Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Gail Shaw wrote:
> 
>> And those few who aren't clueless about the technologies are ignored by
>> management and their opinions and advice discounted because "They're just
>> programmers/syadmins/DBAs. The consultants cost a lot more and hence
>> must be
>> more knowledgeable."
> 
> Certainly the company I work for won't listen to a damn thing *I* say.
> But hey, I'm just the tea boy. I keep the servers running, but I don't
> really *know* anything about anything. It's not as if I spent 6 years of
> my life and tens of thousands of pounds in loans to study computing, or
> like I've been running these same systems for 5 consecutive years now,
> or anything like that...
> 
As usual, Gail has said nothing with which I can disagree.(I'm not
damning with faint praise, I just couldn't think of a way of phrasing it
better)

The effect of these (mis)management decisions is demonstrated by
Invisible. Totally demoralised, he's a prime candidate for poaching by a
competitor that values its employees' knowledge, expertise and
commitment more. I suspect that even if the idiots he works for were to
double his salary he'd still be looking for another job

John

-- 
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:

> The effect of these (mis)management decisions is demonstrated by
> Invisible. Totally demoralised, he's a prime candidate for poaching by a
> competitor that values its employees' knowledge, expertise and
> commitment more. I suspect that even if the idiots he works for were to
> double his salary he'd still be looking for another job

To quote Team America, "**** YEAH!"

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> How did a fool and his money *get* together in the first place??

We call it taxation.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:57:24 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> How did a fool and his money *get* together in the first place??

Good question - John's answer is the most interesting, the other two were 
my first thought....

But if those who the fool inherited from realised the fool is a fool, 
then it could be guessed that the ones the inheritance comes from were 
even more foolish than the fool, thus bringing the question full circle.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> How did a fool and his money *get* together in the first place??
> 
> We call it taxation.

I call that "P3WNED!"

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20080516_004925.html

  There's an interesting point there: If an IT firm hires a consultant,
are they really expecting that if everything is just fine in that IT firm,
the consultant will admit it? Is the consultant going to say "I see nothing
wrong in the way you are doing things"?

  Of course not. That's bad business for the consulting firm. It would
mean that the consulting firm gets next to no money from that IT firm.
The consultant is going to find "problems" no matter what it takes. The
consultant is going to find ways to get money from the IT firm, no matter
what it takes.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   There's an interesting point there: If an IT firm hires a consultant,
> are they really expecting that if everything is just fine in that IT firm,
> the consultant will admit it? Is the consultant going to say "I see nothing
> wrong in the way you are doing things"?
> 
>   Of course not. That's bad business for the consulting firm. It would
> mean that the consulting firm gets next to no money from that IT firm.
> The consultant is going to find "problems" no matter what it takes. The
> consultant is going to find ways to get money from the IT firm, no matter
> what it takes.

One also has to wonder why you'd hire a consultant if you didn't think 
anything was wrong...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>  There's an interesting point there: If an IT firm hires a consultant,
> are they really expecting that if everything is just fine in that IT firm,
> the consultant will admit it? Is the consultant going to say "I see 
> nothing
> wrong in the way you are doing things"?

That's impossible, there'd be at least one thing wrong, the fact that they 
hired a consultant when they didn't need to :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >  There's an interesting point there: If an IT firm hires a consultant,
> > are they really expecting that if everything is just fine in that IT firm,
> > the consultant will admit it? Is the consultant going to say "I see 
> > nothing
> > wrong in the way you are doing things"?

> That's impossible, there'd be at least one thing wrong, the fact that they 
> hired a consultant when they didn't need to :-)

  I can perfectly well imagine an IT firm hiring a consultant to get an
opinion on whether the IT firm is maximizing profit or not, even though
there are no glaring problems.

  In other words, "we are doing fine, but maybe we could do even better?"

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 19 May 2008 02:29:24 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>The consultant is going to find "problems" no matter what it takes. The
>consultant is going to find ways to get money from the IT firm, no matter
>what it takes.

Well I was once hired to recommend if a company should put in the
maintenance module of SAP. The answer was no to the disappointment of
the consultancy and relief of the maintenance department (two men and
a planner)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message