Reply to: Contractors need to sell themselves as a Cloud resource

[northernladuk]

It's time for contractors become multi-skilled and flexible, don't you think?

Nope.

[Bee]

My immediate thought you are compare apples and pears. Azure is a configurable flexible platform and all that. A contractor offers a single highly skilled service. A client either needs it full time or they don't. Azure is a jigsaw that can be anything when finished, a contractor is just a single piece of that jigsaw. If you can start to think like this at all it's going to take bigger change in clients view than it is the way we market ourselves. No good trying to sell something the client doesn't want or understand.

There maybe a few that can position themselves like this but am not sure how the vast majority can.

Any more thoughts on what the offering might look like?

It's time for contractors become multi-skilled and flexible, don't you think?

[eek]

Not the case. My current contract is 2 days per week. Another consultant here has a contract for 2 days per month. It's been like that for years, and the client likes the model.

The reason this doesn't happen more often is
1. Contractors want full time work
2. Clients may want part time or short-term resources but can't get them easily because of 1.
3. Agencies aren't interested in part time because of 1 and 2.
4. Contractors who'd quite like to have a few part-time clients can't do it because of 2 and 3. (Yes, it's a negative feedback system).

The niche exists, but there's no infrastructure in place to support it widely as a way of working. The only reason I've been able to do it is because my reputation* as someone who delivers is spread by word of mouth.

It's exactly how I've been working for the past 10 years. E.g. I have a 100 day contract this year for one client. If it turns out that 120 days are needed, they'll raise the extra PO. If it turns out I only use 90 days, then that's the way it works, and why my rate is slightly higher than the norm. It's a risk, but mitigated by higher fees.

In ten years, I've never had a problem meeting the clients' needs. On occasion I've worked for one client at another client's site, but it is rare that there's any kind of clash.

For reference, my work is development (mainly), tech lead, tech consultancy, proofs-of-concepts, new technology exploitation (all in SAP area).


* Hard to believe I know, but I do have a good rep.

Yep and to do that you need to build up a reputation and remove agents from the loop...

[bobspud]

A contractor that is under management (and control and supervision)? Instant IR35 and agency worker indicators.

Ah but hang on this is the problem.

This whole concept of control is bulltulip. I am controlling a dozen suppliers at the moment not a single one of them is free to do as they wish. I have detailed what I want, when i want it, the standard it is to be delivered against and why to all of them.

If control is a real concept then there are a number of large organisations that need to yield to my requests and thus are in the same legal boat as a one man band.

i.e you are not a business you are being controlled and so we need to treat this as we are paying the person doing it as an employee...

[NotAllThere]

...A client either needs it full time or they don't....

Not the case. My current contract is 2 days per week. Another consultant here has a contract for 2 days per month. It's been like that for years, and the client likes the model.

The reason this doesn't happen more often is
1. Contractors want full time work
2. Clients may want part time or short-term resources but can't get them easily because of 1.
3. Agencies aren't interested in part time because of 1 and 2.
4. Contractors who'd quite like to have a few part-time clients can't do it because of 2 and 3. (Yes, it's a negative feedback system).

The niche exists, but there's no infrastructure in place to support it widely as a way of working. The only reason I've been able to do it is because my reputation* as someone who delivers is spread by word of mouth.

Sounds like you are proposing a retainer/demand based contract.

It's exactly how I've been working for the past 10 years. E.g. I have a 100 day contract this year for one client. If it turns out that 120 days are needed, they'll raise the extra PO. If it turns out I only use 90 days, then that's the way it works, and why my rate is slightly higher than the norm. It's a risk, but mitigated by higher fees.

In ten years, I've never had a problem meeting the clients' needs. On occasion I've worked for one client at another client's site, but it is rare that there's any kind of clash.

For reference, my work is development (mainly), tech lead, tech consultancy, proofs-of-concepts, new technology exploitation (all in SAP area).


* Hard to believe I know, but I do have a good rep.

[bobspud]

I think that we need to look beyond IR35, to see ourselves as working beyond that and to show companies that contractors are still a valuable resource.

As I'm in a project building a new cloud environment for a client, it's suddenly occurred to us that contractors need to sell themselves in the same way that Microsoft sells Azure - "Scale when you need to, pay as you go".

Companies are beginning to understand that benefits of cloud computing rather than resent it, we need them to feel the same about contracting.

What do you think?

I think what you are really looking for is CAAS some examples include:
I need a design for an exchange environment
I need someone to document process X
I would like to understand my building infrastructure to understand IoT risk

in all of those cases a decent contractor should be able to say that will be between £5k and £100k

However the part where most customers fall over is when you say but I'm not sitting in your office for 40 hours a week and I'm not telling you who's doing the work.

That fee buys a document on x date and I will call your staff to arrange knowledge share.

[m0n1k3r]

Managed Service?

A contractor that is under management (and control and supervision)? Instant IR35 and agency worker indicators.

[m0n1k3r]

I think that we need to look beyond IR35, to see ourselves as working beyond that and to show companies that contractors are still a valuable resource.

As I'm in a project building a new cloud environment for a client, it's suddenly occurred to us that contractors need to sell themselves in the same way that Microsoft sells Azure - "Scale when you need to, pay as you go".

Companies are beginning to understand that benefits of cloud computing rather than resent it, we need them to feel the same about contracting.

What do you think?

The difference is that of "personal service".

[Semtex]

Managed Service?

[LondonManc]

Yes but you know what the problem is ? The radiation can get from below therefore making your hat a radiation container, totally reversing the intended effect. I bet you don't mention that on your advertising :P

How many do you want?

[SueEllen]

Me too.

And remember, this isn't General....

Sorry.

I've got more work since cloud computing came in.

[cojak]

Same here, especially for clients in regulated markets.

It may be killing the operations side of things but you still need people who understand it to assess the security implications and do your due diligence and risk management for you.

No, it's not killing the operations market, but it is forcing Ops bods to re-skill quickly.

And good Capacity/Demand and IT finance people will be able to name their own price shortly...

[cojak]

Really? Cloud computing is changing the market and providing me with plenty (in fact far too many) opportunities...

Me too.

And remember, this isn't General....

[DaveB]

Really? Cloud computing is changing the market and providing me with plenty (in fact far too many) opportunities...

Same here, especially for clients in regulated markets.

It may be killing the operations side of things but you still need people who understand it to assess the security implications and do your due diligence and risk management for you.

[europetractor]

My plan B of selling tin foil hats is doing very well though.

Yes but you know what the problem is ? The radiation can get from below therefore making your hat a radiation container, totally reversing the intended effect. I bet you don't mention that on your advertising :P