J
James Kanze
One of my bosses expounds the same basic idea. The strategy is
that we compete with the outsourcers on a cost-per-project
basis. We can't compete on cost-per-head, because we live in
London (or even worse, live in the UK and commute to London),
not Bangalore, and we like to work 40-hour weeks and earn
enough to live comfortable lives [1]. However, if we're good
enough - skilled, experienced, and well-organised enough - we
can deliver a project with a fraction of the man-hours of an
outsourcing shop, and thus be competitive on total cost.
Normally, cost isn't the only issue. I've worked on projects
where part of the work was outsourced to Bangalore. What is
clear is that 1) it's cheaper, and 2) the competence of the
people involved was at least as good (and often better) than the
people we had on site (in Germany). On the other hand,
communication was an enormous problem.
If your customer can specify exactly what he wants, with no
ambiguity, and he knows how to vet his supplier, there's no way
you can compete with Bangalore. You raise a number of points,
but all of the technical once (your team are gurus, etc.) are
easily matched in Bangalore. Don't underestimate them; they're
good. On the other hand, it's rarely the case that the customer
knows exactly what he wants, and being on hand to discuss
various possible changes in the requirements or specifications
can far outweigh any price advantage.