It was one of the more challenging roles that I've had to play primarily because of the public perception of threat. While I was at Fleet there were layoffs going on because of the general economy but none were due to offshore. I made sure of that. But offshore was still the poster child, so to speak, for a lot of fear and concern. One of the things that I like to do when I conduct these interviews is talk about that right up front. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding that is kind of fostered through the media related to that. What are some of those misunderstandings?
I think if you were to read a newspaper article on offshoring, there would be a lot of generalities about people's concerns for IT jobs, but there wouldn't be a lot of the specifics. Two of the specifics that I'm pointing out are that (offshoring) really only impacts the Fortune 100 and above. So, for most small and medium sized companies where a good majority of people are working, it hasn't been a factor. The other piece is that nine times out of ten, you're really talking about displacing consulting resources, not employees. So, where you might have employed 40 people from say, IBM, to do programming in Trenton, New Jersey. You take a snapshot five years later those jobs might be handled by (Infosys Technologies Ltd.) or (Tata Consulting Services), one of the large offshore firms. Other than lower labor costs, what are some of the problems with traditional onshore outsourcing practices that are driving companies to look overseas?
Traditional outsourcing is where a company goes to an IBM or an EDS and says, 'take over my whole IT organization." The problem with that traditionally, and they've had some relatively high visibility failures, is that over time you lose the ability to collaborate between your business lead and your IT people because if IBM or EDS takes over your IT organization, they're going to do a good job with what is defined now. But they're not necessarily going to be really looking for ways to improve your business through IT. They're really not that motivated. Blue Cross & Blue Shield is a really good example of this. They ended up outsourcing their entire organization to EDS and seven years later, I actually went in for a job interview. It was like dinosaurs. There were bones everywhere. Nobody (at EDS) really understood the business. They knew how to execute what they're doing now, but you need a lot more creativity and knowledge. You need to always be adding value. It seems that offshoring conceivably could make this problem worse. How come it hasn't?
The strength of offshore has been that companies have been able to get a lot of savings without having to give up strategic partnerships. They did this through something called co-sourcing. Co-sourcing means that people at the top of the IT skills pyramid stay at the company the low IT skills pyramid jobs go offshore. So, you're getting the best of both worlds. You're getting someone who used to get $100,000/year as a programmer now making $15,000/year doing the same job or better or better job in India. Yet, you still have your project manager onshore. You still have your design person onshore. You still have your program manager onshore. It's been a real win/win for a lot of companies. Can you tell me a little about your Offshore Interest Group?
It's a group of program managers who meet once a month. These are hands-on offshore project and program managers. We basically share ideas, we share concepts and we keep in touch. We talk about everything from risk management (and processing visas for projects) to career management, the whole nine yards. For awhile, I was very active on the conference circuit and I used to meet people and invite them. So I have about 40 members. At any given time we'll have somewhere between six or seven and up to 12 participants in a conversation. I think the thing that we tend to find about offshore is that companies tend to be very (quiet about offshoring.) Is this because of a public perception of injustice?
Well, I think that the public perception is that something is being done that is not good for America. I think if you really look at it, and a bunch of economists have talked about this… If you have a group of people that can do something for $15/hour we're doing it for $100/hour, and they're doing it as well or better than we are, there is no way that is not going to have an impact. If you look at other industries, like the shoe industry which went through this, in the long run it creates wealth. There is a whole body of literature that basically states that the reason that the United States has had the kind of successful economy we've had is because each industry in turn has created this wealth in this way.
Click here to read the second half of the interview.