Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wanted to start this thread as a way to get some info from people who have had experiences (in an IT role) working in both a consulting and non-consulting capacity.
A little of my backstory. I'm a BI Developer/Data Analytics guru (lots of sql, microsoft stack and tableau type stuff) and currently work for a tech consulting company. Every previous work experience of mine has been non-consulting work (as in my last company was in the produce industry and the previous two were in healthcare). I left each company with an aspiration to learn more and grow which lead me into working for a consulting company.
My thought was that being in consulting would constantly give me more exposure to new technology, new problems to solve, etc. And while there are aspects that I do enjoy about this role, there are other aspects that I didn't anticipate that have taken more time to adjust to (tracking time per project specifically).
Was hoping to get some feedback from people who have been on both sides of the fence and what experience they have had. Thanks.
I've never worked in a consulting role, but I've been on vendor and customer side. Most every shop has detailed project time tracking, even for internal projects. I always make sure my time is tracked to specific activities to "remain billable," even though I'm supporting efforts internal to the company.
Wanted to start this thread as a way to get some info from people who have had experiences (in an IT role) working in both a consulting and non-consulting capacity.
A little of my backstory. I'm a BI Developer/Data Analytics guru (lots of sql, microsoft stack and tableau type stuff) and currently work for a tech consulting company. Every previous work experience of mine has been non-consulting work (as in my last company was in the produce industry and the previous two were in healthcare). I left each company with an aspiration to learn more and grow which lead me into working for a consulting company.
My thought was that being in consulting would constantly give me more exposure to new technology, new problems to solve, etc. And while there are aspects that I do enjoy about this role, there are other aspects that I didn't anticipate that have taken more time to adjust to (tracking time per project specifically).
Was hoping to get some feedback from people who have been on both sides of the fence and what experience they have had. Thanks.
Contracts have a time sheet, and we assign a project number for them to put down their hours for. I never heard any complaints about doing this.
Doing contracting for the right type of work and companies, can certainly add to your experience level and be involved in the latest/greatest stuff. But sometimes contractors are hired to take over a legacy system which is on its way out in the short-term, and it may include much more mature technology. It greatly depends on the company and what they need done. Sometimes no one wants to work on the mature technology, so they use contractors for that. Other times they use their lower paid staff to take over mature technology and use the higher priced contractors to work on the cutting-edge stuff.
I know many people who do contracting as a career. They work as W2 contractors through different contract houses (aka staffing firms) and they are free to move from one project to another at other companies and return to work there again. In general, the contractors for much of IT work need to keep their skills sharp, while some of the direct employees tend to only stick with what they know.
Been in both across my career - albeit more on the Network/cybersecurity side vs. business intelligence.
Consulting definitely takes getting used to. Not to mention the type of industry you are consulting for will make a difference as well. Commercial consulting is very different compared to consulting in the Federal space. And obviously technical work is going to be different from advisory/business process.
At the end of the day - what makes me love/hate consulting is primarily the employer and client (duh - right?). Yes, timekeeping is a pain (especially when clients want extremely detailed billing statements), admin work sucks, but nothing is worse than having a client that just wants to fight you all the time or an employer that doesn't provide the support you may need. And as always, some clients have more money than others. So you feel bad when you know there are things they absolutely need/should have, but the area you are supporting is simply not prioritized (see this a lot from an Information Security perspective - no one cares until something happens). And finally, in the consulting world, you are always trying to make a name for yourself and get leads on other projects. Because you know being on the bench too long means you may be looking for another job.
On the flip side, FTE work can get boring and, especially in IT, you often feel the world is leaving you behind. However, you are pretty confident that the paycheck will be there as long as you don't really screw up. And you are on the other side of the table when it comes to vendors/consultants, so you get to enjoy some good sales meals, seminars at Mortons/Capital Grill, and goodies they push your way.
Bottom line - the people you are working for/with is what makes it good/bad. Not necessarily what you are doing. For me, unless I'm being recruited by former colleagues, I mainly left jobs mainly because of the people vs. the job.
I do feel Federal consulting is a good blend of both. You can have a primary gig that you know you'll have for at least five years. But you often have options to pick-up shorter terms gigs that can help keep your skills sharp or do something interesting. And if you really like your client (and them you), you likely will have the option to just stay on the contract even if someone else wins the contract the next time around.
Been in both across my career - albeit more on the Network/cybersecurity side vs. business intelligence.
Consulting definitely takes getting used to. Not to mention the type of industry you are consulting for will make a difference as well. Commercial consulting is very different compared to consulting in the Federal space. And obviously technical work is going to be different from advisory/business process.
At the end of the day - what makes me love/hate consulting is primarily the employer and client (duh - right?). Yes, timekeeping is a pain (especially when clients want extremely detailed billing statements), admin work sucks, but nothing is worse than having a client that just wants to fight you all the time or an employer that doesn't provide the support you may need. And as always, some clients have more money than others. So you feel bad when you know there are things they absolutely need/should have, but the area you are supporting is simply not prioritized (see this a lot from an Information Security perspective - no one cares until something happens). And finally, in the consulting world, you are always trying to make a name for yourself and get leads on other projects. Because you know being on the bench too long means you may be looking for another job.
On the flip side, FTE work can get boring and, especially in IT, you often feel the world is leaving you behind. However, you are pretty confident that the paycheck will be there as long as you don't really screw up. And you are on the other side of the table when it comes to vendors/consultants, so you get to enjoy some good sales meals, seminars at Mortons/Capital Grill, and goodies they push your way.
Bottom line - the people you are working for/with is what makes it good/bad. Not necessarily what you are doing. For me, unless I'm being recruited by former colleagues, I mainly left jobs mainly because of the people vs. the job.
I do feel Federal consulting is a good blend of both. You can have a primary gig that you know you'll have for at least five years. But you often have options to pick-up shorter terms gigs that can help keep your skills sharp or do something interesting. And if you really like your client (and them you), you likely will have the option to just stay on the contract even if someone else wins the contract the next time around.
Why are people getting hung up on billing?
I talked to my manager and ultimately the entire team about billability a few weeks ago. We want to book our time to individual trouble tickets or projects we work on. Just because we work for internal customers doesn't mean the billability argument goes away.
You're a billable resource in IT anywhere you go. You're a damn cost center that doesn't produce revenue.
I talked to my manager and ultimately the entire team about billability a few weeks ago. We want to book our time to individual trouble tickets or projects we work on. Just because we work for internal customers doesn't mean the billability argument goes away.
You're a billable resource in IT anywhere you go. You're a damn cost center that doesn't produce revenue.
True, but depending on the position you hold in IT and the organization, recording your billability could look completely different. For example, my last two companies were smaller/mid-sized companies. I was considered billable 100% of the time. Therefore I never recorded my time and was never expected to. I just worked on whatever task needed done and made sure any project work was completed on time. No one tracked my ticket time or how much time I spent on x, y or z.
Now I get if you work in a help desk position where all you do is address tickets then it might be different, and I've been in such positions where I did have to record my time, to an extent. But being it that my previous positions required no time entry and leadership trusted that we were getting project work done when it needed to be done, it's an adjustment to actually have to track every task and how long it takes (in 15min increments). I suppose if every company you worked for required this then it would be no big deal.
Been in both across my career - albeit more on the Network/cybersecurity side vs. business intelligence.
Consulting definitely takes getting used to. Not to mention the type of industry you are consulting for will make a difference as well. Commercial consulting is very different compared to consulting in the Federal space. And obviously technical work is going to be different from advisory/business process.
At the end of the day - what makes me love/hate consulting is primarily the employer and client (duh - right?). Yes, timekeeping is a pain (especially when clients want extremely detailed billing statements), admin work sucks, but nothing is worse than having a client that just wants to fight you all the time or an employer that doesn't provide the support you may need. And as always, some clients have more money than others. So you feel bad when you know there are things they absolutely need/should have, but the area you are supporting is simply not prioritized (see this a lot from an Information Security perspective - no one cares until something happens). And finally, in the consulting world, you are always trying to make a name for yourself and get leads on other projects. Because you know being on the bench too long means you may be looking for another job.
On the flip side, FTE work can get boring and, especially in IT, you often feel the world is leaving you behind. However, you are pretty confident that the paycheck will be there as long as you don't really screw up. And you are on the other side of the table when it comes to vendors/consultants, so you get to enjoy some good sales meals, seminars at Mortons/Capital Grill, and goodies they push your way.
Bottom line - the people you are working for/with is what makes it good/bad. Not necessarily what you are doing. For me, unless I'm being recruited by former colleagues, I mainly left jobs mainly because of the people vs. the job.
I do feel Federal consulting is a good blend of both. You can have a primary gig that you know you'll have for at least five years. But you often have options to pick-up shorter terms gigs that can help keep your skills sharp or do something interesting. And if you really like your client (and them you), you likely will have the option to just stay on the contract even if someone else wins the contract the next time around.
Your post pretty much explains how I feel or what I've experienced thus far (with the exception that I've never been in federal consulting).
20+ years of IT experience. Pretty much 10 years of FT and 10+ years of consulting. I can't go back to FT anymore, especially if you're older and wiser.
There was a time before the ACA was enacted where consultants are driving BMWs and even Ferraris. Because health insurance was cheap before ACA. That's why I don't like to call it Affordable care, it's simply a tax on working people so the poor gets affordable care. It punishes workers especially gig and freelancers.
I've been consulting for so long, the primary reason I prefer contract is freedom and more focus on your specialization and craft. If you go FT, eventually companies gonna add work that is less preferred or not focused on your specialization. After all most developers eventually become expensive paper pushers than actual work.
If you aspire to climb the corporate ladder and get a semi golden parachute then you should strive to get hired at top tier consulting or tech company then play the Game of Thrones game at every corporate job.
If you pursue your own craft or specialization then you need to be the top of the game and provide value to your clients so you can keep padding your billing rates and have exclusivity with clients. Most companies today if they find consultants that can deliver on a niche role or task they don't hesistate and just keep paying as long as their business is going.
There was a time before the ACA was enacted where consultants are driving BMWs and even Ferraris. Because health insurance was cheap before ACA. That's why I don't like to call it Affordable care, it's simply a tax on working people so the poor gets affordable care. It punishes workers especially gig and freelancers.
So because you have to pay a little more for health insurance, you can't drive a BMW or Ferrari any longer? That's bogus. It is the employers that are not paying enough, has nothing to do with ACA. ACA wisely reduces the cost for the working poor because their employers refuse to pay more than the required 10% for the health insurance premiums for them. Without ACA a full-time janitor making $40K or less a year couldn't pay out of pocket for the $12K a year of the health insurance, so ACA rescued them to pay what they can afford. You can afford health insurance, you just don't like paying for it. Ferrari, give us a break.
So because you have to pay a little more for health insurance, you can't drive a BMW or Ferrari any longer? That's bogus. It is the employers that are not paying enough, has nothing to do with ACA. ACA wisely reduces the cost for the working poor because their employers refuse to pay more than the required 10% for the health insurance premiums for them. Without ACA a full-time janitor making $40K or less a year couldn't pay out of pocket for the $12K a year of the health insurance, so ACA rescued them to pay what they can afford. You can afford health insurance, you just don't like paying for it. Ferrari, give us a break.
So you basically what you're stating:
- It was ok for a Janitor to get helped by the taxpayers because he/she can't afford insurance.
- And it's ok to jack up the rates of other taxpayers to pay for the poor.
Before the ACA, health insurance was relatively affordable for all. The only problem was that people who had underlying conditions could not get insurance. The ACA basically forced health insurance companies to take on all unhealthy people that could not get insurance affordably by nominalizing the cost for them.
This has nothing to do with how much people make. The price of health insurance should be relative to the cost of providing care at each state and city. There should be no sliding scale of cost for rich or poor everyone should pay their share and that's what the ACA stood for but did not execute.
Fortunately now we can opt out and not pay a ridiculous fine which reinforces my claim that it is just a tax. Now it's optional and in a few years there will be another showdown for reforming ACA or repealing because the cost of healthcare is spiking and the government is doing all the wrong things to try to control it. They should've never passed the ACA without a proper study on how the healthcare system works in America.
Just like you have no idea how the healthcare system works. I do because I had one hand experience working with health insurance and providers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
