Reply to: Extension Rate Increase: Ask the manager or the agent?

[northernladuk]

Ignore my last post, slow app. And thank you, haven't seem much humble pie on here

Having FLC and MF on the forums, any pie, regardless of filling has a very short lifespan.

[northernladuk]

I've never used boss so can only assume manager is inappropriate. What else should I be using?

It's just me being pedantic. They are a client manager, not your manager but that's a moot point. It's not the fact you are using the wrong term, it could be you are using it because you still haven't got it right that they are now your client and you are a supplier. I get slated for being a pedant here but IMO it's crucial you know this. If you did certain decisions about rate increases and other aspects of what we do will be clearer. Another example is you don't ask your manager if you can go on holiday, you inform your client you won't be available for certain days.

Get the basics of your engagement right it will become second nature, don't get it right and you are making yourself IR35 fodder.

One possibility to use your example would be the D&C.. If you can make it clear to your client that you are a supplier and you can only do X&Y but could do Z with a new schedule you can possibly avoid falling in to part and parcel. You can try educate them to get them on side. If you just say yes boss, no boss you are screwed.

[TheBA]

Actually, I'll take a cup of tea with my humble pie... You never did actually state that. I made an assumption as you've mentioned manager and big boss but never directly related to you. Still, might be worth throwing the word client in from time to time

Ignore my last post, slow app. And thank you, haven't seem much humble pie on here

[TheBA]

Maybe stop referring to them as boss and big boss would be a good idea. You are making yourself sound like an employee. They are your clients now, not your bosses.

I've never used boss so can only assume manager is inappropriate. What else should I be using?

[northernladuk]

They're not my bosses, I never said they were.

Actually, I'll take a cup of tea with my humble pie... You never did actually state that. I made an assumption as you've mentioned manager and big boss but never directly related to you. Still, might be worth throwing the word client in from time to time

[TheBA]

They're not my bosses, I never said they were.

[northernladuk]

Maybe stop referring to them as boss and big boss would be a good idea. You are making yourself sound like an employee. They are your clients now, not your bosses.

[TheBA]

OK. Not sure that is even a PM role as such so I'd definitely question the increase in responsibilities line.

Fair enough, I see where you're coming from. They described it as a PM role with additional responsibilities so from that perspective I think I'm good.

All that being said I am a little concerned about the whole part and parcel element, I'm running a workshop tomorrow and I've just been told the big boss is taking us all for lunch. (perms + 2 contractors)

[kaiser78]

Speak to both works most effectively in my experience, but start off with the agent. The agent can negotiate, the client ultimately signs off - you can reason more clearly by speaking to the client directly without any yarn that the agent may spin on top.

[northernladuk]

OK. Not sure that is even a PM role as such so I'd definitely question the increase in responsibilities line.

D&C isn't really about following predefined project processes to be honest so I wouldn't worry about that. I was thinking more along the lines of being asked to do bits of work here and there inbetween what you've got a schedule of work for. If the client intend to do this regularly and see you just as a resource even the best schedules aren't going to save you. It will be come very clear the contract is just paperwork covering up an employment style engagement. Just be very aware.

[LondonManc]

I'm a PM on my current contract, but thinking of switching to technical architect at next renewal. Anyone see a problem with this?

Why?

[TheBA]

My relationship is good with the team but I've hardly met the manager as they're in a different location, they just approve my timesheet.

My background is a mix of IT BA (requirements), process improvement/managing 'small' projects of that sort, mainly the latter two. The new element will be hand holding the roll out of a new product/processes and the 1st live run through; testing new processes and finally embedding in BAU with their outsourced ops. So not too far removed from my background.

From a D&C perspective, there risk is that I'll be following loosely defined processes the client already has as a part of the 'live testing'/hardware ordering element that I will be undertaking.

[BrilloPad]

Definitely the Agent.

[Project Monkey]

I'm a PM on my current contract, but thinking of switching to technical architect at next renewal. Anyone see a problem with this?

[northernladuk]

A couple of things were bugging me about this so thought I'd put my opinion down and open it for discussion.

OP should do as LM suggests but...

I'd be very wary about 'increased responsibility'. This line smacks of permie mentality to me and is often used incorrectly IMO. The OP is a skilled BA and has been asked to do some PM work. Something he isn't a specialist and is most likely being asked because he's a bod on site that could do it. You could easily argue this is a CHANGE in responsibilities, not an increase. If the OP was a PM working on one small project and get's offered a massive programme role I could see it, but a BA doing a part time PM role? Sounds like a similar level to me so I'd strongly argue the 'increase in responsibilities line'. The OP might think it's an increase but the client is more likely to see it as the same level. He's not gaining any specialist by using the OP. I'd go as far to suggest to the OP he's very careful the gig isn't going to end up part and parcel very quickly and watch D&C if they are will to swap so quickly. Where there is nothing to be lost asking if the OP wants to, 2 months in and he's chomping at the clients heels about increases where the client would quite rightly believe one isn't justified could possibly backfire in rare instances. Sounds like he's got a good relationship with this one so sounds unlikely.

I don't know anything about the OP's situation so some assumptions being made there but happy to listen to other peoples opinions.

Oh and OP... remember you are only as good as your last gig. Don't let your CV get watered down unless what you are doing adds value, which you have indicated it would.

Make sure you get a very clear schedule of work with deliverables for both clearly documented as well. If they are happy to give out PM roles to BA's I wouldn't be surprised if they already see you as just a body on site so make sure you are covered IR35 wise.