Skip to main content

7 dirty consultant tricks (InfoWorld)

InfoWorld had a neat article a few days back called
7 dirty consultant tricks (and how to avoid them)

Those of us who are consultants should know that these are being done and should be pretty angry about it. Most of the practices listed here are the reasons why the right consultants (that would be us) don't get the jobs we bid on.

Those who run consulting firms should know about these and know that they are the best way to stay in business.

I wrote an response to this on my own web site more but thought I would share some of the immediate takeaways here:


1.  If you (as a client) aren't starting your project with a measurable result by a specific date, then you need to break your project INTO those results first. Otherwise, assemble an internal team and maybe ask for some guidance but keep the deliverables in mind at all times. If you don't, it becomes a money pit.

2. I often look at my work as a consultant as being similar to a good plumber: if you want me to fix a problem, I'll do it as quickly as possible so I can move onto the next problem. If you want me to re-design or identify possible improvements to your plumbing system, it will take longer but I'll do it right.

3. Best thing to do is MEET with the actual team who will be doing the work.

4. When dealing with fixed prices,
I always think it's in the best interest of the client to look at per-diems but with a cap. It allows the consultant their opportunity to shine through but also limits the company's exposure.
We once had our floors done by a company who looked at the floor and said "about $1600 labour based on x/day". By the end of the project, it was over $3400 because they didn't account for it right. This was a per-diem project and I should have thought first to put a cap on it. At the end, they still tried to weasel out of finishing the work and left us with a half-ass job.

It's an interesting article - typical of InfoWorld who often target consultants in their columns but it's also an opportunity for consultants to identify and address them head-on, especially when dealing with new clients (who may read InfoWorld).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Blogs and RSS come to Microsoft.com

MS has just introduced their portal and it's pretty comprehensive. Nothing quite like learning that some people use AIM instead of MSN messenger, or that there really may be a need for supporting 4 monitors ( Cyrus Complains ) However, it's really a great sign that MS is serious about supporting the blogging community which seems to have um, exploded in size in the past year. Blogs and RSS come to Microsoft.com

Elevating Project Specifications with Three Insightful ChatGPT Prompts

For developers and testers, ChatGPT, the freely accessible tool from OpenAI, is game-changing. If you want to learn a new programming language, ask for samples or have it convert your existing code. This can be done in Visual Studio Code (using GitHub CoPilot) or directly in the ChatGPT app or web site.  If you’re a tester, ChatGPT can write a test spec or actual test code (if you use Jest or Cypress) based on existing code, copied and pasted into the input area. But ChatGPT can be of huge value for analysts (whether system or business) who need to validate their needs. There’s often a disconnect between developers and analysts. Analysts complain that developers don’t build what they asked for or ask too many questions. Developers complain that analysts haven’t thought of obvious things. In these situations, ChatGPT can be a great intermediary. At its worst, it forces you to think about and then discount obvious issues. At best, it clarifies the needs into documented requirements. ...

Programmers vs. Developers vs. Architects

I received an email this morning from Brandon Savage 's newsletter. Brandon's a PHP guru (works at Mozilla) but his newsletter and books have some great overall perspectives for developers of all languages. However, this last one (What's the difference between developers and architects?) kind of rubs me the wrong way. Either that, or I've just missed the natural inflation of job descriptions. (maybe, it's like the change in terminology between Garbage man and Waste Engineer or Secretary and Office Administrator) So maybe it's just me - but I think there's still a big difference between Programmer, Developer and then of course, architect. The key thing here is that every role has a different perspective and every one of those perspectives has value. The original MSF create roles like Product Manager, Program Manager, Developer, Tester, etc - so every concept may pigeon hole people into different roles. But the statements Brandon makes are often distinction...