claus - 7:21 pm on Jul 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

Thanks a lot for the responses sofar, they're really valuable and i think i can use them all.

>> one that is very difficult to answer (quickly) for many of us due to the diversified and somewhat arcane nature of our businesses. (netguy)

It's nice to know i'm not the only "octopus in the sea" :) Polymath could be the phrase i was looking for, i think, but it's more of a term for a person than it's a term for a business. And, if i didn't know the term in advance, my customers don't know it either.

>> "Manager" if you're actually given carte-blanche to tell everyone what to do, and "coordinator" if you're expected to work within the established management structure. (jdMorgan)

>> two-thirds "in-house" and one-third "project architect/manager" (iamlost)

These are good points. Sometimes i'm in charge, and sometimes i'm not - sometimes i even work as a subcontractor myself. So, traditional titles seem a bit too rigid, as they only focus on one role.

I like the ideas about a "service based" description, along the lines of "increase the value of Internet properties", "design, and build traffic for, websites", or "i make you money".

>> how about some "case histories" of past projects? (jdMorgan)
>> your web site is you to a visitor so absolutely tell them what you do. I am surprised it isn't there now! (iamlost)
>> a link to more comprehensive services on our site (netguy)

Really good points. I spend so much time and effort on customers' sites and tend to do much less on my own site. Actually i had a temporary page up for a year or so because i was too busy working with customers to even think about having a site of my own ;)

>> he stopped at the receiving dock and asked one of the guys who unloads trucks (jdMorgan)
>> working with them rather than dictating. You can always dictate if it becomes necessary. (iamlost)
>> You need to be convincing the owner of the "bus company" that what you say goes, no ifs, buts or ands (percentages)

It was fascinating to read these three statements in a row. Essentially they're two or three different ways of getting the job done. Personally, i like to involve people a lot and only "use the higher authority" when i have to. The reason for this is simply that (imho) at the end of the day it makes a better mousetrap.

Eg. I will tell the programmer that (s)he should use cookies in stead of session ID's if the site should be spiderable, but i couldn't care less if (s)he chooses ASP, PHP or something else to actually program the stuff. Of course, some customers buy blackbox projects - i deliver, they don't need to know how or why, but i don't have a lot of these projects. My inhouse/outhouse ratio is probably 90% outhouse, working with clients at their offices.

>> you are consulting (even consulting with *them* personally) and that you're not enough of a specialist in their field of expertise and experience to take over their job. (jdMorgan)

It's not their job security, it's more the subtle thing about "this guy coming from outside and telling me what i should do in the field i'm an expert in" (eg. not use session IDs). I need to work with these people, not against them, as i need to get them up to speed and become creative and develop things for me they never thought about doing before, or perhaps thought about but never did.

>> hire or get assigned someone who can speak all the languages(iamlost)

Oh, it wasn't languages as in "foreign languages", it was languages as in "lingo", "tech speak" or "jargon". They do speak the same language, yet they don't. I have no problem with that, as it's me that is the "translator".