes one more productive.
- A software programmer coming from larger company is supposed to have worked on more sophisticated and large projects.
Yet they seem to be lacking ....!
First I thought that only the bottom of the barrel were actually leaving the big company and trying to join us but as we went along this was not the case either.
Delving into this strange issue (atleast according to me) the answer was simple and apparent once you really thought about it.
A small software company is extremely productive in size and responsibility in order to cut costs yet increase its quality.
Keeping this in mind a software engineer in a small company usually is exposed and takes a active roll in all aspects of the SDLC. The software engineer is involved right from collecting the requirements from the client, assisting the senior engineer in designing the system, the actual implemention of the system as well as assisting in the testing & quality assurance of the system. Many a time this engineer is also involved in the actual deployment of the live system. This gives the software engineer of a small company a very crucial macro exposure to the entire SDLC process hence having a very realistic view of what is involved in getting a system up and running.
In a large company, a software engineer is assigned to a particular slot in the SDLC as his responsibility profile and will remain only in that slot. So if the individual is involved only in implementation, he/she will have experience & exposure ONLY in implementation, they have no idea of who the client is, what the client really wanted, was the design correct nor what were the results of QA and deployment.
The above forcing the software engineer to have a extremely myopic view of the system.
The next major issue is the sense of ownership, pride and responsibility to give good work to a client. A software engineer in a small company usually gets in touch with the client in some form or the other and a relationship is created between them giving rise to a sense to responsilbilty to the client, mutual respect and the human tendency to perform well in order to gain accolades for a good job done. The client automatically becomes "HIS/HER" client and not only the client of the company. Hence increase quality & responsibility tremendously.
This does not happen in a large software company. The software engineer who is in the slot of implementation does not have a clue who the client actually is (maybe just a company name), what the whole product is really about nor where it is going to be used. For this individual it is another programming module for some product that is to be completed as soon as possible.
In a small software company the adaptation to new/appropriate technologies for a project is based on the need of the project and the software engineer has to adapt himself/herself to the demands of the projects increasing his versatlity as a software programmer. The flexibility of a small software company allows for change/upgrades/adaptation in a very simple manner. Also it might not be able to afford to hire another software engineer just because a portion is in another technology that the current engineer does not know. He/she will be expected to upgrade/adapt and deliver.
In a large company change in technology for the project involves more than just what the project demands, it also depends on the policy of the company of technology changes, cost to company etc. In most cases also when there is change of technology the same software engineer is not used and another engineer who has the required skill sets is used while the original software engineer has to remain in th technology realm that his/she was employed for hence stumping his / her growth towards achieving a certain degree of versatality which is crucial for a software programmer. I am not saying that he/she should know all languages but the capability to adapt to the demands of the project is a crucail element in the capabilites of a good sooftware engineer.
Maybe that is how a large software company runs and I do agree that it does bring out great products so they must be doing something right but what about the capabilites of the individual software engineer in the long run. ?
Everytime we recruit/interview a software engineer from a larger company, many a time I see a very distinct difference between that particular individual and the software engineers of my company in relation to thier technical acumen and general programming skills. My engineers are way ahead in thier knowledge and capabilities. Now if I recruit/interview an individual from a software company that is approximately the size of my company or smaller this difference is negligible.
Why is this ?!
- A software programmer coming from a larger company is supposed to be exposed to skills, expertise and infrastracture that usually small software companies can only dream about.
- They work under senior architects/programmers/design analysists who are supposed to be very very experienced and these "experienced" people whose salaries we would never be able to afford.
-A software programmer coming from larger company is supposed to be exposed to best practises and guides such as ISO & CMM which makes one more productive.
- A software programmer coming from larger company is supposed to have worked on more sophisticated and large projects.
Yet they seem to be lacking ....!
First I thought that only the bottom of the barrel were actually leaving the big company and trying to join us but as we went along this was not the case either.
Delving into this strange issue (atleast according to me) the answer was simple and apparent once you really thought about it.
A small software company is extremely productive in size and responsibility in order to cut costs yet increase its quality.
Keeping this in mind a software engineer in a small company usually is exposed and takes a active roll in all aspects of the SDLC. The software engineer is involved right from collecting the requirements from the client, assisting the senior engineer in designing the system, the actual implemention of the system as well as assisting in the testing & quality assurance of the system. Many a time this engineer is also involved in the actual deployment of the live system. This gives the software engineer of a small company a very crucial macro exposure to the entire SDLC process hence having a very realistic view of what is involved in getting a system up and running.
In a large company, a software engineer is assigned to a particular slot in the SDLC as his responsibility profile and will remain only in that slot. So if the individual is involved only in implementation, he/she will have experience & exposure ONLY in implementation, they have no idea of who the client is, what the client really wanted, was the design correct nor what were the results of QA and deployment.
The above forcing the software engineer to have a extremely myopic view of the system.
The next major issue is the sense of ownership, pride and responsibility to give good work to a client. A software engineer in a small company usually gets in touch with the client in some form or the other and a relationship is created between them giving rise to a sense to responsilbilty to the client, mutual respect and the human tendency to perform well in order to gain accolades for a good job done. The client automatically becomes "HIS/HER" client and not only the client of the company. Hence increase quality & responsibility tremendously.
This does not happen in a large software company. The software engineer who is in the slot of implementation does not have a clue who the client actually is (maybe just a company name), what the whole product is really about nor where it is going to be used. For this individual it is another programming module for some product that is to be completed as soon as possible.
In a small software company the adaptation to new/appropriate technologies for a project is based on the need of the project and the software engineer has to adapt himself/herself to the demands of the projects increasing his versatlity as a software programmer. The flexibility of a small software company allows for change/upgrades/adaptation in a very simple manner. Also it might not be able to afford to hire another software engineer just because a portion is in another technology that the current engineer does not know. He/she will be expected to upgrade/adapt and deliver.
In a large company change in technology for the project involves more than just what the project demands, it also depends on the policy of the company of technology changes, cost to company etc. In most cases also when there is change of technology the same software engineer is not used and another engineer who has the required skill sets is used while the original software engineer has to remain in th technology realm that his/she was employed for hence stumping his / her growth towards achieving a certain degree of versatality which is crucial for a software programmer. I am not saying that he/she should know all languages but the capability to adapt to the demands of the project is a crucail element in the capabilites of a good sooftware engineer.
Maybe that is how a large software company runs and I do agree that it does bring out great products so they must be doing something right but what about the capabilites of the individual software engineer in the long run. ?
Friday, June 30, 2006
What happened to the original GURUS ???
Yesterday I got a call from an old friend of mine regarding this blog. I had asked him to read it but I had forgotten to give him the URL so he wanted the URL. When I put the phone down I got nostalic as I consider him one of the original technology GURUS. These are the guys who knew stuff about computers years before this IT boom took place.
I have known several GURUS such as him who were so far ahead of most of us in computer technology, its application and the development platforms. These guys knew the core of technology and did thier work for the sake of advancement of thier knowledge and capability. If you wanted to know about application of technology in the REAL WORLD scenario, how to get it done, which technologies to use , you would turn to them. They KNEW how to give the BEST of technology to the user. They used technology not for the sake of technology but they used technology for the sake of the user and that differentiated them from the rest.
But in this new age of huge IT companies, supposedly huge IT projects , massive projects, 100s of software programmers somehow they dont seem to figure in this BOOM at all. I would have thought that people such as this would be in the fore - front of the huge commercial successes in IT but somehow they dont seem to around. It is just not a few of them but a majority of them.
Did they get left behind, were they not recognized for thier talents, did they not want to join this WAVE.. this is something I have not been able to figure it.
According to me, had these people been recognized by the fathers of business , had they been adopted and groomed to lead the technology push of the country in this era of IT, I do believe we would have genuinely been able to claim that we werent just a cheap worker force in IT, but a TRUE scientific and advanced community in the field of IT.
I have known several GURUS such as him who were so far ahead of most of us in computer technology, its application and the development platforms. These guys knew the core of technology and did thier work for the sake of advancement of thier knowledge and capability. If you wanted to know about application of technology in the REAL WORLD scenario, how to get it done, which technologies to use , you would turn to them. They KNEW how to give the BEST of technology to the user. They used technology not for the sake of technology but they used technology for the sake of the user and that differentiated them from the rest.
But in this new age of huge IT companies, supposedly huge IT projects , massive projects, 100s of software programmers somehow they dont seem to figure in this BOOM at all. I would have thought that people such as this would be in the fore - front of the huge commercial successes in IT but somehow they dont seem to around. It is just not a few of them but a majority of them.
Did they get left behind, were they not recognized for thier talents, did they not want to join this WAVE.. this is something I have not been able to figure it.
According to me, had these people been recognized by the fathers of business , had they been adopted and groomed to lead the technology push of the country in this era of IT, I do believe we would have genuinely been able to claim that we werent just a cheap worker force in IT, but a TRUE scientific and advanced community in the field of IT.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
The software vegetable market.
Our company is a small company, a micro ISV as they call it and naturally the market segment we market and advertise to and who usually respond are small companies themselves. These small companies cater for the bulk of our business.
However as the days go by I see a very strange trend. It seems man hour rates for programming seem to be the only criteria for winning a BID, not infrastructure, not expertise, not experience , it always seems to boil down only to price. !!! The cheaper you are ..the better chance it is to win the bids.
Now there are so many of us offering the same programming services , with the same level of expertise, our websites look the same, we have the same things to say so I suppose the company wanting to outsource some programming work goes to google, send emails to 10-15 companies like us.. gets the quotes and gives the order to the lowest bidder.
This whole scenario reminds me of a vegetable market in our area. When you enter there is a line of vegetable vendors having baskets of vegetables in front of them. As you walk past them , each one tries to sell thier vegetables to you, shouting the prices and trying to outbid each other. All have the same kind of baskets, the same quality of vegetables so in the end you will naturally buy the cheapest. Sound familiar doesnt it !!
The software companies are the vegetable vendors with their basket of vegetables yelling away prices to a customer. Pity such high skill sets across companies like ours are caught in a situation such as this. We have been blinded by the short term profits of coding services which everyone can do and have not implemented a sustained effort of acquiring and upgrading knowledge in a particular domain.
Soon there will be cheaper vegetable vendors and we will be out of work.
However as the days go by I see a very strange trend. It seems man hour rates for programming seem to be the only criteria for winning a BID, not infrastructure, not expertise, not experience , it always seems to boil down only to price. !!! The cheaper you are ..the better chance it is to win the bids.
Now there are so many of us offering the same programming services , with the same level of expertise, our websites look the same, we have the same things to say so I suppose the company wanting to outsource some programming work goes to google, send emails to 10-15 companies like us.. gets the quotes and gives the order to the lowest bidder.
This whole scenario reminds me of a vegetable market in our area. When you enter there is a line of vegetable vendors having baskets of vegetables in front of them. As you walk past them , each one tries to sell thier vegetables to you, shouting the prices and trying to outbid each other. All have the same kind of baskets, the same quality of vegetables so in the end you will naturally buy the cheapest. Sound familiar doesnt it !!
The software companies are the vegetable vendors with their basket of vegetables yelling away prices to a customer. Pity such high skill sets across companies like ours are caught in a situation such as this. We have been blinded by the short term profits of coding services which everyone can do and have not implemented a sustained effort of acquiring and upgrading knowledge in a particular domain.
Soon there will be cheaper vegetable vendors and we will be out of work.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Did we really gain independence....
It is over 50 years that we have gained Independence from the British Raj...yet when I see the IT/Outsourcing boom it really makes wonder how much economic independence we have really gained. The British RAJ was all about controlling India economically and making money by using our raw materials and using us a cheap labour. We were also a market for thier goods on top of all that.
Have things really changed ...?? especially when you look at the IT sector.
We still are being used as cheap labour except now it is in the field of software development, IT services, BPOs etc.. Over 90% of the sector are basically captive units for companies in the west. So if they shut the TAP we run dry.. not much independence I would say.
We dont really have any upgrade of knowledge domains, the products that we work on or support basically belong to the West so when they find a cheaper and practical alternative like China, they will move and we would be left high & dry. Is this really independence..
To top it all, often we make their products and it is these very products that we will buy again... interesting isnt it , when you think of it .. is this economic independence. ?
I do believe that our inherent capacity as a skilled and evolved services oriented market which is considered as our biggest advantage might become our biggest enemy in the long run.
Hey I am a part of it too as I run an offshore software developmenat company which primarily survives on business from the West and I am not complaining as it is my source of livelihood but am I kidding myself when I say I am economically independent...
Have things really changed ...?? especially when you look at the IT sector.
We still are being used as cheap labour except now it is in the field of software development, IT services, BPOs etc.. Over 90% of the sector are basically captive units for companies in the west. So if they shut the TAP we run dry.. not much independence I would say.
We dont really have any upgrade of knowledge domains, the products that we work on or support basically belong to the West so when they find a cheaper and practical alternative like China, they will move and we would be left high & dry. Is this really independence..
To top it all, often we make their products and it is these very products that we will buy again... interesting isnt it , when you think of it .. is this economic independence. ?
I do believe that our inherent capacity as a skilled and evolved services oriented market which is considered as our biggest advantage might become our biggest enemy in the long run.
Hey I am a part of it too as I run an offshore software developmenat company which primarily survives on business from the West and I am not complaining as it is my source of livelihood but am I kidding myself when I say I am economically independent...
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Junk candidates, resources...
As we go thru the daily routine of interviewing candidates for our office, there is this HUGE AMOUNT of JUNK candidates that are applying. They claim to have experience but even a fresher from school would know more programming than them and yet they will have this extremely long resume claiming huge experience and yet they dont know ANYTHING. It is very frustrating and irritating interviewing such candidates as it is a complete waste of our time and money.
I think everybody just wants to jump onto the IT bandwagon whether they are trained for it or not. Recently I interviewed this candidate and in our company we sometimes take the HR interview first , so here he sat confidently , answered with a lot of gusto etc. etc..seemed to be good so I shortlisted him. I had even asked him in general about the technologies and projects he had worked on. As he left he asked our front office assistance what was the position for which he had just been interviewed for ??!!! so now they dont even know what they going for an interview for, so long as its in IT and there might be a slim chance he might get selected.
Then there are these standard fake resumes and projects that seem to be floating around in the market. They are so many candidates who show the same projects and same description in thier experience profile even though they come from different companies. Its like we used to do in college for our term submissions, one person used to actually do the work and then we used to take his file and everyone used to copy the work and it seems it is now being done with resumes. !
Junk, fraud and absolutely rubbish level candidates get caught in our interviews within minutes so WHY do these candidates apply and how come they have the impression that they have a chance to be selected ???
Well.. these very same candidates get jobs in larger companies with much higher salaries for the SAME PROFILE.. cant believe how anyone in thier right mind would do this but it happens all the time !!!
This strenghtens my personal belief that 100s are being hired by the large companies like herding a pack of sheep and then they are not really being put into live production because they would screw up the project, they are either being put on bench (to show bench strength) or put onto non critical parts of projects so that clients can be shown that the promised number of people are being put on the job. How can they afford to do this ... well I come back to my previous arguement.. when you have a large project the client cannot really find out how many programmers are actually working compared to the ones that have been paid for, how many really are productive versus how many are just a part of the facade. Just add the people seems to be the policy as it helps billing.
Once again I do not feel that ALL big software companies are doing this but I have a strong belief it might be happening in atleast some of them.
If I am correct, this cannot last long and it will spoil our name in the global market....the leaders in our industry should address this seriously.
I think everybody just wants to jump onto the IT bandwagon whether they are trained for it or not. Recently I interviewed this candidate and in our company we sometimes take the HR interview first , so here he sat confidently , answered with a lot of gusto etc. etc..seemed to be good so I shortlisted him. I had even asked him in general about the technologies and projects he had worked on. As he left he asked our front office assistance what was the position for which he had just been interviewed for ??!!! so now they dont even know what they going for an interview for, so long as its in IT and there might be a slim chance he might get selected.
Then there are these standard fake resumes and projects that seem to be floating around in the market. They are so many candidates who show the same projects and same description in thier experience profile even though they come from different companies. Its like we used to do in college for our term submissions, one person used to actually do the work and then we used to take his file and everyone used to copy the work and it seems it is now being done with resumes. !
Junk, fraud and absolutely rubbish level candidates get caught in our interviews within minutes so WHY do these candidates apply and how come they have the impression that they have a chance to be selected ???
Well.. these very same candidates get jobs in larger companies with much higher salaries for the SAME PROFILE.. cant believe how anyone in thier right mind would do this but it happens all the time !!!
This strenghtens my personal belief that 100s are being hired by the large companies like herding a pack of sheep and then they are not really being put into live production because they would screw up the project, they are either being put on bench (to show bench strength) or put onto non critical parts of projects so that clients can be shown that the promised number of people are being put on the job. How can they afford to do this ... well I come back to my previous arguement.. when you have a large project the client cannot really find out how many programmers are actually working compared to the ones that have been paid for, how many really are productive versus how many are just a part of the facade. Just add the people seems to be the policy as it helps billing.
Once again I do not feel that ALL big software companies are doing this but I have a strong belief it might be happening in atleast some of them.
If I am correct, this cannot last long and it will spoil our name in the global market....the leaders in our industry should address this seriously.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Watch out for the big guys, they could make more money out of you ....
Just the other day I was explaining to my father how size of a software development company also influences the way you can make money if you want to. He wanted to know how some companies larger than us were making so much money inspite of such large overheads while smaller companies with more expertise, experience and lower overheads make less.
So I explained a possible scenario.....
When you have a LARGE company you automatically for some strange reason get selected over smaller companies for larger orders which may need many engineers, it is a KNOWN fact that the client really has no way of really finding out how many engineers are really working on a project unless they have a educated and dedicated project manager from thier side who knows how to undertsand and apply performance metrics (now this rarely happens). The projects managers of today especially from the client side really dont have the time for this and hence the possible opportunity for making more money.
Let me explain a POSSIBLE scenario. A client gives a software development company a order which needs let us say 30 people. What really could happen is only 22-25 engineers are really put on the job while the impression is given that 30 people are working full time on the same. So the client pays for 30 engineers, is shown as if 30 people are on the job but in reality only 22-25 people are working. Now it doesnt really stop here , out of the 22-25 people that are actually working, a couple of them are freshers/relatively less experienced but the client is paying as if all were of a particular level so a little more profit here ... so not bad for the money you are making .. let us sum it up..
- you charge for 30 people at about 20-30% profit
- you actually put 22-25 people instead of 30 people so more profit here
- you dont fill ALL the exisiting 22-25 people actually with people with higher level experience and hence less spend on salaries so a little more profit here too. Now imagine the possible profits being made if a company is given an order where over 100-200 people are supposed to be working...
Not a bad scenario for making software development a profitable business..
AND YET these companies will go to these very companies because they are a BIG company, having so many engineers , buildings, certifications etc. etc.. and small companies who would probably do it cheaper , faster and better are discounted purely because of size.
Let me be clear that this is a scenario and now it is upto the readers to decide on this possible scenario. I am sure not all big software companies do this but I am sure a lot of the above happens since you have the advantage of size.
There really should be a rethink.
So I explained a possible scenario.....
When you have a LARGE company you automatically for some strange reason get selected over smaller companies for larger orders which may need many engineers, it is a KNOWN fact that the client really has no way of really finding out how many engineers are really working on a project unless they have a educated and dedicated project manager from thier side who knows how to undertsand and apply performance metrics (now this rarely happens). The projects managers of today especially from the client side really dont have the time for this and hence the possible opportunity for making more money.
Let me explain a POSSIBLE scenario. A client gives a software development company a order which needs let us say 30 people. What really could happen is only 22-25 engineers are really put on the job while the impression is given that 30 people are working full time on the same. So the client pays for 30 engineers, is shown as if 30 people are on the job but in reality only 22-25 people are working. Now it doesnt really stop here , out of the 22-25 people that are actually working, a couple of them are freshers/relatively less experienced but the client is paying as if all were of a particular level so a little more profit here ... so not bad for the money you are making .. let us sum it up..
- you charge for 30 people at about 20-30% profit
- you actually put 22-25 people instead of 30 people so more profit here
- you dont fill ALL the exisiting 22-25 people actually with people with higher level experience and hence less spend on salaries so a little more profit here too. Now imagine the possible profits being made if a company is given an order where over 100-200 people are supposed to be working...
Not a bad scenario for making software development a profitable business..
AND YET these companies will go to these very companies because they are a BIG company, having so many engineers , buildings, certifications etc. etc.. and small companies who would probably do it cheaper , faster and better are discounted purely because of size.
Let me be clear that this is a scenario and now it is upto the readers to decide on this possible scenario. I am sure not all big software companies do this but I am sure a lot of the above happens since you have the advantage of size.
There really should be a rethink.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Another day begins....
Its 10.00 am and I am getting ready for another day at office. An employee of ours is leaving us and has submitted his resignation. He has got a good opportunity in a larger company with a salary much higher than what he is getting here. I am really happy for him as he had joined us as a fresher with low confidence and now he has grown professionally and will move well up the ladder of his professional life. Not worried about my company as he will be replaced with another competant and good engineer and life goes on...
However this whole issue of software developers jumping from company to company, each company outdoing the other in terms of salary with the large companies just gobbling up by the 100s and then thier own staff moving by the 100s from one large company to another , every large companies just hearding them like cattle ... a very crucial issue comes to my mind... I read a recent article that in day there are about 20,000 change in epf numbers, that means 20,000 people have changed thier jobs and let us not forget the count of people who dont have epf numbers. Let us be non -biased and consider let us say 10,00 people are in the process of jumping from one company to company in a day. Now each of these people will have undergone the process of handing over responsibilties in thier previous company and will undergo training and introduction in thier new company. Let us say both these activities take a accumilated 15 days presuming these companies are ISO & CMM level companies and these procedures are stremlined as well as there is not so much domain knowledge transfer.I might be wrong to say just 15 days , it could be 30 or more days that these 2 activities could take but I will stick to 15 days. Now any manager knows that these 15 days are UNPRODUCTIVE from the clients points of view because no work gets done, it is just the process of handover and introduction.
So can you imagine the total non-productive days of work taking place every day ie 10,000 people shifting jobs everyday X 15 days ie 150000 man days of un productive work is taking place every day in our country.....it makes me wonder whether we are giving true advanatge of offshore software development as a country as a whole.
However this whole issue of software developers jumping from company to company, each company outdoing the other in terms of salary with the large companies just gobbling up by the 100s and then thier own staff moving by the 100s from one large company to another , every large companies just hearding them like cattle ... a very crucial issue comes to my mind... I read a recent article that in day there are about 20,000 change in epf numbers, that means 20,000 people have changed thier jobs and let us not forget the count of people who dont have epf numbers. Let us be non -biased and consider let us say 10,00 people are in the process of jumping from one company to company in a day. Now each of these people will have undergone the process of handing over responsibilties in thier previous company and will undergo training and introduction in thier new company. Let us say both these activities take a accumilated 15 days presuming these companies are ISO & CMM level companies and these procedures are stremlined as well as there is not so much domain knowledge transfer.I might be wrong to say just 15 days , it could be 30 or more days that these 2 activities could take but I will stick to 15 days. Now any manager knows that these 15 days are UNPRODUCTIVE from the clients points of view because no work gets done, it is just the process of handover and introduction.
So can you imagine the total non-productive days of work taking place every day ie 10,000 people shifting jobs everyday X 15 days ie 150000 man days of un productive work is taking place every day in our country.....it makes me wonder whether we are giving true advanatge of offshore software development as a country as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)