May 25, 2004
AT THE (OUT)SOURCE:
At the center of a culture shift: A pioneer says outsourcing will ultimately benefit US, India. Others are less sanguine. (Robert Weisman, May 25, 2004, Boston Globe)
It doesn't look much different from the other three-family, gambrel-roofed homes lining the blocks behind Central Square. But for students of the Indian outsourcing movement, the olive gray house at 10 St. Paul St. could qualify as a historic landmark.It was here, in the fall of 1972, where one of the earliest ''offshore" business models was conceived and tested by Indian-born MIT graduate Narendra K. Patni and his bride, Poonam. Their experiment has mushroomed into a business empire, and a global phenomenon that is fueling productivity -- along with controversy.
The newlyweds launched a pilot project in their third-floor apartment, designating the living room as the ''United States" and the bedroom as ''India."
In one room, they wrote instructions for the conversion of data from paper documents to computers. In the other room, a small team of MIT students typed the data into a Flexowriter machine that spat out paper tape -- the first and most labor-intensive task in what then was a multiple-step, data-conversion process.
A key ground rule was that there would be no oral communication -- only written notes -- between people in the two rooms. That was because phone connections between the United States and India were still spotty in the 1970s. Written instructions would have to suffice.
''That was the first major attempt to outsource services," said Narendra Patni, 62, who shuttles between his US office in Kendall Square and his headquarters in Bombay as chief executive of Patni Computer Systems Ltd., a $250 million-a-year technology services firm that recently went public in India. ''I felt from the beginning there was economic significance to it."
His wife has a different, less grandiose memory. ''It wasn't easy hauling the Flexowriter up all those stairs," she recalled. [...]
Even among Patni's admirers, not everyone is so sanguine about the impact of outsourcing, especially as the practice spreads to higher-wage job categories such as software programming.
Jay Forrester, a retired professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management and a pioneer in the field of systems dynamics, hired Patni to help him run his consulting and publishing company (no relation to Forrester Research) in the late 1960s. ''He was a very high-caliber person," Forrester said, ''and he's been very successful."
When Patni told him a few years later that he was shipping documents to India for data conversion, Forrester said, ''I was surprised because this was entirely new to me."
Today, more than 30 years later, the 85-year-old Forrester casts a skeptical eye on the burgeoning outsourcing movement.
''I think it's going to produce a tremendous political backlash, and will be significantly curtailed in a few years," he warned. ''I think it will drive the standard of living of the United States down to the level of the countries that we're outsourcing to."
Patni, for his part, believes the genie is out of the bottle.
Added Mr. Forrester: "Look at all those great jobs in the chemical industry we lost to Bhopal." Posted by Orrin Judd at May 25, 2004 7:57 AM
This issue may well determine world prosperity for some time, as it involves two large and powerful countries with significant protectionist constituencies.
Last week's post on competitiveness rankings put the U.S. at the top, but did you notice that the next nine were all smallish, trading countries, even the Euros? They have a huge advantage because there is virtually no constituency promoting autarky and they can pretty much make the adjustments they have to make, even if painful. I remember a few years ago sitting in a sports bar and listening to a couple of good 'ole, semi-employable Canadian boys defending proposed bank mergers (already a protected oligopoly) up here because, as they muttered repeatedly into their seventh beers: "We gotta compete, man!" Would I hear that in an American sports bar?
Posted by: Peter B at May 25, 2004 9:01 AMAs I recall, they were showing soccer at the time.
Posted by: Peter B at May 25, 2004 10:13 AMWho wouldn't be morose?
Posted by: oj at May 25, 2004 10:16 AMAs more learned and wiser people than I have written, outsourcing ultimately CREATES jobs in the US.
Sure, folks in the newly buggy-whipped industries lose their cushy positions, and that's not good, especially because we can easily count how many people are no longer employed.
However, any time the cost of a good or service decreases, it creates opportunities, sometimes previously un-thought-of ones.
For instance, when Phil Knight and Bill Bowerman founded Nike, all they wanted to do was help track & field jocks run faster.
However, by outsourcing shoe construction to Bangledeshi pre-teens willing to work for a nickel a day, (or whatever), Nike was able to create an entire industry segment, including those ubiquitous Foot Lockers & Lady Foot Lockers, which employ 40,000+ people, far more ever lost their jobs assembling American footwear.
(That is to say, Foot Locker Inc. employs the 40K).
Similarly, it's possible that by out-sourcing drafting to Eastern Europe, more people will be able to afford, or at least willing, to hire architects to design custom homes.
Outsourcing low-level computer programming jobs to India and the Philippines might make it affordable for Mom'n'Pop businesses in the US to buy custom-designed software.
And so forth.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at May 25, 2004 11:27 AMBy the way, Forrester's last line is a sick joke, right?
Posted by: David Cohen at May 25, 2004 12:26 PMI wish I could be sure of that, David.
The deaths at Bhopal were due to the autarkic refusal of the Indian government to allow the owners to import safety equipment that India did not make.
And, perhaps, to a depraved indifference to human life, compared with, say, Institute, W. Va.
Devil in the details, Michael. Thanks, according to you, to Nike, I can no longer buy my favorite shoe, the Bates Floater, and I have to look at all those ugly Nikes.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 25, 2004 5:32 PMThe Bhopal line was an, apparently feeble, attempt at humor.
Posted by: oj at May 25, 2004 5:40 PM