Ask Slashdot: Employees or Contractors? 256
gurn submits this item for discussion: "Here's my challenge, I currently managing the development section of a small Consulting Firm. All of the developement efforts are being handled by contract employees. They have announced that they are going to start expanding aggressively and as a result need to ramp up quickly - especially on the development side.. The president of the firm is uncomfortable with the developers being contractors, while I think it is the only way to get the best people. My thinking is that those that really know their worth and have high skill levels tend to be contractors. What do other companies do? What is your experience with contractors vs. employees? "
Employees are better for long term projects (Score:4)
In one position, I had a number of contractors work on development and deployment of a mail/web platform to support 25k customers. While they did reasonable work, what we defined and what they built didn't really jive in the end, mainly because they didn't come with the long term experience with our customers. Certain flawed systems, most notably NIS+ were used that later proved to be problematic, after many of the contractors were working elsewhere.
My advice is to find good people who share your vision and have the proper skill set who you can keep long term. This won't be easy, especially in an environment like the valley, but its better for you and your customers, and will almost certainly cost less. Don't forget that you can get an employee who has 75% of what you want, who will cost less than a contractor, and who can learn the other 25% as things progress. Employees can be put on-call... most contractors will balk at this.
As for all the good people being contractors.. I dispute that. Those contractors don't get good options in startups as a general rule. They may get more $/hour, but in the end the employees who stick it out tend to cash in way more.
-lynch
Re:asd (Score:2)
Depending on how you structure the company, employees are certainly more loyal, especially if there's stock involved. They'll hang their asses on the line to get the job done, whereas contractors typically -- note "typically" -- have a laissez faire attitude towards projects. This is more a market problem for employers than anything else; contractors typically come from firms that can have a backlog of opportunities. If the contractor is faced with a difficult project, the contractor can usually bow out for an easier one. An employee can typically find jobs quickly in the market, certainly, but there's always the hassle of having to find the job (unless he/she wants to become a contractor).
I've found that a good working environment with employees is better than any group of contractors...
Re:What about you? (Score:1)
It's a two edged sword (Score:4)
More importantly, I think, is that a significant number of in-house development positions have been given to contractors...and many of the contractors are former employees who quit, then returned as contractors. Certainly the company may come out ahead in that they don't have to pay such things as social security and other taxes, nor do they provide any benefits, but the IRS looks very closely at the use of contractors for more than just short-term jobs.
Also, I would question that you get the best and brightest of people. I think that you get individuals who are seeking a lot of money...but they are also giving up security, important benefits and entangling themselves in a potential tax nightmare. Unless you know that you are dealing with savvy business people, I would question the wisdom of your contractors. The pay that they command may be a lot of dollars in their pocket, but when all is said and done, chances are very good that they have forgone a substantial long-term financial gain for some short term money. And that doesn't sound like a smart move to me.
But it's true that to quickly ramp up a rapidly growing operation contractors can be a boon. Just make sure that you're using your resources wisely. You'd probably be well advised for your first contractor to be a human resources analyst.
=h=
Re:Employees are better for long term projects (Score:1)
Aren't we all contractors? (Score:4)
It takes all kinds to make a world... (Score:3)
The downside is that sometimes they find work through other people and they aren't there when we need them later. This has proved to be less of a problem than it might, but we have very loyal contractors because we treat them very well, pay them very well and involve them in the company as much as we can.
We also take on some permanent staff, and permanent staff is what some excellent people want to be. Bear in mind that after the designers have done their design, you need to implement it and that sometimes the 'best' people are wasted on scut work but it still needs to be done. Sometimes people are after the security of a permanent position, and they aren't in the business for fun or anything, but they can be damn good backing on the project nonetheless. Mums returning to the work force can be fantastic in this sort of role, especially if you're willing to cope with them working their own hours and so on.
My sister was a Senior Systems Analyst with a big banking group before she quit to have kids, and when they got a bit older she couldn't find anything but the lowest paying of jobs in the industry, even though all of her analysis and management skills were still completely applicable. She's now the being offered a slice of the organisation she joined simply because she's proved (again) that she can do all that, and because she's the longest serving employee - after only five years.
So: it takes all kinds to make a world...
-- Andrew
Re:Most contractors are worthless (Score:1)
Re:Most contractors are worthless (Score:1)
Re:Employees are better for long term projects (Score:2)
get more $/hour, but in the end the employees who stick it out tend to cash in way more.
My experience is, contractors tend to be motivated by one thing - money. This makes them exactly the wrong people for a long-term project, and any project manager worth his salt must view his project as long-term, regardless of the facts. Speaking from painful experience (I administer the largest paid-subscription website on the www) contractors, while acceptable to fill the gaps in an emergency, are no substitute for employees who share the company's vision and have a stake in the company's success.
"Bring your Penguin into the Sun" -- Linux on SPARC forever
Re:Employees are better for long term projects (Score:1)
As an employee tied to stock options, my chances of those options beating the street would be maybe one in five. The chances of winning the Internet IPO lottery are maybe one in fifty. And the chances of being an early employee who gets lots of options are again maybe one in ten. Add those numbers up and the odds are not so good.
As a contractor I earn 2x what an employee does and I can invest that money as I see fit without being tied to the fortune of anyone company. I gotta think the freedom and money of contracting are a better bet.
Hire them. (Score:1)
I used to work as a contractor and was hired by a company I was working for. It's a lot more stable plus I don't have to deal with all the crap at tax time. I like going to the doctor and not having to pay full price and other stuff like getting $1100 CAT scans for free. I like my 401K. And, I like the people and the place that I work with. I don't have to be a salesman to get work--it's just there.
Not everyone with clue wants to be a contractor (Score:2)
Also, not all contractors are created equal. I have worked with a number of execellent contractors and I have also worked with a few turkeys (the turkeys don't last long).
Who Contractors Are (Score:1)
The fact that code is readable and modular and all that came from the idea that other people would be seeing your code but it doesn't mean other people HAVE to see your code and that every revision MUST be handled by a different person.
Contract-diction in terms (Score:2)
One, they know just slightly more than the untrained people who were brought on as company employees, but often had more relevant experience. This was both a boon and a burden. . . while they took to training slightly better, many had chips on their shoulders and were openly discussing their intentions of moving on after their 90-day period was up. Fine, that's up to them, but not so bright or good for morale.
Two, there is the issue of seniority should they choose to become employed by the company. This has caused no end of headaches.
This isn't an industry-wide sample, of course, but for what is basically entry-level technical staffing, contractors are not the best solution.
I agree with the individual who said that employees are better for long-term projects, since they will have more ultimately invested in the outcome.
Rafe
V^^^^V
Depends on the business (Score:2)
1. I work for the Australian government. The public service has a ridiculous class structure that means that new staff can't get employed at higher than the lowest level and getting increased pay for a particular level is hard. What this boils down is that that can't pay enough to get good software engineers on staff. If the don't have good software engineers there projects come in way over time and over budget. With good software engineers that come in only a bit over time and over budget
2. Software isn't core business. If the had to pay the required rates to keep good software engineers on staff that'd only be able to employ half the staff and the extra they are paying for SE's is wasted when the don't have work for them.
Admittedly there are a few problems with contractors. Most of these are to do with the fact that they don't have the same commitment to the company. What I've fund works well is if you have a few employees on the development team with the contractors. This means the contractors are invloved with the company. The employees don't have to be software developers they can be people who are there for requiremets and for ideas on what is required.One of the employees should also be a manager who is dealing with the admin side of management. This person should work closesly with the Technical Manager who should probably be a contractor. This approach will mean that the contractors work on your site all the time.
The company that I work for has established this method of contracting as our standard operating proceedure and when we bid for contracts we explain to the customer this is how we do it and we explain why. Most of the appreciate it and it helps us win the contract.
dabrig
knowledge base! (Score:1)
that was my $0.02 =) )|(
Contractors are both the best and the worst. (Score:1)
Why be an employee? (Score:2)
Of course, if you have an equity stake, that's a different matter all together; but working 80 hours a week to get a coffee mug and a hearty slap on the back at the end of a death march is for chumps.
Re:taxes (Score:1)
I could really get started on taxes, but I'll save that for another forum.
It depends... (Score:1)
As a well-paid Software Engineer I know that I prefer to be a real employee over being a ho for a bunch of brain-pimps (the contracting firm). I've done both.
One of the best things about being permanent is having a boss who really appreciates my dedication and skill (and becomes addicted to it) as opposed to a pimp who says "your last John sayz yer, like, real good or sumpthin" with glazed eyes. I don't mean to put them down too much. They're often well intended enough.
Then again not all contractors are body-shops, but I've not been forutnate enough to work for those...
being one vs. hiring (Score:1)
however, dealing with contractors can be a nightmare. it is inevitable for a fast growing company or division of the compay (e-commerce for a huge retailer for instance) to hire contractors while training and finding in-house staff. later on, contractors will remain but gradually be replaced by in-house staff (why? because it is cheaper and they tend to do a better job than contractors in the long run). contractors usually do not stick with the project and are less dedicated to it. they bring a very different skill set and might do things differently (documentation, implementation decisions, etc) than the regular workers.
right now after contractors used to be a main part of the team, we have them dong just minor clean-up, tools implementation and sometimes architectural input.
the trend is rather obvious - hire contractors and then train in-house stuff and slowly cut down the number of contractors (not necessarily eliminating them all)
Re:Most contractors are worthless (Score:1)
dabrig
And for quality work... (Score:4)
As an employee, I know that I'm going to be sticking around and probably MAINTAINING that code at some time in the future (even if I move to another project, I always find myself getting pulled back to patch up older projects to deal with unexpected contingencies), and thus I'm more likely to put the code together right in the first place. Take as an example the encryption code that I'm working on right now. I could have just taken any crappy old pseudo-random number generator and got good enough code that worked well enough for marketing purposes (albeit not cryptographically secure, but hey, it's a marketing checkbox). Instead, I took the time to put some DESIGN into it (if you look at sci.crypt you'll see part of the thought processes underlying that design). I wouldn't have done that if I was a contractor. I would have grabbed any old PRNG and rammed it in there, because the whole point of being a contractor is to go in, get the job done, and get out.
Anyhow: Contractors are hit'n'run, employees stick around. You need them both -- the project that I am working on could very much benefit from some contractors for a three-month time period, I have partitioned it off into a number of smaller projects that I can get a contractor working on in a jiffy. (Thank you Unix, "many small tools chained together" works!).
Think of it as the Microsoft approach ("good enough" code) vs. the ideal approach (code that is designed for expandability and maintainability, code that has some DESIGN behind it).
-E
Some general suggestions ... (Score:1)
Thus to keep someone in-house, the project would have to be of reasonable duration and of core relevance to the business with on-going committement, perhaps targetted at a family man/worman looking for stable employment. The skills and knowledge/training involved would require a fairly high salary so you have to look carefully at whether the product would be long-term competitive (forget patents/copyrights, with software anything can be duplicated/replicated).
- Outsourcing for specialised skills that would not have the volume of involvement to keep an expert happy/interested. Also for once-off events like security audit, conformance testing, etc
- Sub-contracting/casual stuff for things that others can do better, suits part-timers who need/like variety and are young enough to travel. You're going to find it hard to keep footloose staff so its better not to tie the success of the project to upwardly mobile people who will up and move.
- really urgent stuff, well I can be cynical here and say to form a subcompany and offer mega-options to attract suckers to sweat 100 hour weeks before they burn out and crash or have an anuresyn (sp?) before 30 but then money is not important, right ?
I suggest that you view employment as being a sliding scale and be flexible in your hiring procudures. Given the choices out there temping, contract, equity partner, etc, you afford to be selective in your choice of personnel.
LL
If you are going to have contractors.... (Score:3)
1- Generally employees should be hired for critical tasks.
I love the people I work for, and what I do - but if someone offered my twice the salary, I'd leave. Simple as that. I have about 4 major projects that would be left hanging, and they would have a very difficult time replacing me. We've had difficulty just hiring some to "assist" on our team, never mind being "senior". Mind you, I'd likely wrap up my projects cleanly, or at least give them a chance to salary-match. (Otherwise, it's just not professional)
That said, if you're really happy with a contractor, and you can give them a competitive salary, offer to make them an employee... it strengthens the loyalty somewhat. Because...,
2- Contractors generally know more.
Like I said, less managment and admin, almost all the major work is done by contractors. Government employees, despite the constant (free) training, just don't keep up. They took a gov't job for the stability - not to spend hours a week just to keep up to date. Contractors are in it for the money and the tech, both of which require keeping ahead of the game.
3- Listen to them, even if you don't think they have a vested interest.
Nobody want's to be associated with a failed project, and they all want to be part of success stories, so if they are really telling you something is stupid, don't ignore it completely. (The same can't be said for contracted companies though... there's less personal reputation at stake)
4- Always have them onsite.
Offsite contractors are just difficult to manage, and communications break down. Simple as that.
5- Make them feel part of the team.
They helped too, and everyone likes a pat on the back for a job well done. Don't overlook them just because you assume they know their contribution. If everyone else in the team got a token, but not them, they'd feel pretty bad. I know it sounds like a small, silly thing (Dilbert-related), but it helps.
Using same programmers for 10 versions... (Score:2)
While it's true that having 10 different groups of programmers for your 10 versions will waste time, as each group has to get re-acquainted with the source base, it still may be better in the long run to rotate people through the project. Why? If you're programming component Gizmo, and you know that somebody later on, other than yourself, is going to have to maintain Gizmo, you're going to think a little more about making Gizmo easy to understand/documented. However, if you believe that you are the only one that will ever be maintaining this Gizmo for a long time, why bother with documentation/understandable design -- you can get your new features implemented faster by skipping those steps. The nomadic consultant programmers will understand that they need to write better code such that the system can be maintained.
This brings up an interesting question: how is code handled inside Microsoft? Do programmers end up running their own modules for long periods of time without rotatation of programmers? If so, this may explain why Microsoft's programs started out being fairly good, with new features ahead of the competition, yet now, several years later, they are having horrible problems with stability and code bloat. One reason I think Linux is so stable is that the programmers expect and hope that others will view and improve their code, so they write it in an understandable fashion. Microsoft code is undoubtly terribly more ugly to look at than any open source project (just ask the folks who got University licenses to see the NT source).
Build the company with Employees (Score:2)
I have been both a contractor and a full-timer. The work I did as a contractor was simple and task oriented. Whenever I wanted to innovate or improve the process I was ignored or rejected. Now, as an employee at the same company doing the full-time version of the same job I have latitude to do what I need to do to help the project and the company succeed.
Looking back on my contractor days and also at contractors now in my group, I can easily say that for positions that the group clearly needs creativity, dedication and innovation, it should choose a full-time employee - and reward them well. As a full-time I have taken on nearly the same task with a ton more energy and enthusiasm than I was even allowed to before and am therefore helping out even more!
If you need people on to help maintain a project for a definite period of time go with contractors. If you need intelligent people you want to add value to the entire company with, choose full-time employees.
Thanks for your time.
theSLEEP
contractors for different projects (Score:1)
so for isolated, self-contained projects contractors might be a good choice (as long as you do not want to maintain it or expand it) while for the long-term stuff employees would be better.
Your Engineers are Your Soul (Score:4)
If the code is simply add-ons, doo-dads, and gee-gaws to what you actually do, then I back off. Frills and extentions can be done by contractors.
But if the code really matters, if you are judged by the application, then you need to have your developers' motivation aligned with the company's. That means making their financial success tied to the success of they company's. That means equity, not contract-by-month.
Building a good engineering team is not an easy thing. But it is absolutely necessary if you want to put out a good product.
I really disagree with the concept that "the good ones go into consulting." The good ones really care about what they do, and that means sticking around long enought to make it sure it works. Of course, you have to make it worth their while. Good people have "vision." They see their products almost as children, and care for them accordingly. Consultants see their products as rest stops on a highway. Nice for the moment, but nothing to invest any real time in.
Do you lose sleep at night worrying about work? I bet you do, and it is because you care about your job and how your company does. Good developers will be the same way. Contractors will worry for 3 months, and then just walk away.
Downsides To Contractors: (Score:1)
My views.. (Score:1)
easy to weed out the bad ones.. Generally a consultant knows that you can fire them at any moment so they generally dont slack off to much and work to make their bosses happy. Although consultants generally dont like to put up with a
lot of corporate bullshit..at least the good ones.. They dont want to be involved in office politics, strict dress codes, and really crazy hours, etc. Generally people become consultants to get out of a low paying gig or they are tired of they previous mentioned items. Since we are in a big buyers market a consultant can leave at a drop of a hat as well. I generally get about a dozen recruiters calling me a week trying to get me away from my current gig. And the pay rises dramatically in a sort period of time. Consultants generally have very fresh skill sets and are used to working quickly to solve complex problems. They dont like being sucked into the corporate quagmire
Now a perm employee comes in two varities these days it seems: Those that have been consultants and are going back to perm employment and those that have always been perm employees. IMHO Perm employees tend to get lazy over the years and dont keep their skills as fresh as they should. Consultants who are going back to perm tend to have a much fresher skill set but eventualy will fall into the same habits as perm employees reguarding keeping their skills up.
If I was managing a development project that needed to ramp up quickly I would Hire perm a good technical lead and a good project manager. Then let the rest be consultants. You need someone who is perm to keep the project alive incase you have a mass exodus for some reason by your consultants or their is high turnover. Is this project going to require a lot of maintence over the years? You might want to hire more perms then I just suggested.. Its gonna take 1-3months for a consultant to get fully integrated into the environment and start performing fully. If you have a rapid turnover you may never get productive. You then need to ask why you are having high turnover.
If you do hire a bunch of consultants then pick the best out of them and make them attractive offers. Remember how much they are making hourly.. you will have to shoot high to get them away from consultanting. Maybe offer the consultants the possibility to turn perm if they work out well from the beginning. If they accept then make sure you offer training so they can keep those skill sets fresh. I wont join a company that doesnt offer at least 2 weeks a year of offsite training.
I dont like looking for a full time job by being tried out by companies but if they make an offer and I like the place I will generally consider it. So far over the years, 6 or 7 have made offers but none came even close (within 20k) of what I was making as a consultant and I wasnt ready to deal with corporate bull. Recently I just accepted an offer to go perm but it was the right company.. Great people, Great pay, Good work.
This is ALL my personal observations over the years. I would like to hear others..
Malice95
Yea I know the spelling sucks.. I'm tired..
Option odds only bad if you pick randomly... (Score:2)
Just remember to be selective like you would normally be and don't let the lure or options seduce you to work at a place that you don't see going anywhere.
-jason
Re:taxes (Score:1)
----------
Web Developers (Score:1)
This keeps the same appearance running though the whole site, and you could find someone as dedicated as the webmaster for slashdot has been...
All in all, i think that if you find someone who is a talented and skilled web designer, then you should atleast try to make a perm position for them within the company... I personally am fed up of seeing pages that have no set idea though the whole thing, changing from frames to tables to whole different styles.
Re:Contractors/Tax In Oz (Score:1)
But once again, get your white pages out and check for you local tax scum.. and go visit them.. they will give you all the information you need
Turnover caused by corporate policies (Score:4)
Point being that it was corporate POLICY to hire kids for peanuts in full expectation that after putting a year of work, those kids would go elsewhere. They figured they got "good enough" work out of their cheap employees, and it saved them money. Their response to the IT shortage is illustrative -- they were one of the biggest enthusiasts for increasing the number of foreign IT specialists that could be imported on special visas. They figured that'd let them hold on to their kids for a few months longer, since there would be fewer higher-level jobs open to them (since the kids are woefully underqualified compared to the typical Indian programmer). That's how corporate snakes think, y'see.
Point: Employers who give a **** about their employees don't have those kinds of turnover problems. You can bet that employers who have those kinds of turnover problems typically have fascist environments that monitor everything, office politics rather than ability detirmines advancements, they require regular piss tests, have dress codes that are more conservative than Wall Street, and require two reams of paperwork to requisition a stapler. Sometimes these guys even pay well, but it just isn't worth the hassle of working there.
-E
Re:Employees are better for long term projects (Score:3)
I have likewise worked as both contractor and as permanent employee, and I definitely treated my job very differently in those two situations.
As a contractor your job is to understand what your client wants, and to get it implemented as quickly as possible. Either you are being brought in to kick off a project, in which case funding for the project is probably contingent on getting a good demo working in internet time; or you are being brought in to get a product completed that is on short deadline (or overdue) and for which every day of delay is costing your client money.
My motto as a contractor was 'quick and dirty', the regular employees can rewrite as needed to get the code base back under control. (Which doesn't mean I wouldn't comment, but when it came down to a choice between elegance and speed, speed always wins.)
As an employee my job is to make sure that the project I am working on actually targets the market needs that the project has identified. Often I am writing the requirements rather than implementing them; and I spend more than half my time understanding what the real problem is, in addition to what my manager thinks that the problem is.
And when I code as an employee, I code for the long term. I've set schedules up front, and those schedules are sufficient to produce tight, elegant, maintainable code, which includes architecture docs, design docs, some analysis of market research, and reviews.
Oops, I meant 2 1/2 years.... (Score:1)
Re:It's a two edged sword (Score:3)
These are the 90s. There is no such thing as job security in high tech. Contractors have more job security than full-time people, because they expect to move around, and when they eventually have to, they are not affected by it; it is simply routine. If I get fired or layed off, I don't care; I just find another contract within two weeks time. As a full-time employee, you are much more likely to be affected emotionally by this, which will delay you finding work again. And if you are a smart contractor, you will not have any pauses between contracts.
Benefits are not worth staying a full-time employee. You can get double your annual salary as a contractor. Plus unlimited vacation time. I hardly imagine most companies can match those benefits.
As far as taxes, this is an understandable concern, but just get yourself a smart accountant, and it is just fine. Really. I barely have to worry about it, my accountant just takes care of everything.
That statement only makes sense when you are talking about contracting for a startup which might IPO. For any company that has already gone public, I don't see what they can do to make you big money long term.Thing is, with any startup, chances are incredibly slim that it will take off in an IPO. For that small chance, you sacrifice your life working like a dog. I prefer to enjoy my life. For me, it is simply a quality of life issue. I have worked the 80 hour weeks. It was not worth it.
----------
Re:Most contractors are worthless (Score:1)
----------
Re:taxes (Score:2)
Yes I know this is off-topic..
If you are a 1099 contractor you dont have to
deal with the whole taxes and non group benefit thing. My last contract I just signed up for
a benefit company which deals with all the taxes,
group benefits..etc. It cost me 200 bucks a month
for their services and believe me.. its worth it.
An example would be Gotham or church hill benefit. www.churchillbenefit.com I have no direct
relationship to them.. just a happy customer.
Malice95
You forgot the pre-tax benefits (Score:2)
At least when I was contract on a 1099, I couldn't figure a way to expense my health insurance. Tax law treated it as a personal expense, not as a business expense, and personal expenses are not deductible.
-E
Contractors and the IRS (Score:1)
Re:Contractors and the IRS (Score:1)
for a long time.. several years and got sued by the contractors arguing that they were essentially employees and they should get all the benefits of employees. The court agreed i believe. Since then you cant contract for more then 13 months at IBM anymore I think.. although this might have changed lately. Might be something to think about if you are keeping your contractors for a long time.
Malice95
Re:Employees are better for long term projects (Score:2)
Also, there really are two groups of contractors: those with a nicely padded resume, and those who are just so damn good they can't be kept at any one place. The latter are VERY MUCH worth their weight in gold, provided your employees are willing to learn from them (which they typically are).
Keep in mind RMS used to be a contractor, and I believe Alan Cox currently is. Either would greatly improve the technical acumen on the typical project they participated in.
False Dichotomy (Score:1)
I am an independent contractor and a business owner. I will not work under terms of ordinary employment, and I am fortunate enough to be able to set my own terms and have them met, without negotiation 99% of the time.
This does not mean I am unwilling or unable to commit to long term support of my clients. Moreover, I have worked contracts which were "full time" for over a year duration, and which posed no serious accounting difficulties for me or my client.
The important thing that you *must* do in such cases is to ensure that there are two contracts, one in each direction - the contractor must be responsible for providing his/her own hours, work area and tools. Conversely, if work needs to be done during certain hours at your place of business, a rental agreement may be drafted to specify the same.
Consequently, you do not have to pay unemployment or FICA taxes, and your contractor can receive more money upfront, to manage according to his/her own priorities.
Re:You forgot the pre-tax benefits (Score:1)
stuff pretax cause you are a w2 employee of the benefit company. You can also do it if you incorporate and set yourself up and an employee
of your company. But thats a lot of headache IMHO
but some people do it.
Malice95
Re:Not everyone with clue wants to be a contractor (Score:2)
I worked for a chemical company 7 years, a finance company 8 years, a contractor to a software company one year, and spent the last 5 working for IT consulting companies as an employee who works like contractors do, i.e. short to medium term assignments for other companies. I prefer the last arrangement.
The trouble with running projects staffed mainly with contractors is the level of management and coordination effort required. I worked on a 15 month project (which originally started as being a 3 week project) with between 30 and 60 contractors involved at one stage, and it was a communications and management nightmare. No one knew their station, responsibility and authority were ill defined (though everything got done due to the willingness of the majority to fill the gaps left through maladministration and make sure everything got done). There were good ideas and insights which went unheeded due to the poor coordination. goalposts were moved constantly and lots of time was spent hotly arguing about matters which later turned out to be inconsequential. Management by consensus is an ideal which doesn't work.
Only use contractors if you can define exactly what you want them to accomplish. Or if you can't hire employees
Re:Employees are better for long term projects (Score:1)
I'm also surprised at the ethics of many of these folks: I am a contractor and I work hard to do a good job. I do not consider myself a project hire, and I have never worked for a client who considered me a project hire after they saw my work. I am an employee who has chosen to be paid as a contractor. I have a much higher raw dollar income, and I invest 40% of that income (that is an underestimate, if anything) to secure my future. My chances of hitting it big might be higher as an employee with stock options, but my certainty of early retirement is much higher as a contractor.
As for development style: analysis, thorough design, and well-commented, well-written code have always been important to me, whether my paycheck was that of a contractor or an employee.
Contractors vs Employees (Score:1)
Those who can't get a job become contractors (Score:1)
For some reason the "hiring process" is much less stringent for contractors, so these unhirable people can make a living that way.
One of the top level contractors told me that 80% are of the useless variety, that give people like him a bad name. Don't know if it's true, but it sure is food for thought...
View from a Contracting Company (Score:5)
Anyway, Contractors come in various shapes, just like the employees do. You can find contractors who will work 9-6 and you can find contractors who will more commitment to the company/work than a regular employee.
Advantages of Contracting:--
1. You do not need to hire and fire people just to get enough headcount for the peak development phase. Someone else handles the headache for you.
2. Although you are paying more than what you would pay to the regular employee, when you count the costs of Human Resources Management, Technical Training, 401, Vacation, Sabbatical, Stock Options etc., it does not end up being much more.
3. Many contractors do come with a better expertise of the functional area you are interested in.
Disadvantages (reasons/solutions):--
1. Loyalty. If you asking for a person to work with you for 3 months, you do not expect that person to be more loyal to you. And why should you??? However, I have seen contractors working for a single client for multiple years and being a strong part of the client team.
2. Employee Satisfaction. When an employee notices a contractor earning more than him/her, it is not bound to leave a good feeling. However, as long as they understand that the contractors are temporary and justified for a particular requirements, AND not a threat to their jobs, this risk can be mitigated to some extent.
3. Code quality. I put that in as a joke. Code quality is as good as the deadlines and/or the application design, irrespective of whether the coding is done by an employee or a contractor.
4. Loss of expertise once the project is over. Yes, once the contractor leaves, the expertise is gone. But should you not have some employees in the project?? Or some long term contractors?? At least one of these is essential.
Othe Perspectives:---
I come from a company which believes in offshore development. We do most of the work in India, while keeping about 10-30% of the manpower at the client side. Since the costs of doing work in India are about half the costs of doing work in US, the cost issue becomes moot. Also, part of the management headache is passed to the consulting company. And since we are commited to working with an offshore model, we put in much more effort to make the offshore work a success. This model is great for large project teams though may not be suitable for small projects.
Anyway, please do not treat this as a promotion for my company. I am a regular slashdot reader but this is the first time I though I would be able to contribute something to the discussion. You can write to harry_ruby@hotmail.com to discuss any other aspects of this issue. I would rather not get company email to get flamed.
PS: I have worked for 4 clients in my 8+ years in this industry and have been involved with the current client for more than 3.5 years. As a contractor.
Do what it takes to hire for the long-term (Score:1)
If you are developing anything that is for the long haul, as Brooks in the "Mythical Man Month" says, you'll be tossing out at least the first attempt. Chances are, you'll be refining, maintaining, and redefining the requirements again and again. And if you want to have a maintainable code-base, it pays to have people developing for the long haul. Instead of bringing in new "bodies" to keep re-inventing the wheel for better or worse.
Using contractors is one good way to find out who you want to hire. If they're good hire them. Pay them whatever they want in salary/wages and benefits (within reason). They'll be worth it. There are countless studies (despite the platitude, I can't name one) that state that the difference in productivity between a great and a normal programmer can be six times the productivity. Good programmers on staff are worth it.
Once you have a couple good lifers on board, they'll usually be able to give you leads from their own network of contacts as to who is available, and who will fit the bill for a given job. Which in the end, is better than trying out 6 contractors to find 1 good one.
contractors != consultants (Score:2)
But most consultants are {should} be different from the sort that most people seem to have experienced and are commenting on here.
I am a consultant. I work for myself, sub-contract out for additional help only when needed for a specific area. I tend to maintain my relationships with clients for years, even if they only have me do a few dozen billable hours of work for them per year, unless they are completely unreasonable or don't pay their bills.
The pay is nice (easily twice what I can make in my state [Maine] as a employee most places). But I don't consult because of the money. I am a consultant because I *hate* doing the same thing every day, and I want to be using and implimenting fairly new stuff on a regular basis.
As a consultant, I get to see and use a lot of new technology, and gain experience in a lot of different settings. I get to work with all kinds of people and different types of projects. I have even cut my rates to work on a project from time to time, because the project looked like fun or was interesting in some way.
People hire me because I get the job|project done and can resolve problems (or better yet, anticipate problems) that leave their own guys stumped, or at the mercy of their vendors. I usually work directly with the customer's IT staff, and am often given day-to-day management oversight of their staff for the duration of a project.
I believe the fact that I work on many different projects for many different people is a value add for my clients. I can't tell you how many times I have been able to tell someone "you want to watch out for X when you do Y" because of experience that I gained on another client's project.
I also hate office politics and the other BS that often goes on in organziations (ever have to chase paperwork for 3 hours to buy a $100 part?). As a consultant, I am an outsider.
I can tell the management or the CIO or whomever EXACTLY what is wrong with their methods or ideas or who isn't pulling their weight, and not have to really deal with the politics, if I don't want to. It is not that this gives me a license to be rude, but rather, an opportunity to be completely honest with them. Sometimes this doesn't go over very well, but often times, they are glad to hear it.
A good consultant should be able to save you time, money, or both on your project. They should be able to represent your best interests in all areas, especially when dealing with vendors and outside contractors. Consultants should be vendor neutral. A big pet peeve of mine are the so called "consultants" that are really just resellers for a set of product lines, and really only want to sell you their "solution package". Consultants should only sell their time and expertise, and nothing else. I very rarely ever let a vendor or contractor group so much as buy me a drink.
One of my own personal goals is to always bring enough value to a project (through cost savings or time savings) that it more than pays for my consulting fees.
In short, an outside consultant should be hired for the same sort of reasons that you might hire a good lawyer, accountant, or other professional: to help you with major planning or processes, to give you access to a depth of knowledge and experience you don't have in-house, and to kick some major butt when and where you need it.
Just a personal note (Score:2)
I've seen contracting done well and contracting done poorly. I've worked in situations where i felt it was done poorly.
Yes, by and large, there is at least the myth that all contractors make more money. This isn't always true. I'd venture to say it's more often than not a myth these days.
I can't say i enjoyed my experience as a contractor. I love the company that i worked for, I just got tired of being citizen 2nd class.
Businesses can't survive without teamwork, and a team oriented perspective is aided by actually, well, being made a member of the team.
Loyalty is a two way street. If you see a long term need for your contractors, offer them a full time position. Offer them an equitable salary and job security. Let them know that they can take their pick, that you don't wish to force them to change the way they work for you, but you'd like to offer them job security because you value their work. See how many of them will bite. I suspect a fair number of them will, and a fair number won't. To each his own.
I think it's absurd to think you need to hire contractors to get the best people. You may find excellent people working as contractors, and better than what you'll drag in off the street generally, but by no means the best.
At some point in their life, most people find themselves in a situation where they realize their stress level, or the stress level of the people they love, would be greatly relieved if they were to aquire a position of security in a good company, and feel assured that they have no reason to believe they'll be looking for work in a few months or years.
That being said, I'm afraid there are too many companies hiring contractors on a "when we feel like it" basis. It's incredibly unfortunate that the lines between "technical contractor" and "temp" have become so blurred.
If you know you're only going to be using someone for a limited time, let them know how long that is. If you're filling for a 3 month project, give them a contract for three months with the option for you as the employer to extend the contract, and give them the option to negotiate to leave early if the project completes before the deadline and they are nolonger needed.
Give them a definate date, guarantee them work for an agreed-upon length of time, so they know when they will be available, and when they should start looking for other work. Leave yourself the option to forewarn them of possible contract extension if the project is going longer than expected. Leave them the option to negotiate to leave early if the project is ahead of schedule.
In short, give them a clear cut, sane, and equitable package.
And lastly, by all means, even if they are a pinch hitter, let them join the team. They've signed the nondisclosure agreement, so you can let them come to meetings that pertain to their work. Let them come to the company picnic, have them bring their family or a friend of they like. They feel uncomfortable getting involved, and may decline, but it's only polite to invite them. Let them know that for the duration of their contract, granted some obvious security risks that need to be looked out for, they are indeed one of the gang.
Otherwise, if you've shown them no great consideration for their person, you can expect them to show you a smiliar ammount of consideration for your project.
It's just food for thought. There were days when i was between "real" jobs when i felt like i wasn't doing all i could do for the company i was with, but couldn't totally convince myself that I wasn't more of a water boy than a pinch hitter.
I feel bad about that, but what i wanted was a secure position with like-minded, team oriented people, and i couldn't help feeling disappointed with the situation i was in.
Some people like contracting. Treat them well, they'll treat you well. When you need them again, they'll come back to you.
Some people are just looking for the right company, or are waiting for the right company but haven't fully visualized the need for it. If you need them, offer to take them into the fold, it's a better relationship for both of you. If you don't, give them as much stability as you can. They will appriciate it, and will do you the same favor in retun.
Re:Just a personal note (Score:2)
Re:Employees are better for long term projects (Score:1)
I work as a contractor today. I depend upon repeat business so I can keep getting paid. (and so I don't have to get a real job). My reputation is all that I have. My skills don't mean much without it.
Being a contractor has greatly enhanced the quality and timeliness of my work. I am more concerned with finding the right solution for my clients than allowing my ego to drive me to what "would be really cool".
As an employee, it really didn't matter to me if the project was done on time. My paycheck seemed to be guaranteed, I guess. I didn't care about the quality of the code because none of the other employees did either.
Now, I am not saying that all contractors will deliver superior work. While I agree with the original poster of this article that the best of the best are contractors because they can write their own ticket, there are plenty of con artists and charlatans in this business that will do you and laugh about it. I've had the opportunity to clean up after my fair share of this type.
So, my suggestion is, if you are to choose contractors instead of employees, make sure they have a good reputation. Know who the heck you are hiring. Manage them properly and make some deliverables like documentation and archives of buildable code. If they don't perform, kick 'em to the curb and quick.
My recent experience with hiring an employee has led me to seek out contractors instead. Man, when it was 5:00, he was gone, even if we needed to deliver something tomorrow. It was a job to him.
I am and I agree (of course) (Score:2)
Everything that I might have said has already been said, and sometimes not too politely. Given that I am a contractor and that I prefer it that way, you can guess how well I like those snide remarks about contractors being ill bred parasites. However, to give it perspective, look up J. Campbell's analysis of the interaction between the nomads and the agritarians. Compare it to the Contractors and Emps. Funny how things work out that way.
Different Question same General Area (Score:1)
I am a contractor (Score:1)
I'm a contractor because currently, I am comfortable with business reality. A publicly-owned high tech firm has its priorities in the following order:
1: Customers (No customers, no business)
2: Shareholders (Only slightly less important)
3: Employees (If anything left from 1 and 2)
To those of you wondering, stock options DON'T make any difference. I still make more money in the long run. Sure, I could work for the next Red Hat, but that's like winning the lottery!
It comes down to the fact that I like what I do, but I insist companies compensate me fairly. If the economy takes a downturn, I will almost surely end up making less money. HOWEVER, a lot of permanent employees are going to get canned as well. As a contractor, I can save for that rainy day.
Consultants are not just interested in money (Score:1)
Re:You forgot the pre-tax benefits (Score:1)
Ajit
Well,,, not quite All of it (Score:1)
They offered me a full time position later
Subsequently the only company I would have considered a full time position at was IBM. The rest usually had some kind of wart that made me wary,,, so it isn't Always money.
how microsoft does it (Score:3)
Altho this isn't really on-topic I'll relate this little story because you brought this up.
When I was in university and taking a program design class, I had a TA who had previously worked for both NASA and Microsoft (not at the same time).
The TA session was on specifications, and he trotted out some of the specs for the space shuttle software. It included huge amounts of detail, as you might expect for something like the shuttle.
After the class, a few of us accosted him about specs. I asked him what kind of specs they used at Microsoft. He said that he was worked on a word processor (presumably Word), and he said that the design/coding went like this:
[0] Microsoft "designer" draws a picture of what the gui should look like.
[1] "designer" goes to coders office and hands him/her the drawing.
[2] "designer" says to coder, "make it look like this"
[3] "designer" leaves office.
Assuming this is true, it might explain a few things
Contractors (Score:1)
Well enough ranting. If I where building a company I would try to hire perm staff ASAP. This is realy hard in the valley. If you can't get full time staff and must go with contractors make sure your contract is well written, wuth clear project goals and make sure documentation is a requirement.
bpennington@lucidnetworks.com
Hit or Miss (Score:1)
I have also seen a large majority feel secure and
just punch the clock.
I've seen contractors that were outstanding, and
others that had resume's that read like a bad sci-
fi novel, once their true level of experience has
been revealed.
It's really a game of hit or miss, I feel that
contractors worth their weight in reputation are
outstanding, and may even want to roll over.
Employees freshly hired, are fresh for about 4
months, then settle into security. I personally
lean towards contractors, but hell let's be honest
it's all a crap shoot anymore:)
Re:Employees are better for long term projects (Score:2)
However, it's never so cut-and-dry.
I was working (permanent) for a small firm six months ago. I'd been there for three months. After a ghastly cock-up (or ten) on the part of the directors which I tried to prevent, I was blamed and given the boot. (Okay, let's deploy a brand new SMP machine as a live production box to an unattended site 60 miles away, when we've only done one day of testing, we've never had an SMP machine, and we're just about to experience a whopping great slashdot effect. I say, "Bad idea", it crashes, they give me the boot )
It was meant to be two months' severance pay, but I didn't see that either. Fired as a day's notice.
Now I'm a contractor, I feel I have *better* job security! It's less stressful, and it's a much better working environment. And I get paid more. And I'm my own boss.
It depends completely on what the working environment is like. A good contractor can work better and be more motivated than an employee.
Contractor and Employees (Score:1)
When you have a company, it does not matter if you use contractors or employees. The company has to be properly managed. That is what makes the difference. Contractors or employees will not save the day.
Microsoft likes to pride itself on the quality people. So why the problematic software? Simple answer, and this was from one of those high quality people. Management does not want to see it. We need to ship product. For those products that are well done, management cared about the product.
However, attracting people can be difficult. Employees may stay longer and contractors and become employees. What you need to do is find the right people from either pool and then attract them using the color of money and work environment. Remember one thing. Often I will take a rate cut so that I can work on the REALLY COOL stuff. I look at it as an investment for the future.
Re:Consultants are not just interested in money (Score:1)
Re:Not everyone with clue wants to be a contractor (Score:1)
Additionally, the best kinds of job assigments tend to be given to the full time employees, with the contractors taking up the slack.
Ask yourself: would you rather be making design decisions, or hacking out some code based on someone else's design? (or even worse, running regression tests). Generally, permanents get the former jobs, contractors the latter.
However, I have also worked at places where a contractor or two makes themselves "indespensible" (or at least extremely useful), and then refuses to come on board as permanent, and refuses to train permanents. Needless to say that this type of thing does not fill management with joy!
Contractors are hit hard by Brook's law. (Score:2)
It could well be that contractors are among the "best" people, and we do occasionaly hire some when we're short of people. The big problem with contractors is that they always come in on projects unprepared, because they haven't been there that long.. which means that the project is hit hard with Brook's law: Adding people to a project that is late makes the project even later. It doesn't matter how good they are. We can hire super-contractors but they're not much more useful than fresh students, because they don't know the background for the project (they are often expansions or new features in old projects), they don't know the customers and their site and other projects etc. We can make them useful if we have a long-term project
with good experienced employees leading the project where it makes sense to hire the contractors, and only if they can join from the very beginning. But we definitely prefer to populate the project with the old hardliners (our own employees). Conclusion: Contractors can be useful for completely self-contained, rather simple and short projects and jobs.
TA
Changes afoot in the UK (Score:1)
The contract/permanent debate is very similar over this side of the pond, but the government, in their own sweet way, are about to dive in.
They are planning a change in the law to say that if someone turns up for regular hours, does a specific job, answering to a specific person then that person should be employed not contracted. What criteria they plan to us is unclear, but the bottom line is that they're a bit miffed at the various tax loopholes that contractors exploit (most noticeably the practice of operating a single-person company and being paid via dividends, not directly). They are having to be careful because, when they initially drew up the guidelines a fair number of other professions were included, barristers and members of parliament being the most noticeable. They tinkered with some of the rules, but nobody mention the fact that most MPs came in via the law because that's irrelevant, OK? :)
In the main, while contractors are probably the best means of getting something specialised done quickly, there are an awful lot of bad contractors out there who are only there because of the ridiculous rates that you can get.
A rule of thumb... (Score:1)
If you feel that your company can manage technical employees well, hold on to them, and "grow" them, then go with employees. If your company can't hold on to both a good technical manager and good technical employees for any period of time, hire contractors.
Of course, if your company specializes in serving up bleeding-edge, silver bullet of the month solutions, you may HAVE to choose contractors.
----
Outsource you're core competence... (Score:1)
That's wrong (in practice) (Score:1)
In practice, Contractor Number 3 doesn't give a [beep]ing [beep] about what will happen after he has left. He won't be around when his poor successor trips into the piles of [beep] that the contractor has left.
I am working in a software company, and that's my experience with contractors. They may have good skills in, say, programming or administration, but each and any of the ones we have here are socially disabled people who no-one wants to have around for more than 3 months. The kind of short-term work a contractor typically does in my company is ok only for the kind of short-term mind the typical contractor is (solely speaking of the company I work for).
If anyone should ever have me maintain contractor code again, I will refuse to do that as long as I can. I'm doing it now, and its just plain sick.
Love us or hate us... (Score:1)
I'm proud of my work and I think I give 110% to a contract. Some other posts have complained that 80% of contractors are a waste of space. In my experience, 80% of all employees (contract or permanent) are a waste of time. Permanents just tend to get carried more. Bad contractors normally get weeded out pretty quickly. Most of the contracting agencies I have dealt with are quick to blacklist any contractors with bad reps.
Sure you don't get the "benefits" of permanent employees, but I love contracting and I wish I had started it earlier.
The one major thing I have found with contracting has been the experience of working for companies that I would not have liked to have been a permanent employee of. Contracting gives you an inside view of some companies and how badly they are treating their permanent staffers. When you take a permanent position you are making a blind leap of faith regarding the company. As a contractor, you know that you are there for a finite period, and if the company is a good one, there is always the option of taking permanency. You can usually negotiate a permanent slot with a good company if you have been doing good work for them.
Besides in the IT industry "permanency" is an illusion. How many permanent employees stay at the one place for more than 2 years? Not many! As one employment agency stated in a recent interview "If I read a CV where an IT person has been in the same position for 3 or more years, I ask myself - WHY?".
Re:Contractors (Score:1)
Get the right people, permanent or contract (Score:1)
If you provide the right pay, an interesting project and a good working environment you should be able to recruit good staff. Don't worry about whether they're permanent or contract, concentrate on what they bring to the party.
Pro employees (Score:1)
We quite often had problems with projects by temporary contractors: the project finnished right on (or slightly over) time - somehow. Then the contractors went away - and administration had to cope with the problems.
So an employee approach adds security and reliability - for the employed (safe job) as for the employer (safe resources).
Only contractors know their worth (Score:1)
May I ask if you, sir, is a contractor or is this proof that management have low skill levels and doesn't know their worth?
Re:Employees are better for long term projects (Score:1)
As a contractor I would only have been fired as a result of my actions but permanent employees go to the wall all the time due to decisions made four or five levels up from them by people they have never met.
Re:Who Contractors Are (Score:1)
Exactly. That's why you must have good management if you're going to hire a bunch of contractors. The manager is key to keeping continuity. Simple things like scheduling the hiring of replacement contractors, so that they have time to be trained by the previous generation, can make a huge difference. Too often, I've gone into a plant with no clue what to do. If I had been hired a week earlier, I could have atleast followed the old contractor around. I've noticed a lot of posts complaining about shoddy (read, Dilbert-esq) contractors, but in my experience, their manager is more to blame. PWB + contractor = easy payoff for contractor. Former Engineer Boss + contractor = work done.
Consider Contract to Perm (Score:2)
In case you are curious, I do contract work for the U.S. government. We work side by side with the government employees. I have been at the site for 1 1/2 years, and there are others at the site who have been there much longer.
The workgroup I manage is a mixture of contractors and sub-contractors. We usually bring the sub-contractors in with 6 months right-to-hire. This arrangement has worked out well for ramping up quickly. (Even so, it is hard to find good web programmers these days!)
Re:Changes afoot in the UK (Score:2)
Word on the grapevine in that the legislation (IR35) is due to be either dropped completely, or significantly toned down. However, I haven't heard anything officially about this, and last time I looked, there was nothing on http://www.ir35update.co.uk [ir35update.co.uk] about it. I guess time will tell.
I'll be less affected than most, as I pay myself a relatively high salary (to keep my pension contributions high), but it's still a worry. In particular, some of the proposed regulations will significantly drive down contract rates.
Anyway, in answer to the original question, I'd aim for about 75% permies and 25% contractors.
Getting good contractors (Score:3)
You can find either. The decision of what to go for depends on what your plans for the future are. It may be that you want have a lot of developers for one project. You hire staff, then they will complete the project, and you now have a lot of unused developers. Now you either have to find another project for them, or fire them. Firing them is bad karma, if they are permanent. If they are contract, then the contract ends and they walk away. Everyone knew that was the deal at the start and they are happy.
Moving staff to another project is harder, especially if you are a small firm. Big firms (IBM, AA etc ) can always find somewhere else. The smaller firms may have a problem.
Work out which is right for you.
Remember that contractors are human too. If you treat them like peons, then they will act like that, and you won't get the best out of them. Its very common to have contractors who turn up on their first day, to be given the old 386, the dodgy 14 inch screen, and the keyboard missing the space bar. The permanent staff have PIIIs, 21 inchs screens, and get to go to the project meetings.
Once there, they wonder why the contractor that they treat like a second class citizen doesn't give a shit.
Treat them right, and they will work as well as permanent staff for you. And be loyal.
Re:taxes (Score:2)
Remember to give your manager a W-8 form, as the number of the off-shore corporation CAN NOT be used as a TIN inside the U.S. (yes Capital 'u')
Here are some links that you will find interesting:
http://members.tripod.com/~fedinfo/tax_page.htm
http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/cases.html
http://www.mind-trek.com/practicl/tl16d.htm
http://www.nyx.net/~imschira/frogfarm/fffaq16.h
http://www.mind-trek.com/treatise/ls-tbj/append
http://freedomabovefortune.com/
Email me at mpohores@sfu if you would like more information.
Re:contractors != consultants (Score:2)
From my experience I find contracting just as stable and secure as being an employee. Usually I'm the one that says it's time for me to move on, not the employer. I've seen a few turkeys get hired (both contractors and employees), but that's usually because they weren't put through a decent tech interview. The employees get a few perks that I don't (insurance, 401k, discounts, fitness center, etc.), but I'm getting paid roughly twice (or more) their salary. I've had my own SEP-IRA for eight years, which, with the extra income, more than makes up for a lack of a 401k. All the rest (insurance, discounts, etc.) really don't add to the difference in pay.
Oh well, maybe contractings not for everyone, but it sure works for me.
Ciao,
Mike T. Miller
(Currently working in Switzerland on a two year contract with my wife and kids.)
Re:And for quality work... (Score:2)
-E
Re:Employees are better for long term projects (Score:2)
As you said, "Manage them properly and make some deliverables like documentation and archives of buildable code". Deliverables are what people pay contractors for -- not thoughtful design. They want deliverables in as little time as possible, which is not always the way to produce great code (though I was always careful to turn in good enough code, i.e., that did the job and was reasonably maintainable, but there was no time for the kind of polish that would make the code base shine).
Sorry about your experience with hiring an employee. But he would have been the same way as a contractor. Blaming an entire group of people for the actions of one bad apple is not a rational thing to do in any event.
-E
If you use contractors be aware of the risks... (Score:2)
BUT, the PM should be aware of the added risks when using contractors. I've seen many projects running into serious problems because of insufficient/bad contractor management. If you think about it the risks involved are most of the time just common sense:
(i) Is he good enough? You normally have quite a good idea of your own employees' experience and strengths. A contractor may have a good reference etc. but some more background research may be needed to establish confidence that he will be up for the job.
(ii) Problem definition and design. Too often a badly defined contract causes a lot of delays downstream when you realise that what is delivered is not really what was requested, causing a lot of time for rework and integration. This is often made worse by a PM not willing to commit to the extra overhead and ensuring there is REGULAR feedback (e.g. staggered design reviews and deliverables) from the contractor and good communication between him and your own people who will be using his module.
I'm sure there are many more issues, but I'll stand with the above two. Do the effort for some background research on the possible contractors, don't take one because he's cheap and available NOW
Tales from contracting land, some thoughts (Score:2)
Well, anyway, that's my $.02, hope it helps.
Re:Situations... (Score:2)
You ahve less than a month left. How much does this job really matter to you? What's stopping you from just saying no?
Companies ask ridiculous things of their employees because employees grudgingly go along with them.
Re:Turnover caused by corporate policies (Score:2)
In short, the H1B's reduce this insurance company's expenses even though they'll never hire an H1B. Simple supply and demand -- if the supply is higher and the demand is constant, then the price of the commodity (the fresh-out-of-technical-school kids that they hire) gets cheaper. (And yes, they view these kids as a commodity -- "human resources", you know, just resources like any other resources used by the business, except for the little nit that they happen to be human).
-E
Consultants... (Score:2)
Disconcerting, to say the least.
I think the tendency amongst the non-computer-types who manage IT nowdays is to view their entire staff as toy-happy ne'erdowells always looking for new ways to spend "their" money. If their staff says they need to upgrade their 10baseT network to a switched 100BT network because the current network is completely saturated, they have the same response as if the staff says that they need to buy top-of-the-line SGI workstations for all of the developers' desktops -- both requests are treated the same, as "frivolous techies just want new toys". After all, these IT managers came from finance or sales, they wouldn't know a network switch from a light socket.
An outside consultant, since he is not going to be the one playing with the "new toys", is viewed as more dispassionate by the PHB. Which, in turn, discourages employees, who then contribute to that turnover problem by going elsewhere or going contract...
-E
Boredom is an indication of inflexibility (Score:2)
There's plenty of interesting things to do within my current employer's walls, and not enough hands to do them all. I don't have to go elsewhere to get variety.
-E
Re:Why be an employee? (Score:2)
A serious problem I see with being an employee these days is job security and maintaining a marketable skill set.
In today's economy, if you have experience as a contractor there's generally no problem whatsoever in being able to get a contracting assignment.
If you are a long term employee, you tend to cultivate a skill set that's specialized to the environment where you work. Sometimes this set of skills is highly marketable, often it's not.
If you are a contractor, you're much more likely to work on a wide variety of assignments with a range of marketable skills.
Often, employers are looking for people who are versatile with skills in specific newer technologies. This is often more likely to be contractors.
Let's face it, businesses often provide more job security to their contractors, who often have indispensible skills, than they do to employees.
It doesn't take a good employee long to see the problems that their laid-off ex-co-workers have with getting new employment to make them feel like they really need to seriously examine contracting.
A laid-off employee is viewed by new interviewers as a potential problem. Businesses rarely fire underperformers as it leaves you open for all kinds of wrongful dismissal suits and you have to spend a lot of time and expensive effort generating a paper trail to prove that the person is being fired for good cause. It's not a fair perception as businesses often lay off employees because their business is not doing well and this often has nothing to do with the performance of those laid-off. Interviewers are often wondering "Why did they lay this person off?"
Another problem is that a lot of large companies have a policy that prohibits their managers from saying anything good or bad about ex-employees and the question hangs out there large. You can hardly blame businesses for having this policy these days as people have been known to sue over what is generally a positive recommendation. I've known good managers who go out of their way to speak in code to skirt the corporate rules to let people who call about the good laid-off employees. Managers have to be careful though, as this is dealing with inflexible HR rules that can get you fired.
All in all, I really have to agree with the Comment I'm responding to here. If there's no job security, it's harder to keep your skills updated and the pay is so much worse, why would anyone who could contract not contract? A middle ground is working for a services firm like EDS, IBM Global Services, etc. There, you usually get somewhat better pay, you get a lot of opportunity to keep your skills up to date and there's plenty of work so you have job security.
All of these forces, and a bunch more, are why "outsourcing" is so popular these days. American business is just losing the ability to employ good people. Long term, I'd say it's indicative of serious problems.
I wish business would get less risk averse. They should be able to fire poor performers, not lay them off and say good things about people who are good performers who are laid off. A lot of this is just the result of the litigious society we live in. Some of it has to do with upper management's current war on middle management. From what I see, middle management is so overworked in most of today's business. They are the first place upper management looks to get rid of "fat". They are not trusted to make fair hiring/firing decisions. If companies had good policies, trusted their middle management and stood behind their decisions, things might be better. Maybe I'm being unfair to upper management and they are right. They just can't find middle management they can trust when it comes to decisions that could end up in court. These problems are one of the reasons that small businesses have such lower overheads when compared to companies that actually have upper and middle management layers. When you don't have deep pockets, you don't worry so much about law suits.
Context.. something no one has mentioned.. (Score:2)
1. There is only one kind of contracting/consulting work. Which is not true at all. I've known consultants that stayed with a company for 5 years. And there are also contracting teams that always work together, which lessens the social problems of contracting. Not to mention the fact that contractors often work with the same company on and off for many years as well. And there are also contractors that primarily teach employees. (Personal note: I think contractors write crappy code often because they are expected to and given deadlines to match. A craftsman is a craftsman whether contract or employee.)
2. Contracting is the same everywhere. That is also not true from what I've been reading. In different countries, heck, even different parts of this country the attitudes about contracting and employment are very different. If you are in Boston or the valley or Seattle, there are a lot more startups and the history of failed companies shafting employees is very long. Loyalty in such areas is very low. Even between big companies and small companies the comparisons and the contrasts are very different. (Personal Note: My opinion is either contract or work for a small company. Contract for the change of pace and the money. Small company for the chance to make something real, be a part of something big and get vested. But then again I don't really value complacency/stability that highly in todays market:) I think people have to take this stuff into account, like where this guy is coming from..
Re:Most regular employees are worthless. (Score:2)
There's a problem with this. Management generally doesn't have the slightest clue who's performing and who's not. They sure as heck can't pay everyone $150/hour, and if they can't tell the difference between diamonds and coal there's a very real risk they'll be rewarding the wrong people. This will create even greater alienation among the good employees, and hasten their departure out the door. Maybe in the long term allowing poorly-managed companies to fail in this way would be a good thing, but in the short term I'm not sure the industry can tolerate such a high mortality rate.
Re:Downsides To Contractors: (Score:2)
Forget conflicts of interest, how about outright intellectual property theft? At one company I worked for, a contractor walked out with a tape of our source code, which as little as a month later started showing up in a direct competitor's product. I know because my next employer licensed the code from the recipient of stolen goods, and I recognized some of it as my own.
OTOH, I've seen regular employees carry code from one job to another and reuse it in their new projects without a twinge of conscience too. I think it's only the sheer turnover rate that makes this more of a problem with contractors.