Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 607 posts

Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

#171

Post by chrysoprace »

When you say provider, I assume you don't own the IP and that you'd be starting from scratch. At my work we owned the IP from software developed by a third-party which we then brought in-house and hired on software developers (myself included). The biggest challenge has been the loss of tribal knowledge of the codebase and the use cases that brought the system to its current state over a decade.

The boring answer is that you'd likely need to put together a business case. What's the benefit you'd get from developing it in-house? Is it worth the projected cost & time-frame (which is likely going to be inaccurate since estimating software is inherently difficult) to fix the painpoints? Would you look to offer the new solution to other potential customers (which may even be competitors to your main business)?

As for attracting talent, I've worked in the tech sector of pharmacy (Australia) for nearly a decade and while the tech sector there is small, the hiring pool is just like any other industry since we don't hire for pharmacy experience.

Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

#172

Post by heisenbit »

jvdongen wrote: post #115

My comment is made from the background of someone who has led the effort of bringing software development in-house, building a 20-odd FTE dev team, and is still leading it 3 years in. I'd not bring everything in-house at once unless you really have to. Your fear that the devil is in the details is very much justified (I have stories, boy, do I have stories ...). However, in your position I would definitively start bu…

Product management is really important and must not be delegated too far down. As main sponsor you need to be involved as well. A lot of key decisions must be made and ability and power to say no is vital as is the ability to move the other parties around your system at least a little once in a while.

Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

#173

Post by johan_larson »

Do you have any people in your company who could build what you need if given the time? Sometimes there are people who are pretty handy with coding who aren't called "programmers". They may be analysts or engineers or something like that. And is there anyone who understands the domain, has solid leadership skills, and at least a bit of tech skill, enabling them to serve as a project lead?

If you have both of these, you could conceivably use your existing staff to build at least a limited-functionality version 1, and backfill the jobs they used to do with new people. If not, you have the harder problem of needing to hire people to do something you don't know how to do at all.

Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

#174

Post by treprinum »

davedx wrote: post #62

IME what works best getting new projects kick started is hiring a very small team of senior freelancers, making one of them lead, and letting them loose. I worked on such a team once and it was really excellent. The advantage of this strategy is if the experiment doesn't work out, terminating freelancers is much easier than permanent (I noted you're based in Europe). Contrary to what other people said, I wouldn't try…

Good freelancers are expensive and don't stick around long-term.

Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

#175

Post by kelnos »

poeticsilence wrote: post #128
davedx wrote: post #62

IME what works best getting new projects kick started is hiring a very small team of senior freelancers, making one of them lead, and letting them loose. I worked on such a team once and it was really excellent. The advantage of this strategy is if the experiment doesn't work out, terminating freelancers is much easier than permanent (I noted you're based in Europe). Contrary to what other people said, I wouldn't try…

Strongly agree here. It's hard to find a CTO if you don't have access to any engineering talent that you trust and have vetted. A small, focused project with a team of very senior freelancers both gives you a chance to dip your toes into the idea of running your own in-house software development, and an opportunity to vet individuals who can help you make good hiring decisions down the road. If you're interested in f…

> I've found that the best programmers (and the ones you'd want) are more interested in the technical aspects of the problem and business and customer impact, rather than the sexiness of the business domain.

Just want to heartily agree with this point here. Certainly many of us do get excited about particular business domains from time to time, but in my own experience, I get more excited about technical challenges, and -- critically -- solving real problems for real customers that I can see first- or nearly-first-hand. The customers for this "product" would be internal to OP's org, so the people who end up building this would have front-row seats to how it's being used, what's good, what's bad, etc.

Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

#176

Post by kelnos »

treprinum wrote: post #174
davedx wrote: post #62

IME what works best getting new projects kick started is hiring a very small team of senior freelancers, making one of them lead, and letting them loose. I worked on such a team once and it was really excellent. The advantage of this strategy is if the experiment doesn't work out, terminating freelancers is much easier than permanent (I noted you're based in Europe). Contrary to what other people said, I wouldn't try…

Good freelancers are expensive and don't stick around long-term.

That's fine; this would be an experiment, after all. If it goes well, those freelancers can be tasked to help hire a more permanent team, and/or be offered permanent positions, if they're interested.

Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

#177

Post by cellularmitosis »

heisenbit wrote: post #167
davedx wrote: post #62

IME what works best getting new projects kick started is hiring a very small team of senior freelancers, making one of them lead, and letting them loose. I worked on such a team once and it was really excellent. The advantage of this strategy is if the experiment doesn't work out, terminating freelancers is much easier than permanent (I noted you're based in Europe). Contrary to what other people said, I wouldn't try…

Having had the fun of taking over a project from a bunch of clever contractors I would caution: It may be too clever. There is value in simplicity and a stake in long term ownership. Some article here recently associated technical debt as lost institutional knowledge so handing the most key decisions to contractors has also drawbacks. One needs an integrated approach for design, build, maintenance and operation.

Mixed in with this may also be architectural decisions based from a "let's just spin something up quickly" mentality. Those foundational architectural decisions have a way of becoming set in stone, long after the freelancers have left, dooming the project to scalability and latency problems which seem to linger forever.

Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

#178

Post by kelnos »

henryfjordan wrote: post #124
alberth wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question: how do you suggest for that code to be maintained long-term if the original team was just freelancers?

If you do go this freelancer route I would assume that there will be no code to maintain long-term. The freelancers should be building a prototype, not something intended to last decades. Either the freelancers work out and you begin hiring a permanent team (hopefully converting some freelancers to full-time) who will promptly rewrite / revise the prototype or you will go back to paying for software. Either way the p…

Is it common to build a prototype to throw away, and then actually throw it away and build the "real" thing? I've never seen that, ever, in 20+ years of software work. The prototype ends up being the long-term production version, for all its faults and weaknesses.

Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

#179

Post by janalsncm »

Without having a ton to add, logistics might not be the sexiest industry but you can do a lot to make the role more sexy, especially to senior engineers. Making the role remote is worth $50k or more in and of itself, and vastly broadens your talent pool. Juniors are the ones more likely to be willing and able to relocate and commute.

Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

#180

Post by iamgopal »

We do contract base software development in India, and have worked with https://haulog.com/ recently. If you’re considering to start with outsourcing to jump start, Let’s exchange few mail ( patelgopal@gmail.com ) and see if we are compatible enough to try and make a demo or something.
Post reply on HN