Oh the horror...

[DimPrawn]

Makes me laugh when the onshore folks poke all the blame at the offshore teams without checking what was specified in the first place, what governance was in place at the time, what acceptance criteria was set and the how the handback was QA'd.

People in glass houses and all that. I am currently working with an offshore team who have no wriggle room to deliver crap and understand to ask questions if they are not sure. Ie properly managed. Net result, we get a quality deliverable.

I get the impression Suity likes working with these low cost, low quality guys, it makes him look good by comparison.

[NotAllThere]

And so it continues. I've just received a lovely spreadsheet, explaining how all the changes I've recommended have been implemented and just passed all the QA tests.

Now, they were supposed to inform me before the developments left the development system, so I could review what they'd done. But I thought I'd have a look anyway.

Out of 20 recommendations, 13 are either not done, or done incorrectly. This could run and run...

[NotAllThere]

Makes me laugh when the onshore folks poke all the blame at the offshore teams without checking what was specified in the first place, what governance was in place at the time, what acceptance criteria was set and the how the handback was QA'd.

People in glass houses and all that. I am currently working with an offshore team who have no wriggle room to deliver crap and understand to ask questions if they are not sure. Ie properly managed. Net result, we get a quality deliverable.

The governance and acceptance criteria only means that crap was permitted to get through. It doesn't excuse the crap being produced in the first place, nor does it justify the incompetence of the programmer who produced it.

I'm not quite sure what "glass house" you're referring to. Unless it's the one you're standing in.

fwiw, when I was in charge of those running off-shore teams, I defined and implemented strict standards and procedures for ensuring standards were adhered to. I also defined selection criteria for the developers which had middling success in keeping the really incompetent ones out. After my departure, these were gradually dropped, with a concomittent rise in overall costs.

Maybe one day there will be an understanding that cheap programmers = crap programs = expensive programs. But I doubt it. In the meantime - kerching - as we pick up the pieces.

[eek]

Makes me laugh when the onshore folks poke all the blame at the offshore teams without checking what was specified in the first place, what governance was in place at the time, what acceptance criteria was set and the how the handback was QA'd.

People in glass houses and all that. I am currently working with an offshore team who have no wriggle room to deliver crap and understand to ask questions if they are not sure. Ie properly managed. Net result, we get a quality deliverable although we wasted double the budget on managing the fools

FTFY HTH

[MarillionFan]

Makes me laugh when the onshore folks poke all the blame at the offshore teams without checking what was specified in the first place, what governance was in place at the time, what acceptance criteria was set and the how the handback was QA'd.

People in glass houses and all that. I am currently working with an offshore team who have no wriggle room to deliver crap and understand to ask questions if they are not sure. Ie properly managed. Net result, we get a quality deliverable.

Really? Have you mentioned that before?

[suityou01]

Currently reviewing poorly running off-shored developments on behalf of a client. It's painful. Really really dreadful.

People were paid to produce this crap?

Makes me laugh when the onshore folks poke all the blame at the offshore teams without checking what was specified in the first place, what governance was in place at the time, what acceptance criteria was set and the how the handback was QA'd.

People in glass houses and all that. I am currently working with an offshore team who have no wriggle room to deliver crap and understand to ask questions if they are not sure. Ie properly managed. Net result, we get a quality deliverable.

[tractor]

....

No, by that time you'll be the "useless contractor" that "advised" them to try "fixing" the original crapfest rather than starting from scratch as they'll belatedly realise they should have.

Options papers are very good for arse covering Give em a choice and let them make the (bad) decisions. After all, they clearly have a track record.

[Gentile]

It will go that way. And then when it goes pear-shaped again, it gets rewritten properly... and I get paid twice for the same work.

No, by that time you'll be the "useless contractor" that "advised" them to try "fixing" the original crapfest rather than starting from scratch as they'll belatedly realise they should have.

[Mich the Tester]

Currently reviewing poorly running off-shored developments on behalf of a client. It's painful. Really really dreadful.

People were paid to produce this crap?

Worse than that, some managerman got a bonus for offshoring it.

[NotAllThere]

It will go that way. And then when it goes pear-shaped again, it gets rewritten properly... and I get paid twice for the same work.

[eek]

I predict that next they'll convince themselves that it'd somehow be cheaper to get you to "fix" the "broken" (read: "never actually worked") solution, rather than write something that actually does work from scratch. Sometimes, life is a bed of roses, at other times it's a field of tulip.

It doesn't matter if its cheaper or not. Fixing "proves" that they didn't waste all their money offshoring the work, starting afresh means admitting that offshore was a bad idea and no manager wants to admit to making a bad decision let alone an expensive bad decision.

[Gentile]

Currently reviewing poorly running off-shored developments on behalf of a client. It's painful. Really really dreadful.

People were paid to produce this crap?

I predict that next they'll convince themselves that it'd somehow be cheaper to get you to "fix" the "broken" (read: "never actually worked") solution, rather than write something that actually does work from scratch. Sometimes, life is a bed of roses, at other times it's a field of tulip.

[Troll]

Been there seen it done it... use phrases like "not fit for purpose" "will have to be completely re-worked"

Makes you wonder what the true cost to UK PLC is in continuing with the busted offshore model

[NotAllThere]

Currently reviewing poorly running off-shored developments on behalf of a client. It's painful. Really really dreadful.

People were paid to produce this crap?