I will offer my critique of this idea. I hope you do not mind.
The Hollywood model has existed in tech for a number of years already -- in pretty large numbers -- under a different name: consultants. So why have not already seen the consultant model take completely over?
You first have to compare the nature of Hollywood's products versus software. For a movie, a group of people come together for a while to create something once. And then perhaps without ever touching it again, they (well some of them) get paid residuals for the sheer existence of that static artwork. (I cannot count the number of times I watched The Matrix, but it never changed between viewings.) Whereas art is static, (business) software is living and breathing in parallel with its host business. It either grows/changes as business needs change, or it dies and is replaced.
The main problem with the Hollywood model in this case is one of missing business context. Businesses have a lot of moving/changing parts. It has to be weighed in the cost analysis either a) how much time must be spent to train a consultant on your business + effort to keep them apprised of changes (aka handling scope creep) or b) how much residual work you can afford in order to fix the missed or misunderstood or changed aspects of your business after initial delivery. Whereas when you hire a person full-time, they are continually learning about your business and are sortof "on-call" to correct things they missed the first time or that changed in the meanwhile. At the end of the day this missing context has to be factored into the cost of the Hollywood model. Then the business can determine whether the Hollywood model or just hiring employees is the best overall value. As is normal, the correct answer will highly depend on the situation.
You do rightly point out that sometimes a company does not have the in-house expertise they need, nor the time to train for it. That is a perfect fit for a consultant. And it is already quite common for companies to retain both employees and consultants.
Lastly I will say that a good team has a "greater than the sum of its parts" quality. This is very difficult to cultivate at all, much less in a group of freelancers. You can actually observe it over and over in Hollywood TV series (that make it)... the first season is ok but they "really hit their stride in season 2," as reviewers often say. Because cultivating a well-oiled machine usually takes a lot of time working together.
I have been both an employee and a consultant during my career. Both are good (and bad) in their own way. That will naturally lead people to prefer one over the other. Especially in software right now, I'm sure there is room for both.
Thank you for taking time to comment. Comments in this forum educate me (I use a consume-produce-engage model for learning. If you are interested refer this post).
Like you, I have been a consultant and an employee. I have been a consultant (contractor) at lower levels (developer) and as a CTO.
I'm not defining a future that I wish to have. I observed around and I'm just documenting what I see around. The future seems to go in this path. I'm saying, if this is the future then this is how developers should prepare for it.
Earlier consultants were not hired at the top level. Those who were called as consultants were simply contractors (who worked at one job and not really considered as experts. They were commodities). Recently, I am observing there is a need to hire at the top level because of changing business realities. They are not constrained to work only at one job.
You make a valid about with making Matrix. I differ slightly. AFTER the movie is made there is no change. But conception and production has many moving parts. Movie makers go through that change too -- script changes, actors changes and so on. Business find ways to handle those changes.
Thank you again for comment. Hope this engagement is mutually beneficial.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I will offer my critique of this idea. I hope you do not mind.
The Hollywood model has existed in tech for a number of years already -- in pretty large numbers -- under a different name: consultants. So why have not already seen the consultant model take completely over?
You first have to compare the nature of Hollywood's products versus software. For a movie, a group of people come together for a while to create something once. And then perhaps without ever touching it again, they (well some of them) get paid residuals for the sheer existence of that static artwork. (I cannot count the number of times I watched The Matrix, but it never changed between viewings.) Whereas art is static, (business) software is living and breathing in parallel with its host business. It either grows/changes as business needs change, or it dies and is replaced.
The main problem with the Hollywood model in this case is one of missing business context. Businesses have a lot of moving/changing parts. It has to be weighed in the cost analysis either a) how much time must be spent to train a consultant on your business + effort to keep them apprised of changes (aka handling scope creep) or b) how much residual work you can afford in order to fix the missed or misunderstood or changed aspects of your business after initial delivery. Whereas when you hire a person full-time, they are continually learning about your business and are sortof "on-call" to correct things they missed the first time or that changed in the meanwhile. At the end of the day this missing context has to be factored into the cost of the Hollywood model. Then the business can determine whether the Hollywood model or just hiring employees is the best overall value. As is normal, the correct answer will highly depend on the situation.
You do rightly point out that sometimes a company does not have the in-house expertise they need, nor the time to train for it. That is a perfect fit for a consultant. And it is already quite common for companies to retain both employees and consultants.
Lastly I will say that a good team has a "greater than the sum of its parts" quality. This is very difficult to cultivate at all, much less in a group of freelancers. You can actually observe it over and over in Hollywood TV series (that make it)... the first season is ok but they "really hit their stride in season 2," as reviewers often say. Because cultivating a well-oiled machine usually takes a lot of time working together.
I have been both an employee and a consultant during my career. Both are good (and bad) in their own way. That will naturally lead people to prefer one over the other. Especially in software right now, I'm sure there is room for both.
Thank you for taking time to comment. Comments in this forum educate me (I use a consume-produce-engage model for learning. If you are interested refer this post).
Like you, I have been a consultant and an employee. I have been a consultant (contractor) at lower levels (developer) and as a CTO.
I'm not defining a future that I wish to have. I observed around and I'm just documenting what I see around. The future seems to go in this path. I'm saying, if this is the future then this is how developers should prepare for it.
Earlier consultants were not hired at the top level. Those who were called as consultants were simply contractors (who worked at one job and not really considered as experts. They were commodities). Recently, I am observing there is a need to hire at the top level because of changing business realities. They are not constrained to work only at one job.
You make a valid about with making Matrix. I differ slightly. AFTER the movie is made there is no change. But conception and production has many moving parts. Movie makers go through that change too -- script changes, actors changes and so on. Business find ways to handle those changes.
Thank you again for comment. Hope this engagement is mutually beneficial.