Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 01/09/08 13:38

Steve wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:762dnSn_wNht3hnanZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Steve wrote:
>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:2qOdnc8YBax6JR7anZ2dnUVZ_ryqnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:MOednTchgqpVHR7anZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>> LayneMitch via WebmasterKB.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good luck. You'll need to walk before you can run. No one (in
>>>>>>>> their right mind, anyway) is going to hire a company with no proven
>>>>>>>> experience.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So that's what I'm asking. Like in addition to those languages used
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> web/database development, what languages would I need to learn to
>>>>>>>>> develop a
>>>>>>>>> database like the one my employer has?
>>>>>>>> Any of these will work. But you'll need experience. I've been
>>>>>>>> consulting since 1990. But before that I had 13 years of experience
>>>>>>>> with IBM to show. Even then, the first few jobs were hard. With no
>>>>>>>> experience, you're not going to get much for jobs. And certainly
>>>>>>>> not something like you're talking, which is critical to their
>>>>>>>> business.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not trying to scare you off. I just don't want you to have
>>>>>>>> unrealistic hopes.
>>>>>>> Thanks for your expertise and opinions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I realize that I have to crawl before I walk. I have a vision for my
>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>> and my motivation and vision is what is going to carry me to my
>>>>>>> goals. Honestly, not to overlook your credentials and years of
>>>>>>> expertise, but it was
>>>>>>> your choice to spend 13 years with IBM before you began consulting.
>>>>>>> Your
>>>>>>> companies success has to do with your team, vision, connections, and
>>>>>>> ability
>>>>>>> to sell your services. The first and the latter would be the most
>>>>>>> important...
>>>>>>> team and sales. I've known web/database developers that started off
>>>>>>> consulting with smaller to mid range companies and evolved to working
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> larger companies within 5-7 years. And I personally don't like the
>>>>>>> mindset
>>>>>>> that you have to spend 10-13 years of your life working for someone
>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>> you can branch out and establish your own company. That mindset is
>>>>>>> what they
>>>>>>> teach you in college and it sucks.
>>>>>> That could be true. But in the consulting business, experience rules.
>>>>>> For instance, all else being the same, would you rather take your car
>>>>>> to someone with 10 years of experience, or someone who studied auto
>>>>>> manuals in his spare time and just opened a shop? I suspect it would
>>>>>> be the experienced guy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, what if the experienced guy charged $75/hr. and the new guy
>>>>>> $50/hr? You might be tempted to try the new guy. But what if your
>>>>>> vehicle is critical to your work - and your job depends on it? Would
>>>>>> you still be willing to take a chance on the new guy? Probably less
>>>>>> likely. Some things are worth the extra money.
>>>>> that may make sense, jerry...if it worked that way. generally, if the
>>>>> bids are all within close proximity, the lower priced bidder wins out.
>>>>> same with cars even then. here's the kicker...if you have good social
>>>>> skills and half a brain, you can provide different bidding structures.
>>>>> you either talk your way in (and then deliver), or your ability to
>>>>> negotiate in business terms can outweigh the bid itself. to do that,
>>>>> you start with the old axiom...time, expense, and quality - you can
>>>>> only have two of those at the same time and the one you don't
>>>>> pick...that's the one that will suffer., i.e. a quality product
>>>>> developed in short order will cost a lot. that, ultimately, dictates
>>>>> hiring decisions.
>>>>>
>>>> Not at all. Lowest price only works when you're doing government
>>>> contracts, where agencies are mandated to take the lowest bid (from
>>>> qualified companies).
>>>>
>>>> In the real world, price is not as important as ability. And you called
>>>> it right there - time, expense and quality. When companies have to pick
>>>> two, expense loses out (except for the cheapskates). Otherwise, big
>>>> consulting firms wouldn't be able to farm out recent college grads at
>>>> $350/hr.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> the key is understanding which of those two combinations you can
>>>>> deliver on consistently and then going after the jobs under those
>>>>> constraints. either bid that per hour or per project or however.
>>>>>
>>>> Yep, and clients want to see a proven track record of quality and
>>>> on-time delivery.
>>>>
>>>>> theory is great. the car analogy just doesn't work in the real world.
>>>>> if it does in yours, you've been missing a lot of opportunity
>>>>> needlessly.
>>>>>
>>>> It's perfectly accurate in the real world. I've won some contracts in
>>>> the past not because I had the lowest price - but I could give them the
>>>> best quality. Sure, I've lost some because I wasn't the cheapest. But
>>>> I learned very early in the consulting game not to bid on price. Before
>>>> I learned that, I found I was spending a lot more time on those clients
>>>> who were only interested in price than I should have been - lowering my
>>>> bottom line. Once I stopped competing on price, my income increased.
>>> jerry, what i'm saying is that you're only looking at the quality factor.
>>> you're leaving out time and cost. you can shop in the quality
>>> market...the op can't. there are far more jobs available than you think
>>> where employers want quality and are willing to sacrifice time-to-market
>>> if their aim is two-fold...the actual product, and creating a loyal
>>> employee that is moldable. you may even be hired because of your
>>> familiarity with a business process (engineering, accounting, etc.)
>>> often, especially when prototyping, you want something out there that
>>> works...and you needed it yesturday. in both of those situations, the bid
>>> is terciary.
>>>
>> No, I'm not looking at the quality factor. I'm looking at the performance
>> factor. The hourly cost is not a factor. What good is is to hire someone
>> who charges 1/2 as much - if they take 3 times as long?
>
> since when does a consultant dictate the time span of a project? specific
> performance is written into contracts, jerry. if i hire someone who charges
> half as much or the most expensive bidder out there, i dictate the work to
> be done and the time frame under which it will be done. there are penalties
> and rewards for meeting deadlines. thinking that a $10 ph consultant will
> cost you more in the long run than a $20 ph consultant is not accurate
> math...and a complete failure on the hiring party to protect the company's
> interests.
>

When a consultant does a bid on an hourly basis, that is for the number
of hours the consultant spends on the contract. Nothing more, nothing
less. You can put a limit on the amount of time spent. That may mean
your project is not finished.

> btw, 'performance' is based on what? time, quality, and expense! if i have a
> limited budget but sufficient time available, i can hire a $10 employee to
> produce quality.
>

Which has nothing to to with consulting.

>> When getting something to market on time, a proven track record of
>> completing a project on time is much more important.
>
> i don't think so. when getting something to market, the product is what
> counts. there are a range of factors you're neglecting to consider. i may
> hire a mathematician and pay him not only for output, but to learn to
> program at the same time - may even send him to school...simply for the fact
> that i need an application that uses 4th order runge-cutta to give me
> lightining fast simulation capabilities using state/space variables. if
> there is anyone other than me in this news group that knows what i just said
> *and* can program it, i'd be highly suprised! so, what does that mean? the
> mathematician, with NO track record in programming, definitely gets the
> job...even over the 'seasoned' pro's.
>

Yes, you may HIRE an EMPLOYEE and train them. That is NOT the same as
CONTRACTING a CONSULTANT.

> that's just a 'for instance'. i can think of several more scenarios all
> sufficient to show your remark as a bit short-sighted.
>

No, your comments show you have no experience with consultants. You may
be a hiring manager. But you don't contract consultants.

>> And when hiring a consultant, you aren't looking at creating a loyal
>> employee. You're looking at getting a job done. Nothing more.
>
> really? do you hire them? i do. and, everyone is looking to get a job done -
> it's kind of what companies exist to do. it goes without saying. to say
> 'nothing more' is to think all companies do business the same way. that's a
> farse. the parallel to that statement would be to say the only thing that is
> important in programming is that the end-product works. you should
> immediately think, "no, that's the reason you *program*. that doesn't cover
> *how* you program."
>

No. Bad wording on my part. You CONTRACT with a consultant. Or, more
specifically, you contract with the consulting company. By definition,
a consultant is not an employee.

And the bottom line is. You are looking at getting a job done. Nothing
more. You, as the contractor, have little control over how the
consultant programs.

>>>>>>> It is definitely possible for me to do the same immediately after
>>>>>>> building a
>>>>>>> foundation in Computer Science. It's all about how quickly you apply
>>>>>>> it to
>>>>>>> your goals.
>>>>>> That's a lofty goal, and I'm not at all trying to throw water on it.
>>>>>> But you have to also realize you have competition out there - a lot of
>>>>>> it. And they have something you don't have - experience and a proven
>>>>>> track record. It counts even more in consulting than auto repair.
>>>>> people are hired if they seem intelligent, listen, and fit in. yours is
>>>>> a very traditional view. i'd contend that it counts LESS in consulting
>>>>> than auto repair since a car has known parts and well defined systems
>>>>> that are fixed in a straightforward fashion. programming is rarely if
>>>>> ever, that.
>>>>>
>>>> Which means it's even more important to have that proven track record.
>>> no, it means one should convey intelligence, listen, and fit in.
>>>
>> No argument that intelligence is good. But a past record of performance
>> rules.
>
> please don't overlook the fact that i was clarifying your assumption you
> made from reading that. i was correcting your logical conclusion, which was
> wrong in no uncertain terms.
>

In your opinion it was wrong. Not in the opinion of a lot of
consultants I know - and the companies who contract them.

Again, your opinion is correct when it comes to employees. But not
consultants.

> and, yes, you do think that past performance 'rules'...whatever that means.
> placing employees is just like picking the right combination of db's,
> languages, and operating systems and configurations when putting an
> application together. your 'rules' statement is akin to saying language A is
> the only language anyone should program in. i don't hire people like you
> think i should...i pick them if they are right for the job. that is a
> combination of equitable factors...and previous experience is on a level
> playing field when i'm evaluating things.
>

You're talking employees again. I'm talking consultants. They are two
entirely different things.

>>>>> think of it this way...if i have to fight an attacker who is bigger
>>>>> than i, quicker, and even prettier, i'm not going to win by trying to
>>>>> beat his strengths. less experienced people should not compete on even
>>>>> terms either. people are people and not computers. i can talk my way
>>>>> into any job i want. i choose those that will be able to deliver
>>>>> on...slowly building up my res. your social skills far outweigh your
>>>>> technical skills every time you get interviewed...and, at every stage
>>>>> of your career.
>>>>>
>>>>> you seem to leave that out.
>>>>>
>>>> True and false. You have to have the social skills, I do admit. But
>>>> you've got to get in the door first. And without any experience to
>>>> show, good clients won't give you the time of day.
>>> that's a relative truth and relative false. that may be your experience,
>>> but it isn't mine - as a consultant and an employer. you seem to think
>>> there's only one way to have your nike keep the door open. your
>>> technicals have little to do with selling yourself. and selling has
>>> little to do with showing some information on a piece of paper. if that
>>> were all there were to it, there would be very little need for so many
>>> commercials or pr reps and the like. a products 'worth' would just be
>>> plastered on it. hell, one well known company's foot-in-the-door into a
>>> competative nich was by specifically saying that "they were #2...so they
>>> worked harder" (paraphrased). have a google on that.
>>>
>> No, successful consultants have EVERYTHING to do with selling ourselves.
>> It's about building relationships and showing the prospective client that
>> you can do the job better at a lower relative cost than anyone else.
>
> i almost agree 100%. almost. if one of your sales pitches is 'better...for
> less', then you've missed the boat. as a consultant, my job is to convince a
> prospective that they have to have me on their team/project...price be
> damned! if one of your pitches is that you don't cost as much, that just
> means you lack a skill set or are weak in other areas...at least in my book
> anyway.
>

You don't know my sales pitch. And I didn't say I didn't charge less.

>> But first you need to get in the door. And without a proven track record,
>> you have little chance - unless you have other contacts.
>
> jerry, it's the 'unless' that you've yet to explore. i've told you that
> yours is a very traditional view of gaining employment. it isn't wrong. it's
> just very slow to provide results, and in a lot of cases, it's a needless
> venture. yes, if i tried to get work your way when i started out, i indeed
> would have had little chance. but, in this industry, how many people do you
> know that sought out this profession. in this industry, most of us saw
> opportunites in business that technology could fix. i know several people
> that started programming with microsoft access because they could
> consolidate views of spreadsheet data, query it, and deliver reports that
> were meaningful (and pretty).
>

And I've told you - WE ARE NOT TALKING EMPLOYEES! We are talking
CONSULTANTS. They are two entirely different worlds.

> i'm telling you, if i find a person like that - one who can see opportunity
> and apply technology to capitalize on it - price be damned and experience be
> damned, i want 'em. how valuable is that ability v. a code monkey who has
> cranked out billions of lines of code, never lifting his head above his
> monitor to look around at how my company runs?
>

You want them as AN EMPLOYEE. That is not a CONSULTANT. Two entirely
different wolds!

>>> everyone walks into an interview advantaged and disadvantaged in some
>>> area. the one who gets the job sells himself well and "overcomes
>>> objections" - a commonly used marketing term.
>>>
>> Yes, but first you have to get into that interview.
>
> you've said your work is all referal now days. i'd believe that, otherwise
> i'd suspect that you haven't looked at all the resources available to
> you...like simply picking up a book on getting a job in the current market.
> contacts, social skills, creativity, diplomatic persistence...those are what
> get you interviews. at least, those are the ones i grant an audience when
> i'm hiring.
>

And you're HIRING EMPLOYEES. You are not CONTRACTING CONSULTANTS.

>>> shit, i even had a friend in college who got a nursing job that required
>>> *specific* experience. he was a lit major.
>>>
>> Completely irrelevant, since you have given no detailed information about
>> what his previous experience was, what the job required...
>
> well, one of the requirements was that he had to be a current nursing major.
> again, he was a lit major. his previous experience in nursing was nil. he
> was, however, intelligent, a listener, and fit in.
>

And he was hired as AN EMPLOYEE. Not A CONSULTANT.

> btw, relevancy is not dictated by how well/poor the subject was presented:
> only that the subject presented is in context with the discussion. fyi.
>

And hiring an employee is not the context of this discussion. Which you
don't seem to understand is different than contracting with a consultant.

>>> again, your experience is not mine. my eyes tell me that you're only
>>> using one edge of a triangle to open a door...there are two more. if you
>>> haven't tried them, your revenues - as good as you think they are - are
>>> not at their full earning capacity.
>>>
>> It's the same door that virtually every consultant I know uses. And I do
>> know quite a few computer consultants, all around the country.
>>
>> Those who are successful have good interpersonal skills. But they also
>> have experience.
>
> your conclusion is that the experience got them the jobs, and that they have
> good interpersonal skills. further, that since this path is shared by them
> and they are employed, that that path is the one to go with - such to the
> extent that you think it is the only path. ever wonder why 1 in n-thousand
> people do something notable in any given fascet of life? you know, the 'path
> less travelled' is usually the *only* thing shared by those people, and that
> does indeed make all the difference. i'd just caution that the suggested
> path is not the only one, and that good interpersonal skills have nothing to
> do with being able to market yourself well.
>

No, I've seen people try you "road less traveled". They've gone into
consulting with no real experience. Some were right out of college,
some weren't even that far. The vast majority of them failed, due to
lack of proven experience. And yes, many of them had good interpersonal
skills.

Those few who didn't fail were able to get started with small jobs (i.e.
web sites for friends) and volunteer work. Once they got a track record
of performing, they were able to leverage that into bigger jobs.

But none were able to get any really decent work until they had that
track record.

> i never said that path (volunteering to get experience) wouldn't work. i'm
> just saying it's a waste of time for the volunteer. i'm saying that as one
> who hires people. i'd think you'd be more willing to take what i'm saying to
> heart. i'm not debating you, jerry. i'm telling you that i'm a hiring
> manager for a fortune 50 company and that what you think i'm looking for is,
> in fact, not at all what i'm looking for.
>

Once again - you're talking HIRING an EMPLOYEE. I'm talking CONSULTING.
They are two completely different worlds.

>>>>>> Now, that's not saying you can't get started. For instance, I know
>>>>>> some web developers who basically got a start with little experience.
>>>>>> But web development is a little different, and people are more willing
>>>>>> to take a chance. Most sites are not very expensive to build, and the
>>>>>> client isn't out that much.
>>>>> i have hired at least 3 people in as many years to maintain and enhance
>>>>> our corporate systems. they are mission critical applications. none of
>>>>> those 3 had *any* programming experience. they were intelligent, they
>>>>> listened, and they fit in. they also had a huge desire to do great
>>>>> things. those turn out to be your most loyal and creative developers on
>>>>> your team.
>>>>>
>>>> You're talking a corporate environment, not consulting. The two are
>>>> completely different worlds. Clients will not hire consultants with no
>>>> programming experience for mission critical systems.
>>> duh! i was the hiring manager in a corporation (still am) and i have
>>> hired 3 people (consultants) in 3 years with NO experience in programming
>>> with *any* language. that is the whole point, jerry! and yes, they worked
>>> on my mission critical applications.
>>>
>> And you hired them as employees? No problem. See my post above.
>
> note the parenthetical. they were hired as consultants. it just so happens
> that very few consultants want to be career consultants - in the IT world
> anyway. it also happens happily that companies cringe at the thought of
> being tied to having to use consultans as a standard of practice. their work
> for us as consultants turned out, as we usually treat it, to be a 'trial
> run' for them and us. it has been beneficial for all parties.
>

By definition, they are employees or they are consultants. The
difference is controlled by federal and state law. They cannot be both.

> and to whatever 'see my post above' i'm supposed to look at, i'm sure you
> can see my response that followed it.
>

Yep.

>>> remember shelly? he used to post here? guess for whom he works now? are
>>> his skill sets in line with what i need? i think almost. however, i found
>>> him intelligent, a good listener, and he fits in. sorry, i'm a client and
>>> i've been doing *exactly* what you just said clients don't do. and my
>>> company is a $4B (that's b, as in billion) dollar fortune 50.
>>>
>>>> You are paying someone to learn. They are paying someone to perform.
>>>> All the difference in the world.
>>> i pay for both. again, it depends on what *i* need. you presuming to
>>> think i only need one thing limits your opportunities to work for
>>> me...simply because you think i'm only after one thing. do you really
>>> think your wife married you because you were attractive? <that's a joke,
>>> don't start more trolling>
>>>
>> You're want a job done. You hire a consultant to do it. Would you hire
>> someone with no carpentry experience to build an extra room on your house?
>
> learning to program or working with little experience in programming is an
> apple. carpentry is an orange. if you're going to argue this analogy once
> again, then let's take it all the way. you already know my answer to that
> question, and i have very loyal carpenters who started out doing detail work
> on my house and in short order, they put a deck on the second story. now
> i've got them building mansions on my other properties. with all of the
> wonderful things they've done in my neighborhood, my propery value has
> sky-rocketed.
>

Not at all. Both are skills which require training and experience to
develop. And did those "very loyal carpenters" come in with no
experience? I doubt it very much.

>>>>>> But even then it's hard to get started. You can start with some
>>>>>> non-profit organizations, for instance, and build a portfolio. Now
>>>>>> you have something to show prospective clients.
>>>>> that's a complete waste of time! bollocks. build a portfolio with
>>>>> paying customers...unless you just *want* to give your time away.
>>>>>
>>>> Not at all. That's how I got started many years ago - while I was
>>>> scratching out customers, I did volunteer work. It got me glowing
>>>> recommendations which I was able to carry on to bigger and better
>>>> things.
>>> i tell you what gets more people more jobs than that. connections.
>>> everyone of us has them, not all of us use them...or know how to with any
>>> kind of diplomacy. the last $40K i made was simply because my bosses,
>>> bosses, boss remembered i'd consulted. he had a friend from his church
>>> that needed some work done. that's how simple it is. make friends who are
>>> willing to vouch for you. i volunteer for the priciple of volunteering -
>>> something needs doing and few are willing to do it. anything else is a
>>> gift with strings attached as far as i'm concerned. but, as an in-road to
>>> employment? utter waste of time.
>>>
>> Connections are only part of the equation. Sure, they help get you jobs.
>> But experience rules.
>
> 'rules'...what does that mean exactly? i still contend that experience is on
> a level playing field. since i'm the one doing the hiring, i'd think you'd
> be happly to concede the point. you are effectively telling me i don't know
> what i do know. kind of a self-nullifying endeavor, isn't it?
>

Again - the HIRING. Consultants are NOT HIRED. They are NOT EMPLOYEES.

And yes, I'm telling you you don't know consulting. You may know
employment.

>> In your case, you got the $40K job because you had the experience.
>
> no, it was because i had a good realtionship far up the food-chain that
> opened the door of opportunity. specifically, i've worked for the past two
> years consulting as a second job where the relationship began with, 'i trust
> you because you know my friend, and he said you'd be perfect for this'. how
> much specific knowledge about the quality, volume, timeliness of my actual
> work do you think my bosses, bosses, boss actually knows...in a huge company
> at that? i was hired by recommendations of character and commitment - the
> only real things that my bosses, bosses, boss actually had personal
> knowledge of. you've just made a poor assumption based on lack of
> information. i wouldn't assume you took yourself too seriously there, since
> that fact is blantantly obvious.
>

Yes - you were HIRED. Employee. Not consultant.

>>>> Sure, the work at IBM helped - it showed I had experience as a
>>>> programmer. But the volunteer work showed I could carry that over into a
>>>> consulting role, outside the corporate environment.
>>> i'm not sure how you see consulting as outside of the corporate
>>> environment.
>>>
>> Consulting is nowhere near the same as a corporate environment.
>
> here's where you tell in what ways so that others, i.e. me, know what you're
> talking about. we may or may not be in agreement.
>

Well, you obviously don't understand consulting. From your posts, I'm
not sure you even understand the difference between a consultant and an
employee. You keep talking about hiring people as employees. But
that's not what a consultant is.

>>>> Many consultants I know started the same way.
>>> but make of a very small percentage of those i come across...as a hiring
>>> manager. as a consultant myself, if someone asks if i can do something or
>>> if something can be done, the answer is always *yes*. unequivically. my
>>> reputation weighs into their reliance on the answer more than my previous
>>> work. and, when it comes down to it, i'd want someone working to sustain
>>> their reputation on my mission critical stuff rather than someone less
>>> committed to the success of the outcome...someone with paper-backing.
>>>
>> But you're a hiring manager. Completely different than contracting to
>> provide a specific service or product. Not to become an employee.
>
> wow. actually, that's not a job title. it is a fascet of my duties. my job
> revolves around r & d and prototyping. it is my job to provide architectural
> concepts and implement them, turning them into profitable solutions to the
> way my company does business. i have the task to specifically seek out
> *consultants* as needed to get a working model put together for evaluation.
> i cannot use fte's for this as they are dedicated to standard existing
> product enhancement and maintenance. part of my task is to pick good
> *consultants* that can be seen as good candidates for fte...even if the
> prototype doesn't ever leave that stage of development, i.e. is declined.
>

You're hiring them as employees. They are not consultants. A big
difference.

> i fail to see how that is 'completely different than contracting to provide
> a specific service or product'. serious, no matter what my role in my
> company, you cannot hope to suggest that if i go to a consultant and give
> him work, that he is no longer a consultant if my perspective is to perhaps
> offer him a job! most people who hire a consultant are evaluating them in
> the same light as i...they are always on the look out for potential
> employees...good ones.
>

Because that is what consultants do. And they are not employees.

When you put someone on a W-2, he is no longer a consultant. He is an
employee. He may call himself a consultant. Legally, he is a employee.
And if it's a temporary job, he could be a contract employee. But he
is not a consultant.

>>> there's more than one way to skin a cat...i happen to believe in using
>>> many knives.
>> No argument there. And successful consultants are able to wear more than
>> one hat. But beware those who say they can wear too many hats. They
>> typically are experts at none of them.
>
> jack of all trades, master of none is a very old axiom. but hell, you can
> even make good use of those too. :)
>
>



--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[Back to original message]