NYCPHP Meetup

[Francisco Reyes]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, inforequest wrote:

> I disagree about the risk part. If the consultant takes on too much risk, 
> such as
> might happen with a loosely-defined,  fixed-price project, it is risky for 
> the client. In that case, who took on the risk?

I need to better qualify my statement..
I was refering to risk related to money paid to the consultant(s).. ie 
whether the consultant can loose money or the company can loose the money 
paid for the work.. or overpay for the work...

There IS risk on all projects for the client outside of just the cost of the 
project. Business disruption, loosing customers because the system 
malfunctions, etc..

> It costs money to make careful, detailed specs.

That's something I am doing more of.. Ask for a fee for a detailed analysis. 
I explain to the client that whether I do the project or someone else this 
analysis will be helpfull.


> Also detailed, careful specs preclude much of the creative/techno-creative 
> input a consultant
> can have. If bound to a spec, then sure -- it goes well, but many
> consultants want to contribute creative solutions and not just code to 
> specs.

My personal biggest problem has been getting to talk to the right people at 
the client side. You may be delegated to work with a small set of people or 
just and individual and that person may not understand completely what needs 
to be done.

> Bottom line is satisfy the client, no?

Absolutely.

> If the client knows what she wants, then do the work for hire. If the 
> client doesn't, then help her define it, for hire, or perhaps choose
> to limit your scope of involvement until the project is well-defined.

Exactly.

> As a hirer/manager I prefer to pay hourly rate for technical services,
> commensurate with knowledge, skills, and experience.

Not always possible if there is a budget for a project. They simply have to 
get the best person they can within the budget.