A suggestion for DSP consultants
in [DSP]
|
Prev: Does Anyone read Mr.Harris's book "Multirate signal processingfor communication systems"
Next: sinusoids and aliasing...
From: Jerry Avins on 19 May 2010 15:33 On 5/19/2010 3:23 PM, Gordon Sande wrote: > On 2010-05-19 16:01:50 -0300, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen(a)ieee.org> said: > >> On 5/19/2010 11:46 AM, Rune Allnor wrote: >>> On 19 Mai, 16:48, Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacob...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >>>> One of the more disappointing things I see, unfortunately regularly, is >>>> when we get turned down for being "too expensive" and then get called >>>> back in later (or not) to fix some money-and-time-sucking disaster that >>>> was attempted to be done with less cost. >>> >>> Do you accept those kinds of jobs? If so, on what terms? >>> If you get only half the initially estimated time to *both* >>> unscrew a screwed-up project *and* achieve the originally >>> stated goal, you implicitly acknowledge that your original >>> offer was off. Right? >> >> No. If more resources are put to bear to meet an accelerated schedule >> the cost goes up. Nine women can't make a baby in a month, but in many >> cases cost and time can be traded off. > > See "The Mythical Man-Month" by Brooks. Adding staff to a late project will > only further delay it. Etc. Etc. Nominally about software engineering but > applies to all knowledge workers. There's a difference between adding staff to hurry a project along, (fat chance!) and starting over with a new team. Fred Brooks doesn't really address the second alternative. > By the way, he has a new books "The Design of Design". > >>> If I were to even consider taking that kind of project, I would >>> multiply the initial hour rates by at least 10, ask for 50% >>> of the initially estimated hours as a sign-on fee, and only then >>> start to count hours. At the 10x rate. >>> >>> Rune >> >> I would hope that most people would be smart enough to estimate the >> actual job at hand. Jerry -- "I view the progress of science as ... the slow erosion of the tendency to dichotomize." --Barbara Smuts, U. Mich. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
From: Tim Wescott on 19 May 2010 15:41 Rune Allnor wrote: > On 19 Mai, 16:48, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> One of the more disappointing things I see, unfortunately regularly, is >> when we get turned down for being "too expensive" and then get called >> back in later (or not) to fix some money-and-time-sucking disaster that >> was attempted to be done with less cost. > > Do you accept those kinds of jobs? Sure. > If so, on what terms? Strictly hourly, for the very practical reason that when you're pitched into a maelstrom you can't predict the amount of time it'll take to swim out. > If you get only half the initially estimated time to *both* > unscrew a screwed-up project *and* achieve the originally > stated goal, you implicitly acknowledge that your original > offer was off. Right? No, you tell the customer "I'm sorry, but this is just going to take this much time and that's that". If there are ways that it can be sped up -- more consultants, for instance, or by them putting more of their people under my direction -- then I'll mention it, and leave the choice to them. In fact one of my happiest clients came to me after some other consultant screwed them over, and I was able to achieve preliminary results in a matter of weeks that exceeded what their original guy managed to do in months -- and thought was good. > If I were to even consider taking that kind of project, I would > multiply the initial hour rates by at least 10, ask for 50% > of the initially estimated hours as a sign-on fee, and only then > start to count hours. At the 10x rate. I don't do that. I'm a pro, and that means I'm a mercenary, and that means that I have one rate that's good for almost anything. The key thing that I try to do in these cases is to just treat it as any other effort going forward: what happened is in the past, this is what I can do, and if the customer has gotten themselves mired in a pit that's not my problem -- it's my opportunity. -- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com
From: Tim Wescott on 19 May 2010 15:46 Gordon Sande wrote: > On 2010-05-19 16:01:50 -0300, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen(a)ieee.org> said: > >> On 5/19/2010 11:46 AM, Rune Allnor wrote: >>> On 19 Mai, 16:48, Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacob...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >>>> One of the more disappointing things I see, unfortunately regularly, is >>>> when we get turned down for being "too expensive" and then get called >>>> back in later (or not) to fix some money-and-time-sucking disaster that >>>> was attempted to be done with less cost. >>> >>> Do you accept those kinds of jobs? If so, on what terms? >>> If you get only half the initially estimated time to *both* >>> unscrew a screwed-up project *and* achieve the originally >>> stated goal, you implicitly acknowledge that your original >>> offer was off. Right? >> >> No. If more resources are put to bear to meet an accelerated schedule >> the cost goes up. Nine women can't make a baby in a month, but in >> many cases cost and time can be traded off. > > See "The Mythical Man-Month" by Brooks. Adding staff to a late project will > only further delay it. Etc. Etc. Nominally about software engineering but > applies to all knowledge workers. In general that's true. But that applies when staff is largely interchangeable. Adding a consultant to the mix who has different abilities may well bring the end point in, if not bring it in far enough that the project goes from "late" to "on time". Adding that consultant may well generate work that the consultant, specifically, doesn't have to do, in which case adding staff to help the consultant would then speed things up even more. Nine women can't make one baby in one month. But a fertile woman and a fertile man will make one baby in a hell of a lot less time than nine frustrated men and no women at all! -- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com
From: Rick Lyons on 19 May 2010 16:11 On Wed, 19 May 2010 11:55:31 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On 5/19/2010 11:38 AM, dvsarwate wrote: >> On May 19, 9:45 am, Clay<c...(a)claysturner.com> wrote: >>> >>> Unfortunately many link the term "amateur" to also mean lower quality >>> or lessor ability. And certainly some amateurs are just starting out, >>> so their skills and knowledge would not compare with a pro's. But some >>> amateurs have very advanced skills and experienced pros recognize >>> this. >>> >> >> Consider the difference between a minister (as in a church) >> and an ordinary person with high moral standards. One is >> paid to be good (a professional) while the other is good >> for nothing.... > >Dilip, > >I take it that you're familiar with the half-sandwich fallacy. > >Jerry Hi Jer, What's the half-sandwich fallacy? Regards, [-Rick-]
From: Eric Jacobsen on 19 May 2010 16:16
On 5/19/2010 12:21 PM, Rune Allnor wrote: > On 19 Mai, 21:01, Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacob...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>> If I were to even consider taking that kind of project, I would >>> multiply the initial hour rates by at least 10, ask for 50% >>> of the initially estimated hours as a sign-on fee, and only then >>> start to count hours. At the 10x rate. >> >>> Rune >> >> I would hope that most people would be smart enough to estimate the >> actual job at hand. > > Of course. But there is a difference between getting the job done > right the first time around, and somebody first screwing things up > and then getting previously-loosing bidders in to clear up the mess. > > There is a cost to reviewing a fucked-up project an pointing out > who were the idiots and why. Somebody with the client will have > made at least one, probably several, bad calls to get the project > into trouble in the first place. Explicitly or implicitly, pointing > out the blunders and flaws that were done the first time around will > inevitably will be a major part of a follow-up project. > > If I were to point out, indicate or rectify these errors, blunders > and > flaws, I would certainly make sure to get paid for the inevitable > strained > personal relations with the persons I would necessarily be forced to > work with. > > Rune And accounting for all of the is "the task at hand". As I said, I'd hope anybody presented with the problem would actually estimate the task at hand rather than what could have been or should have been. -- Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.abineau.com |