Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (67600)	4/14/2005 3:04:14 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Elroy, RE: " detailed study" Sounds like you never worked for a startup. By ground work, I don't mean studies by a bunch of costly consultants that never stuck their finger out of an ivory tower. Like I said, am intentionally going to refrain from saying what that secret recipe ground work is. RE: "I just don't see why the market won't solve the problem " Basically because you've got only a handful of powerful VC firms. Since they engage in herd mentality, they act as one, and they sit on the boards of Silicon Valley firms and if the VC is micromanaging their portfolio companies rather than holding them to their numbers, you end up with a situation where an entire industry is moving in a particular direction based upon what only a handful of powerful VCs might think. Many times the market wants something else, but the VC doesn't. I could list out about a dozen company examples off the top of my head, but won't. From the article, Accel Partners is one of the better firms. Seasoned VCs. They are well liked by communication entrepreneurs because Accel wasn't foolishly investing in eyeballs during the dotcom craze, but stayed true to technology. My friends like them a lot. They also don't throw their greenest MBAs at their portfolios, like some other brandname VC firms do. I'd be more inclined to trust they have an ability to dig deep into the details rather than giving a blind mandate. Again, my point is: ask, think, don't just blindly follow. Regards, Amy J

To: Elroy who wrote (67600)	4/14/2005 7:21:00 AM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 77400

Offshoring can work and it can save money. However, you have to do it right. You have to have hardcore, trusted engineers doing the high level design and architecture right here in the U.S. Then you pass the coding on to India. It's very much like a the difference between the architect of a house vs. the Mexicans you hire to do the building. The architect needs an engineeering degree. The Mexican does not. In the SW world, the tech leads and architects are your smartest engineers. The code monkeys (horribly politically incorrect, I know) as we call them don't have to be your smartest. They simply have to know how to take a class diagram and stubs and flesh it out with code. That is junior engineering work. Then your analysts who create the software requirements documents like use cases and screen mockups are almost exclusively here in the U.S. as well. They work directly with the customer to find out what they need. These docs become part of the contract along with the high level design. If this model is applied, with strict contractual adherence to acceptable bug levels and timelines, along with carrots and sticks in the contract, then offshoring can be very profitable. Otherwise, you're in trouble. I'm a consulting manager. I make my living off of making this type of thing work for our company. So believe me, I know what it takes to make it profitable. Otherwise, I wouldn't have a job.