Are Global Software Teams Successful? Product delivery schedule Development cost Product innovation Bugs in product

Product delivery schedule? Follow the sun Estimated 20%-30% time-to-market reduction for follow the sun projects. 58% of FTS projects make no difference Follow the sun represents a substantial communication and coordination challenge Number of hand offs Every hand off includes preparing the object to be understood by a colleague complete with textual explanations Vice-versa, the receiver must understand where to pick up the tasks True follow the sun with daily hand offs is very difficult for design, particular concepts, innovative, or radical design. Difficulties in interpreting someone else program (like unfinished painting) Exceptions are global help desk and bug fixing Are Global Software Teams Successful?

Were development costs reduced? Yes The cost of developing one unit of software (function point) in India was 26% of the cost in the US Of the projects that had at least one site in an emerging economy 57% reported reduced development costs for that site or for the project overall. Western European software development costs are roughly about the same in the US

Are Global Software Teams Successful? Was the Product Innovative? How does one measure the relative innovativeness of global software teams Task enhancement: the degree to which software companies are transferring more of their tasks to these remote global sites particularly – high level, value-added tasks. 69% of the cases, the distant site or sites were either assuming high-level design responsibility or full product ownership. 47% of the cases, GST were working on company’s flagship product or one of its primary products

Was the product relatively free of bugs? Home country’s development staff controls the testing Headquarters' maintain standards E.g. Orchestral technologies “standards will be higher in global teams” “first product in the company that did not require a subsequent bug release” Attributed to rigorous development methodology Are Global Software Teams Successful?

Growth of sites outside the home country? Software companies will not grow or expand their remote sites (and global teams) unless they think that it is worthwhile. Product ownership will not be transferred to remote sites if they have not been unsuccessful More global software teams will not be formed if they are not successful It is possible for a GST, when well managed, to reduce development cycle time, lower costs, improve quality, and foster innovation. Can all the four be achieved at the same time? Are Global Software Teams Successful?

Global software teams are risky management propositions? Burden of distance Time zone Cross-cultural differences Lack of communication richness etc The Five Centrifugal Forces of Global Software Teams

Dispersion The Five Centrifugal Forces of Global Software Teams Separation distance (in meters) Probability of communication at least once a week

Dispersion Shorter project timeliness result from shorter communications lines and the ability to give feedback quickly Co-location team usually increases trust and reduces miscommunication Co-located teams demands less management support Physical barriers reduce the amount of communications The Five Centrifugal Forces of Global Software Teams

Dispersion Advantages Informal oral communication may promote sloppiness in documentation and procedure. Co-location are tied to the age-old of continuum of centralization and decentralization of organizations. Local responsiveness to customer? Innovation of smaller, more independent groups The Five Centrifugal Forces of Global Software Teams

Breakdown of traditional Control & Coordination mechanisms Coordination: is the act of integrating each task and organizational unit so that it contributes to the overall objective Control: is the process of adhering to goals or policies or standards As the interdependency between teams increases, the need for coordination increases The Five Centrifugal Forces of Global Software Teams

AB AB AB Pooled Coordination: teams share their resources, such as office space or computer networks. Sequential Coordination: the output of one team is used as an input by another. Reciprocal Coordination: teams pass their work back and forth as they add value to it, as in “ follow-the-sun” Coordination costs increases as interdependency increases

The loss of “communication richness” Any task requiring intensive cooperation requires more communication – the richer the better GST always wants a richer medium A GST manager must regularly convey the team vision to all participating groups and cultures, in a way that will be understood. Less rich medium are sometimes very good to express emotions you probably will not like to show in a group. Writing skills and vocal skill are not same in many cultures. The Five Centrifugal Forces of Global Software Teams

Loss of “teamness” Diversity’s drawback Homogeneous vs. heterogeneous Loss of cohesion Successful teams are cohesive Cohesive leads to enhanced motivation, increased morale, greater productivity, harder work, etc. The team members help each other, complement each other, know each other strength and weakness. Cohesion is more difficult for cross-cultural teams Mistrust due to excessive stereotyping Lowered interpersonal attractiveness Languages problems etc. The Five Centrifugal Forces of Global Software Teams

Loss of “teamness” Building trust takes time Distance is an impediment to building relationships of trust. - trust is the peculiar belief predicted not on evidence but on lack of contrary evidence (Gambetta) Disperse teams meet infrequently and they communicate primarily asynchronously Team size gets out of hand Global teams in multiple sites are generally larger per task than co-located teams. The fewer the team members, the fewer communication links needed, and the less the coordination needed. The Five Centrifugal Forces of Global Software Teams

Singapore vs. France Is the long-term strategy appropriate? Are the short-term tactical strategies the right sequence of activities to move the nation towards its long-term goals Have we identified the infrastructure required to support long term strategic initiatives? Is there a plan in place to ensure evolution of infrastructure as we implement tactical activities Can infrastructure development activities be combined with focus project that has direct value-added for the organizations? Given the pace of technology and knowledge change in the 1990’s, are we recouping the cost of investments in infrastructure with in two-three years? Is transformational leadership required to enable successful change?

Is project leadership at the right level in organization and if transformational leadership is required, is it present Who are the project champions? Do they have formal power/informal power, the personal characteristics and the leadership style required to ensure successful implementation? Are the major stakeholders involved Are project managers leaders able to effectively manage “up, down, and across” Are we focusing our attention on business benefits rather than IT implementation for the its own sake? Are we carefully identifying the information required to coordinate, control and continuously improve process over time?