I was reviewing Michael’s detailed comment to my blog entry on my earlier note “What makes a client offshore visit successful?” and I thought I should do justice by re-posting it on a blog entry as many readers may not have RSS to comments of the blog.
The first two stakeholder categories are related, as they both involve individuals or entities that do not (yet) have a direct commercial relationship to manage with and offshore supplier. The power of a trip offshore that simply cannot be duplicated any other way go and see first hand the sheer scope of the staggering investments that have been made in the offshore campuses of so many companies. Years ago at a Gartner conference I attended in London, Charles Ledbeater (futurist, author, Pro/Am subject matter expert) urged the crowd to do something I had been suggesting to colleagues for some time: go to Bangalore. Simple as that. He did go on to explain, but his main point was it is highly unlikely the average Westerner can fully "get it" until they have seen it with their own eyes. Not just IT, but biotech, business schools, design schools, etc. Call it Friedman’s flat world message in an earlier iteration.
Even for those who have done their homework and think they grasp that the 21st century will be Chindia’s century, a trip offshore is still a high value eye opener.
For the third category I think these visits can serve a variety of valuable functions. For example, offshore insiders know that it is difficult for offshore teams (especially large ones) to cultivate domain knowledge of their clients. The reasons are many fold, but simplistically put, out of sight (site? ;-)) out of mind. Recent research from leading outsourcing experts Mary Lacity and Leslie Wilcocks does and should diminish the amount of importance placed on domain knowledge as it is traditionally understood by providers (industry specific/vertical experience). But their research indicates a large gap between providers and customers as to it’s continued importance and what domain knowledge actually means. Their findings clearly indicate that to customers of IT services, domain knowledge means knowledge of their specific business circumstances (specifically including often irrational technical, organizational or political details that comprise the reality within a modern multinational). In addition, the lack of domain knowledge has actually been linked to offshoring success. Strange as that sounds, the research indicates that the required “deep dive” interaction that a lack of traditional domain knowledge makes necessary drives a greater need for collaboration, and thus builds a stronger working foundation in the overall sourcing relationship.
To tie that all together, what better way to foster the client’s (murkier) notion of “domain knowledge” and a deeper commitment to a client relationship than for the client to show commitment also by taking the time and expense to visit the campus of an offshore partner. Not only can this enhance the relationship in the aforementioned ways, but it can contribute to a win/win mentality that can be argued to further the important goal of limited attrition offshore. Clients don’t realize how big an impact it makes offshore that they visit and invest in the relationship and going there helps them do that perhaps as much as any one tactic.
Another valuable function of a visit offshore can be in the strategic management of a particular project. Years ago I was nearly coerced to take on a critical SOA development project that was under fire in every direction. The project was months overdue, there was little money available to fund it and the various business stakeholders were all convinced it was strictly an “IT” driven project. To top it all off, a strategic decision was made to switch development partners from a French provider to a Indian provider offshore at the last minute. I formally highlighted these and additional risks to management, but took on the challenge anyway. Before I did, I browbeat management into agreeing to allow me to take the onsite core team offshore for an 10 day kick-off to allow intitial high value face time to jumpstart the effort. As you might imagine, I was challenged that this was an unnecessary expense but I resisted all efforts to sway me and demanded it be approved if I were to run the show. My strategy was layered, but firstly, we had handed high pressure/near ridiculous time frames to the provider to build a team comprised of top talent for a critical project. This simply could not be done overnight, and I knew that too much pressure here would produce a sub par team. The onsite team on the other hand was firmly in place and travel plans could be made more easily while the offshore team went headhunting internally and externally (as well as applying for Schengen visas once team members joined which was more time consuming for them than the reverse).
I also realized our arrival would further strengthen the relationship in other key areas I was overseeing (already in place) with this provider and contribute urgency to our new needs. We deliver growth and add development work to your plate, and you need to prioritize us to build a top team.
Finally, I made this move as there were broader considerations more in line with the first two categories of offshore visitors. We were growing a relationship very rapidly with this offshore provider and these structural changes were taking their toll on performance and motivation of internal resources and existing nearshore suppliers. Teams from India were arriving with shining new laptops and no restrictions on travel, while onsite teams had stagnated pay, hardware, and severe spending restrictions.
The contrasts were obvious and the competitive challenge was real, but I chose to be direct and honest with all involved and seek a win/win. I asked questions about the future and asked each individual if they felt the competitive specter of offshore providers would remain constant, grow or shrink? I asked them if they saw their future in this industry or perhaps another? Slowly it became obvious that in the 21st century a trip like this was an opportunity for IT practitioners embracing the requisite pace of change and uncertainty. An opportunity to learn and understand the direction of the industry better, to succeed in collaborating under pressure with an offshore team, and for those ready to appreciate it an opportunity on a personal level as well. In my head this entire topic falls under “strategic travel” and is a key component to offshoring success. It goes without saying that the steep growth fueling offshoring is never far from a discussion of cost. Globetrotting is not cheap and fuel costs threaten to make it even less so in the coming years. Nevertheless, experience and research both strongly indicate that offshoring success requires far more commitment up front, and ongoing management than is often estimated by those who seek to gain the competitive advantage it potentially represents. There are many facets to this, but travel offshore is a very powerful one indeed. It reminds me of one of Tom Peters many wise “rules” for excellence in the disruptive age we live and work in: “5,000 miles for a 5 minute meeting often makes sense. Yes often.”
<<Thank you Michael!>>
