Gerald Rome Securities Commissioner. Gerald Rome Securities Commissioner.
Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt...
-
Upload
lewis-wheeler -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt...
![Page 1: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development:
Evidence from the Field
Gerald DeHondtKent State University
![Page 2: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
• Background– 10 Years Industry Experience
• Programmer / Analyst
• Quality Assurance Manager
• Network Architect
• Enterprise Architect
• Project Manager
– Provided consulting services to Fortune 500 companies and each of the Big Three Auto Makers.
Introduction
![Page 3: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Outline of the Presentation• Overview
• Trends
• Current and Projected Implementations
• Research Perspective– Factors Impacting Offshoring– Proposed Model– Results and Analysis– Lessons Learned
![Page 4: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Offshoring Trends• Offshore IT services will continue to grow by 20% until 2010.
• Offshore development will comprise 28% of IT budgets in the US and Europe by 2008.
• By 2008, Forrester expects that 70% of the world’s computer programming will take place in offshore countries.
• According to Gartner, the wage arbitrage in India will be eliminated by steady salary increases.
• Non traditional regions and countries other than India are being considered for outsourcing such as Eastern Europe, Latin America, China, Vietnam, and the Philippines.
![Page 5: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Outsourcing Trends (Continued)• Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) is expected to grow at
79% annually until 2010.
• McKinsey Consulting projects a BPO potential of approximately $1 trillion. In 2005, the actual BPO volume is $30 billion.
• American-Express outsourced their entire Application Development and Maintenance (ADM) environment.
• GE has outsourced all of its back office operations.
5
![Page 6: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Outsource Model
Gartner Group, 2007
![Page 7: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
DealerCore Systems
Service Delivery
Dealer/FieldSupport
Dealer/FieldHosting
PortalApplications
BusinessIntelligence
DealerRelations
RiteSourceB
RitesourceA
RiteSourceA
RitesourceA
DealerOperations
Academy
RiteSourceB
SupplementalWorker
SupplementalWorker
SupplementalWorker
SupplementalWorker
SupplementalWorker
SupplementalWorker
SupplementalWorker
SupplementalWorker
3rd PartyVendor
Current On-shoreOutsource Structure
![Page 8: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Application Service Desk
Outsource Off-shore Concept
DealerCore Systems
Service Delivery
Dealer/FieldSupport
Dealer/FieldHosting
PortalApplications
BusinessIntelligence
DealerRelations
DealerOperations
Academy
SupplementalWorker
SupplementalWorker
SupplementalWorker
3rd PartyVendor
1 or 2 Off-Shore Companies
![Page 9: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Cost Drivers• One of the most costly areas to maintain in today’s
corporations is the Information Technology function (Barthelemy, 2001), a significant portion of which is systems development.
• Companies may contract this function with another company in order to reduce costs.– Utilize knowledge workers to perform a specific task
outside of the main revenue generating function of the customer, allowing them to focus on their core competencies. (Domberger, et al., 2000)
![Page 10: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Anticipated Cost Savings
• The primary reason companies will offshore systems development activities is cost savings (Ang and Cummings, 1997; Ang and Straub, 1998; Casale, 2001; Loh and Venkatraman,1992a, 1992b; Slaughter and Ang, 1996; Gopal et al., 2002).– Obtain knowledge capital from the vendor at
less expense than maintaining in-house.
10
![Page 11: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Purpose of this Research
• Investigate the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) proposition of offshoring systems development and determine whether unanticipated costs offset anticipated savings leading to project costs above initial expectations.
![Page 12: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Challenges• Quality Control• Increased Time to Market• Overall Costs (Matloff, 2004; Misra, 2004)• Reliability Concerns (Weinstein, 2004)
A growing body of anecdotal evidence suggests that offshoring is often the worst possible solution and that the management challenges of these initiatives far outweigh its benefits (Sharma and Seshagiri, 2006).
![Page 13: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Project Studied• The project being analyzed is the migration
of four legacy applications from outdated technology into a corporate standard architecture.
• The current application environment was being sundowned and the applications would have to be re-architected and rewritten.
• Corporate direction is to offshore a target percentage of systems development.
![Page 14: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Methodology
• This research utilizes a Case Study approach to review the largest offshoring systems development project of a large manufacturing company ($200 billion in revenues).– Surveys and follow-up interviews with client
project personnel serve as the basis for the study.
![Page 15: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Factors Affecting Offshoring• Cost
– 44 percent of corporate IT managers identified cost savings as the primary reason most global companies outsource IT needs beyond their domestic borders (King, 2003).
– Only 54 percent of the offshore agreements realized the expected cost savings (Caldwell, 2002).
– Transition and management costs can amount to much as 5 - 7% of the value of an outsourcing contract (Scheier, 1996).
15
![Page 16: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Factors Affecting Offshoring• Quality
– Defect rates on software developed by offshore firms may be as high as 35% – 45% greater than that of domestically produced code (Kharif, 2003).
– The lower per-hour wages are also offset by much lower overall productivity (Sharma, Seshagiri, 2006).
– This environment is now shrinking the advantages of offshoring particularly in the area of cost savings (King, 2006).
![Page 17: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Factors Affecting Offshoring• Vendor Personnel
– Lack of trained software engineers is a major problem for most software companies (Nidomolu and Goodman, 1993).
– The quality of programmers or project personnel has been shown to have a positive effect on project performance (Gopal et al., 2003; Krishnan, 2000; Guinan et al., 2000).
![Page 18: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Factors Affecting Offshoring• Distance
– Lack of proximity may pose significant challenges due to hampering the client’s ability to effectively monitor vendors and coordinate development activities closely (Gopal et al., 2003).
– Each time zone difference represents a potential loss in collaboration activities crucial for project success (King, 2003).
– No documented evidence that the 24 / 7 work touted by proponents reduces software development cycle time (Sharma, Seshagiri, 2006).
– WiPro and Tata Consultancy have recognized the need for personal interaction and have offices and staff in North America (King, 2005).
![Page 19: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Proposed Model
Client Project Cost
DistanceVendor
Infrastructure
Quality
Vendor Personnel
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis4
![Page 20: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
ResultsAnticipated cost savings were not achieved.
• Hypothesis 1: Lower quality of the software product will lead to higher project costs. (Supported)– The quality of the delivered system was below
client expectations and below what could have been delivered using in-house personnel.
– The original system team was still required during development to serve as technical and subject matter experts.
20
![Page 21: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Results• Hypothesis 2: Less experienced Vendor
Personnel will produce lower quality software, thus increasing project costs. (Supported)– Project team assigned by the vendor was young
and appeared to have little experience developing systems of this magnitude.
– One respondent indicated the vendor team appeared to be on their first assignment after training.
![Page 22: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Results• Hypothesis 3: Greater geographic distance
between the client and vendor will lower software quality, thus increasing project costs. (Supported)– “Friction of distance” was difficult to
overcome.– Client was heavily dependent upon the
reporting structure implemented by the vendor.– Impacted the client’s ability to monitor project
progress and they relied solely on unreliable status reports from the vendor. The client was unable to independently verify project progress.
![Page 23: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Results• Hypothesis 4: Availability of the local vendor
offices and project support infrastructure will mitigate the distance factor and allow development of higher quality software. This higher quality software will lower project costs. (Not supported)– Presence of local vendor infrastructure did not
appear to enhance the quality of the delivered system.
![Page 24: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Lessons Learned• The least expensive solution is not always
the best solution.• Truth lies somewhere in the middle.• Experienced project personnel bring a level
of insight to a project that can only be obtained with time.
• Clients need to be aware of particular challenges that may be inherent in the relationship unique with the vendor chosen to complete the project.
![Page 25: Anticipated Cost Savings From OffShore Systems Development: Evidence from the Field Gerald DeHondt Kent State University.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062322/56649e555503460f94b4c503/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Questions ?