Slashdot Mirror
When Should a Consultant Question Decisions?
bay43270 asks: "Presumably, companies hire consultants because they need technical expertise. At some point (if not on a daily basis) a consultant is asked to do something that isn't in the best interest of the company (and therefore may not be in the best interest of the consultant in the long run). The consultant must ask 'do I just say "yes sir" and go to work, or do I try to explain things? If so, how hard do I push?' When should a good consultant question a decision, and how does the situation differ with contract programmers?"
If you are truly a consultant, then you are paid your fee for doing what your contract stipulates. One of the critical legal distinctions between being an employee and being a consultant is that an employee has a stake in the company's future, whereas a contractor is strictly a temporary resource being used to fit the particular needs of the company at that time.
I've always been very careful to stay out of such things unless they are directly covered under what I am supposed to be doing. For example, back when I did SAP consulting, my job was to devise the role assignments so as to avoid collusion between employees. When some group (I believe it was Finance), wanted to create combined roles just to 'make it easier', I stepped up. My job was to ensure that the new roles had a minimal risk of collusion and Finance wanted to do something directly contrary to that. In that case, I took it to my contact person (note, NOT my boss) and explained. He then had the Finance group meet with the consultants to justify their need (they were shot down).
However, if it's a question of implementation or something, like where the client is bringing you on to do 10 tasks, if those tasks are the wrong tasks to be doing or incorrect - too bad. You get paid to do your contractual assignment.
Look at it this way - the company went out of their way to bring you on as a consultant rather than a regular employee. (Note I did not say 'hire you') There's a reason for that - they believe that you have certain talents and skills that can directly impact one of their objectives. You weren't brought on to create the objectives.
Things can get very ugly, legally, if you and your client begin to act as if an employer-employee relationship exists.
Microsoft had this sort of problem a few years ago where they had all these permatemp contractors. Basically people they didn't want to hire full-time so they just called them consultants, but continued to use them over and over on different assignments. The permatemps argued that they were really full-time employees and sued for a fair chunk of change, and won. Consequently, if a company brings you on as a contractor, they want to do everything possible to make sure that the distinction exists, lest you sue them for backpay, overtime and benefits. For that reason I think you'd be totally out of line speaking up.
You're a consultant, finish your job there and move on to the next client.
One of the biggest problems for any consultant on projects is "scope creep". A good project manager will ensure that the client gets all that he has paid for, and no more. If the fee wasn't enough - too bad. The consuitant loses. If it was accurate or generous, he makes some money.
What the original poster is describing is the "extra mile" above and beyond the agreed scope. Consultants who do this for free too much go broke.
Sometimes though, if the fee was generous and the client is a regular, it's worth it to keep their business.
We aren't talking about saving the world or doing good deeds here. we are talking about business.
The labourer is due his hire.
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
Trackable info is GOLD. Take the following which happened to a guy I know at the same company I'm contracted to:
.doc files .doc .docs .docs .doc .doc
Guy I know got fired from [US printer company], then hired back as a contract. When working the contract, a full time employee complained about the quality of his test matrix, so they scheduled meetings and re-wrote it. Both of them kept notes, and both emailed the other with their copy of the notes to make sure they had all the same info. She complained again, then they did the meetings, re-wrote the notes, etc etc. It went on like this for about 7 iterations:
1)need more test cases
-doubled # of test cases
2)need test overviews seperated into different docs
-seperated into 3 different
3)need more test cases
-added test cases to each
4)need fewer
-combined to 2
5)too many test cases
-reduced test cases in each
6)don't like formatting of
-used different fonts, spacing, etc
7)too many test cases and docs
-combined docs; reduced test cases
8)[yelling] you are a terrible engineer (I kid you not)
-take it up the butt because you can't talk that way to employees but they can to you.
The result of this month of run-around that she gave the guy was that she didn't like him and wanted his project canceled and delayed (ie no work for months) so that a different contractor could be brought in to do the same job . . . one that would do the work just how she wanted it (YES MAN) but with out her actually doing the work.
At meetings with the VP of the contract agency, and meetings with the [US printer company] bosses the guy presented 300+ pages of printouts including each iteration of the test spec, the notes from each meeting, and all emails between them (he auto logged all emails). The VPs concluded that the guy did an excelent job of fulfilling the job requirements, but that because she didn't like him his contract would be canceled. The contract firm VP admitted privately later that this is very common with [US printer company] and there is absolutely nothing that could be done about it. Since both bosses agreed, the guys record was not adversely affected, but he still can't work in her division ever again.
When you offer your trained expert opinion to an idiot, expect nothing less that idiocy in return.
Hopefully this isn't a common experience with other companies and other contract workers.
robi