Outsourced developments are often criticized as being unreliable, risky and should be reserved to small complementary developments such as reports, unimportant utilities and add-ons.

This is the result of some companies that made basic errors that could have been easily avoided. Experience is key to offshore development success.

The main elements that cause failures are:

 Insufficient or informal definition of the developments to realize:

The projects given to the distant team are considered as complementary. Fuzzy product definitions are given to the development company. The result is far from the expected goal. Adjustments take much efforts and time. Tensions grow in the teams about responsibilities. The result are far behind schedule, the client is deeply unsatisfied and often stops outsourcing developments.
 
 Opacity of the developments at the distant site:

The development sites does not communicate regularly with its customer. When the product is ready, the distance between the expected developments are the delivered product are important. Adjustments take much more time than if they were made at an earlier stage. The accepted deliverable is very late.
 
 Language problems, misunderstandings:

The teams do not speak efficiently a common language. Frustration and misunderstandings are generated. The questions are not always asked and the answers are too short or imprecise. The two parties quickly conclude they cannot work together.
 
 Insufficient definitions of the technologies to use:

The developments are realized using technologies, tools and  programming techniques which are not exactly the ones you are utilizing. The result does not smoothly integrate technologically with the rest of the developments realized at your site. Fixing the incompatibilities take time and creates tensions.
 
 Slow or no response from the customer about key questions:

The distant team is not sufficiently managed at the client's site. The questions of the remote developers are unanswered or answers arrive very late. With no answer, they progress with their own assumptions which angers the client or slows down the development.
 
 Inappropriate involvement of the client:

The client is afraid of being ripped off and wants to acquire inappropriate control of development team. Sometimes, he does not understand business and the mentality at the offshore site. His decisions are controversial and clumsy. The rejection of such decision sometimes even reinforces the conviction that it was necessary. It creates frustration and lowers the involvement of the outsourced developers.
 
 Poor outsourcing acceptance tests:

The developments are not thoroughly tested at the development site. The deliverables are given to the client who finds many defects. The distance added to long explanations about the defects require unnecessary time and efforts and can result in important delays and frustration.
 
 Differences between the distant and client environments:

The development environment is different from the integration platforms at the customer, or the tools which are used offshore are different from the ones used by the client. Defects cannot be replicated locally and are difficult to solve.
 
 Mismanaged fixed fee contracts:

The client feels often safer with a fixed fee contract. He defines a project and then changes the contents of the required realization. Each change results in fees renegotiations which reduce trust and require efforts. The result is usually a low trust level.
 
 Incapability to put in place or enforce an efficient process:

The distant teams are often not very experienced at applying processes. The process must be adapted to the framework of the client. Inexistent of mismanaged processes let the development grow out of control, with no or little tracking. On the opposite, the process could be so heavy that the actions are not efficient and the team is not very productive. The result is random, depending on the experience of each team member.
 
 Absence of local management of the outsourced team:

The offshore team is mismanaged locally. The development team does not understand the expectations of the client, feels like a tool, and does not feel responsible for the tasks given to it. The client's questions are not answered with clear answers. The client feels the situation and has no trust in the offshore team which is not very efficient.
 
 Unqualified distant team:

To provide a workforce on time, the offshore team hires any under qualified developers or developers who cannot work within strict processes.
 
 High attrition and poor work conditions at the distant team:

The outsourcing company does not offer good working conditions, sufficient salaries. Members leave the team to go to for another local software company, endangering the project given to the remote team.
 
 Paranoia on the client's side:

After some tension of any type, the client persuades himself that the distant team is not reliable. The management of the distant team does what he can to solve the situation but the "disease" is there and, with no real reason, the client prefers to stop outsourcing.
 
 Impression to be the fat chicken:

The economical difference between the offshore country (poor) and the client's country (rich) gives the impression to the management of the client that the outsourcing company is "pumping" all they can. The client does not realize any more that he receives a fair service for a fair price but wants to understand the margin that is generated, wants to lower the margin, etc. The client tends to forget that any other company is also trying to create profit.
 
 Poor telecommunications management:

The communications means are insufficient, or the automated processes inadequate or not so well designed. The referential synchronization does not take place as it should. The client cannot receive its deliveries, source code or other important artifacts.
 
 Unclear responsibilities of the client project manager:

The person in charge of the delocalized project is also responsible for a local project. He tends to consider the outsourced project as a less important project than the local one, for which he is personally more exposed. He neglects the outsourced project. The distant team tries to work by itself and provides poor results. The client soon stops using outsourcing.