|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
On Friday 19 July 2002 05:24, Paul wrote:
> >>ASP consultants: $4k plus hardware
> >>Postnuke: Cost of hardware
> >
> >And the cost of your time spent doing that, instead of other duties.
>
> Isn't it the sacred duty of a computer person to work on computer stuff
> and save or make money for the Company? In any case, consultants
> usually cost a lot more than a regular employee. And the Company can
> work the regular employee twice as hard for less pay. It works
> out...for the Company!
That's a rather cynical way of putting it.
Actually, even if a consultant could be found to work for the same rate of pay
as an employee, the company still makes out better financially with employees
because the cost of the employee is already figured into the equation. My
company has in-house consultants who do optional serviced for other
departments on a chargeback basis, but it still works out better because the
money stays inside the company-- it's just transferred between different
parts of the company so that, at the end of the day, the company still has
the money (even if in a different bucket). We call this kind of money (as
income or expese) "funny money".
As far as companies working the employees twice as hard for less pay, it's
called accountability. If the system I designed doesn't work, I can lose my
job. If a consultant comes in and fucks a million-dollar deal up (as
happened last year at my company) the only recourse the company has is
litigation which is unpleasant, expensive, and out of control of the company
directly (i.e. the curts take over from IT).
Consulting has its place-- but finding a consultant that's worth their salt
(or even worth a shit) can also be a daunting process. I always prefer
in-house over consulting because even if you get a half-assed job, chances
are that employee 9or team of employees) is still going to be around
afterward to clean up. OTOH, a company we were dealing with changed hands
twice over the course of a long-delayed project. The original company was
expensive and didn't know what it was doing. The second company acquired the
original company, but the personnel stayed the same so we were at least no
worse off. By the time the second company acquired the project, all of the
original developers had quit and the second company said they had no interest
in continuing the project.
Buying a software solution that requires new skills is tricky. The tendency
is to hire consultants and train staff for maintenenace mode after the
install-- but it rarely works out that way. It would be nice if companies
had the forethought to embrace new technologies when they become available
and so they have a trained staff at the ready when a project comes up that
uses the new technology-- but how often does that happen (esp. since it's
usually non-techs who read about a new idea in some marketroid rag that drive
technology decisions)?
--
She liked him; he was a man of many qualities, even if most of them
were bad.
______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|