Subj : Re: i need help To : comp.programming From : ssubbarayan Date : Mon Sep 05 2005 11:16 pm Joe Butler wrote: > Certainly the ego of the boss combinded with the Indian culture of never > saying, "No" were both contributing factors. But, the original task (as far > as we can assertain with an uncooperative 'boss') was, "Here's our system. > Make it work on OS B. It'll also be required to continue working on OS A, > and eventually it will need to run on OS C and D and E". So, the 'boss' > couldn't have imagined a re-write would be cheaper, he was categorically > told by the Indian's that it was "impossible" to achieve with the existing > code base. In fact, as part of the boss's own defence, he stated that my > own porting method (even though they didn't know what that was) was > discussed and rejected in the 2-days that they took to design their own > 'port'. > > Eventually, when I then hinted that I'd made good progress on the port to OS > B, would be demoing soon, and would shortly be in a position to prove that > the statements coming out of India were technically wrong (and charging 10 > times the true cost of the job), the Indians dropped the "Impossible" > qualification and replaced it with, "It won't be compatible with OS B." > > The Indians have still not finished the project - the new port is now too > big to fit into the original, extremely resource limited, hardware. > > Let's just put that again: > Hardware 'A' is resource limited and has some portable software ('the > software') specially taylored to it (that has successfully been ported to OS > B by myself). > Hardware 'B' is not so resource limited (at least 10 time more of > everything). > So, the solution, that $100,000 bought you, was to write the entire system > again from scratch in a non-portable way for Hardware B (1600 man hours > effort for this). > Only after I pointed it out, did they consider that the system (with > additional facilities) was still required to run on OS A. > 'Solution': a 'hardware compatibility layer' was introduced to thunk between > the native OS B calls and the OS A hardware when compiled for OS A. Now the > system won't fit into the limited and fixed resouces of OS A. > > And remember that the original reason stated for the OS B re-write was, "OS > A uses messages. OS B uses events. Therefore not technically possible to > use all this code that you already have - we have to write it all again for > you. But our hourly rate is less" > > There's enough material in that project for an entire book, if only I had > the time. > > > "Phlip" wrote in message > news:zp0Te.190$nt1.82@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com... > > Joe Butler wrote: > > > > > The OP apparently posted from India (unless they forged their posting). > > > > > > I won't be appologising for describing my experiences with Indian > > > programmers. > > > > > > If an offshoring company (from India) can sting a client to the tune of > > > $100,000 by re-writing ALL of the client's existing portable code into a > > > single OS-specific version for 'OS B' due to the fact that "Your > > > [portable] > > > code uses 'messages', and 'OS B' uses 'events', therefore... > > > > Could the problem _possibly_ be in your own office? In the boss who > thought > > a rewrite would be "cheap" if many low-wage workers banged on it? > > > > > would. Is this just my unique experience of the situation or is this > more > > > widespread? > > > > My personal experience with overseas workers has been average, with the > same > > spread as with other workers. > > > > My experience with bosses inappropriately relying on them has been ... > > disappointing. > > > > -- > > Phlip > > http://www.greencheese.org/ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!! > > > > Joe, I accept they could have provided a better solution , but one fact is , why it was not stated to them earlier that it should work with OS A also?Thinking such things as implicit is where the problem comes from. Also most cos offshoring work to low cost countries dont really state clearly what they wanted.They keep changing requirements after even testing is done. What you have stated is one such experience.Why was it not communicated to your offshore partner you need it to work for OS A also before they started their work ? Most cos keep quite till testing phase and come and say whole design needs to be changed.Most cos dont give any relevant documents to understand the existing code base which is main reason for such problems. Now I dont know whom to blame.Also if only you have made a portable layer like OS Abstraction layer , you would not have required to jump into this project first off all. Porting could have been done at your place itself! For your record , our co an indian one,started to have a project for a UK customer with jus 5 guys,today its a 150 people company working for same customer . Thats mainly because of the relation and better management which has done this. If you know how to manage,then you will never be in trouble! A joint review of requirements by both the offshoring partner and your company would have come handy before jumping into the projects coding phase. That will solve lots of problems like the one what you faced.All these are project management problems rather then a technical one. But I dont approve your full comment on "COWBOYS",because you dont know whats a "COW" first of all.You give requirements like "COW" should give milk,thinking "BULL" in your mind. If you generalise one such bad experience and make a premature judgement of blaming one whole country for that,I can very well say,every project you are going to offshore is never going to be a success. Instead of blaming,just try to see whats wrong in both sides.Unless you step in some ones shoes, you wont know the pain. If what you said is truth(in the way of generalisation), I dont think cos offshoring work will be foolish enough to outsource work to offshore,just for the sake of cost, facing so much of (misunderstood management)problems like what you stated. Regards, s.subbarayan .