Discussion on:

IT Consultants: A waste of money?

What do you think? Perhaps some IT consultants, or vendors with involved in some role in consulting would care to comment. Alternatively, if you have experience working with such vendors, do feel free to give your two cents too.

I've worked as a consultant.

The expectation is always that you must hit the ground running, come in the door better than most employees and be working every second you are on the premises.

You are treated like meat, you usually have a different colored ID badge, and restricted access.

One project I was on was delayed for two hours because we had another consultant visiting from another site who did not have access to our building. We had to wait until full time employee manager got out of a meeting to sign him in.

The environment, and the way you're treated as a consultant BREEDS a more mercenary attitude. Of COURSE you are going to be looking after #1 all the time because:

1)You can be fired at any time without notice.
2)If you're not W-2, you will not be able to collect unemployment insurance.
3)Your skillsets tend to rot because you're not going to be working on new technologies, only ones you are 'expert' in.
4)You have to plan to be unemployed 6 mos out of the year. (might not happen, but you need to plan)
5)You get little or no respect, go in turn you're not inclined to give much.

Richard_RPU has it 100% correct. I have been working as an IT contractor/consultant for going on 9 years. I have worked for large corporations, small companies, the military, and the federal government. The ONLY time I wasn't treated like a subhuman temp worker was when I worked for Oliver Creative, a small web design & advertising company -- and I think part of the reason for that is because I helped them out of a tight spot, and that they were paying me double what their in-house developers got paid.

All five of Richard-RPU's observations are dead-on, in my experience.

It 100% correct.
Mark - http://www.paroles32.com/paroles/a.php
http://www.paroles32.com/paroles/b.php
The IRS definition of an independent contractor / consultant is based on various court decisions and IRS rulings. To determine the status of a person

I'm a consultant. Yes, consultants can be a waste of time - if the client doesn't know what they want, doesn't provide a clear scope and brief, and doesn't act on recommendations. What do you want? The big name to impress stakeholders, or the niche consultant who actually understand the issues and can respond to them? Guru, honest evaluation and recommendations, yes man or simply extra resource? Clients who have analyzed their requirements, employed the right type of consultant and act on the recommendations gain value. Those who don't. don't.

I think the analogy best describes part of the bad-rap consultants get.

I have NEVER been brought into a project that was well funded, scoped, resourced and managed.

EVERY last time I was called in on a project one or more or ALL applied.

1)Scope creep had taken the project to wild proportions, management in a panic had hired warm bodies to get it under control. As it was panic-hiring, close controls were not maintained.

2)An initially undersourced project approaches a hard-deadline. Team is now in panick mode, again 'warm bodies' are hired without particular concern for expertese, full-time staff has been restricted from working overtime, and project is now 2 months (or more) behind schedule....

3)RIFs have drained the company of expertese in a field where they had great talent. Systems have usually been fragged by remaining staff lacking the expertise to support some complex system.

4)A low-priority project has suddenly become attached to a big name in the company, now it MUST succeed. The problem is that until this point, the project has been using borrowed resources instead of dedicated resources and inconsistancies reside throughout the project. Sloppy work is now high visibility.

5)A badly managed project is dumped on someone with more funding at an attempt at a polical assassination. Deliberate sabatage is prevelant.

and of course, the consultants not only serve as warm bodies to throw at the problem, but also a convenient scapegoat should an already doomed project fail miserably.

I have ~ 25 years of experience in the IT business. I've used consultants from time to time, as have my peers. Only once was the consultant worth the fee that was paid. Most spend little time working with your specific requirements and in the end produce little or no action, and a basically generic report. They bill for every second they work for you. I've even been billed for asking them for a bill. Almost always they are a gross waste of time an money.

Then again, I am honest.

He's never worked with me, either. I usually cut my own throat than bill for something questionable, and always put in more time than I bill for, just to make sure the client gets what they expect, on time (unlike their full time employees).

I require that a requirements document be negotiated up front along with a definition of success criteria. I provide weekly reporting of which items in the task list have been completed, which are outstanding and any blockage encountered.

My clients generally like me as I make an honest effort to fit their environment to the best of my ability. I also produce exactly what they ask for.

My experience has been that you need both the internal employee and the contractor. The contractor has no preconceived ideas about the environment and is able to bring a fresh perspective to the table.

Contrary to your observation, I bill my client for less hrs than I put in on site. I round DOWN to the nearest hour, sometimes throwing away 30-45 minutes. And if I spend time researching something that I did not know right off the top of my head, I do not bill my client for the time. Some reseach like 'finding a better way to do something - performance enhancement of an application - would be accepted by any client as productive work. I can bill the client but no, I provide that as part of my customer service. They hired me for my expertise and not to "learn". And they pay me well.

I have not experienced bad treatment in 6 years of consulting. In fact I think I have been treated very well, respected for my skills and knowledge.

I can understand how your view has been soured, but before I started my own business, I was a 1099 consultant and I did not bill for every second I was onsite. I produced results and the client saw it. I recommended new products and technologies, and was even offered a permanent position by them, but I turned it down because it didn't meet my salary requirements. Yes, many consultants are worth crap and not worth the rates they bill, usually the ones dumped into companies by H1B mills, but there are many consultants out there who are worth the rates they charge.

Let?s Face it, Consultants are out to get your money, that is what they need to do to grow there company. I was a Consultant for about 6 years, I never went into a clients place just to solve the problem at hand I went to find the next problem to keep them paying. I now work for a very large Oil Company, the way I see it is, you have hired a I.T person the only service contract you need is for Photocopiers other than that the local help should be looking after everything else. I feel the only time you need a consultant is if you only have 15 computer or under (other people may have other numbers just my opinion). I.T people are very resourceful, have one on your staff and he should be able to save you money, I'm at 350K this year any unfortunately my salary is a little short of that. I have always claimed that I can save my salary and my staff every year in recordable savings. Because I am an I.T/I.S person working for my company it is important to see my companies succeed!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

like I said, two way street.

In the post I see:

"I never went into a clients place just to solve the problem at hand I went to find the next problem to keep them paying"

Not much else to say!

Typical management mentality. I said it before and I'll say it again...we are contractors looking to make a living the way we know how to. We are not employees doing you any favors, so of course we'll be looking for ways to make more money. Does your auto mechanic behave any differently by looking for further problems than what you are already aware of? Money talks and bullsh*t walks...and it's all about money...nothing else. We ain't in this business for the health benefits (or lacktherof) that the stress puts on us.

As a contractor I am out for my benefit first, (fair statement) as an employed person I am out for make the business I work for succeed (fair statement) as a person who own a company you need to decide. both have advantages, please don't forget Training is a write off for companies so don't think the I.T staff get stagnant, and if you do then you?re the bad I.T guy hehehe

Generally there are two types of people:

Group A - Works for the benefit of the company, sacrificing themselves for the good of the company.

Group B - Works for the benefit of themselves, sacrificing the company for themselves.

Considering all employment is a contract to provide services for certain benefits, companies should never expect employees to put the company before themselves. Business is business.

The trick is to align company mission/vision with the employee's, to create a win win. This irregardless of whether it's a consultant or employee.

I've yet to meet any employee who put the company before themselves. I've met many who look to provide best to both, but ultimately you expect to get paid for the value you provide.

and I was a fool.

Every "compnnay man" I have ever met has the same story.

They use you, then throw you out.

If you're not out for #1, you end up in #2.

I don't.

If you want loyalty, then give it.

Consultants know that they're not even guaranteed a full day. When you consult, you're not payed to be loyal, you're not paid to solve the corporations problems, you're paid to work on a project. PERIOD.

You know what kind of bonus you get for finishing ahead of schedule?

Unemployment.

Those who have been career employees and never done consulting work will never understand us. We bill by the hour and it's not in our best interest to finish things immediately, because if we don't work, we don't get paid.

http://despair.com/consulting.html

This may only apply to the field I'm working in (general IT consulting for offices of 50 desks or less), but without a consultants expertise, most of my clients would be up an unspecified creek without so much as a canoe, let alone a paddle, let's get that out of the way. Unless I develop a sound solution, all they are going to get - from management, vendors, or even their own IT staffers - are quick fixes. No holistic concepts, just a patch here and there to keep the train rolling, until it hits a dead end.

Consultants introduce new concepts, we find the knots early and untie them before everything becomes entangled in them, we facilitate new and efficent ways of doing business. No employee in the world is going to introduce these changes. Because if they make the wrong choices, they are to blame. If everything goes south because they just keep the system running, nobody is going to say "We should have upgraded when there was still time".

Sure, you can waste money if you sit down with me every other day and just rant about things you may be thinking about doing, but even if you just charge me with generally optimising the way your tech is implemented, finding more efficient ways to go about your routines, then I will still do my very best to be worth what I charge you. Because, as was pointed out before, unemployment constantly dangles above my head like a damocles sword, and any job well done adds to my portfolio, my only insurance.

If you want to tally up, this is more of a 2 bucks fifty than 2 cents, but I was really pissed off by the headline, so there...

I have been a consultant for years; I switched to a full time job quite a while ago. If you have an I.T person on staff they have more time than consultants to look up new concepts and methods if they don't spend time looking up new methods there a bad I.T guy. Technology has a habit of passing you by in weeks generally speaking. Hell most of my Idea's are right off this web site, how can you say that a full time I.T person isn't as good as a consultant LOL.......... if and when I get spare time I enjoy reading Tech Republic (TR) and other pages, If you?re a young I.T person I strongly recommend you subscribe to TR, because buddy TEK GUY might show you up one day and he is really good. It has always been my job to do the very best for the company I work for, my main focus over the years has been saving money, and I might have gotten that from my consultant days. I believe Consultants have their place in the world; I look at it like Linux and Microsoft. Linux makes MS work harder to stay competative;

And yes I have seen I.T guys over the years that really should go back to the jobs they came from hehehe and the consults can make a living off these guys hehehe.

I am generalizing here; consultants can be a good asset in certain situations. I personally try not to use them.

I started my career in the late 70?s as a print room operator for a large mainframe shop. I have held various positions and have been involved or lead dozens of major upgrades and deployments. Implementations were varied and have included every aspect of county government. Consultants can be a positive force if you have staff with limited skill sets. If you have a competent staff I see no need for consultants and I have to agree in most cases their objective is to find the next problem or create one to keep the revenue stream flowing in their direction. I have also observed the disasterous political aspects of consultants that can destroy an organization and suck millions of taxpayer funds into the pockets of friends of politicians. Unfortunately waste, corruption and backroom politics are the common denominators for many large scale consulting engagements in both the public and private sector.

We (IT contractors) are much like ****** -to the highest bidder with no particular like of one 'john' over another. Some of us make sure the 'john' gets what they want at the negotiated price and others are just ripoff artists who are going to get the money, do as little as possible and then run. I like to keep the client happy. The last contract job I was on lasted 2 weeks short of 10 years (I must be doing something right). I'm hoping my new 'john' (believe me - I don't really think of the company in those terms! will last as long ...

It's difficult to generalize when it really depends on a number of factors: corporate culture, hiring manager's expertise, consultant's level of expertise, expectation of each other. I've seen and experienced both cases when hiring consultants for a project worked smoothly, effectively and efficiently. In some projects, we were able to deliver early due to the hiring of outside expertise.

On the other hand, I've seen the opposite when an incompetent manager hired an unqualified consultant to do a job which was beyond their levels of training. The project was cancelled after wasting of 9 months of resources!

There are lots of company politics involved. Sometimes a company is required to spend the allocated budget before a fiscal year end. They would hire consultants to spend the existing budget. Another factor is that companies which hired consultants might be on a permenant hiring-freeze (head count) but the projects need to be delivered.

My conclusion is that it depends on your perspective, situation and some luck! It's difficult to generalize. Consultants exist to meet a market demand.

Companies that really understand what they need, where the gaps are in expertise and experience (they are different, and you really need both), and what they want to accomplish can do great things with consultants.

These companies usually have very specific requirements, have detailed project plans to determine if they are making progress, and are not afraid to kick someone out if they are not delivering.

I love these environments because it is very clear what needs to be done in order to be successful. It is also easier to find the right resource (consultant or contractor) for each role.

These are the companies that maximize every dollar spent - consulting or otherwise, to ensure that the technical projects are in alignment with business goals, and that the resulting deliverables provide real value to the business. They see the value of consultants, use them for what they need and only as long as they need, and then do the rest of the work themselves. Everybody wins.

I've been consulting (technical & management consulting) and managing consulting groups for 15 years now. Prior to becoming a consultant I had negative feelings about them (see link below to article that expands on this), but later I learned that most of the "consultants" I had met were really contractors who were outside their area of expertise.

http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-6331-5059462.html?tag=search

Companies that don't know what they want or need, fail to find the correct resources (consultant or employee), or fail to manage those resources usually fail to some degree. That's too bad, but it is a pattern that is repeated far to often in business.

Small world, Chip.

I agree. I am also an IT Consultant, and the best clients are the ones that judiciously engage consultants to address a temporarily required skill set, or augment their current staff to better meet a deadline. It cannot be overstated how important strong program and project management disciplines are when running any organization, but especially if you routinely engage consultants.

I hate to say how many hours I bill to clients that show little value because my client runs us around in circles not knowing what they want, how to get it, and not being focused in what they are asking my team to do. I rather prefer spending less hours working for a well organized and structured client so I can show the most value for my time and leave the best impression, should they require my services in the future.

Happened at my last contract.

1)Company laid off most of IT department.
2)Company was hit with a HUUUUUUGE project
3)Company ignored labor needs.
4)Team of consultants were brought on at last minute
5)Consultants were blamed for mucking up project that was also doomed.

I'm not sure I should be joining this discussion, since I'm an IT consultant and therefore subject to a certain amount of bias. However, in reading a number of the posts, a few observations spring to mind:

1.There is a difference between a contractor and a consultant. The former is someone who augments roles already being performed in the hiring organization; the latter tends to be (or should be) someone who is hired because he/she has expertise not currently available within the organization. Concerns about ?managing? consultants frequently arise because what was needed was a contractor and what was hired was a consultant (or vice versa).
2.The moaning and groaning about the amount of money made by consultants is a joke, considering that the complainers are likely getting paid for posting to this discussion. I'm not suggesting that all consultants are worth what they're paid ? I'm saying that everyone's worth to an organization is open to debate. If the all of the in-house staff was worth its salt, management might not be looking for consulting assistance. If all managers were up to snuff, maybe they would realize that their in-house staff could do the job and no consulting assistance was required. I'd like to know how many of the people who complain about over-priced consultants work for free!
3.Consultants are at their best when they are allowed to act like consultants ? in other words, to bring their expertise and experience to bear on a client's problems. When the client assumes that he knows the problem and the solution, he doesn't need a consultant ? he needs a contractor. I'm a firm believer in the old adage ?when training a dog, it helps to know more than the dog?. When clueless managers hire a consultant and then proceed to micromanage him because they know better than the consultant, who can be surprised when the consultant simply racks up as many billable hours as possible before leaving the situation? Good consultants are worth every penny when they are hired to perform tasks appropriate for their skills. Making that connection is the responsibility of client management. There's an old (and not very complimentary) definition of a consultant ? someone you hire to tell you what time it is...and he uses your watch! The person doing the hiring is responsible for the value derived from the consultant.

I've worked on the other side of the fence too. I've been victimized by inappropriately-hired consultants and, on the other hand, I've learned a tremendous amount from top-notch consultants. Usually, my experience was determined by the quality of the hiring decision by internal management.

The folks who've been posting to this topic as consultants by and large seem never to have studied up on the consulting process. Their crass cowboy attitude should probably relegate them to the role of VERY closely supervised contractors at best.

I work both as a consultant and a contractor. Often one of my jobs as a consultant is to evaluate contractors and other consultants and also the management process used to work with them. In general, my experience has been that in-house managers try to work with consultants as if they were contractors, and with contractors as if they were consultants.

I mean that they often have strong preconceptions that prevent them from seeing alternatives that consultants can offer; on the other hand, they may expect contractors to be clairvoyant (which of course is the consultant's job ).

Meantime, I suggest that those posters who believe that a consultant's raison d'etre is to rip cash outta the hands of their clients that they read two books: Flawless Consulting by Peter Block, and Work as A Spiritual Practice by Lewis Richmond.

Here I go, ranting about how I think a consultant can provide an actual value for, money if used correctly, when I could've just approved your comment and be done with it. Oh well, the title was insulting enough to merit as many comments from consultants as possible.

... bring their expertise and experience to bear on a client's problems..

Or, from what I've seen, find out what the person paying the bill wants to hear and write a report to validate that.

or many of the other people in here who have done consulting.

The industry has a dirty rep, some of it deserved, but most not.

Others have made the point, but there is a real difference between contract employees, consultants, and the H1-B mills out there.

On my last job, I was a consultant.

I had worked for the company previously, wrote the hub of the system that they were still using and required ZERO time to start producing.

I was also able to train other consultants on that hub.

THAT is expertese and THAT was why I was hired and THAT is why three more positions went unfilled for the life of the project.

When IT managers hire a bunch of bodies and call them consultants, it's their own fault.

If you buy a screwdiver, you can't compalin that it's useless as a hammer!

Consultants and contract employees have their places. It is the job of MANAGEMENT to utilize the resources properly.

I've seen both sides of the story with consultants. But my experience suggests that it is much more the REASONS behind a consultant being used are much more important than the fact that they are used.

The first time that I came across a consultant, was on a software engineering project that I started on not long after graduation. The business Owner/Manager that wanted the software was a friend of the boss of the business that I had just started with. They had put out for formal tenders to do the job, but they all came in much over the price that they wanted to pay. Get the picture so far.

One day, my boss and the other owner happened to meet, and got talking. When the owner told his tale of woe, the boss said, "give us the details, and how much you can spare for it, and I'll get my team to do it for you." A few days later all the documentation that was available arrived in the mail, was given to the head project manager, who was told, you've got 6 months, get going. The project manager spent 2 days going over the information, and told the boss that we need at least 2 more software engineers experienced in Java, and a third person who can write help documentation, it's going to cost this much over the budget that you have given us. Well the boss completely blew his stack, said, "That's what I've been given for a budget, and you will bring it in for that amount." And so, for the next 3 months the boss completely ignored the project, even though the manager tried to see him every week, until one day he just walked in to see how it was going, and was appalled to discover that there was no way to complete in time or on budget, because it just was not feasible. He ended up having a temper tantrum in the middle of the room, which resulted in 3 programmers just walking out, stating that their resignations would be in the mail. The boss then rushed out shouting "I'll get a consultant in to sort you lot out", to phone a mate who did consulting, who was asked to come round and get my team back on track and finish this program for his friend. Two days later the consultant walked in, and starting making inquiries as to the problem, and when he was told it was the boss doing a favor for an old friend, he said "I can't tell him that, is there anything else that I can do?" Someone said that you can take over the project, but its not going to be finished on time or on budget, and don't expect the boss to give you any thanks for completing it. So thats what happened, and the next week I left, the project manager stayed on for about 2 weeks to give the consultant a hand in getting up to speed on the project, and I heard that 2 other staff members (they weren't programmers) left a couple of weeks after the manager. Eventually the job was finished, about 4 months late, and almost double the budget. The boss had another rant about the incompetence of people, said that he would never use a consultant again, and thats what happened because the business when bust soon after, because someone in accounting had seen the writing on the wall, and was stealing funds, before the crash. Last I heard, the boss went bankrupt, so that was the end of him too.

The thing that annoyed almost everyone in the team was that the job should never have been accepted the way it was, and for such a ridiculous budget and time frame. It just couldn't be done.

The consultant was quite good, and was able to work with almost everyone, but he wound up on the wrong end of it too, just to satisfy the whim of the boss.

I've seen a few consultants since then, and most of them strike me as being OK, but you get the odd bad one, and they don't last long and thats about it.

For those that are interested, I wasn't working in Network Administration at the time.
Edit: clarification.

The question is a bit like saying can a man be a nurse or can a woman drive a bus. It does nothing to define the conditions that a consultant might be a waste of time, whether the consultant is being used to fill a skill shortage short term or for a one off project, whether the consultant is being called in to help identify a potential problem or as is often the case a body from a large firm supplying what are little more than contractors to pad the numbers on a late running project.
Some consultants like myself specialize in a particular market niche, mine is small companies without IT departments, to fill a short term need. These are a useful resource for a company that has no permanent requirement for that expertise and so can be excellent value for money.

I worked as a IT consultant for several years. Post hoc, a very big part of work to be accomplished was to compensate for and cope with bad due dilligence and bad management.

According to my experience, those who entrusted me, in most cases did not really know, what they needed. Nor did they know how to manage uncertainity or knowledge, that they did not have. In consequence the project's change-management overhelmed in about one half of all cases.

Because of this, in my opinion, it belongs to the responsibility of a consultant, to consult, teach and control his customers before he complies to a job. But ... this needs a lot of experience, practice, lbnl. money, and especially social skills, that cannot be easily offered/expected by young guys coming from the university.

Finally it seems me often a mixture of failures: people, that do not understand, what is to be done, entrust people, that cannot control for those outer factors.

Consulting requires wisdom and experience.
I used to be an IT consultant for the government right out of college. Before that I had worked in a lot of crappy tech support jobs that taught me how to handle myself. The project that I was entrusted with failed, not because I didn't have experience, it failed because management was bad. I had to start my own company and I was never paid for an invoice on time. Not only that, I was never provided specs or diagrams for anything. I had to find and document everything myself. It didn't help that people who had this information in their heads were never around. Through all this, management was expecting me to tell them not only where all the databases were located, but how to plan, design and construct various
Web portals without help from the useless employees. It's too bad that I had no business sense to devise a proper contract that would've allowed me to charge extra for the large bottle of Tylenol. I am now permanently employed but I understand that consultants can be used and abused if management is made up of a bunch of idiots. Of course, any consultant who realizes this ahead of time should charge accordingly for the major headaches that are coming.

The problem of wasted time or money comes down to management and/or leadership issues. It has nothing to do with whether the worker is an employee or a consultant. The reason consultants get a bad rap is because the cost is so evident when an invoice needs to be paid. When employees are not well managed it does not get the same attention since employees are often considered "free" and the cost is buried in consolidated monthly expenses. This is the opinion of a manager who has allowed slack management practices to bite him in the budget.

We used to get a consultant to do specific projects, like set up an in house web site, or do some DBA stuff. We have had the pleasure of working with really good ones and some not so good ones. Some of them can be expensive; we generally got what we paid for.

My last employer is learning just how expensive 'cheap labor' can be.'

Any more "cost-savings" of that nature and they'll be bankrupt

I do take some pleasure in watching the companies complain about the monster they created.

The proper role for a consultant is a hired EXPERT in a given field.

If you are paying an AGENCY less than 150/hr or an individual less than 80/hr you are not getting an expert.

If you want temporary help, stop complaining about a lack of expertese

You need to have a "philosophy" for using consultants. We generally use them only under the following circumstances: to teach or shepherd us through new technology; to provide "hands" when have the skills but not the manpower; or to handle "throwaway skills" work, i.e., work that requires skills we don't need in-house on an ongoing basis.

Consultants are hired because they possess a skill that inhouse employees lack, or because they have more experience than inhouse employees. Now, if you want me to teach you what I know, you will have to fork over more cash to do it. As far as I'm concerned, consultants are hired to complete a project or a set of tasks, not conduct daily IT seminars on what they've gained in the 15+ years worth of experience. If training your employees isn't explicitly written in the contract, I don't have to teach you or your employees jack sh*t. That's capitalism, and if you don't like it, move to Cuba.

Working FT, I'll teach you anything.

If you're hiring me as a consultant, you get my skill not my brains.

With that I mean that contractors are limited to billing for 40hrs per week, but are flooded with so much work, that they need to pull about 60hrs to get it done, yet they are not getting paid. Sorry, the game is "no pay...no play". Another stupid thing I've seen are contractors having to waste their time on those silly sexual harassment seminars and other nonsense for employees. Hey IT managers...get it through your thick skulls that contractors are NOT employees, and should not be treated as such. Do not expect contractors to work overtime without getting paid and do not subject contractors to the same HR nonsense that employees are subjected to. Yes, contractors will comply with your non-disclosure and other legal crap, but understand that contractors have no affiliation with your firm and play by a different set of rules.

I have worked in the DP field for more than 30 yrs and have seen companies waste a lot of money on consultants. In-house people seemed to be thought of as someone who does not understand the problem. If they understood the problem, why did they not fix it or point it out to management. Management will take the word of anyone outside of the company and think that their solution will fix all of the problems found (and usually suggest their expensive software/hardware products). There were times that management decided that the consultant solution was not the way to go but the money was already spent and times that another consultant was brought in. I have only seen once that a consultant's plan had paid off but it was modified by in-house people to make it work (it was close to the plan created by the in-house staff but was not accepted by management).

to work on multiple projects with different clients. As an employee, there is usually an implied understanding that one won't moonlight and conduct other side business that may impact his/her ability to fully commit to the job at hand. As an independent contractor, nobody can dictate to you who you can work for and how many projects you can take on unless you stupidly sign a contract stating so. The only downside of being an independent contractor is the risk of being unemployed and not being able to collect unemployment insurance because one is basically self employed. The rewards outweigh the risks, but one has to keep on their toes to look for a new gig before the current contract expires.

Isn't a major reason for hiring outside IT consultants is to provide recommendations and solutions because the IT staff must stay focused on continuity of operations. To me, it's not a matter of skillset but of time.