Re: General Consulting Advice Urgently Needed

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:41:11 +0000 (UTC), Novice <novice@example..com>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>In a nutshell, if I tell him $10/hr, I think I'll be signalling that I'm
>so awful that that's the best I think I can get. If I tell him $100/hr, I

to play fair, you need to bid a fixed price for the whole project.
There is no reason he should be paying for your education.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
For me, the appeal of computer progamming is that
even though I am quite a klutz,
I can still produce something, in a sense
perfect, because the computer gives me as many
chances as I please to get it right.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:03:51 -0800, Roedy Green
<see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:41:11 +0000 (UTC), Novice <novice@example..com>
>wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>>In a nutshell, if I tell him $10/hr, I think I'll be signalling that I'm
>>so awful that that's the best I think I can get. If I tell him $100/hr, I
>
>to play fair, you need to bid a fixed price for the whole project.
>There is no reason he should be paying for your education.

Yes, there is. If a client asks for something unusual, he should
pay for all time involved. Obviously, there can be a fine line here.
I have, on occasion, charged less for a learning opportunity, but I
always make the point that I have a lot of skill and experience, and
that it is of benefit even when I am working in an area that I am not
expert in.

Think of it this way. You have to learn what a client wants and
needs. You charge for that, right? So you already are charging for
learning time.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in
news:16j7d7h73h2qvp70e52801gnjdre709jc3@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:41:11 +0000 (UTC), Novice <novice@example..com>
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>>In a nutshell, if I tell him $10/hr, I think I'll be signalling that
>>I'm so awful that that's the best I think I can get. If I tell him
>>$100/hr, I
>
> to play fair, you need to bid a fixed price for the whole project.
> There is no reason he should be paying for your education.


The problem is that I have always been an overoptimistic estimator and that
was when I was working in a shop and knew the methodologies being used,
like structure diagrams.

The problem is much worse on this project because I'm not even sure I'm
going to be able to understand his spec since it probably involves
methodologies I don't know. For example, if he gives me UML diagrams, I'm
going to have to take a bit of time to learn how to read a UML diagram
before I know what the diagram is saying.


--
Novice

Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote in
news:2fl7d7djdq6cpho3qfqmckjt7h2rjbagg6@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:03:51 -0800, Roedy Green
> <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:41:11 +0000 (UTC), Novice <novice@example..com>
>>wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>>
>>>In a nutshell, if I tell him $10/hr, I think I'll be signalling that
>>>I'm so awful that that's the best I think I can get. If I tell him
>>>$100/hr, I
>>
>>to play fair, you need to bid a fixed price for the whole project.
>>There is no reason he should be paying for your education.
>
> Yes, there is. If a client asks for something unusual, he should
> pay for all time involved. Obviously, there can be a fine line here.

Exactly! Finding that fine line is not so easy. Basically, if someone
asks me to code functionality into a program that involves techniques or
APIs that I've never used, I consider that something that I should learn
at my own expense.

For instance, the project in front of me calls for construction of queues
of files and transferring of those files to a user-selected server in a
Java application. I know that Java has classes for various kinds of
queues but I've made very little use of them. I think I can learn them
fairly quickly by looking for some examples in Google and doing a few
simple prototypes but I don't feel like I should charge the customer for
that time since I think he expects me to know how to do the queueing
already. Ditto for doing the file transfers. Offhand, I'm not even sure
if Java can do a file transfer like an FTP and I've certainly never done
one in a Java program; I typically use Ant to automate the FTP of files.
So figuring out those transfers is something I feel I should do on my own
time.

Now, if the technique involved were a lot more exotic or leading-edge,
I'd be more inclined to your point of view. For instance, if they wanted
me to communicate with a satellite in orbit over some kind of encrypted
network, which seems like something even most senior developers don't do,
I'd be more inclined to regard this as (self-?) education the customer
should pay for. Queueing and file transfers feel too routine to qualify.
But maybe that's just me....

> I have, on occasion, charged less for a learning opportunity, but I
> always make the point that I have a lot of skill and experience, and
> that it is of benefit even when I am working in an area that I am not
> expert in.
>
Do they ever ask you to prove that? If so, how do you do it? I just mean
that body language and a confident tone of voice are all that a customer
needs to sometimes but what if they been burned by someone who seemed
self-confident and had turned out to be a dud and now wanted some kind of
proof that you have enough skill and experience? Do you just refer them
to your resume and references or is there more to be done?

> Think of it this way. You have to learn what a client wants and
> needs. You charge for that, right? So you already are charging for
> learning time.

I agree that learning his specific requirements is something I'm learning
that I will charge him for. I'm more concerned about specific techniques
like queueing or file transferring and whether those should be treated
the same way.


--
Novice

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:13:18 +0000 (UTC), Novice <novice@example..com>
wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote in
>news:2fl7d7djdq6cpho3qfqmckjt7h2rjbagg6@4ax.com :

[snip]

>> I have, on occasion, charged less for a learning opportunity, but I
>> always make the point that I have a lot of skill and experience, and
>> that it is of benefit even when I am working in an area that I am not
>> expert in.
>>
>Do they ever ask you to prove that? If so, how do you do it? I just mean
>that body language and a confident tone of voice are all that a customer
>needs to sometimes but what if they been burned by someone who seemed
>self-confident and had turned out to be a dud and now wanted some kind of
>proof that you have enough skill and experience? Do you just refer them
>to your resume and references or is there more to be done?

I could say that there are similarities in all analysis and
programming. If it gets too far with the suspicion, I would decline.
Trust is very important. If I am not getting any to start with, what
would happen in the future? Working under those conditions could be
nasty.

I had an interview with one person for a job where he insisted
that it would all have to be his way regardless of any technical
issues. Maybe, he had been stung. I do not know. What I do know is
that I was unwilling to work with him. I have expertise. To tell me
that I can not use it in its area is an insult. On my way back to
town, he called to tell the people who had sent me, no. A few months
later, he called me (left a message). I did not return the call.

>> Think of it this way. You have to learn what a client wants and
>> needs. You charge for that, right? So you already are charging for
>> learning time.
>
>I agree that learning his specific requirements is something I'm learning
>that I will charge him for. I'm more concerned about specific techniques
>like queueing or file transferring and whether those should be treated
>the same way.

If in doubt, charge.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:44:16 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>
> Yes, there is. If a client asks for something unusual, he should
>pay for all time involved. Obviously, there can be a fine line here.
>I have, on occasion, char

Sure he should pay, but to play fair, you build that cost into the
fixed price bid. It is not his fault if you get in over your head.

He should pay less that he would pay hiring someone experienced, not
more. You should not be rewarded for incompetence.

By analogy think of an incompetent plumber who takes far more time
than one who knows what his he doing. Why should you pay for the
newbie?

You pay to go to school. When you get out, you expect people to pay
you. I think there should be a more gradual transition, when you work
for free, where the customer does you a favour knowing the work may
take way to long or be of inferior quality, or you make take up more
of his time, then to lower wage, eventually to full wage when you can
produce the same quality and speed as the experienced programmers.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
For me, the appeal of computer progamming is that
even though I am quite a klutz,
I can still produce something, in a sense
perfect, because the computer gives me as many
chances as I please to get it right.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:04:53 -0800, Roedy Green
<see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:44:16 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net>
>wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>>
>> Yes, there is. If a client asks for something unusual, he should
>>pay for all time involved. Obviously, there can be a fine line here.
>>I have, on occasion, char
>
>Sure he should pay, but to play fair, you build that cost into the
>fixed price bid. It is not his fault if you get in over your head.

Why have a fixed price bid? This just invites trouble if the
spec is not firm. I would go with frequent deliverables.

>He should pay less that he would pay hiring someone experienced, not
>more. You should not be rewarded for incompetence.

Non sequitur. I can easily imagine someone being hired where
other consideration are more important than immediate technical
competence. Some examples: 1) The person may be local. 2) The person
may know the rest of the client's systems very well and need this
knowledge to be effective. 3) The person is trustworthy. 4) Bragging
rights: "I was Jo[e] NotANewbieNow's first client!"

>By analogy think of an incompetent plumber who takes far more time
>than one who knows what his he doing. Why should you pay for the
>newbie?

Why not? And youmight be paying less.

>You pay to go to school. When you get out, you expect people to pay
>you. I think there should be a more gradual transition, when you work
>for free, where the customer does you a favour knowing the work may
>take way to long or be of inferior quality, or you make take up more
>of his time, then to lower wage, eventually to full wage when you can
>produce the same quality and speed as the experienced programmers.

Mr. Green, you live in British Columbia so you probably heard
about the training wage that the Liberals brought in. That got widely
abused. And you are proposing someone work for free?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko