Horses for Sources picks up and enhances my argument for ditching the term ‘outsourcing’.  Maybe 2009 is the year to do it?

It is impossible to attend a conference these days without a panel dedicated to “Doing X in the Flat World”. Practicing Law in a Flat World. Automobile manufacturing and the challenges of a Flat World. Best practices for Kabuki Stage Make-up in a Flat World.

Props to Thomas Friedman. In 2004, he barely knew outsourcing existed. Then, he goes to India. Instead of locating his chakras and opening a yoga studio in Pittsburgh, he ends up in Bangalore and gets shell-shocked by all the big buildings. WOW! Cisco is HERE?! You guys have computers in India? DSL? Amazing!!

Just like that, every executive in America has an unread copy of The World Is Flat on their bookshelf, and we’re all using a metaphor that never made that much sense.

So, let’s settle things. The world is not flat. It is curvy. Lumpy. Tilted. Full of nooks and crannies. And as a whole, still ROUND.

What’s wrong with the ‘flat world’ metaphor?
Besides my apparent jealousy of Thomas Friedman’s success, what’s so wrong with his metaphor?

To start with, the image of a flat world is all about capability.

Just a few years ago, Friedman made a case that information work can now happen anywhere, thanks to communications technology, skilled labor, and cost incentives.

Got it, Tom. People in India and China CAN do anything that we can do in the US. They have education. Computers. Telephone headsets.

This may have been a surprise to the majority of Americans in 1996. But, in 2007, it sounds kinda like Al Gore inventing the Internet.

Besides, if someone with a name like Tejas Patel or Timothy Wu was in your 3rd grade math class, you are already aware of what India and China CAN do. If Abhishek Chakrabarty fixed your computer last week, you have no doubt about India’s potential.

(more…)