5 ms·

Software consultant chiming in here. Deloitte is a dirty word that most people in the office react sourly to... This doesn't surprise me one bit.

spyspy 6y ago
My fiancée is a senior tech consultant at a big 4 firm and I can say with the utmost confidence that they have zero ability to actually build things. I specifically watched her project manage a multi-million dollar product for a client. Clueless. Consultants are good, organized, hard-working people but they are not technical in the ways most on HN are. And the outsourced dev teams they hire at bottom dollar will just never deliver anything of quality.
- txcwpalpha 6y ago
  I'm a former tech consulting manager at one of the B4 and my experience is that the types of multi-million dollar software projects that they get involved in are lose-lose situations from the start. They are always high-profile, huge projects that a ton of executives, salespeople, etc all have their hands in, and everyone is fully aware that the delivered product is going to be a steaming bureacratic pile of shit with a never-ending list of feature requests and bugs, no matter who they hire. Then they hire Deloitte/IBM/Accenture because Deloitte/IBM/Accenture are so big that they are the only companies that will knowingly take on a losing project as long as they get paid handsomely for it. And if the project is gonna be a loser anyway, why would you waste your best people on it instead of the C-stringers from your offshored development center? At my B4, the major multi-million dollar government projects like that were basically the company graveyard where you were staffed when literally no other project would take you. For the actually successful and typically much smaller software projects, we actually had a subsidiary company with a much better reputation that would handle the design and development instead of our offshore dev centers.
  - cpeterso 6y ago
    What is the solution? How can these huge systems be developed economically and correctly? These government agencies don't have the technical experience to hire and manage their own software developers and, from what people say, the big consulting firms don't either and/or they don't care. But a smaller firm that might be able to deliver a working solution would be seen as "too risky" to be awarded a big government contract when compared to a large, well-known consulting firm.
    - loopz 6y ago
      Start small and build on Actual success. Keep it inhouse.
    - oneplane 6y ago
      The solution is that we stop pretending that large projects are a good idea, that technology for the connected world is set-and-forget and having a ton of layers of people is a good idea. Because none of those things help.
    - golemiprague 6y ago
      If they got 100 million or sometimes a billion to pay consultants they also got one or two million to pay for some senior developers to work there for a year or two and to be the interface dealing with the consulting company. If I had to do such a project I would hire first a small team of 3 developers or so and task them to try to develop the system by themselves, as huge as it might be. The point will be not to come up with a product but rather with in house understanding of what is needed to develop such a system, what are the difficulties, the various requirements, the risks, everything. After a year or two of doing that you will usually find that you probably don't need half of what you thought you need, other 25% are already built and working and the rest you can outsource but with much better understanding of what you need and how to specify it so some accenture will not be able to screw you over.
    - earthboundkid 6y ago
      Why does the government not have more than a handful of people at 18F? Do they think computers are a fad that will go away? Government should be staffed to accomplish its mission, and the mission requires software. 18F should have tens of thousands of permanent employees.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- blunte 6y ago
  And there you said it - outsourced. It takes exceptionally good project managers and tech leads to develop a successful product using offshored labor. And from most situations I've experienced or read about, there are very few such managers/leads.
- econcon 6y ago
  It's not that they don't have technical people. I used to work for one consultant company like these. There were many smart people who had crazy startup ideas and technical ability to handle the projects. Problem was just that they were very expensive, so consultant company used them to field the projects. They'd send them with a masterbullshiter who would take clues from these tech smart folks and bullshit his way to impress the promoters and get the project. After that the technical team and bullshiter will try to get another project, so it's not same people who are bidding and winning Vs one who are delivering project at the end. Tech smart and bullshiter are used for fielding project (these cost a lot of money), while subservient and low tech skills and low awareness people are used for delivering actual project.

spyspy 6y ago

My fiancée is a senior tech consultant at a big 4 firm and I can say with the utmost confidence that they have zero ability to actually build things. I specifically watched her project manage a multi-million dollar product for a client. Clueless. Consultants are good, organized, hard-working people but they are not technical in the ways most on HN are. And the outsourced dev teams they hire at bottom dollar will just never deliver anything of quality.

txcwpalpha 6y ago
I'm a former tech consulting manager at one of the B4 and my experience is that the types of multi-million dollar software projects that they get involved in are lose-lose situations from the start. They are always high-profile, huge projects that a ton of executives, salespeople, etc all have their hands in, and everyone is fully aware that the delivered product is going to be a steaming bureacratic pile of shit with a never-ending list of feature requests and bugs, no matter who they hire. Then they hire Deloitte/IBM/Accenture because Deloitte/IBM/Accenture are so big that they are the only companies that will knowingly take on a losing project as long as they get paid handsomely for it. And if the project is gonna be a loser anyway, why would you waste your best people on it instead of the C-stringers from your offshored development center? At my B4, the major multi-million dollar government projects like that were basically the company graveyard where you were staffed when literally no other project would take you. For the actually successful and typically much smaller software projects, we actually had a subsidiary company with a much better reputation that would handle the design and development instead of our offshore dev centers.
- cpeterso 6y ago
  What is the solution? How can these huge systems be developed economically and correctly? These government agencies don't have the technical experience to hire and manage their own software developers and, from what people say, the big consulting firms don't either and/or they don't care. But a smaller firm that might be able to deliver a working solution would be seen as "too risky" to be awarded a big government contract when compared to a large, well-known consulting firm.
  - loopz 6y ago
    Start small and build on Actual success. Keep it inhouse.
  - oneplane 6y ago
    The solution is that we stop pretending that large projects are a good idea, that technology for the connected world is set-and-forget and having a ton of layers of people is a good idea. Because none of those things help.
  - golemiprague 6y ago
    If they got 100 million or sometimes a billion to pay consultants they also got one or two million to pay for some senior developers to work there for a year or two and to be the interface dealing with the consulting company. If I had to do such a project I would hire first a small team of 3 developers or so and task them to try to develop the system by themselves, as huge as it might be. The point will be not to come up with a product but rather with in house understanding of what is needed to develop such a system, what are the difficulties, the various requirements, the risks, everything. After a year or two of doing that you will usually find that you probably don't need half of what you thought you need, other 25% are already built and working and the rest you can outsource but with much better understanding of what you need and how to specify it so some accenture will not be able to screw you over.
  - earthboundkid 6y ago
    Why does the government not have more than a handful of people at 18F? Do they think computers are a fad that will go away? Government should be staffed to accomplish its mission, and the mission requires software. 18F should have tens of thousands of permanent employees.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
blunte 6y ago
And there you said it - outsourced. It takes exceptionally good project managers and tech leads to develop a successful product using offshored labor. And from most situations I've experienced or read about, there are very few such managers/leads.
econcon 6y ago
It's not that they don't have technical people. I used to work for one consultant company like these. There were many smart people who had crazy startup ideas and technical ability to handle the projects. Problem was just that they were very expensive, so consultant company used them to field the projects. They'd send them with a masterbullshiter who would take clues from these tech smart folks and bullshit his way to impress the promoters and get the project. After that the technical team and bullshiter will try to get another project, so it's not same people who are bidding and winning Vs one who are delivering project at the end. Tech smart and bullshiter are used for fielding project (these cost a lot of money), while subservient and low tech skills and low awareness people are used for delivering actual project.