I had an interesting time interacting with and interviewing fellow consultants and technologists the past couple of weeks. The consultants in question were referred to us by the head of their company’s consulting practice since the group was being disbanded due to some corporate restructuring; and the management of the firm had offered to connect them with other partner organizations (including Infosys). Why that group was being disbanded rather than being offered/sold as a consulting practice is something I had no intention of probing. So here I was, working with my colleagues to whet the profiles from that data set, and began making cold calls to talk with the prospective candidates. A few observations based on my interactions with the prospects:
]]>The processes of interviewing these professionals with years of industry background had an unintended consequence: it helped me reflect on my goals! And in case you are wondering how many in interviewed and eventually recommended for selection, tough luck finding that information here; this after all happens to be a corporate blog sponsored by my employer.
A few other intersting blog entries on the topic of hiring consultants:
]]>Hi Mohan,
This is S from Bangalore and I need some advice from you. I am an Instrumentation Engineer and after completing my BE, I joined the Electronics Components marketing industry. I have been into promoting Electronic components and business development for the past 4 years and currently reached Assistant Manager post.However a friend of mine forwarded my resume to Infosys and I have got an interview call from them for a Pre Sales profile. They said that it would involve heavy documentation work which worries me.
I read your writeup and need some advice from you: Do you think after 4 years of experience in Direct Sales --- is it worth migrating to Pre Sales profile?
Please advice as I have an interview scheduled for Saturday.
Warm regards
S
My two cents
Hi S
As I posted on this blog, my updated views on Pre-Sales are also online. Please review.Though I am not familiar with details of your specific situation, it sounds to me like you are looking to further your career by joining Infosys, a blue chip software services firm (without a background in Software services)? Fact of the matter is that Infosys does not "promote" Electronic components but if they have offered to speak with you, you have an opportunity to explore synergies?!
Keep me posted on how it goes.
Regards
Mohan
Response from S:
Dear Mohan,
I had been to Infosys Bangalore today and attended the interview.
The interviewer is Pre Sales head for Network & Infrastructure division.
Initially he asked me some general questions about Sales and my current job profile. Then he asked me about pre sales and I told him what ever you had mentioned in your article. The interview also comprised of stress test, mock presentation, introduction, selling ideas etc. I was asked to be the "Infosys representative" and he was the "client" who required services. It was a 10 minute mock discussion and was OKHe was satisfied with my performance and I got the job. I am currently awaiting a formal offer letter.
Warm regards
S
Note to self: score one for my moonlingting as a corporate blogger?!
But there again, before I get too upbeat, I have also had a few challenges, especially when it comes to onsite hiring. I have begun to pen down some thoughts in a working paper on hiring by offshoring firms onsite: Getting Hired in a Flat World
As always: comments welcome
]]>Based on the stream of queries I received, I decided to elaborate on the topic further (published here online: “Viewpoints on Pre Sales, Sales support at Software Service Firms”). This is a working draft that I will continue to revise, so keep your queries and comments coming.
]]>Case in point, I was at meeting of an engagement team and managers of one of our clients in the context of their team exploring the use of BEA’s Aqualogic as an integration platform. During the discussion, one of the executives made a mention that although we were a large service provider, with over hundred-thousand talented individuals who had expertise in myriad technologies, he was only exposed to the (Infosys) team assigned to their projects onsite and offshore, which was primarily in Microsoft .Net Application Development and Maintenance (ADM) space.
]]> There is nothing radical here since this group of client executives, like many of their peers in the industry was looking for ways to leverage our organizational expertise beyond that of the current context. Although they were aware of the wide array of services provided by my employer, they had only seen our team work with them on one platform.The challenge here was that the client’s technology leaders needed a better understanding of the dynamics of their service provider (us). I had blogged earlier about the crucial role that Engagement Managers (EM*) play in the success sourcing initiatives; the corollary here is to ensure that client’s technology stakeholders - VPs, IT Directors, Managers et al – understand their EM’s motivators in order to make him work for them.
In this illustration, the challenge is to ensure that the EM on the ground taps the right talent and pockets of expertise on Aqualogic. Fact of the matter is that in a large service firms like ours one is certain to find pockets of expertise, even on esoteric tools and technologies with a caveat: EMs may need to jump internal hoops to ensure they are available to the client at a point in time. The list of challenges in the same vein include:
The challenge here cuts across service firms. Account Managers and EMs are incentivized to ensure successful client relationship (that translates to a steady revenue stream). However, in a scenario like the above, client’s management may need to demonstrate a longer term roadmap (for the Aqualogic initiative in this instance), in order to motivate the EM to jump through his (internal) hoops to identify someone with the skills and make them available at a short notice. If the EM perceives it to be a ‘one off’ request in the engagement context he may consider proposing re-skilling a few members from the existing team. Another incentive, though not very practical, may be to offer one-off pricing/billing rate for such one-off requests.
* footnote: though I use the term EM, it is used in a generic context to refer to key client facing people from your service firm that could include the Engagement Manager, Account Manager or even the onsite Project Manager
]]>Most IT teams that leverage open source tools, frameworks and solutions expect their team members to actively participate in the forums, and in case of teams that include service providers, say Infosys, expect them to also leverage and contribute to the open source community.
]]> A member of my team was googling for some information when he came across a conversation in an online forum initiated by one of our employees posted using his id XYZ@infosys.com Now, there is nothing wrong in using your real moniker to post your viewpoints or seek information on the web (though the flip side is that spammers trawling the web are going to add your mail-id to their list). However, such participation in open forums, say contributing to a discussion in the spirit of Open Source poses a unique challenge: Queries to open source forums need context, and in some case code references to be posted.A query seeking inputs from others in the open source may need context of what one was trying to do (when the problem occurred). In some cases, the posting may require addition of the exception stack trace, error codes etc. that would help the reader to understand the problem and context. Though best practices around these scenarios for participating in Open Source forums continue to emerge, here are a few rule-of-thumb that my teams are using:
Note that these are merely stopgap inputs to protect client information with their consent. Our teams are increasingly taking a top-down approach by revisiting the Master Service Agreement (MSA) and chalking out of code of conduct for specific engagements and projects. And this is certainly not the last word on the topic....
]]>Though there may not be a direct correlation between the three trends, one can connect the dots.
]]> The first 'trend' is more of a common knee-jerk reaction to macroeconomic trends in the landscape but goes against advice from management experts. Case in point, Ram Charan, the management guru, in his recent Fortune magazine writeup advices “Don't expect the good times to roll for quite some time... But smart executives can use the downturn to make their companies better, stronger, and faster” [Managing your business in a downturn]Among his key advices to corporate executives: Keep building. Ram Charan says “When the top line looks shaky and the bottom line worse, the temptation is to go after discretionary spending. Fine - but do not consider product development, innovation, and brand building optional. Sacrificing your future for a slightly more comfortable present is not worth it. If you keep building, you can come back strong.”
Most technology leaders will intuitively equate the advice to “keep building” to apply to their SOA initiatives, that adopt modular solutions with smaller investments, with faster time to market. While technology leaders recognize the need to “keep building,” they may also be getting the message to lower operational costs and in some cases be already leveraging offshored IT services. Given this scenario, it shouldn’t be hard to build a business case to continue with key integration and SOA initiatives.
Before you pick holes through my line of thinking, I am not advocating that executives pick up slack on SOA and integration initiatives during a downturn without due diligence. This being a blog entry, it is hard for me to pick on more specifics on building a business case. In case you are looking for specific steps involved in strengthening your business case which may require an analysis of your scenario and specific drivers, you could ping me offline.
]]>Reading about this incident, I began reflecting on my experience with IT in the Government and the security policies and checks-and-balances inherent to managing such systems.
]]> In my past life before I joined Infosys, I did a year long stint working with the State of Kentucky’s Department of Information Systems (DIS) working on their Income Tax management systems at Frankfort, Ky. This was over a decade ago, and as I recall, issues regarding data privacy, especially as it pertained to taxpayer’s information was taken very seriously with Chinese Walls between the different development teams, production support and users. In this instance, the ‘users,’ were state employees who had access to view customer/taxpayer data. Those of us in the IT development group had no access to live databases and systems, and even the data used for testing and validations was masked.The aspects of security breach and inappropriate data access as highlighted by the recent incident are certainly going to have far reaching consequences, impacting those of us in the corporate world too. And if there is a discussion of IT security, can offshoring dimensions be far behind? I had briefly analyzed a few thoughts around “Security and Offshoring IT” in my blog a while ago and continue to reflect on the topic.
Bottomline: As the old adage goes, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Security breaches like that exposed by the recent incident should make us reflect on the Human and Technology aspects of securing data, and systems.
]]>This itinerary meant that I had to leave home at 4.30 to drive down to the airport, park my car, and check in for the flight. In the morning rush, I decided to check my mails and voicemail on the blackberry after I had some wait-time at the airport. And was I surprised to see a note from Bob, the client VP of Strategy whose team I was meeting with:
]]>We will need to reschedule our meeting for tomorrow. I will have to be home tomorrow afternoon with my son who is sick. We found out today he has strep throat. My wife is out of town with her mom who is in the hospital, so I need to be home with the kids. I still would like to meet on this and am hoping we can get together next week.
Can you send a new invitation for next week? I’m open Monday afternoon, Tuesday from 9 – 4, all day Wednesday, and Thursday after 2.
Thanks, and sorry for the last minute change.
And you would think that a seasoned road-warrior like myself would be slightly more prepared for this eventuality! During my drive back from the airport, I was reflecting on the examples I had referenced in my book [Offshoring IT Services: Chapter 4] in the section “OF TECHIES AND TRAVEL.” And thankfully my ordeal wasn’t half as bad as experienced by some of our offshore folks traveling from halfway across the globe only to find that the client has canceled/postponed the project or meeting.
Fact remains that most of us in the business of sourcing continue to be at mercy of the culture where touch-and-feel-meetings continues to be the nature of business. This despite the fact that Video-conferencing technologies along with high-speed bandwidth have matured to a point where they are being used as serious business tools, albeit more for ‘internal’ business needs. Many Infosys teams routinely use VC and voice conferencing for internal meetings and most of our offices around the globe are equipped with state-of-the-art video-conferencing technologies and staff to support them. I had blogged about Video conferencing technologies earlier too. But it still makes one wonder why so few firms or sales-managers are able to nudge their clients towards adopting these technologies more often?
Is it topical that “Telepresence World 2008” conference is scheduled in London for today (In anticipation of the March 18 and 19); Speaking about the conference, Deb Shinder blogs “market research firm Frost & Sullivan announced that it expects revenues for the emerging telepresence industry to increase by nearly 850 percent in the next five years. It predicts total world-wide revenues will be around $1.4 billion by 2013.” Hopefully the gurus and analysts there will evolve strategies to nudge more of us towards VC.
Bottomline: While a few early adopters gain the cost benefits of the technology and also do some good for the global carbon footprint, I guess the rest of us will have to wait a few years for the Youtube generation to rise up the echelons of business and technology management to start driving wider adoption?!
]]>Thanks to varied viewpoints of bloggers - Nicholas Carr, Blogger News Network Marc Parent et al - the issues, including the ‘global security’ ‘sabotage’ and economic impact have been debated threadbare during the past few weeks. The media was also quick to ‘analyze’ the impact on software majors in South Asia, and naturally, Infosys figured in a fair number of articles too. [e.g Economic Times, Finance Week]
]]> The question of Disaster Recovery, using this incident as a ‘case in point’ is bound to pop up during presentations by service firms that have operations in Asia and elsewhere. And I am sure issue figures in internal discussion at firms sourcing to their subsidiaries and captives too. In my mind, there are more than a few dimensions to consider while analyzing potential risks and disasters, including:Back to our meeting with the client’s team; how did we address the query? There was no way I would brush aside the incident. After analyzing the facts of the case, we got around to discussing the ‘what if’ of such incidents, going back to the strategic impact of DR and risk mitigation, especially as applicable to their particular scenario…. essentially addressing their concern (Yes, these are the facts… but what does it mean to me and my firm’s sourcing strategy?)
And when one begins to take a more holistic view of Risk, Risk Mitigation and Disaster Recovery, incidents like the cable being cut in Egypt become yet another ‘case study’ added to the list.
]]>]]> In a sense, Big Kahuna seems to imply that many EMs are snake oil salesmen who are “fairly short sighted, constantly chasing monthly billing,” a fact that may become more pronounced this month as we approach the fiscal year end. Speaking of viewpoints on EMs, I came across Steve Shu's blog that summarizes the essence of what an EM does“while I do believe it's a very important role, I also think the success of this depends on a) how it is communicated, across levels b) the authority vested in the engagement manager and c) will of the vendor's leadership/operational folks in actually actioning on perceived improvement areas.
My experience from a few years in this field (working for an i-banking kpo) is providers are fairly short sighted, constantly chasing monthly billing (acceptable), but not really focusing on offering an overall experience for the client.
While it is not likely to hurt vendors today (since clients don’t have too many alternatives), clearly down-the-line....when the market opens up (which it will), vendors that take a very bottom line driven approach will not be the better for it."
Engagement managers own the problem statement from the perspective of the customer, and thus, have the responsibilities to ensure that consulting team both structures the problem solving methodology correctly and executes on the problem solving methodology.
Besides customers, I would extend Steve's definition to include other key set of an EM's stakeholders – service firm’s employees -- that successful EMs focus on. While the ‘client is certainly the king,’ it is people, employees who work with teams that make a difference in delivering successful solutions to the clients.
During my years with Infosys’ I have worked with some really great EMs who effortlessly manage the (sometimes) diverging goals of stakeholders, including managing aspirations of the staff. Of course, I have on occasion come across the odd EM from my firm and other service organizations, who just doesn’t cut it as s/he is unable to get past a single-minded focus: either entirely on billing (as Big Kahuna mentions) or just bending backwards for every client request, refusing to say ‘NO’ even when unfeasible requirements come their way.
Bottomline: great Engagement Managers and client partners are worth their weight in gold and can make a huge difference to the divergent group of stakeholders: client teams, client and service firm’s management and employees.
]]>Among these commenting on the topic, a blog that caught my eye was Ben Worthen's viewpoint in WSJ’s blog [“Young Mainframe Programmers are the Cat’s Meow”], where he raises the question: Where do businesses find people who remember how to program the things? The obvious answer would be: offshore; but there again, it is not as simple as that.
]]> Even offshore, mainframe programming skills continue to be scarce as the younger generation looks to wet their feet in more ‘modern’ technologies. I occasionally spend time counseling the likes of Elizabeth Bell (from Ben’s blog) on why Mainframe jobs continue to be sexy, even for offshore service firms. An example of article in the media talking up the demand for mainframe programmers [eg. Grow with Mainframes] While pure play application programming on mainframes and mainframe product configuration will continue to require the bulk of attention, other hi-tech opportunities in the space will also thrive:Bottom line: While services firms, including my employer Infosys, continue to groom a cadre of mainframe programmers to address the resurgence in demand, the next level of challenge is grooming them to become mainframe analysts and architects.
]]>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!>>
]]>The real challenge for global expatriate employees, when it comes to filing taxes:
In case you are wondering about the role of the company in assisting employees, here it goes (though this is not an official version of the process). Infosys’ Corporate finance and HR groups, which are geographically distributed, does a wonderful job of tracking the work status and earnings of deputed employees. At the end of the local fiscal year, employees are notified about their taxable earnings and a (US W-2, Canadia T4 or other similar forms) are mailed out to employees. The company also gives references to reputable tax consultants who understand intricacies of tax filing.
I'm not sure of the process followed by other global consulting firms; wonder if it is similar? I also wonder if there a way to flatten the tax-filing for such global consultants?
Note, in this blog, I did not focus on the intricacies of corporate/business taxes etc
]]>Case in point is a recent visit by a CIO and senior executives of a client I work with. The client's team was accompanied by the onsite Engagement Manager, who got the following 'thank you' note after the visit:
]]> ________________________________I would like to thank you and your team for the time and effort that you put in to make this trip a memorable event for J, K and me. The quality of the sessions was excellent. The information transfer exceeded expectations. The tours gave us an appreciation for the overall size and scale of your operation. Without a doubt, Infosys is clearly the company to beat in global outsourcing. This visit simply reaffirmed to me why we chose to work with your firm 2 1/2 years ago.
I would also personally like to thank you for how you treated us this past week. You made us feel at home throughout the visit. Your help in coordinating my travel plans went beyond any expectations that I have for a friend; let alone my outsourcing partner.
Please expect a more formal acknowledgment of our appreciation when we're back; a letter that can be shared with your entire team.
In the meantime, please accept this note as my simple way of providing a heartfelt thank you.
Regards,
________________________________
Though the thank-you note summarizes the experiences of the executive, the story behind this visit involves meticulous planning and coordinating several dynamics including schedules of managers and experts at different offshore locations, firming up the agenda and other logistics of trip planning; the intricacies of which I couldn’t capture in a short blog entry. Bottomline: Though complex in planning and execution, client visits are a ‘routine’ aspect of our business.
]]>With my distinctly South Asian features and accent, I am no Warren Harding but I got to experience and observe the reversal of the ‘error’ that Gladwell points to. In the early nineties, when I first landed in the US, and was looking for a car at the local auto dealership in the heart of the Midwest – Kentucky – the salesman wouldn’t give me the time of the day. I was distinctly ‘foreign,’ probably without a credit history, with questionable finances. The salesman literally told me that to my face (something the dealership later apologized for when I wrote to the manager, but that’s a different story).
Fast forward to present day. It is interesting to observe how younger South Asian and Indian expat ‘kids’ on offshore engagements, walking into a Honda, Toyota or other auto dealerships get kid-glove treatments (pun intended). It is probably because in the blink of an eye, the sales-men/women now equate them to the ‘white male’ in Gladwell’s narrative: seen as knowledgeable, internet savvy and possibly with a high-tech job that pays well. This ‘thin slicing’ happens subconsciously even while the kid walks into a dealership, thanks in part to the hype over the flattening world (apologies Tom Friedman) and buzz in the media over offshoring. A phenomenon, one could call the reverse of Gladwell’s description of spotting the sucker: spotting the buyer!
]]>