“Twas brillig and the slithey toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe, all mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe.”
Written by Lewis Carroll, his poem “Jabberwocky’ in “Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There” is considered the most famous nonsensical poem in the English language. It was certainly one of my favorites during my alcoholiclly impaired college years in the 1960’s. It re-occurred to me today as I read a post by Ric Payne on the Principa blog titled Time Based Billing is Unethical - What Rubbish.
I wouldn’t recommend reading the entire post. Payne talks in circles. He at once advocates advising clients of the proposed fee in advance (which I agree with) but supports using timesheets as a necessary tool in doing so. He has thoroughly confused the importance of knowing what your resource cost is with the value of the project. He naively seems to believe that the majority of clients who receive invoices based on time sheets know in advance how much those bills will be and they are “happy with a bill based on hours” because they were some how able to divine how much it would be prior to receiving it. That is counter intuitive. He rants on and on trying to justify time sheets, but at the same time advocating ’pricing’ in advance as a superior alternative. It all seems to make sense, until you realize the methodolgy he is proposing can’t get you to the results he seeks. That’s my point. Don’t take everything you read at face value - especially if it comes from a consultant - think about whether or not it makes sense. Question authority.
Most consultants I’ve met are regurgitating the same tired old garbage they were taught in college 40 years ago. They wouldn’t recognize a new idea if it bit them. The practice management methodology they espouse is antiquated and without innovation. You can’t get better doing the same old thing. Yes it’s safer, but remember the reward for risk is profit. People like Ric Payne know there is opportunity for improvement, but they will consistently try to justify old methodology because it is safe, they are cowards and they don’t know any other way.
Like Jabberwocky it sounds good and seems to make sense. It just doesn’t work. Oh, and if anyone wants to debate the specific issues of his post I’m happy to do so. Just comment.
Fair post, Mark. Not a word out of whack. Do wish you’d acquire Baker’s “EMG” clause when consultant bashing, though!
(except Michelle Golden)
Comment by Michelle Golden — April 22, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
I was talking with Ron Baker a couple of days ago and he referred me to your blog post. Ron is a personal friend and a man who’s ideas I have done my utmost to encourage and disseminate during the past 10 years—I don’t agree with everything he says but I do respect his intellectual integrity and my thoughts about best practice have been positively influenced by his writing.
Frankly, I was quite offended by the way you attacked me (and all consultants who beg to differ with you) and the language you used. I’m not sure what the purpose of your rant (to use your word) was other than to denigrate me personally because you offered no empirical, or even logical support, for the argument that time based billing is unethical other than a few wild generalizations and mis-representations of what I actually wrote. Instead, you seemed content focus your attack me and other consultants who do not share your view of the world whatever that is. I can certainly understand why you related so well to Carroll’s poem.
My initial reaction was to treat your post with the contempt it deserves. However, on reflection I would be delighted to have the opportunity to debate this issue with you face to face when I return to my home in Reno later in the year. That is, of course, if you have the courage to do so. You see Mark, I most certainly am not a coward, I’m willing to stand up for my opinions face to face, are you?
Comment by Ric Payne — April 26, 2008 @ 4:13 pm