2 ms·
> No way will this be as expensive in house. Hard to tell. Relatively easy to get rid of consultants and contractors. A lot harder to get rid of permanent sta
by re-thc 3y ago
> No way will this be as expensive in house.
Hard to tell.
Relatively easy to get rid of consultants and contractors. A lot harder to get rid of permanent staff even if they don't perform well. This means you may need 2-3x the headcount in comparison.
You save some. You lose some.
- batiudrami 3y agoThe government mostly hires staff on 3 year contracts anyway. Not much different to a 2 year consultancy contract, except the hourly rate is 3x as much.
- red-iron-pine 3y agoI got friends in KPMG and they bill on the order of 900/hr per team. I have little doubt the consultants work harder -- they bloody well better -- but if that's 2x or 3x the regular hires is absolutely up for debate. I'd argue probably not. And it leaves out the main point: most of these consultants are blame shields for officials -- "we moved to technology X because Bain & Deloitte told us to". But when you look at the numbers, the spreasheets don't add up, and it's clear that a VP decided this was the course and needed ammo to back it up.