Home > Applications > App Development

Computerworld - If you're not worried about offshore outsourcing for development, you should be. It's not just that offshore labor costs are 25% of what they are domestically, or that even at those prices you are getting bright, well-educated people. The real threat is that offshore development companies are turning our strengths -- creativity, individuality, nonconformance -- against us. What they may lack in proximity, experience and communication skills they are making up in predictability, stability and quality.
It's no accident that most offshore development companies boast Software Engineering Institute Capability Maturity Model levels of 4 or 5. They have figured out that in order to scale their organizations into veritable software manufacturing factories, they have to follow processes that don't depend on the genius of a few creative but cranky Einsteins. In other words, they are learning from our own history: Ford made the automobile affordable and reliable by turning its manufacture into a process based on consistency and repeatability.
In fact, the automobile is an apt illustration of this paradox. While the U.S. was the cradle of its invention and the first to enable mass production, we became so enamored of sexy chrome and tail-fin designs that our quality dropped while our costs rose. We all know what happened. Other countries started producing ugly and simple but cheap and reliable cars that devastated our auto industry, and once they got a foothold they caught up -- some would say passed us -- on aesthetics as well.
So what does this mean, and what can we do about it?

	Linda Hayes is the CTO of WorkSoft Inc., developer of next-generation test automation solutions. She is the founder of three software companies and holds degrees in accounting, tax and law. A frequent industry speaker and award-winning author on software quality, she pioneered automated testing tools. Join the online discussion about this column.

Invention vs. Production
While no one can question that the U.S. holds more patents than any country in the world, or that we are at the vanguard of all things new and revolutionary, it is necessary to draw a distinction between when invention is appropriate and when it is not.
For example, if you are trying to solve the problem of switching fiber-optic phone calls without converting back and forth into electricity, invention is essential because the technology does not yet exist. But on the other hand, if you are developing an application for order processing or inventory management, there are no technical mysteries to solve: The process is understood, the