The only real success I've had with outsourcing is when it is done around something specific and the output is treated like something we found on github. Here'

The only real success I've had with outsourcing is when it is done around something specific and the output is treated like something we found on github. Here's an example: I needed to control an arduino board in Java, I didn't know how to do it, I had the rest of the application to build and I was pressed for time. Instead of outsourcing the entire project I outsourced the creation of a unit test, it was described something like this: "When I run the unit test, with a board hooked up to the computer it should send a signal that will flip an LED on or off. You should use this spec (ref to Arduino site). Include all jars and install instructions." I got it back, it did what I asked them to do and I threw all the code away. Basically I took what they did as a 'working start' and rebuilt it into the existing application. I didn't ask them to match our code style, patterns or framework, that was all my job after the fact. It worked great and saved me a few days of research. This is the most successful way I've been able to manage outsourcing. Everything else - from detailed specs to UI diagrams to daily check-ins has had complications. If you can reduce down to just the hard things that need to be done, and then describe them in under 20 words, and then force a unit test into the equation you'll have a higher degree of success. YMMV