Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Open letter to all companies who outsource performance testing services

Expand Messages
  • Steven
    A Sales pitch for companies who, apart from a couple, are American based. What about the UK, France, Spain, Germany, etc? I appreciate what you are trying to
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 1 1:53 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      A Sales pitch for companies who, apart from a couple, are American based.

      What about the UK, France, Spain, Germany, etc?

      I appreciate what you are trying to achieve James, but (no offence intended), why should a company take your list of approved providers over the next guy's?

      This kind of thing should really come from the vendor of the tool we are working with - an approved list of HP Partners or such like.

      All IMO of course.

      Cheers,
      Steven

      --- In LoadRunner@yahoogroups.com, Jim Howell <jimhowell1970@...> wrote:
      >
      > no sounds like a sales pitch for performance testing consultants who know
      > what they're doing
      >
      > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Prabhu Shankar <
      > prabhushankar.prabhu@...> wrote:
      >
      > > **
      > >
      > >
      > > James,
      > >
      > > all good thoughts , but sounds more like a sales pitch for a new class of
      > > "management" performance consultants ?
      > >
      > > thanks
      > >
      > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:10 AM, James Pulley <
      > > loadrunner-lists@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > > **
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > How do you know you are receiving value for your budget dollars?
      > > >
      > > > I ask this question a lot and usually what I receive back is a quotation
      > > on
      > > > price per hour. But there is a difference between price and value. It is
      > > > possible to have so little value that even if a dollar per hour spent is
      > > > too
      > > > much for the work product which is actually being delivered.
      > > >
      > > > We have a pretty severe problem in our industry. There are a large number
      > > > of providers of services who do not screen for core skills, do not train
      > > > and
      > > > do not provide any sort of mentoring for professional development. It is
      > > > pretty much impossible to tell by looking at the websites of these
      > > > companies
      > > > who engage in this behavior because the websites will emphasize the
      > > > opposite.
      > > >
      > > > This behavior on the part of providers is costing you substantially.
      > > > Lacking the skills and the training to be successful you will find that
      > > the
      > > > deliverable takes significantly longer and that the quality of the
      > > > deliverable is lower when compared to a trained and mentored individual.
      > > > As an example, take a $25 per hour untrained individual taking five times
      > > > as
      > > > long to complete a task as compared to a $90 per hour trained individual.
      > > > Which is the better deal?
      > > >
      > > > These untrained individuals lack the architectural and system background
      > > > necessary to identify bottlenecks before they make it to production where
      > > > the cost to find and fix them is significantly more expensive (orders of
      > > > magnitude) greater than while an application is under test. If you are
      > > > paying a low rate and the same types of scalability issues seem to
      > > > constantly make it to production then you very likely have hired one of
      > > > these firms with questionable skills. Any savings you had with the per
      > > > dollar rate up front have been rapidly eroded by your exploding costs for
      > > > support in production.
      > > >
      > > > Back in 2003, Kris Doering of Gartner penned the following,
      > > >
      > > >
      > > http://www.gartner.com/4_decision_tools/measurement/measure_it_articles/2003
      > > > _101303/doering_01.jsp . There are two great takeaways from this article
      > > > which can save you lots of time, money and embarrassment.
      > > >
      > > > (1) Examine the market you are looking to outsource skills for and make
      > > > sure
      > > > you understand where the market stands. Are you outsourcing a
      > > commoditized
      > > > skill, one where you need improvement or are you looking to transform how
      > > > you do business? If your take on the market for skills doesn't match how
      > > > your provider is positioning the market then you would be wise to look at
      > > a
      > > > different provider. In general these poor providers seek to take highly
      > > > differentiated markets and present them as highly commoditized in order
      > > to
      > > > justify the low rates. The performance testing skills market is anything
      > > > but commoditized as one can see from all of the different skill levels
      > > > which
      > > > show up here every day representing the distinct training and development
      > > > models for different providers.
      > > >
      > > > (2) Measure what you are receiving. If you are hiring someone at the
      > > > commodity scale in this business you face a substantially high business
      > > > risk
      > > > that the personnel that will be on your project will have challenges. You
      > > > need insurance so that the provider doesn't just hire a block of people
      > > > right out of college who lack the right mix of skills and simply dump
      > > them
      > > > into your project, in some cases even forcing you to train the staff!
      > > Build
      > > > a relationship with a firm who provides superlative services in the
      > > market
      > > > and have them spot check the quality of the deliverables you are
      > > receiving
      > > > on a regular basis. Make very clear up front what the relationship is
      > > > about, an audit one, even if you have to tell them that they will
      > > > ineligible
      > > > for any other role until a year after the relationship as an auditor
      > > ends.
      > > > What you want is an unvarnished opinion of your deliverable, ideally
      > > > without
      > > > the colorations of we want your core business.
      > > >
      > > > So who do you go to for this audit capability? All of the firms below are
      > > > old in terms of the market and mature in terms of technical capability in
      > > > process and tools. If you don't hire them for your core delivery then you
      > > > would be well served to hire them to audit your current provider.
      > > >
      > > > BP Metrics (New Zealand)
      > > > http://bpmetrics.co.nz
      > > > CorTechs
      > > > http://www.cortechs.com
      > > > GeniLogix
      > > > http://www.genilogix.com
      > > > JDS (Australia)
      > > > http://www.jds.net.au
      > > > LoadRunnerByTheHour.com
      > > > http://www.loadrunnerbythehour.com
      > > > Northway Solutions
      > > > http://www.northwaysolutions.com
      > > > ORASI
      > > > http://www.orasi.com
      > > > Portata
      > > > http://www.portata.com
      > > > Proticom
      > > > http://www.proticom.com
      > > > TCT Computing
      > > > http://www.tctcomputing.com
      > > >
      > > > All of the above organizations are more than capable of handling the
      > > audit
      > > > role, having demonstrated over the years a delivery capability in
      > > difficult
      > > > environments. There are dozens of independent, one-man shops, who are
      > > > capable in this area as well. If you need a referral to one outside of
      > > the
      > > > above please let me know. The list above is by no means comprehensive,
      > > but
      > > > it does include organizations where I have direct knowledge of their
      > > > capabilities in the market otherwise they would not be on the list.
      > > >
      > > > If you don't have a specific, objective, verifiable set of measures that
      > > > you
      > > > are using to evaluate your deliverables from an outsourced performance
      > > > testing practice then you are in very real danger of being taken for a
      > > lot
      > > > of money and left with very little real value for the funds you have
      > > > expended in the effort. Hold your outsourced vendors feet to the fire!
      > > > Make sure that you are receiving real actual value for your performance
      > > > test
      > > > funds.
      > > >
      > > > If you find that you are not receiving value then exit the relationship
      > > and
      > > > find a provider which can help you reduce your risk in deployment rather
      > > > than increase it. Continuing to feed funds to poor providers of services
      > > > this only exacerbates a severe industry problem of finding and retaining
      > > > qualified individuals in performance testing roles. Help make the
      > > industry
      > > > healthy by not supporting providers with poor capabilities.
      > > >
      > > > James Pulley
      > > > Moderator
      > > > - YahooGroups LoadRunner, Advanced-LoadRunner
      > > > - SQAForums LoadRunner
      > > > - LinkedIn LoadRunner, LoadRunnerByTheHour
      > > > - GoogleGroups lr-LoadRunner
      > > > - The Pithy Performance List
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • James Pulley
      The vendor won t touch this one, preferencing one var over another as better. Yes, the sad truth of the matter is that some of the largest offenders in the
      Message 2 of 6 , Jul 1 3:30 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        The vendor won't touch this one, preferencing one var over another as 'better.' Yes, the sad truth of the matter is that some of the largest offenders in the skills area are also hp vars.

        It is clear that the list is by no means complete and it is the bias of companies where I have direct knowlege of capabilities. I have direct knowledge of some individuals in the UK and EU, but so few of them have signatures which include organization information that it becomes impossible to reference the employer.

        This is a line in the sand on process when you outsurce. You may not be able to afford the best organization or direct delivery, but how can you not afford to have the best of your candidate organizations as an auditor?

        Steven, I would encourage your posting of a UK/EU regional list of superlative providers for use as auditors.

        Steven <shedley@...> wrote:

        >A Sales pitch for companies who, apart from a couple, are American based.
        >
        >What about the UK, France, Spain, Germany, etc?
        >
        >I appreciate what you are trying to achieve James, but (no offence intended), why should a company take your list of approved providers over the next guy's?
        >
        >This kind of thing should really come from the vendor of the tool we are working with - an approved list of HP Partners or such like.
        >
        >All IMO of course.
        >
        >Cheers,
        >Steven
        >
        >--- In LoadRunner@yahoogroups.com, Jim Howell <jimhowell1970@...> wrote:
        >>
        >> no sounds like a sales pitch for performance testing consultants who know
        >> what they're doing
        >>
        >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Prabhu Shankar <
        >> prabhushankar.prabhu@...> wrote:
        >>
        >> > **
        >> >
        >> >
        >> > James,
        >> >
        >> > all good thoughts , but sounds more like a sales pitch for a new class of
        >> > "management" performance consultants ?
        >> >
        >> > thanks
        >> >
        >> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:10 AM, James Pulley <
        >> > loadrunner-lists@...> wrote:
        >> >
        >> > > **
        >> > >
        >> > >
        >> > > How do you know you are receiving value for your budget dollars?
        >> > >
        >> > > I ask this question a lot and usually what I receive back is a quotation
        >> > on
        >> > > price per hour. But there is a difference between price and value. It is
        >> > > possible to have so little value that even if a dollar per hour spent is
        >> > > too
        >> > > much for the work product which is actually being delivered.
        >> > >
        >> > > We have a pretty severe problem in our industry. There are a large number
        >> > > of providers of services who do not screen for core skills, do not train
        >> > > and
        >> > > do not provide any sort of mentoring for professional development. It is
        >> > > pretty much impossible to tell by looking at the websites of these
        >> > > companies
        >> > > who engage in this behavior because the websites will emphasize the
        >> > > opposite.
        >> > >
        >> > > This behavior on the part of providers is costing you substantially.
        >> > > Lacking the skills and the training to be successful you will find that
        >> > the
        >> > > deliverable takes significantly longer and that the quality of the
        >> > > deliverable is lower when compared to a trained and mentored individual.
        >> > > As an example, take a $25 per hour untrained individual taking five times
        >> > > as
        >> > > long to complete a task as compared to a $90 per hour trained individual.
        >> > > Which is the better deal?
        >> > >
        >> > > These untrained individuals lack the architectural and system background
        >> > > necessary to identify bottlenecks before they make it to production where
        >> > > the cost to find and fix them is significantly more expensive (orders of
        >> > > magnitude) greater than while an application is under test. If you are
        >> > > paying a low rate and the same types of scalability issues seem to
        >> > > constantly make it to production then you very likely have hired one of
        >> > > these firms with questionable skills. Any savings you had with the per
        >> > > dollar rate up front have been rapidly eroded by your exploding costs for
        >> > > support in production.
        >> > >
        >> > > Back in 2003, Kris Doering of Gartner penned the following,
        >> > >
        >> > >
        >> > http://www.gartner.com/4_decision_tools/measurement/measure_it_articles/2003
        >> > > _101303/doering_01.jsp . There are two great takeaways from this article
        >> > > which can save you lots of time, money and embarrassment.
        >> > >
        >> > > (1) Examine the market you are looking to outsource skills for and make
        >> > > sure
        >> > > you understand where the market stands. Are you outsourcing a
        >> > commoditized
        >> > > skill, one where you need improvement or are you looking to transform how
        >> > > you do business? If your take on the market for skills doesn't match how
        >> > > your provider is positioning the market then you would be wise to look at
        >> > a
        >> > > different provider. In general these poor providers seek to take highly
        >> > > differentiated markets and present them as highly commoditized in order
        >> > to
        >> > > justify the low rates. The performance testing skills market is anything
        >> > > but commoditized as one can see from all of the different skill levels
        >> > > which
        >> > > show up here every day representing the distinct training and development
        >> > > models for different providers.
        >> > >
        >> > > (2) Measure what you are receiving. If you are hiring someone at the
        >> > > commodity scale in this business you face a substantially high business
        >> > > risk
        >> > > that the personnel that will be on your project will have challenges. You
        >> > > need insurance so that the provider doesn't just hire a block of people
        >> > > right out of college who lack the right mix of skills and simply dump
        >> > them
        >> > > into your project, in some cases even forcing you to train the staff!
        >> > Build
        >> > > a relationship with a firm who provides superlative services in the
        >> > market
        >> > > and have them spot check the quality of the deliverables you are
        >> > receiving
        >> > > on a regular basis. Make very clear up front what the relationship is
        >> > > about, an audit one, even if you have to tell them that they will
        >> > > ineligible
        >> > > for any other role until a year after the relationship as an auditor
        >> > ends.
        >> > > What you want is an unvarnished opinion of your deliverable, ideally
        >> > > without
        >> > > the colorations of we want your core business.
        >> > >
        >> > > So who do you go to for this audit capability? All of the firms below are
        >> > > old in terms of the market and mature in terms of technical capability in
        >> > > process and tools. If you don't hire them for your core delivery then you
        >> > > would be well served to hire them to audit your current provider.
        >> > >
        >> > > BP Metrics (New Zealand)
        >> > > http://bpmetrics.co.nz
        >> > > CorTechs
        >> > > http://www.cortechs.com
        >> > > GeniLogix
        >> > > http://www.genilogix.com
        >> > > JDS (Australia)
        >> > > http://www.jds.net.au
        >> > > LoadRunnerByTheHour.com
        >> > > http://www.loadrunnerbythehour.com
        >> > > Northway Solutions
        >> > > http://www.northwaysolutions.com
        >> > > ORASI
        >> > > http://www.orasi.com
        >> > > Portata
        >> > > http://www.portata.com
        >> > > Proticom
        >> > > http://www.proticom.com
        >> > > TCT Computing
        >> > > http://www.tctcomputing.com
        >> > >
        >> > > All of the above organizations are more than capable of handling the
        >> > audit
        >> > > role, having demonstrated over the years a delivery capability in
        >> > difficult
        >> > > environments. There are dozens of independent, one-man shops, who are
        >> > > capable in this area as well. If you need a referral to one outside of
        >> > the
        >> > > above please let me know. The list above is by no means comprehensive,
        >> > but
        >> > > it does include organizations where I have direct knowledge of their
        >> > > capabilities in the market otherwise they would not be on the list.
        >> > >
        >> > > If you don't have a specific, objective, verifiable set of measures that
        >> > > you
        >> > > are using to evaluate your deliverables from an outsourced performance
        >> > > testing practice then you are in very real danger of being taken for a
        >> > lot
        >> > > of money and left with very little real value for the funds you have
        >> > > expended in the effort. Hold your outsourced vendors feet to the fire!
        >> > > Make sure that you are receiving real actual value for your performance
        >> > > test
        >> > > funds.
        >> > >
        >> > > If you find that you are not receiving value then exit the relationship
        >> > and
        >> > > find a provider which can help you reduce your risk in deployment rather
        >> > > than increase it. Continuing to feed funds to poor providers of services
        >> > > this only exacerbates a severe industry problem of finding and retaining
        >> > > qualified individuals in performance testing roles. Help make the
        >> > industry
        >> > > healthy by not supporting providers with poor capabilities.
        >> > >
        >> > > James Pulley
        >> > > Moderator
        >> > > - YahooGroups LoadRunner, Advanced-LoadRunner
        >> > > - SQAForums LoadRunner
        >> > > - LinkedIn LoadRunner, LoadRunnerByTheHour
        >> > > - GoogleGroups lr-LoadRunner
        >> > > - The Pithy Performance List
        >> > >
        >> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >> > >
        >> > >
        >> > >
        >> >
        >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >>
        >>
        >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >------------------------------------
        >
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.