I’m in the process of drafting a post entitled “What Do You Know That People Would Pay You For?” But what I’ll put here in this post, combined with the material for that one, are shaping up to be long. So I think I can carve off an initial, coherent point here about staff augmentation.
That one figures to be uplifting. This one? Perhaps not so much. But I think it’s important to establish a premise.
If you write code in exchange for a salary, you’re either staff or staff augmentation, depending on who signs your paychecks.
Now, for those of you that have worked for product/service companies with a software component, you’re probably shrugging and thinking “yeah, no kidding, I’m staff.” Ditto those of you who have toiled in a cost-center capacity, maintaining some internal software the company would sooner eliminate.
But those of you that work for custom app dev agencies are probably feeling a little huffy, since most places that sell custom app def (i.e. staff augmentation) go out of their way to state righteously that they most certainly DO NOT do staff augmentation. Bear with me, though, all of you.
I don’t actually think there’s anything wrong with staff augmentation. In fact, I think it’s a substantially better model, in most cases, than staff. In accordance with the spirit of Developer Hegemony, I think we, as an industry, should strive to move from staff to staff augmentation, at least as an initial step.