Have not worked for anyone since 1982. Probably not a good idea to start now.
Essentially, when I come in to a firm for a specific project, it is very similar to part time work except they do not have any need to consider paying employers tax and so on.
Me and I am sure most freelance professionals, are working to analysise the needs, do the job and go!
My clients may sometimes want small fixes or reports but those can be done off-site, much cheaper for the client.
I like to go to different places and have different problems to solve, probably another requirement for going freelance.
I should have put quotation marks around that 
I wasn’t suggesting you actually start working for your customer. What I meant is if you are “employed” by your customer, their NSC could not have objections, and you could do what you can do and be a partner in those discussions. I’m sure there are ‘temporary part time’ work constructions you could fall under while maintaining your independent status.
I love it when I hear this. The developer has done some very poor code. Are you sure the requirement was not inaccurate, or poor in the first place, or the project was not well managed. Easy to point the finger at someone! I annoy consultants by doing EXACTLY to the letter what they ask for. No more, no less. It’s amazing how often they “Assumed” you would just do some extra, or you would “know” that they wanted that bit changed as well.
A software development will only ever be as good as the specification.
Once you know how to code Navision, its basically paint by numbers, as long as the requirement is correct and designed correctly, its hard to go wrong.
I never hear anyone say, their consultant was slack, or couldn’t design a spec to save their lives. It seems to always be the developer that takes the hit! A pet grievance of mine.
I love when I hear this, the spec was wrong, never the developer, We rely on our developer to have a little common since. But we have been burned on that a few time, for instance we had a change with the requsition carry out action message, Now normal Navision carries over things like department code and location code to the PO that is created, we wanted some additional info also carry over to the PO, so our spec said, please have the following field carry over to the purchase order when the carry out action message is done.
we get back the new objects and start to test it out, and now the department and location codes don’t get carried over to the po, we point this out to the developer, who points to the spec request and says we didn’t ask to keep those fields, We have to pay to add them back.
Now we have to say, all existing standard Navision behaivor should remain, and we would also like field xyz in table 123 to post to field xxx in table 167 . so, we are expect to know everything that happens in Navision without being developers, because if we are not, then we can’t do a proper spec sheet to your guidelines.
Of course you could always refuse to pay the invoice and say ‘we never asked for these fields to be taken out, we will not pay for that’, and point to the specs that don’t mention the fields :).
The truth is somewhere in the middle really, and I get really annoyed with both sides of the story. I’ve seen consultants who refuse to write up proper specs (I shouldn’t have to write a design document just because I want to have a field added to the Item Card), and excuses from the developer (you didn’t say that the extra Item Description had to go to the General tab, there was only room on the Item Tracking tab). I would love to get better specs from consultants, but I would also like developers to pick up the phone and actually ask more questions.
It’s teamwork, everybody has their job to do, and if we don’t know, we can surely figure it out. Everybody on the team needs to take responsibility, even if it is ‘not your job’.
I’m not sure I said developers are never wrong David, I think you must have assumed that???
I haven’t seen your spec, so I really could not comment. But I am sure it is a little 50/50 from what you’ve said. Without viewing it I could not say.
You did not say it, and from reading your post I would feel pretty good having you as my developer, but I believe it was clearly implied, and look at your answer, "
you are pretty sure it could not be all the developers fault, even without seeing anything.
My experience is a little jaded, so forgive the pessimism, We started with Navision in 1999, and our developer was really good, came out and met with us on a regular basis, did good work, then they opened a new office in another state, trying to expand, it went bust and ever since then everything is about billable hours. I get billed 1/4 hour just to send an email with a change order request, then they bill for the time it takes to write a quote, and another 1/4 hour to email it back. then I decide if I want the work done. and it is kind of irritating to hear, you didn’t say you wanted the department code to still post, when that was standard functionality to start with.
Billing is always a killer. Until I worked in the I had never seen this base pay plus bonus per month on hours you bill.
I’d always worked on you get XXX per annum and that’s it, and I found that worked fine. I worked over time but knew I was not getting paid. When it comes to this “Bonus per billable hours” lark you end up with people trying to sneak hours in here and there.
I don’t like it. It does not promote team work, as people don’t want to help another colleague if they are not going to get paid for it. And it also means people try and sneak more hours in the quote or even worse, for sending an email.
I can see the pro’s to it though, try to encourage more work, and also it makes the “person” more active in the working. I’m just not an advocate of it. I just work with it when I have too.
We’re way off topic now [:D] But its rolled this way. And I totally agree with you!
As for the specification, I’ve seen it the other way. I’ve assumed the customer has wanted something (like Standard functionailty + Bespoke) they get the development. See the “extra” (Standard) stuff. They don’t want to pay 3 hours of the bill because they did not ask for it.
I think Denstars right, communication, communication, communication.
not only communication but communication with understanding and respect.
and with cause, ofcourse
YES! THANK YOU! I would like it very much if when someone finds an error it is a misunderstanding, not sloppy work, or a deliberate attempt to sabotage the consultant’s career. We all need to take a step back and recognize that EVERYONE tries to do the right thing. Once you approach people with that attitude, and you take responsibility of your part, and work to understand and reach a common goal, you’d be amazed at how quickly issues can be resolved.
So instead of dismissing a design document (‘this is not detailed ennough, I will ignore this document’), the developer shoul read the document, make notes, call the consultant and ask questions to understand it. Instead of throwing the developer under the bus (‘I dont know why he broke this, he was clearly not thinking straight’), the consultant needs to walk to the developer’s desk and show him what is not working. I’ve screwed up many things (in both phases) while not even being aware that I did it. As long as we recognize that everyone wants to do the right thing, and we act accordingly, this should be a lot less stressful for everyone.
developer License for end user, 1 license is it for each database? or for 1 server?