Paul on Fri, 19 Jul 2002 08:08:14 -0400 |
I don't get it. Because a company can torture or fire an employee for doing a bad job, the company should work the person harder than a consultant for less pay? (See, I'm not a manager.) Wouldn't it be better to pay the employee well, expect the employee to do a good job within a reasonable amount of time, and not over pay a consultant that you might have to take to court later? 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)?Even at home, most people don't understand what I'm doing. I take the time to learn stuff that I don't need to know immediately. I'll explain that, if called upon to do this stuff for real, I need to know HOW in advance! Although, a lot of computer work is about finding a solution as opposed to knowing EVERYTHING in advance, it helps to have some background on the issues. True or false: The gap between technical and non-technical people is rarely bridged by good management?
|
|