The Secret of On-Demand Software Development 2018-03-30T17:55:33+00:00

The Secret of On-Demand Software Development (Whitepaper)

How On-Demand Software Development Services are revolutionizing market competitiveness and dramatically improving ROI

The goal was clear: to get the software built, tested, deployed and in operation before the competition did – and do it on time and within budget. If so, that would mean new disruptive products and essential services, and/or core systems infrastructure capabilities could be deployed that would allow the company to enjoy first-mover advantages and ramp right up the projected curve of the business plan.

Only that didn’t happen. Did it?

When you started, Option A was to recruit and hire an in-house team of software developers who could work closely together with maximum communication capability and with the ability to flexibly innovate from breakthrough ideas sketched on a white board or even a napkin, if needed. Deliverables would be checked off the product development roadmap, one after another, at maximum velocity and deployed without delay.

But that’s not how it went.

No, just finding all the right people to field a high-velocity development team took much longer than anticipated. And some of them didn’t exactly work out as hoped, and so there was some personnel churn, some of which was voluntary, some not. The necessity of the team “bonding” and “gelling” period wasn’t really anticipated at all – i.e. where the entire team comes to embrace the same vision, gets on the same page, and actually functions like a healthy, collaborative team. That slowed things down.

And then there were all those unanticipated costs. Locally, every development resource was at the ceiling, or beyond, of what was budgeted to pay for their salaries, benefits, taxes, and in some case recruiting fees and relocation costs. So, six months or more went by without much of what you envisioned on the product development roadmap getting done. But these difficulties didn’t slow down a lot of the competition. It only allowed them to increase their advantages during that same period of time.

Option B was to consider “outsourcing” (a dirty word to some). Indeed, outsourcing vendors are known to be able to potentially provide resources quickly in most, if not all, required skill sets. Plus, in most cases, the monthly costs per resource (at least on paper) was dramatically lower than recruiting local talent. The remote teams were also ready to get to work after a brief knowledge transfer and planning period. That all sounded like a plus.

However, as far as “bonding” and “gelling” and being on the same page, a remote team could be physically located on the other side of the world, all hailing from a different culture, perhaps not even sharing the same common language in many ways. Nevertheless, the promise of speed of production and lower costs was sufficient to give it a try. And perhaps you did.

And then… unfortunately, the results were not exactly as hoped.

No, your new offshore team took a while to really understand what was needed. Communication and essential dialogue was slow and tedious, bedeviled by distant time zones and non-overlapping work days, as well as communications “lost in translation.” Thus, what the offshore team ultimately produced turned out to be close, but not exact, to what was required. So, that took additional time to go back and tweak and make adjustments to get it right (if it ever was 100% right).

Plus, quality issues were encountered, more so than were typical with local teams you were familiar with in the past. That meant all those bugs had to be found and corrected. And perhaps most notably, the only work that got done was that which was explicitly documented, i.e. no new ideas came from the team actually doing the work, no innovation, no better ways suggested, no “what ifs…” And worst of all, every now and then one of the team members took a new job and just vanished, meaning a new replacement had to come up to speed to take their place, which was yet another delay factor.

Thus, the net result was that one set of problems was swapped for another (in-house versus offshore). And the extended time it took to get it all right ended up negating any anticipated monetary savings based on lower labor rates.

If any or all of this sounds familiar, you are not alone. The good news is that Option A and Option B are
not the only options available. There is an Option C.




  • To successfully build a high-velocity development team and make them productive faster
  • To do it for far less cost
  • To eliminate the logistical hurdles (office & equipment)
  • To eliminate the HR and day-to-day supervisory burden
  • To allow you to focus on pure hardcore software development, and little else
  • To finally beat the competition to market
  • To enjoy delivering what you promised the executive team, on time, and under budget
  • To make your system users and your company’s customers very happy


Some great companies are already in on the secret!