In a recent posting, Arun Purohit described an interesting disconnect between the sales approach of Indian outsourcers and the purchase approach of American (at least some) customers. I think he's spot on.

In the article, Mr. Purohit describes an American customer that is seeking a specific product - lets call it a "round hole", and the Indian seller trying to push "square peg" solutions into it. Every customer need could be met "easily," even though the seller didn't actually have the resources. The customer didn't believe them - and awarded the project to another seller.

He also describes an alternative proposal, where the customer had specific needs and the outsourcer could meet only some of them. The outsourcer was honest about the situation, the customer was "disappointed" with the partial nature of the proposal, but awarded the contract with instructions to "staff up."

I've seen this in the sales cycle. Outsources fear acknowledging that work is beyond their capability, and customers abuse those promises by demanding overarching compromises that ruin the value proposition for the outsourcer. There always seems to be an outsourcer who will promise more, for less - even though they cannot deliver.

In part, this is cultural. Indian salespeople (at all levels) try to please the purchaser with the goods available. U.S. purchasers tend to go in with a fixed view of requirements, and are often unwilling to acknowledge that innovation and creativity can come from their outsourcers. In fact, Indian sellers would benefit from more honesty and U.S. buyers would benefit from more flexibility - and our collective cultures could learn much from each other.