Agile Methodology, Customer Experience, DevOps, Nearshore, Product Development, Project Management, Successful Outsourcing
Rotating team members on agile software development teams is a controversial subject. Some leaders in the agile community are strongly opposed to the idea and won’t consider it at any level. Others are open to the subject, but frankly too concerned about the possible downsides to actively plan rotations or even hint to their customers it might be a good idea. And of course, there are the wild-eyed optimists who claim it is the best idea possible for every situation.
Our focus for this article is dedicated teams – teams with members selected for their skills and reliability over the long run. Typically, dedicated teams have no set sunset. They are dedicated to a product or part of a product suite and they generally stay through the active development and maintenance of a product lifecycle – which for enterprise software maybe years. But, that said, the ideas that bring up the subject of rotating members of a dedicated team could apply to any long term project, especially with smaller (3-5 member) teams.
And let’s be honest about one other thing too: the longer the project or product lifecycle, the more likely it is there will be an «unplanned» member rotation. Births, deaths, illness, vacations, career advancements and changes – all sorts of life events have to be managed as a part of maintaining a dedicated team. Even if the time a member is away is relatively short, in less than two weeks, the impact on the productivity of a small team needs to be managed to continue to meet client schedules and expectations. In some cases, the remaining team members can sustain production for a period of time by adding additional hours daily and on weekends, but eventually, that will take a toll on their personal commitment to the team. And when there is an unplanned need to bring in a replacement, there are consequences to the team regardless of the additional manpower provided. In fact, it is well understood that if for some reason two members of a small team needed to be replaced over a short period of time, it would be catastrophic for the team. Bringing the new member «up-to-speed» with mentoring and knowledge transfer takes time and effort of other team members away from their work. And, there is the well-understood impact of a team «forming, storming, norming, and performing» cycles as described by Tuckman. Changing a member of a small team always creates issues. Without some planning and forethought – it can kill the effectiveness of a team for an extended period of time.
So – why would anyone want to consider the idea of rotating team members on dedicated agile teams?
- If unplanned changes in a dedicated team are going to happen anyway, why not be prepared? Why not have the process for selecting, integrating, training and mentoring a new team member planned, documented and tested before it actually happens? Why wouldn’t you want the expectation that «this can happen» and «this is how we deal with it» in place and in front of the team and the client from the beginning?
The longer a team works on a product, the more likely they are to develop «tunnel-vision.» They see the UI, but they become blind to the problems a new user might encounter trying to use it. They know there are newer technologies that might make something more efficient or resilient, but it takes time to test, advocate change, and demo the option to the client team. If what you have works, is it really worth the effort? The longer a team works together, the more «normal» the little quirks about a product become. In the long run, it can make them resistant to needed change and reluctant to suggest options.- Working with the same people, on the same product, eventually leads to a level of isolation that can begin to make it difficult to want to get started on the «same old stuff» each day. Developers are part of «geek culture» and love to see new technologies, get input from other sources and try «cool» things. When this happens, production slips and members of the team may become less committed to the success of the product they are working on. It doesn’t happen in a day; it is a slow drip that eventually eats away at the team and makes it less effective. It can also make individuals on the team consider career changes because they are afraid their resume will reflect stagnation rather than stability.
- Bringing in «fresh (but experienced) blood» can bring cross-pollination from other experiences, new points of view on coding practices and processes, a new look at alternatives as you move forward and other benefits from another set of eyes on the project. If long term members of the project are not ready to accept new ideas, they can create strong resistance, but if they are positively primed for the idea by considering they could also benefit individually and as a team, it can be a shot in the arm for the team.
- «Ownership» of a product, or an area of responsibility, can be a strong motivator for a team. Their understanding of its deeper value and continued success is part of their pride and keeps the team on track. But, there is also a downside. If the team is the single point of knowledge and «truth» for a product, they are also the single point of failure. If there is no base of knowledge about the product outside of the team, in the wider pool of developers around them, there is no way to replace a team member easily or help them if there is a problem that causes a loss of a member or if the team runs into a serious internal disagreement (it does happen).
- Operationally, these long-term teams become silos. Outside the team, they are the go-to subject matter experts that always have the answers. Inside the team, individuals tend to become specialists, filling a niche that no one else can come close to. This not only runs against the whole concept of «agile organizations» – it becomes a growing risk within the organization.
There are more reasons too – but those concerns represent some of the more common drivers of the idea. They are all real issues and the problems the teams dealing with them have an impact on the projects they are in. But – does planned rotation actually solve the problems? Does the upside outweigh the downsides? Can rotation be planned well enough to overcome internal team dynamics? Will the supposed benefits last long enough to make rotations something you want to do? Can you actually present a case that would make client support, rather than oppose, the practice?
The answer would have to be – it all depends on implementation.
- Like any change, member rotations have to be sold internally before they can be implemented.
- Frank conversations about the health of teams, experiences in long term engagements have to be surfaced and alternative solutions have to be discussed.
- The timing and requirements for new members have to be considered and accepted by the existing team members. Simply dumping the idea on them without preparation is sure to bring disaster.
- The level of the incoming team member will make a difference in acceptance. Replacing a senior member with another senior developer may be more difficult than bringing in a mid-level or junior developer in their place. With less seniority, the new member will have lower expectations and less to live up to. They will be more accepting during knowledge transfer and mentoring and give existing team members new opportunities to grow. But if the outgoing member is considered to be a team leader, the impact may be very deep no matter who is brought in.
- If the practice is fairly new within the organization, replacing a team member is likely to be more problematic regardless of planning and thought. The practice can be new institutionally or within the team, it really doesn’t matter. If team members are not experienced with the concept, issues will arise. Assuming the issue will iron themselves out eventually is not a good way to manage change.
- Frequency is important. Single-member rotation will always cause thrash and lost productivity no matter how well it is planned. A team can only sustain so much change without becoming distracted and losing their center. In complex environments, it may take a considerable time for a new member to build up the necessary knowledge base. Most industry experience seems to circle around a period between six and nine months for the change of one member. More than that and the team might never gain cohesion again. Less than that and silos will begin to form. But, there is no perfect point. You can’t change a member during a critical release for a product, no matter what the calendar says. You have to work with the client team to gain acceptance and cooperation. Timing is a hard nut to crack and will be different in every situation.
This is an important and evolving area of management for outsourced agile teams. It is not widely discussed in the software development industry. Clients come to outsourcing vendors to avoid issues like team cohesion, resilience, and long-term stability. It may be difficult to bring them into a conversation about an issue that is seen as a vendor responsibility.
But, there are some ideas that are coming forward and worth considering. Larger outsourcing vendors can propose a dedicated «pool» rather than a team. The actual team in production continues to be a small number, but the vendor commits to a larger group, perhaps 7-10 including the active team, of developers that are involved and can become a team member with less overhead from change. This allows the members of the pool to become involved in project and product discussions, review code, and be the sounding board for ideas. There has to be an adjustment of the cost to allow this kind of an arrangement and a clear commitment by the vendor to avoiding the issues that are considered part of dedicated team contracts, but in certain situations, it is worth considering.
In the final analysis, it is hard to value the practice of rotating team members on dedicated teams. It can seem like a great idea if you have experienced the downsides of long-term engagements where unplanned changes and team stagnation become barriers to success. If the motivation, implementation, and outcomes are not carefully considered and monitored, it can become a serious distraction from productive development. Neither outcome is good so this is an important consideration and the decisions are likely to be different in every situation.
If you have experience with team member rotation (and not just fears or wild optimism) – I would be interested to hear your thoughts. This is still an unsettled area in agile team dynamics.
Scio is a provider of outsourced, dedicated and project teams for agile software development to our nearshore clients in North America. We have experience with many team and project configurations and would love to discuss how we could help with your next project. Please contact us with your questions.
Agile Methodology, Customer Experience, Nearshore, Product Development, Project Management, Successful Outsourcing
Outsourcing is a standard practice in the software development industry and it continues to experience steady growth, year after year. Among the common drivers cited are lowering costs of outsourcing, rapid acquisition of skilled resources, and avoiding staff overhead for one-time projects that would result in layoffs after completion.
In other words – it is all about costs in one way or another, whether they are real expenses or lost opportunities because you could not bring together a new team for a project in time to achieve your market. But, when you have paid the invoices and implemented your new application, what is on your balance sheet? Did you really save the money you thought you would? Are there hidden costs that have drained all the benefits out of the engagement?
10 hidden costs of outsourcing you may not be considering (in no particular order):
#1 – Deciding that driving cost to the lowest level possible is your primary goal
Are you confused? If outsourcing is all about costs, how can it be that using lower costs as your primary reason for outsourcing would actually end up costing you more?
- The lowest cost vendor cannot also be the best equipped with the best resources, deep expertise, strong cultural fit, high reliability and excellent real-time communications in your language. Solving each of the issues mentioned has a cost to the vendor, during the contract period or before to find, train, and maintain the necessary resources. Pushing to the lowest possible costs will require trade-offs that you and your team will bear. You may be able to anticipate the cost of working with less experienced and less independent resources at a production level, but can you also judge the costs that could come when unexpected issues arise? Have you ever experienced a project without unexpected issues? Really?
- Often, when price is the primary driver, the service buyer decides to manage costs by requiring a fixed-price bid. The upside is the risk is placed on the outsourcing vendor. To mitigate their risks, the vendor will then require extensive documentation, a detailed waterfall-type project plan that leaves acceptance testing to the end of the project, and penalties or prolonged negotiation if changes are needed. Plus, to pad for risk, the vendor will actually increase their bid because they know that fixed-price engagements rarely finish on time and within budget. In addition, they may decide to use less experienced resources (lower cost) overseen by senior resources (high cost, but with little time to look deeply into design and coding issues), So, in the end, instead of gaining assurance the project will end on time with an expected cost, the buyer has more cost for upfront specifications, more risk the final application will meet specifications as written but fail to achieve its goals, and much less oversight and flexibility once the project begins. The vendor will manage to the contract requirements and not the business goals their client decided were important internally. The vendor takes the entire responsibility for cost control, quality assurance, and management. In most cases, this means if their timeline or costs get out of line, quality control and communication between the development team and the client team will suffer.
- If your primary driver is cost, you will probably be pushed to offshore resources that are very low cost but have difficulty making their teams available in real time to collaborate with your team, lack good communication skills in your language and little in common with your culture. In these cases, you will have to do what you can to mitigate the fact that 28% of projects fail because of communication issues and 16% fail because of poor cultural matches.
#2 – The cost of selecting a vendor
Few buyers have a budget for selecting an outsourcing vendor and if they do, they rarely allow for the work that would really contribute to successful projects and relationships.
- Up-front requirements and bidding document preparation. In order to assure all vendors provide comparable bids, considerable time needs to be spent, by your in-house team specifying both the project and the vendor requirements. If a number of non-compliant or non-comparable bids are returned, what is the cost of going back to the vendor with more details and allowing other vendors to update their bids with what is perhaps new information or different assumptions for them? The hourly cost of internal staff, consultants or both add up but are often not counted in the final project analysis.
- Time and opportunity costs. Depending on the value of the project, the vendor selection process can take 4 months to a year. This includes selecting the vendor pool, preparing documents, sending, receiving and reviewing documents, negotiating and preparing contracts, demonstrations, travel to selected vendors, and more.
- Travel costs. To properly evaluate final round vendors for a strategic project, it is imperative that is spent at the data center or workplace of the vendor team to assure that practices and conditions match expectations. The greater the distance, the greater the actual costs and the time required for travel. Typical round-trip times to India and Asian locations are two to three weeks depending on the goals and number of vendors to be visited.
#3 Project initiation
The costs of project initiation have an inverse relationship with project risk. The less you spend on project initiation, bringing the teams together, assessing process and methodology, assuring communication, respect, and team collaboration is strong, and that there is a shared understanding of project goals, the greater the risk that the project will fail. But even knowing this simple fact, most vendors and buyers will decide to cut the project initiation phase in favor of «getting to productive coding» quickly. The downside of this choice is a longer time to reach full productivity, more risk of rework to meet expectations, and increased costs for project oversight and team management.
#4 Staff transition
When a new outsourcing team is started on a project, internal staff is often given new roles as part of the initiative. They could be tasked as product owners, to oversee user story development, to run internal quality and acceptance testing, or to assure that questions that cannot be handled directly by the internal product team are handled quickly by the right subject matter experts. If the outsourced team cannot work during the standard workday of the client team, the daily schedules of the internal team may have to be shifted drastically. Their existing roles and responsibilities will need to be handed off or reprioritized to allow them the time to handle their new work and the task switching that invariably occurs. The costs of transition (and retraining in the case of those that may be new to methodologies like agile) are rarely considered in project costs but in reality, if they are not allowed for, the resulting issues can be very costly.
#5 Infrastructure & operations realignment
Inevitably, a new outsourcing project will incur changes in local infrastructure and software development operations. The changes may include new virtual environments, changes to internal processes for continuous integration, automated testing, security and authentication, incremental releases to production or many other issues. Again, part of this falls to poorly planned project initiation, but even with upfront time focused on team cohesion and user stories, the requirements for infrastructure and operations are often overlooked. When they are, count on additional costs because of lowered productivity as issues are ironed out and everyone gets on the same page.
#6 Contract & relationship management
Throughout the project, the buyer/client-side project manager needs to assure that incremental payments match the effort spent and the deliverables received as well as the necessary progress toward completion. Not spending enough time on this aspect of the project can result in very tough negotiations if the project goes off track or unexpected issues arise. In addition, selecting the right project model, whether it is fixed price, time and materials, dedicated team or another variation, has a big impact on this area. A lack of trust and understanding or lack of partner-level communication during the project can make a project very hard to manage to a successful conclusion and very costly when issues must be resolved.
#7 Cultural & organizational alignment
It may seem like a «soft» issue, but if the outsourced team and vendor cannot navigate your cultural norms and organizational environment it is likely to make project management very difficult. Bringing a team from a hierarchical culture into an organization with a flat structure can be very disorienting to team members with different expectations for interaction and responsibility. Merging a small team into an enterprise system with many silos and layers of control can be very difficult. The new team in either case will require additional time to reach full productivity and oversight to ensure they can fully participate as expected – and has a real cost.
#8 Intermediaries
To mitigate many of the issues in this list, outsourcing vendors and buyers often impose intermediaries on projects as an extra layer of «assurance.» This imposes two extra layers of cost on a project: The direct cost of the extra labor required and the indirect cost from the risk incurred when developers, product owners and subject matter experts do not regularly engage in project discussions directly. Every time an intermediary becomes involved, there is a loss of fidelity and clarity. In the end, instead of assuring better communication, the sides are pulled into a «blame-game» when issues are not fully explored or questions are «translated, collated and summarized.»
#9 Technologies
The selection of technologies for a new project can have significant impact on project and application success. If the internal team restricts choices because of a lack of understanding and confidence in the options offered by the outsourcing team, if a lack of communication results in a poor understanding of risk and downsides of technologies selected, or if choices are avoided to keep from exposing a lack of awareness – the downsides can be very hard to overcome. They can raise «technical debt» to a degree that limits options «down the road» in the project or the application lifecycle and lower team cohesion to the point that trust and communication are lost completely.
#10 Location, location, location
To a degree, we’ve covered this already in the sense that work time overlaps, cultural fit, and communication issues can cause project costs to rise significantly. But on its own, the location of the outsourcing team in relation to the client team should be a part of vendor selection, a factor in project initiation, and a major concern from the beginning of any outsourcing relationship. The greater the geographic distance between the teams, the greater the issues will be. Mitigation costs, in general, will increase including travel, working hour adjustment, intermediaries, communication, contract management, etc. While considering nearshore vendors will not eliminate all outsourcing risks and issues, they can make other choices much easier to deal with and diminish risks significantly if they have the right resources and ability to work at a partner level with your team.
Outsourcing can save you time and money, but only if it’s done correctly. With so many factors to consider, it’s important that you do your research before making any decisions. The 10 points above are a great starting point – but there are still more software development costs to think about, such as marketing development costs and advertising expenses. By taking the time to understand all of the possible hidden costs associated with outsourcing, you can be sure that you’re not overspending on your project.
Scio is a nearshore vendor of software development services for our clients in North America. We tune our project model to the project at hand and operate with our clients at a partner level to lower risk on both sides. If you would like to discuss your next project and the options we can offer, please contact us. We would be happy to work with you.
Agile Methodology, Customer Experience, Nearshore, Successful Outsourcing
In one sense or another, we’ve all heard the term «body shop.» In the world of automobiles and mechanics, it refers to a shop that repairs or modifies car bodies, but in software development, it refers to outsourcing vendors who use contract labor to fill their requirements. Let’s say at the outset, this isn’t an inherently bad practice. Many, if not most, larger vendors started out as body shops (0r temporary staffing providers – another similar term) and eventually grew beyond the practice. There are many well-established vendors who are essentially filling the place of in-house recruiters and have a network of contractors they have used repeatedly that make the process of filling short-term needs an easy job for their clients.
But, the problems start when an outsourcing vendor doesn’t disclose their business model and you assume from their website or on the basis of a phone call that they are offering a team for a software development project that has a full-service house behind it.
What’s the difference?
In most cases, a full-service outsourcing provider can offer:
- In-house staff – Trained, supported, and backed by an organizational structure that includes infrastructure, formal methodologies, processes, and benefits that promote success and staff longevity.
- Organizational-level expertise in technology, verticals, project planning and initiation, risk management, automated testing, and other areas that make their teams more robust and create a better opportunity for project success.
- The ability to shift quickly to fill a team role if a resource becomes unable to finish a project for some reason. Generally, established vendors have some «bench» – resources not fully committed to existing projects that can step in when needed. Because the technologies, methodologies, and processes they use are formally supported in the organization, staff members that join a project after initiation are likely to be able to get up to speed relatively quickly.
- Established infrastructure (virtual and physical) including up-to-date workstations, secure Internet connections, managed IT resources, and the project-level resources necessary to support development operations such as continuous integration, testing automation, shared repositories, VPN connections, etc. When these resources are already in place, there are practices in place to operate and maintain them, setting up a secure, reliable project structure is relatively easy and the resulting operations are robust, reliable and secure.
Body shops generally offer:
Relatively quick access to individual resources or the ability to pull together small teams from contractors. Most cannot offer a great deal in the way of project planning – their business model is to provide experienced resources, whose resumes, skills, rates, and availability have been checked – not to provide full-service for longer-term engagements.- They may offer some level of infrastructure at the organizational level, mostly virtual, but since their resources are generally remote, this means they will have difficulty providing the same level of security, methodology, and practices that you would find in a full-service vendor with a data center.
- Relatively low-cost resources for short term, well-defined engagements. They offer little in the way of project oversight so it is incumbent on their clients to provide the project planning, requirements, and organizational resources the project needs.
When Things Go Wrong
As we mentioned earlier, projects go off the tracks when you assume or are told your vendor’s business model is one thing and it turns out it is another. If you go to a full-service provider to fill a spot need (a few weeks to a month with one or two resources) you are likely to be surprised when you read the quote. Their proposal will generally include options or steps you might have assumed you would do in-house or weren’t needed. Their resources will be more expensive when compared on skills and experience and their value will be harder to judge against vendors who do not have the same level of overhead, staff and organizational support.
If you go to a body shop and expect the vendor to be able to provide an experienced team for a longer engagement, you are likely to be surprised that you are expected to take responsibility for bringing together everything needed to ensure the project operates with industry-standard methodologies and the team collaborates in ways that provide strong production metrics, reliable and maintainable code and proactively manages risks while avoiding «feature creep.»
There are a lot more things that could be said about picking a software development outsourcing partner with a business model that is not suited to your needs, but the point is – when you don’t know what you need or what the vendor is really offering – the outcome can be more expensive and less successful than it should be.
If you don’t ask, most vendor sales are likely to be opportunistic. They want more business above all and will present the picture they think you are looking for. Somebody shops will provide resumes on their letterhead to make it appear the resources are in-house. They might even go so far as to recast past experience as «in-house» when in fact the contractor offered was working directly or for another provider. Some full-service vendors will offer junior resources for short assignments or staff from the bench that cannot be committed more than a few hours or days at a time. They aren’t being «dishonest» – they are trying to get full utilization and lower their overhead, but in the end, if you call them back for that resource again, they may be unable to break them loose. The same may be said of the body shop, however, since they generally cannot fill the available hours of their contractors for every day of the year, they will often have to substitute with another resource if you need to bring someone back to continue work.
The Right Vendor for the Need
All this comes down to one thing – regardless of your need, you need to have outsourcing vendors whose business model you understand and that gives you the ability to use the one that fits the need you are resourcing. This means having conversations, relationships, with your vendors and establishing a partner-level dialogue so you have confidence in what they can do for you successfully. It takes time and attention throughout the relationship to maintain the level of communication needed and it should be as much from the vendor as from you. But, if you can establish partnerships with your outsourcing vendors, the outcomes should be better for both sides.
In that «best case» scenario you might use your «body shop» partner to provide:
- Spot resources to fill short term needs within your own teams or to bring a specific skill when needed that is otherwise time-consuming to find and contract.
- Low-cost resources that you plan to manage in-house and provide whatever they need to be successful in working with you.
- Replace positions lost through attrition, illness, vacations, etc. while you search for permanent replacements.
And you could use your full-service development shop partner to provide:
- Small to large experienced teams to become an integrated but largely self-sufficient part of your operations that can be responsible for strategic projects without straining your internal staff.
- Agile project teams that can use the methodology effectively to develop less defined but critical applications collaboratively with your staff.
- Dedicated teams that work as a part of your larger DevOps system for continuous app development either as part of enterprise or product teams for client-facing applications.
Either scenario represents putting your outsourcing partner’s business model to the best use for your needs, not bending either one into a configuration that could be a bad fit for both you and your service partner. If your organization is small or a startup, it may seem like a lot to take on to take the first step, establishing a partner-level relationship but in the long run, even a small operation can benefit from an atmosphere of shared understanding and trust – perhaps even more than enterprise-level organizations who have more leeway for risk.
Scio is a full-service, nearshore provider for software development outsourcing to our clients in North America. We seek partner-level relationships with our clients to help us provide the right services tuned to their needs over the long run with less risk and better project outcomes. Whether you are unsure where your needs fit or you have a clear idea of how to resource your project, please consider contacting us to discuss what our services can offer you. We would be happy to work with you.
