Archive for the ‘Outsourcing Ukraine’ Category

How a startup firm can compete with large banks in the international money transfer business

Thursday, February 2nd, 2012

International remittance from Latin American immigrants to their home country is a huge business. In 2012 remittances to Mexico alone totaled more than $21 billion. Most recipients of international remittances are lower income households who are largely unbanked.

Solutions for sending money abroad have varied from Western Union and MoneyGram to smaller startup companies.

Viamericas (www.viamericas.com), a Bethesda, Maryland-based company, is one of the more innovative companies that have emerged to provide services for international remittances in Latin America and the Caribbean.

International money transfers using Check21

Viamericas had been using a Check21 system provided by a nationwide bank to fund remittances. The Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (Check21) of 2003 provides guidelines and standards in check truncation. Check truncation is the practice of using an electronic image of a check to substitute for a physical check when presenting to the receiving bank for settlement.

With its fast rate of growth Viamericas knew it would grow out of its bank-provided solution, and had to develop their own solution. But their network of nationwide independent agents had grown accustomed to their current system, presenting a challenge: how to create an alternative solution that was acceptable to their agents.

Developing a secure system to rival large banks

Viamericas needed to develop a system that satisfied their agents’ usability requirements, provided the functionality of larger bank solutions, as well as additional functionality that allowed them to become more competitive.

They turned to Softjourn, a development firm specializing in designing and developing secure financial applications, with headquarters in the United States and development facilities in the Ukraine.

Softjourn designed, developed and tested a centralized server application and a client check truncation application. They also worked with Viamerica’s current Check21 solution provider to design, develop and test the sending of electronic cash letters and the receiving of electronic returns files between the bank and Viamericas.

The new solution also included functionality which was not available with the current solution, such as the ability to put checks on hold automatically, based on system-wide restrictions established at the central Viamericas location.

An integral part of the new solution was to research, test, and recommend the appropriate recognition software to be used for the final solution.  Initially Softjourn created a long list of potential OCR (Optical Character Recognition) vendors; including open source vendors and large-scale commercial products. The Check21 application being developed was to replace the one that Viamerica’s was paying for on a subscription basis, from their bank.  That solution included high-end OCR recognition including recognizing CAR – Courtesy Amount Recognition (the amount in characters) and LAR – Legal Amount Recognition (the hand written amount). The solution Softjourn chose also had to take in to account that almost 50% of the checks processed by the new system were going to be hand written, so the OCR software would have to be able to recognize the amounts on a lot of different checks. Having a .NET version was also a requirement as the new Check21 system was being written in .NET.

Some of the vendors evaluated included:
http://www.altova.com/download/authentic/xml_db_form_editor_desktop.html
http://www.dart.com/products.aspx
http://www.infragistics.com/dotnet.aspx
http://www.leadtools.com/SDK/Raster/Raster-Products-n.htm
http://www.visionshape.com/Evalrequest.aspx

As well as several higher-end solutions:

http://www.miteksystems.com/products_quickstrokes.asp
www.a2ia.com
www.orbograph.com
www.byteway.it

Evaluation included installing all of the different products, creating test image files based on real check images, supplied by our client, and comparing the results.

After initial results and creating a short list of possible vendors, Softjourn recommended the QuickStrokes Banking Edition, from Mitek. The product included ICR (Intelligent Character Recognition), OCR, MICR (Magnetic Ink Character Recognition), CAR and Business LAR. It did not include hand-printed LAR and was therefore less expensive. Mitek did have a QuickStrokes Premier Banking Edition which could read the LAR field, but in most cases it was not necessary. Recognition results averaged 92% with the Premier edition and 78% with the regular Banking edition.

Using bank functionality to compete with banks

Check truncation systems are usually the realm of banks, but smaller firms, such as Viamericas, can also use this functionality.

Softjourn helped Viamericas develop their own system, allowing them to compete more effectively against their competitors and larger banks.

Luis Gonzalez, CFO of Viamericas, said: “This project puts our company in a competitive advantage with regards to our competitors because we were able to emulate what large banks are doing quickly and effectively even before some of them launch their own product, providing unbanked customers with the means to use financial services.”

Their agents also liked the solution.

Esteban Bernal, Viamericas’ VP of Engineering, said: “Our agents like working with the new Viacheck system over our old solution. Their work is consolidated on a couple of screens making it much easier for them to use.”

Conclusion

The United Nations estimates that 191 million immigrants send money to relatives back home.  The World Bank estimates that $550 billion was remitted globally in 2008.

This is a huge market with a huge opportunity for financial services providers, and advances in technological solutions making it easier to securely transfer and process money abroad, has enabled more firms to take part in this lucrative market.

But financial processing applications are complex. If you want your share of the billions traveling back and forth across borders, you need the right partner to help you.

Is Open Source Software Safe For Online Payment Processing Solutions?

Tuesday, January 17th, 2012

When eWeek released a slideshow entitled “Ten Reasons Not To Buy Open Source”, the presentation was quickly refuted in another eWeek article, knocking down every point that argued against open source software.

Point number one in the counter presentation: open source software is safe – safer than proprietary solutions, such as Microsoft, which are often rife with security loopholes (noting of course that it does depend a lot on how the application is built).

Hundreds of security and financial transaction applications have been built using open source development tools and frameworks, and supported by open source operating systems, application servers and web servers.

Modern, cost-effective online payment processing solutions for merchants

Case-in-point: startup company Noca, a California-based firm, has developed an innovative online payment processing solution that enables merchants to start accepting payments online right away and avoid the high fees of credit and debit card processing systems by offering a new type of electronic checking solution.

Offering near instantaneous approvals of merchant accounts, the Noca system avoids the pitfalls of traditional e-check systems by offering identify and account verification services as an online, in stream process.

This is ideal for merchants who were previously skittish about using an electronic checking system due to the inability to automatically and instantaneously verify a payer’s identity.

Help developing a testing environment

To get their new service off the ground, Noca needed to develop a comprehensive testing environment to allow potential merchant customers to test out the system before committing to the service.

The project required deep knowledge of several open source development tools and frameworks, and detailed coordination of several intricate pieces that comprised the complete system.

For example, Noca needed to:

  • Develop and integrate credit card processing
  • Develop a plug-in for Ubercart ecommerce shopping cart
  • Set up complex email processes, with specific event handlers using an upgraded email system
  • Improve their notification system
  • Modify their marketplace functionality
  • Develop security features such as the use of PIN numbers

Noca decided to turn to Softjourn, which specializes in developing financial transaction applications, front-end development, and open-source software.

Complete secure open source solution

Using tools such as an open source application server, Dojo and Eclipse development frameworks, Drools business rules management system, and other open source web service frameworks, Softjourn developed a complete testing environment for Noca.

Noca’s CEO PJ Gupta was so pleased with the work our partner did they decided to extend their assignment to work on core payment processing applications.

“I have been very pleased with the work that Softjourn has done to assist us in getting our testing environment in place for our clients, and I look forward to continue to work with the team!” Said Gupta.

So is open source secure?

Though it sounds counter-intuitive, having hundreds if not thousands of developers worldwide helping to make open source development tools and platforms secure makes open source a more viable solution than proprietary technologies.

cutting-edge online payment processing company Noca is betting its whole business model on open source software.

But if you want to build your financial application with open source software, and get it right the first time, contact Accelerance, and we can arrange for an interview with Softjourn who specializes in developing open source financial applications for some of the most demanding financial services firms today.

How To Build A Payment Processing Application For The Unbanked

Thursday, January 12th, 2012

According to a recent study by the Federal Reserve over 7 % or about 1 in 13 American households does not use a checking or savings account, and over a quarter of households rely regularly on “alternative financial services” like payday lenders or pawn shops.

Shocking statistics? Maybe. But it is a great business opportunity for savvy financial services firms who want to make life easier for employers who hire unbanked employees.

Firms such as an Atlanta, Georgia-based PayPartners which offers large companies the ability to pay their employees with pre-loaded debit cards are one such company

PayPartners provides unbanked employees with a safe and inexpensive alternative to check-cashing firms and pawn shops, who often charge between 1 and 6 percent of the face value of a paycheck, in order to cash it.

Additionally, PayPartners provides debit cards so companies can reimburse employees for travel and expenses, and incentive payment cards so employers can reward their employees for contests or meeting company goals.

Building a complete solution: credit card processing, international payments and customer self-service

PayPartners needed to build a complete solution that not only included credit card processing, but also enabled employers to make international payments and cut customer service costs.

Several years back, Pay Partners turned to Softjourn to help them continually develop and support their solution.

Softjourn helped PayPartners build a system that enables employers to issue, re-issue, and move monies in real time, provide role-based access to information, provide real-time reporting capabilities, and enable employees to enroll for their service online.

Financial applications and user interface design: the ideal combination

PayPartners chose Softjourn because of their extensive financial expertise, such as knowledge of credit card processing, online payment processing, and international money transfers.

However, they also needed a firm with the front-end experience to build a self-service portal that both employees and employers could use, cutting customer service costs. Softjourn fit the bill.

PayPartners CEO Ryan Powers stated: “The work …. done to this point has helped us streamline our operations and has eliminated the need for us to hire customer service reps….we were able to extend more control to our clients which allows them to better manage their payment process.”

Enabling international payments

PayPartners needed to issue international cards for companies with overseas employees. They also had to replace the Lynk processing system with the i2C and Transcard processors.  Softjourn assigned a two-person team to help them with this successful move.

Check Authentication

In early 2011, PayPartners took a major step forward in the market of cash and checks. For persons who have traditional bank accounts, when they cash different types of checks, depending on the type of check, the funds will be “provisionally” available only, and if the check bounces the funds will be reversed. Because of the risk of many checks such as handwritten payroll checks or two-party checks, it is often difficult for unbanked persons to be able to cash those checks. There is no option for an unbanked person to have funds “provisionally” available.

To help alleviate this problem, PayPartners developed a new BranchOffice solution for check cashers (retail banks initially).  As part of this solution PayPartner’s existing Back Office (BO) service was integrated with CHEXAR®’s check cashing and guarantee solution which lets check cashers safely cash over 20 types of checks, the types of checks which are often difficult for unbanked persons to cash.

CHEXAR is the national leader for technology and solutions that enable clients to cash any check and provide  unbanked customers the option to receive cash for the check and/or load that cash on to a card, such as PayPartners Prepaid Card.

As part of the integration with Chexar, the following functionality was included in the new BranchOffice solution; check verification, online chat, risk management evaluation and immediate card deposit. This new PayPartners’ BranchOffice solution lets bank departments or financial organizations work with customer’s checks in banks, stores, etc.

Since BranchOffice is to be deployed in financial institutions, it was necessary to add additional risk mitigation and ID verification features to meet financial institution’s compliance requirements. These requirements include giving FI’s the ability to control and set users limits such as: maximum number of checks that can be cashed in one day, maximum total amount of checks that can be cashed in one day, maximum single check amount to be cashed, etc.

Chexar’s system will allow clients using BranchOffice to validate the authenticity of a check and to perform any required compliance verification such as OFAC and CIP on the customer. Each financial institution will determine what forms of identification will be accepted. The customer will have the option of having all of the value of the check (minus the check cashing fee) converted to cash or having all, or some, of the value of the check deposited to a prepaid card (minus any applicable fees).

Check scanning was enabled using a scanner and software from ScanShell which reads the MICR line on the check.  The check amount is entered manually by the operator.  Since PayPartners’ BO works under Linux/Apache and the scanner software uses Windows drivers, Softjourn integrated the two using Active-X components.  According to Yuriy Kropelnytsky, Sr. Developer and Project Lead for Pay Partners, “I was very glad to work with people which considered me not just a third party programmer. I felt like a full member of the PP team and was able to make my own decisions and come up with creative solutions for the service and features PP wanted to provide.”

Technologies used:

The complete system, including the credit card processing, full payment life-cycle, reporting, roles-based access, and self-service portal was built on the Ubuntu operating system using PHP, Javascript, HTML, XML and C++ on a PostgresSQL database and AJAX development tools.

Next Steps

In today’s web savvy world, even the non-banked have access to the Internet, through inexpensive home computers or through the new generation of web-enabled smartphones.

Finding a development firm that combines deep expertise developing financial applications, such as credit card processing, online payment processing, international money transfers, and mobile banking is hard enough.

Finding a firm with financial expertise and user interface design experience for the web is a rare bonus.

Contact Softjourn for more information on how we can help you build a financial application for the web.

I want enthusiam! Or maybe just new ideas or any ideas! But don’t kill it, you may not get it back!

Wednesday, December 14th, 2011

Everyone wants the developers who are working on their product and service, to like what they are doing. Certainly if they are not happy they should go and find something that will make them happy and interested in what they are doing.  But also if they do show enthusiasm by making suggestions of how changes and improvements can be made, you as the product owner will want to recognize that enthusiasm.

Last year I wrote several suggestions for product and engineering owners on how to get their teams to be more proactive -  http://blog.softjourn.com/2010/09/

The enthusiasm issue falls along the same line.  First of all when thinking about enthusiasm, think about what you believe constitutes showing enthusiasm.  Often times product owners think that enthusiasm is shown by working a lot of hours. Sure, sometimes that will be necessary, there are deadlines, or issues that come up at the last minute. But really does working overtime, all of the time, show enthusiasm? Or is the person just finding it difficult to get going on what they are supposed to be working on, therefore it is taking them longer?  It really depends on what they are accomplishing.

A better way your developers may be showing enthusiasm is by their suggestions.  They are digging in to your system, learning it inside and out, and then they hit upon some ideas to make improvements, and they want to show you what they mean. So they work on their nights and weekends and come up with examples of how to technically improve the system; to make a system easier to maintain, or to make it more scalable, for example. They work nights and weekends to show what could be done, how long it would take and what would be the benefits. Then when they make their final presentation their enthusiasm is met with, not with enthusiasm in return, but rather a “not developed here” attitude, or “that is not your job” attitude. Of course their ideas may not fit the long term goal of the application, especially if it was not clear to them what the long term goal is. But maybe at least part of it will work, or maybe you can make suggestions as to how they can change it so it will fit the long term goals for the application.  But to outright kill ideas that your people have spent time on (whether they are in-house, or a distributed team, or an outsourced team) will kill long term enthusiasm which will hamper the development of new ideas in the future.  Think about that the next time you think your team is not showing enough enthusiasm. Have they in the past and you weren’t receptive to it. If so, you may have to work harder to get that enthusiasm back.

This was fun to do! Why work with Softjourn!

Wednesday, December 14th, 2011

Discussion with Steve Mezak, from Accelerance, on why to work with Softjourn!

Thanks Steve!

CEOs “9 reasons your VP of engineering will give for why working with a remote software development team will not work!” Reason #4

Sunday, November 27th, 2011

I originally published this series back in 2006, but recently I have heard some of these reasons again for not working with a remote software development team, so I thought I would repeat at least part of this series.

The first one I wanted to review again was what I had listed as Reason #4 – We have to be working when they (the remote team) are; we have to be up at the same time as they are in order for this to work.

What this means: The concern is that if we are not working the same hours as the remote location, they (the remote team) will not really be doing any work.

What do they mean? The remote team could not possibly be working during their normal business hours and actually get work done without us being in constant contact with them.  We do not have time to do this, we do not see the value in doing this, and we can do all work ourselves faster.

Actions to take: Engage in a conversation with your VP of Engineering revolving around the following topics: Do you often answer questions every hour for your in-house software engineers? Can they work on their own at all? There should be no question that would stop a remote team from getting any work done for an entire day.  The same as your in-house software engineers are able to grasp concepts and move on and work on their own, you want your remote engineers to do the same thing, to take initiative and show independence and innovation in their work. Foster that type of independence and initiative by holding them to deliverables and coming up with solutions, rather than pinging them every hour to see if they are at their desk and working.

I know persons who think they have to be working at the same time as the remote team.  I have managed remote teams for years, and I never do this. Why, because it defeats one of the major benefits of having a team working at opposite hours from you. They can be doing work while you are sleeping and vice versa. I do not mean working on the same code, but this could be testing in one location and writing code in the other, or writing requirements in one location and reviewing them in the other location, etc. If you are working opposite hours, you can always have results waiting for you in the morning. It also does not wear you out. It is not easy to keep an overnight schedule in the US and still keep up with your family and the rest of your life. The same goes for the offshore location, do not force them to overlap their entire work day with yours (unless of course it is a call center and they are supporting customers during the work day in the US). You will lose a major advantage in this way.

I was so hoping to learn something new!

Monday, September 26th, 2011

But did I?  I just finished reading Terence Brake’s book, “Where in the World is my Team?”.  I was intrigued by the reviews saying it was not a regular business book, and of course the topic of virtual teams, so I decided to pick it up.

If you are not familiar with this book, indeed, it is not like usual business books in that there are actually points in it that will make anyone laugh. At the beginning, we are introduced to Will Williams, the new assistant to the CEO at a gaming company, The Fun House.  He is working in London, but there is a whole host of characters all over the world, with whom Will interacts. Will is tasked by his CEO, to put together a Briefing Report on the new workplace, working virtually, technologies that aid the new workplace, etc., for her upcoming TV appearance.  The readers “learn” along with Will, as he wades in to the new workplace.

The set up having to go through Will’s introduction in to working with virtual teams is a bit much, having to go through each of his meetings, and his personal feelings on meeting with his ex-girlfriend or the “interesting” analyst, whose work Will never bothered to read, dealing with his parents, his new love, etc.  But you really can’t skip any part of the book. The dialogue of a relevant conference call talking about ways to improve communication in virtual teams may be between a few paragraphs about the crazy analyst or Will’s colleague in the next cubicle.  You can certainly skim those parts though.  By doing it in real world fashion though, every reader, who has worked in global virtual teams will recognize similar mistakes they have made as they have learned to work with virtual teams.

Many of the points made in the book, building virtual trust, communication, etc., have been stated in other books, but I do like the diagrams that are used to show the different points.  For example the Collaboration Controller is good.  I also like the diagram on pg. 25 on virtual trust and its different aspects.

Some of my favorite points include:

-    Being in a virtual team, and especially leading one, means communicating when you don’t have to – not just when you want something from someone.  Only when you want something makes it very shallow relationship.  Do you know anything else about them?
-    Also under process I like the emphasis on the transition from establishing a relationship to going in to the task.  The delicate balance between these two processes – of course I did not see in the book any details about how to actually do this transition.
-    Working in isolation, means less communication which builds paranoia, people get anxious.  Which I have talked about many times.
-    The confusion caused by vague communication, lack of transparency, etc.
* I like the example given – an American to a Brit – “I created a “straw man” agenda for the upcoming meeting, and I have a “hard stop”, at 3:00pm”.  What does that mean?  Writing something like, “I created a preliminary agenda for the upcoming meeting and I have a deadline of 3:00pm, can you provide feedback until then”, would do.  Why do we write in the first way?  I think a lot of Americans can relate to this example, we tend to use a lot of buzz words and are almost judged on our use of them.
* I also like a lot of the comments in the book, such as why do we waste time being vague…..as there is enough distance between people!!! It just leads to a lot of second guessing…..and the need to communicate a lot more in the future….

-    With virtual teams, problems can easily be blown out of proportion!  – so true!!!
-    I like the emphasis on understanding the purpose – the book puts it out on the “purpose” of the team, or the “why” the team is doing what it is doing.  I have always liked the emphasis on the “why” as to “why” the users need to work the way they do, why the system needs to work in a certain way, but I like the emphasis on “why” the team has formed.
-    Team members tend to side with those who are located closest to them
-    I like the list of 10 Behavioral Rules for The Fun House –  10 rules I think are great for any team!

About halfway through the main portion of the book (and one too many paragraphs about Spinks – read the book if you want to know who this is), I decided to skip to the Briefing Report located in the appendix,  to see if something could be learned from reading that portion of the book only.

There are some points that I think could stand on their own if a reader was looking for a quick reference.

-    The Collaboration controller chart on pg. 187, I like the outlining of the challenges and how to counteract them.
-    In general good parts on the 6 items that make a team work well
-    Section 3 on Cooperation is good – similar to other books though, especially on giving and getting trust.
-    The general pointers part of Section 3 is good – pointers for building cooperation, although also ones you can see in other books.  But at least something you can read quickly and get some ideas.
-    Good questions for testing your readiness for managing the team and for testing the preparedness of the team members
-    I like the cultural intelligence section, section 8.   The Worldprism™ model

“Where in the World is my Team”, is certainly not an ordinary business book and it is not dry, so it is something new. One of the negatives I have often found with many of these books is the lack of real life examples.  “Where in the world is my Team?”, provides those real world examples (of course changing the names to protect the innocent!).  The bad part is that you can’t skip significant sections of it or easily hone in on sections that may be relevant to your situation.  The information comes to you in bits and pieces through reading the dialogue of conference calls, or reading email exchanges that Will has engaged in.  It is an easy read and, and I hate to say it, but I found myself wondering what was going to happen to Will’s father, but at the same time I was often frustrated with all of the “filler” stories and was skipping ahead when I could. However, if you are new to working with global teams and with virtual teams, this is a great first book to pick up. Why pick up a regular business book, when you can have a “story” to go along with it!  If you are more experienced, you can still pick up new points, you will just have to wade through a lot of “story” to get to them.

A “Twist” on Trust and “Drinking Your Own Champagne”*

Tuesday, August 23rd, 2011

We talk a lot about trust when building relationships and the added importance of this when working at a distance. When you start out working with a new team or person or persons, who are remote from you, you are always wondering if they are going to get done what they said they were going to get done. Are they really working over there? Trust builds over time as they start to deliver product and start to prove themselves. But this makes me wonder, in addition to technical skills, domain expertise, etc., are there other characteristics of your potential service provider that you can be looking for?

There has been a lot written about the type of characteristics good virtual team members should have; communicative, willingness to share, etc. But most of what has been written comes from the view that everyone, or almost everyone, is working alone, but in different locations. Often, however, that is not the case. It is more likely that several persons are working together in multiple locations; a group of three here, a group of two here, a group of ten here, several persons working alone in different locations, and so on. This will be the case for you when working with a new vendor. They will have multiple people, most often in one location, and you will have multiple people on your side, working in one location. Having multiple co-located groups which need to work together brings on a different dynamic than having everyone working alone in their individual locations. People working alone (usually but of course not always as it depends on the person) are going to be more likely to want to share and find out what other team members are doing, and find out about those other team members, because they have little or no social interaction with other team members where they are located. When several persons are co-located, it can be much harder to get them to want to work with other distributed teams unless there are specific processes put in place for sharing information and for getting to know each other.

It is a given that most of your team members, from your service provider, will have experience working in a distributed manner with other clients, before starting to work with your company. But how do individual team members really feel about it? When you talk with individual team members, asking technical questions is of course a given, but there may be some other questions you will want to ask: “What would you do if you had to work in an office by yourself, and the rest of your team members had to work in another office? How would you get your work done?”

It is not something you think about often, but you would be surprised how many would answer, “having to work with a group in a different office is too hard!” Or another answer you may hear is, “it is easier to work with someone sitting next to you”. What??!! If they have that attitude, do they really have the right attitude to do what they are asking you to do, which is work at a distance?

It is like Oracle not using its own products or Google employees using MS outlook for their calendar….. If they can’t believe in themselves enough to get work done in a distributed manner, within their own company, how can you expect them to get your work down with your company in a distributed manner? Think “eating your own dog food” or “drinking your own champagne” (the latter of which has a more pleasant appeal, at least for me), but for service companies.

So the question is, can the fact that a service provider “drinks its own champagne”, help you?

Does it mean they are trustworthy? Certainly it is not a 100% guarantee, nothing is, but it does show that they understand what it will be like for you. They have internal practice at dealing across locations, as well as experience working across locations with their clients. It can go a long way towards your feeling like you can give them trust. They should also be able to help you better transition to working in a distributed manner.

And really would you want to work with a service provider who doesn’t do, or hasn’t done what they are asking you to do; i.e. give up control, and work remotely?

*Reference “Drink your own champagne” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food

Know your Audience!

Wednesday, July 27th, 2011

Edward T. Hall, an American anthropologist, once said, “Culture is Communication and Communication is culture.”  I usually like to deemphasize cultural issues when relating to software development projects, as it tends to be used as an excuse for why a project can’t be completed or why the project is too difficult to do, however, when talking about the communication portion of culture, I think there are steps that a US software development manager can take towards making themselves more understood and getting their message across, to their development team located in another country.  An important aspect to remember about communicating with a development team in another country is not that they understand or have the right technical skills, and use the right acronyms in the right place, but it is for the development manager to remember the key communication mantra, “Know your audience”.

More people outside the US are exposed to the US culture (either the right or wrong version…..) through American TV shows and films that are widely distributed. However, just because someone knows about Survivor (and most likely their own country has its own version of this show…), or has seen “The Office”, or “The Social Network”, it doesn’t mean they know everything about Americans or understanding American English.  Especially in the US business world where a lot of slang is used, with a lot of references being made to sports which are more widely played in the US than in most other countries (such as American baseball or American football).  When talking with your development team outside the US, it pays to think about what phrases you may be using which may need to be explained. For example, telling your developer he needs to “step up to the plate” when you really want him to take on additional work, may not get you what you want.  Or telling a developer who is critiquing a design choice, not to be a Monday morning quarterback, may not stop his input. Some of this type of conversation comes up in “face-to-face” (be it real face-to-face, or online face-to-face) meetings or these phrases may come out in group emails. Certainly your remote development team will be glad to be included as “one of the team”, just be aware that you may need to circle back and make sure that everything was clear to everyone receiving your message.

Effective communication is not only about choosing the right words and phrases to use, but also about being aware how that information is understood by the recipients.  So remember to know your audience!

Business expertise versus technical skills!

Tuesday, May 24th, 2011

In talking with a group of product managers recently about working with distributed software development teams, where part of the team was in the US and part of the team was in an offshore location, there seemed to be a big consensus that one of the most difficult issues in working with the offshore team was getting them to understand the “business side” of the system.  For example one person was very vocal about the issues with the developers in the offshore location not always understanding why the payment system needed to work in a particular way, or why the users needed to work in a certain way.  Other examples came up with billing systems and with the developers not understanding why sales commission had to be calculated in a certain way. This got me to thinking as to why this could be occurring?

According to the group of product managers the reason was specifically based on the fact that we are exposed to “how certain things” work more often in the US than in some of the offshore locations.  I agree this can be a factor with understand such things as “calculating sales commission”. Well at least the basics of calculating sales commissions, because as many people know there are many many ways to calculate sales commissions. It can greatly vary by company. So any developer would need to know what is the algorithm/s used by the company. 

After thinking about this question for a while, I started to think about how many companies search for outsourcing partners. A top priority for many companies is technical skills, which of course are very important when choosing who to work with. But I think sometimes technical skills are given a higher priority than if the outsourcing partner has related business or experience with your vertical market.  For example if your company is in the payments space, working with an outsourcing partner which has experience in that space will go a long way towards helping to overcome issues with understanding how the system has to work. Many companies when they start to look for a partner, are thinking, well we have the domain expertise, we are the experts, which is definitely true, and we can help pass that expertise on to anyone that we work with.  What we don’t have is enough technical skills.  If a company makes a concerted effort to pass on the needed domain expertise then the combination of your side having the domain expertise and the vendor having the technical skills, can work. However, in a distributed environment, passing on the domain expertise will take more effort, and it is easy for it to fall by the way side. It seems to make sense then to give, if not equal weight to both business domain expertise and technical expertise, then at least put business domain expertise in a close second place, when choosing a partner to work with your firm on software development.