Your second point is where my thinking was going

Post #328,544 by drook 6/24/10 3:00:03 PM Reply	Your second point is where my thinking was going Is the project under the umbrella of the guy bringing you in, is he directly responsible for it or is looking to fire the underling who fucked it up? They told me in the interview that they've recently "added through subtraction" ... though it was in hushed tones, so I think people just outside the office didn't know their services were about to be negatively added. The group started out as a three-man department, plus an executive sponsor. That sponsor has been promoted three times, to C-level, and brought the department along with him, adding people along the way. The most-senior person in it is now a division director. They've been a victim of their own success, as they now have more work coming to them than they can handle with current staff. Some of the new people they've brought in don't have the "sense of ownership" that the older hands do -- meaning they aren't as concerned when defects make it to production. They've realized they're at a size they need a formal QA function, and want me to build it. This will mean not just changes within the division, but how other divisions interface with them. Meaning they have to start telling people not every project can be the top priority. The way I see it, my ultimate recommendation will be the same regardless of the political situation. The question is, will I present the recommendation, taking the heat from other divisions so that the people hiring me can wash their hands of it; or do they present it and manage the fallout. In the first case, I'm there for a relatively short time, but then have the kind of resume that makes me a better candidate for the high-dollar straight consulting type of work. In the second case, I find a home there and run what I've built. I don't know that I have a preference between those options. And if I'm not clear on what I want, it's much less likely that I'll get what I want. -- Drew
Post #328,545 by boxley 6/24/10 3:05:17 PM Reply	that second bit I have pissed off people with "the current method appears to have a retirement plan for the consultant built in" during competing proposal offerings
Post #328,553 by crazy 6/24/10 6:26:42 PM Reply	Actually, you are better long term if you present and run the interference. That way when the argumentative hassle shows up, you can explain in direct terms what the issue is and WHY this more formal process is coming into play. If you are not the one to present, then the person who IS presenting won't have enough specifics, so we will simply say: Because the consultant said so, which then poisons the relationship later. I had a GREAT department meeting today. Not my department, my brother's, and the people in on the meeting are at a remote location. My brother presents a project plan, which include the max spend on consulting, ie: me. And he presents it to people who do not like me since anything I do may automate (and/or screwup) something are are responsible for. And the guy in charge of them wanted to know just exactly what we were getting for XXXXX dollars (dammit!). Oh, and they don't like working for my brother, either , so if they catch him blowing money it's a BIG deal. The explanation went quite smoothly, as did the list of deliverables. If I was not in that meeting, that guy would have had unanswered questions,or at least fuzzy answers that were unacceptable. Instead, all future issues will be run by me, so either the system is modified accordingly or there is a good reason it works a certain way. No marketing/management speak allowed. So anyway, it looks like a good gig to do good, and make out at the same time. Feel free to email me more specifics if you want to.
Post #328,559 by drook 6/24/10 8:47:42 PM Reply	I suspect it's better for them, too And I'll keep you on speed dial for when I'm inside and getting a better feel for things. Thanks for the offer. -- Drew

Welcome to IWETHEY!