Why outsourcing to India for savings often fails. Not nasty to them!

[pH]

The big problem they have is that they will not disagree even when something is obviously wrong, and would rather spend time working to the obviously wrong spec. Those who come over they can usually get to be less accepting of everything but it takes time. Whether this is an Indian cultural thing, or whether it is what they are taught at Uni, or whether it is something that the India management look for I don't know.

 

That might not be a 'national cultural' thing, but an 'outsourcing cultural' thing. If you're being paid on a 'time and materials' basis, what incentive is there to refuse work, especially if you know there is going to be revision/rework required on the same basis? (Been there, seen that!)

 

One major problem with current outsourcing setups is that support and development are often separate. So those doing the development have no experience of support and no real reason to make support easy, while those doing the support have no build up of knowledge from development to make the support possible. This is a problem both for onshore and offshore outsourced systems.

 

Again, from experience, I'm not sure that's a purely outsourcing problem. Having worked mainly in maintenance, I have refused (and seen others refuse) to accept turnover from our own development departments unless certain things were changed/provided. And don't get me started on cleaning up maintenance messes caused by 'clever' development-only programmers!

[Horsetan]

It is the Indian culture to agree with everything.....

This reminds me of a story I read a couple of decades ago in the "Readers Digest", involving the author trying to book a berth on the Night Mail to Delhi. This was in the days when it was notoriously difficult to get anything done on Indian Railways without a great deal of perseverance. Having managed to reach the front of an interminably long queue at Bombay's main station, said author asks:

 

"Is it possible to book a berth on the Night Mail tonight?"

 

The ticket clerk immediately launches into a long paean of praise about how anything is possible in India - "You can even have a meeting with our Prime Minister!" - which goes on for a little while, accompanied by that characteristic nodding of the head.

 

"Yes, yes", says our author, now somewhat desperate, "....but is it possible to book a berth on tonight's Night Mail to Delhi?"

 

"Ah, now" replied the ticket clerk, "in this case, it is not possible."

[Kickstart]

 

That might not be a 'national cultural' thing, but an 'outsourcing cultural' thing. If you're being paid on a 'time and materials' basis, what incentive is there to refuse work, especially if you know there is going to be revision/rework required on the same basis? (Been there, seen that!)

 

 

Again, from experience, I'm not sure that's a purely outsourcing problem. Having worked mainly in maintenance, I have refused (and seen others refuse) to accept turnover from our own development departments unless certain things were changed/provided. And don't get me started on cleaning up maintenance messes caused by 'clever' development-only programmers!

 

In this case the Indian centre is in house, so not actually a separate outsourced company.

 

I agree with the 2nd point you make. It is a problem with splitting development and support functions, although this sometimes happens because management want to outsource one half or the other.

 

All the best

 

Keith

[kevinlms]

It is the Indian culture to agree with everything.

 

I am in IT and I expect to finish in the job I am now in.

 

I would not enter it now due to the dumbing down

I thought the culture was to tell the customer what they wanted to hear - as in 'Yes your ADSL will be back working later today', when actually they have no idea when this event will occur and if its the same day, is only by sheer luck. Of course if it does, they get the brownie points, on the inevitable survey. If it doesn't get fixed someone else will cop the flack. But WHY make promises if they can't say with some certainty?

[pirouets]

Going to the premise of the question, why does it fail, I think to many companies make the following mistakes

 

1. The thing they outsource already does not work properly. They then get seduced that outsourcing will fix it, but instead it make the problem worse and in some cases more expensive.

2. To many companies once they have an outsource partner, treat them as a 2nd class employee. Again it only works if the company using the outsource partner actively works with the people on the floor to make them feel a part of the company they are serving.

3. Companies do not think about the customer experience properly when they do this. Again this has to be factored in to what is trying to be achieved so both the customer and the person taking the have the right expectation. Again very few companies think like this.

4. Selfcare - I get why this is important, but there are customers who prefer to use the phone. They are not social media youtwitface users, but today to many companies embrace the new and outsource the old. Again causing a stack of problems for the customer.

5. To many companies get to a level and stop, rather than looking at how to continuously improve. If you outsource something that works, its amazing sometimes what a fresh set of eyes brings to something that was always done that way before.

 

Where I work, I see both good and bad examples of this but I have to say the effort put in to TRY and make sure the customer is served in the most appropriate way is refreshing, and its why I like the fact I work on projects that support all our customers and customer contact teams no matter where they are based. The good news is that we are better than we were but there is always more to do.