The conversation which follows this article is a play. However, it's a composite of conversations I've had, which I've distilled and analyzed. It will show why I believe there is a need for the taxonomy for software consultants.
"What do you do?"
"Oh, I'm a software consultant."
"Oh, nice. What, then, do you would like to do? Go to sites of clients and help the projects of their clients?"
"No, I'm employed by a company that provides software consultancy, and I'm there. Our company develops apps for other businesses, and I'm part of a team developing an app for one of those businesses. ."
"Ah, okay. Do you talk to your client via phone, via chat, or some other method? ?"
"No, that's mainly the project manager -- I just code up requirements."
"Oh, gotcha. No one is consulted by you, in any way. ."
"Yeah, it's true, but I don't think so. I suppose I'm more of someone who works for a company or something. ."
The issue here lies because definitions of consultants have been diminished. But the root of the problem has its roots in the past.
In a pastime (of about 30 years), when the software was predominantly an ongoing maintenance issue for businesses and hardware-based devices, those who wrote the code were employed by companies that utilized their code. Therefore, anyone who did not have domain expertise and wrote software could have been considered a consultant, as specialization was not ordinary. However, as the world changed towards software becoming ubiquitous, someone who is not tied to an area of expertise and writing code for a living isn't any longer a highly skilled profession and isn't likely to get consulted about their knowledge.
The world has changed, but the terms were not. A software consultant can define themselves as "anyone who writes software for a company other than the one direct depositing pay into their bank accounts." This could be the "consultant mentioned above or an agency staff augmenting, a CRM specialist installing a CRM system, or an individual who advises the developer manager on a strategy for migration. To make things more apparent on the subject, I'd like to offer some clarification of terminology.
Software Pro
I was thinking about just using the term "software developer" to reflect the present and become more accurate. I believe fewer software developers work in the masses for large, big corporations are now over, frankly. For example, software developers who work for pharmaceutical and furniture manufacturing companies do not work as employees on W2s but as employees or free agents of software development companies (what I usually consider as "app consulting services" for developers). ").
Let's call them "Software Pros." They're not consultants. They're software developers who sell their software to various companies on a project-by-project basis. This happens to the conversation that I'm imagining in the composite of someone working for an agency that sells app development to businesses. Of course, this description could also be staff augmentation for agencies -an employee of your company who has been working for two years and works as part of the team but receives a salary from Robert Half or some similar company instead of your employee. It's not an expert consultant but a software professional.
Specialist
The next one will be the professional. Specialists are a type of consultant, but they are more focused on situational and tactical expertise than general advice. For instance, I mentioned the CRM specialist previously. CRM specialists would be in with a client and assist the client with everything CRM. For example, it could be an accurate installation or advice regarding how to proceed with changing the CRM software. It's not to say that the expert's opinion regarding other issues may not be relevant. However, the specialist is only there to provide specialized knowledge.
Be aware that "C#" or "Ruby" isn't an area of expertise in the present day. The particular skill has to be sought after and reasonably rare. I'm unable to give specific criteria, but you should consider this "programming" or a programming language isn't a qualifier (unless maybe you have a Jon Skeet degree of understanding). A specific pattern, product, framework or pattern, etc., would.
Consultant
Then, let's change the word consultant. Let's, at the very least, make it more narrow in the area of software.
The expert in software is employed to do work without looking at the bigger picture. The expert is used to offer expertise and exercise discretion in deciding the need to or should not perform work. In this way, it's like a hybrid position of a labor adviser with the option of one or the other. The consultant is solely an adviser.
A significant and subtle distinction exists between specialists and consultants by their charters. Specialists are naturally interested in promoting their area of expertise. The CRM expert in our team won't suggest everyone take on CRM. However, they'll consider CRM to be an instrument, and they nailed many issues. It's in the best interests of them and the best interest of their business, so it's only natural that they'd trust the field they've chosen to focus on.
Consultants, On the other hand, can focus entirely on the outcomes of their clients. As specialists, they're focused on developing their skills, but this isn't solely motivated by charity. However, unlike specialists, they're employed to solve problems in a general role. As a result, they can advance their careers by listening to clients' needs, adjusting their solutions to their specific needs, and earning glowing recommendations.
The Importance of the Taxonomy
I'm quite a few words into my post and am getting exhausted, so I'll end here and return with a follow-up article. I like to get the definitions of terms and my thoughts on general topics to understand better. But there's a lot more to play in this, I think.
I've done a lot of consulting in the past five decades (in addition to some specializing in software professionalizing). The tech world has changed dramatically since the increase of software development consulting.
