search

Readify / madskillz

Readify Mad Skillz
Other
89 stars 39 forks source link

Given the number of engagement a lead consultant would be involved,it is not realistic to keep in touch with previous clients #75

Closed ahmad2x4 closed 7 years ago

ahmad2x4 commented 8 years ago

A lead consultant could be engaged in number of different project with different client. It is not realistic to keep in touch with all of them. Event if it is possible a consultant might end up providing free consulting to previous clients.

Instead if a lead consultant has a proven record of success, previous clients are happy to engage with Readify again.

robdmoore commented 8 years ago

I actually disagree with this change.

A) It doesn't day that you have to keep in touch with /all/ existing clients B) Remember it's just an example of the sort of thing that is expected, you don't have to meet every thug and frankly, if you made the case that all of the previous clients want to keep working with you then that may speak towards this sort of point anyway.

On 31 Aug 2016, at 6:23 AM, Ahmadreza notifications@github.com wrote:

A lead consultant could be engaged in number of different project with different client. It is not realistic to keep in touch with all of them. Event if it is possible a consultant might end up providing free consulting to previous clients.

Instead if a lead consultant has a proven record of success, previous clients are happy to engage with Readify again.

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

https://github.com/Readify/madskillz/pull/75

Commit Summary

Using prover record of success intead of keeping in touch with previous client. File Changes

M Consulting.md (2) Patch Links:

https://github.com/Readify/madskillz/pull/75.patch https://github.com/Readify/madskillz/pull/75.diff — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

aaronpowell commented 8 years ago

@robdmoore I disagree, I think the wording should be changed. While you don't have to be doing the points it's something that's expected an LC should be doing. Keeping engaged with a client post-engagement and looking for opportunities sounds more like an account management thing.

robdmoore commented 8 years ago

I'll see your disagreement and raise you some more ;)

So I think it's a very reasonable expectation to keep in touch with previous teams. That doesn't mean you have to have a coffee with them every month or anything, but it might be things like:

This doesn't have to be for every client and you don't have to do it even every few weeks, but doing it occasionally is a good thing and I think a reasonable thing to expect LCs do to (even SCs tbh).

I've been doing all of the above with various clients since I started FYI.

This isn't account management btw - you will be keeping in touch with technical members of the team as well as management where appropriate and the purpose of doing it isn't sales it's part of being a good consultant.

kjacobsen commented 8 years ago

I agree with Rob on this change. I can see the contact being great for Readify's brand but also your personal brand.

I would expect Technical Leads to be keeping in touch with the clients in a similar manner.

robdmoore commented 8 years ago

Btw is there a problem with LCs doing some Account Management here and there (maybe for one key client they are looking after)?

On 1 Sep 2016, at 7:26 AM, Kieran Jacobsen notifications@github.com wrote:

I agree with Rob on this change. I can see the contact being great for Readify's brand but also your personal brand.

I would expect Technical Leads to be keeping in touch with the clients in a similar manner.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

DevEnable commented 8 years ago

I agree with Rob. Keeping in touch with previous clients, especially with the examples he gave, is a key element of gaining the Readify business opportunities. Not only that, but compared to trying to establish business with new accounts, it is much easier to close an opportunity with an account that we have had a previous (or current) relationship with.

I also have no issue with LC's picking up some AM aspects. I know when I was a LC, I did this. But, I do think we need to be careful and clear about when, and to what degree they do this. It's also going to depend on the client, the project, and the existing workload of the AM / PC.

andrewabest commented 8 years ago

Remember that the examples under the defining characteristic are just that - examples. They are things that you may do none (although arguably they would be bad examples in this case - MadSkillz attempts to capture the 'high value' examples of given characteristics) or all of to demonstrate the characteristic, in this case:

I am maturing as a driver for additional business opportunities.

I think this particular item is an excellent example of how one may drive additional business opportunities. Do you have to do it? No. But you do have to quantifiably demonstrate the characteristic - if someone had never driven any additional business to Readify in any way, shape or form, I'd suggest they would 'Need Coaching' in this area before they were ready for the LC role.

On the flip side: there may be many other things you do that demonstrate this characteristic that aren't included in MadSkillz.

rbanks54 commented 8 years ago

I'm all for removing the item. It's account management.

I'm all for replacing it with the suggested change since it indicate I don't burn bridges when leaving a gig and that customers think of me when they have new opportunities.

It might be different in other states, but with over 9 years and untold number of clients behind me, and with people regularly contacting me directly for work, there is no way I have the time to cold call previous clients to sniff around for work. That's sales. Pure and simple.

If you disagree, that's OK. You're allowed to be wrong :-)

random82 commented 7 years ago

I partially agree with @robdmoore but I find current wording not being explanatory enough. I think enough evidence to change it presented in this thread, where we try to figure out what does it actually mean.

Current phrase sounds to me more AM than LC and leaves a lot of field to interpretation.
'+ 1 to change it to something that better describes behavior we're looking for