Jay Fields suggests in a blog entry that the idea of in-house development is flawed and needs to die here... (I'm paraphrasing)
Sorry Jay, but I really disagree. There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea. The problems you cite are problems that any short sighted organisation will find when they're attempting to build software. I've worked for a couple of software houses and those I've worked for suffer from exactly the same problems described. Short sighted recruitment processes, cost cutting exercises, low quality code.
True, when you're working in-house these problems may be more common. The terms 'cost-centre' and 'profit-centre' are two that really cut to the bone.
However, I'm now working as an in-house developer with a team where the staff turn over is extremely low (around 10%), the team is built of very high calibre developers, morale is high, uptake on new technology is measured in relation to reasoned benefit, code quality is higher than I've ever seen before and customer satisfaction is through the roof.
We don't have any external people / consultants / software houses involved and I don't see any reason to have any.
In-house development isn't necessarily doomed to failure. Short sighted, cost driven organisations are the problem, and software houses are by no means immune to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment