Domestic Agile Teams vs. Offshore Waterfall Teams

Many companies are struggling to figure out how and when to utilize low cost offshore labor in relation to domestic engineers for building applications and engineering new hardware platforms. Here's your answer.

There is a popular chart referred to as the Stacey Matrix:

(www.communityoutcomes.govt.nz)

The premise is this: If a project has a combination of low technical complexity (the technology is well known and proven by the organization) and low social complexity (the solution being pursued has functional and political consensus amongst all stakeholders involved) then it is a candidate for predictive development. Predictive development means waterfall. Define requirements, ship it to some commoditized labor force, get it back, validate it and deploy it.

There are many projects that fit into this bucket; however, less than many people realize. Social complexity in particular, creates change in many cases, and the cost involved with introducing change in predictive/waterfall projects often negates any cost savings gained by a commoditized labor force. I've seen it all too often. Timelines are extended, the business gets frustrated and any pursued cost savings are negated by the cost of extending an onshore management team and/or losing time to market.

On the other hand, if a project is complex from a technical perspective, i.e. utilizing new or emerging technologies; or from a social perspective, i.e. "we'll know it when we see it", or "the solution may change as external influences come into play", it is NOT a good candidate for predictive methodologies/offshore development. The reason being that communication is the key factor in the success of these type of engagements. In these cases, a domestic approach is necessary. And to truly embrace change (vs. challenging change) an Agile method is preferred.

An offshore, predictive development team can be equated to a military force of tanks barreling into a battle. In this case the goals are often set and the opposing forces are known.

An Agile team can be equated to an elite strike-force of Navy Seals or Army Rangers that drop into an unknown territory with less initial direction, less manpower and hopefully, less casualties.

There are times when one approach makes more sense than the other. The only way the tanks are successful is if the goals do not change and they are managed by a remote commander broadcasting the mission directives. The only way the strike-force is successful is if they are in constant, direct contact with one another, and the person dictating the mission is with them on the ground.

There is not one single sourcing/methodology solution to every IT problem. The Stacey Diagram factors must be considered, so the right team and the right methodology is put in place to solve the problem at hand.

What are your experiences?