No “research” that PwC publishes is worth the digital ink it’s printed on. It’s motivated by whoever is paying them to get the result that they want
Whether you are into remote work or not, this is meaningless
Whether you are into remote work or not, this is meaningless
If you see a report published by a company that says “PwC did research for us”, then yes, it has likely been influenced by that company. But a report like this that is entirely PwC branded is not that.
Unfortunately none I saw (sample size: a handful in detail and perhaps dozens to a skim) followed even basic statistical practices I had learned in undergraduate studies at a well-respected university.
There were clues that at least some of the parties involved knew better, but the imperative to publish completely overwhelmed any instinct for academic rigor.
It was dressed up as "eminence", which came after sold work and delivered work (in order) in annual reviews. Statistical rigor would probably help eminence, but there were faster paths to eminence.
this is judging by all the time I spend reading their "handbooks" professionally
That's to say, one should read the report, especially the methodology, before fully dismissing it.
I do agree ignoring known and mercenary liars does save time.
Faced with this flood, I must then, if I am to get anything done at all, develop many methods of winnowing on which of them I might spend my time, which on this Earth is without doubt limited. Hypocrisy suggests at least two excellent reasons to immediately discard.
First, if I take the option that the person who puts forth the proposition were proselytizing in good faith, then I am left to wonder if this position is consequently so burdensome that even its champions find it too difficult to bear. Never cause harm to any other living thing, and as you extend this past the miniscule deaths of the wee crawling and flying things the broom and mask of the Jain hope to avoid and on to microscopic deaths of the hapless bacteria, it is simply not something tenable, you will fall short simply as a matter of existing, and you have no examples to follow, despite the exhortations.
On the other tine of this fork, perhaps the person is operating in bad faith, and wishes to covertly establish an imbalanced set of transactions or relationships, favoring them or their ilk, all via the mechanism of disapproval. Give away your property and do not be chained by material goods. Why, yes, I am picking up what you have dropped but pay no mind to that, you ought to focus on your own sins, you know, now that I have explained them to you. You may have noticed how so many of the people with rude behaviors will deflect to your uncivilized and impolite faux pas of pointing out said rudeness. A virtue, yes, but especially good to possess for people who are not me.
Still a good deal, but not quite as obviously a good deal.
Once you get into rockstar quality it’s more or less parity since they have all the options anyone in the U.S. has. Most companies are not doing interesting enough work to justify hiring such people.
This is from my personal direct experience over at least dozens if not a hundred directly managed employees over the past decade.
Outsourcing isn’t your fathers offshoring any more if done right. Watching most marginal US tech workers be so short sighted by giving up the only competitive advantage they have left has been interesting to watch.
India became such a hub for outsourcing because of the huge pool of English speakers in a single country. Large scale near sourcing to South America has less of a time zone issue but only 1/3 the population of which fewer people speak English + a large number of countries with their own tax codes etc. It’s easy to lump Brazilian and Mexican developers together but cheaper to only operate in one of those countries at which point the talent pool just isn’t that huge.
Really it’s Middle America and Canada that are the ‘threats’ except unlike India there isn’t the vast talent pool. Silicon Valley alone has roughly the population of Montana + North Dakota + South Dakota but those states have nowhere near the number of software developers and they want first world compensation.
It’s easy to confuse geographic area for talent but those expensive costal cities are huge: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/maps-extremes-us-population...
> without compromising quality
Pick one.
I recently reviewed some offshore code in Python (pandas) that was something like:
s = pd.Series(...)
for i, d in enumerate(s): if i == 12: value = df.loc[i][5] break
Yes, that's right; instead of checking the dimensions and selecting the value by index, they added an iterator. An entire app full of this.
Know who reviewed the code? That's right, more offshore workers.
Can't really blame 'em though. When you're a contractor, you have no obligation to write anything of quality since you might never see the code again.
So, now we'll spend more time unf*cking the code which is a latent expense the company didn't anticipate.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Brazilian and Mexican SWE contractors, in particular, have advanced considerably in quality from just a decade ago, and can now easily replace US-based workers at half the cost without compromising quality.
I have replaced a few US-based workers and the ones that I didn't, some of them could easily be replaced by other Brazilians I have worked with.
> without compromising quality
Pick one.
--
Nonsense.
I've seen companies with only full time employees that have horrid work cultures, which churn out junk, junk, junk.
It's not about contractors.
And hiring out of country isn't necessarily a 'contractor' thing regardless. You can full-time employee people worldwide, too.
Thus, it can be construed as a win-win.
1. Consulting company writes article supportive of remote work
2. But they’re lying because remote work increases their profit margins
3. Because it decreases travel expenses, so they charge more for the same work, but the overall package is less.
This is ridiculous conspiracy thinking. The potential profit is miniscule, the reputational cost of being caught is high, and it completely misunderstands how these things are sold. Prices are negotiated exclusive of expenses (typically) and buyers often don’t even see expenses. They often go straight to Accounts Payable and might even come out of an entirely different budget.
Furthermore, it explained how it could lead to a win-win scenario.
Working from home has many benefits, yet most companies push for going back to the office.
There is no lying, nor any conspiracy. Just two sides of an argument.
Please note that your comment is about price negotiation, but my comment is about recurring bills for the customer.
Their main income is a direct result of their capability to advise in the best interests of their clients. If action taken upon their advise, and that action leads to a loss of profit, then their clients paid them to lose money. There aren't enough companies that pay consultants money just for the sake of their ego to sustain a company the size of PwC.
Generally speaking the point is you hire the consultants to get to where you want. You want RTO? Then you hire them and they will tell you how to get there/how to justify it to everyone/how to roll it out.
This is in some sense cynical, but in some sense also just logical. You want something to happen, then you pay somebody to do it! The idea that you would hire some external vendors to... decide for you... might make sense in theory but if you're the one defining the strategy surely you will have made some decision.
These are business people, not sociologists. Though you talk to many sociologists and they'll tell you they're often hired in to justify an existing decision as well...
With fuzzy stuff like this you can make an argument in any direction anyways. It's all pretty self-fulfilling.
In other words, if they have new information, they will share that information to see if their clients will have a change of mind. If the new information (or lack of one) won't change minds, then they will submit their advise in support of what they were hired to do to begin with.
These consulting firms, on their own, have had an enormous impact in shaping entire economies and countries. They are not mere props, supporting the ego of an executive. A lot of times, it is the entire board that hires them, or their report by the CEO is presented to the board, not one person. if the outcome is undesirable, they will lose credibility the next time they're used at that company.
My super cynical take is that the people who end up in management consulting are people who really liked making powerpoint slides in school. Just a continuation of what they did all through high school and university. Homework, as a job. I only half believe this
You’re paying for validation and cutting through your own management and organization problems.
So in this case all those companies are paying PwC to conclude that hybrid > in office > full remote?
To figure out which is true for your company, they would come in, spend a few months studying you workplace. This would include several interviews with leaders and SMEs that the leaders hand select.
Given this study process, it wont be surprising that the consultants end echoing back the opinions of leadership.
I been through many consultant assisted re-orgs. Somehow, the leaders who brought them in always end up with promotions and more control. On one hand, yes, this usually gets oversold to the rank and file with promises of efficiency. On the other hand, the consultants are doing what they are paid for: finding a way to get their stakeholders what they want, when the stakeholders dont have a roadmap to get it.
A consultancy wouldn’t last very long if they disagree on strategy with the person signing the cheques.
“We used the advice from top experts.”
Office work is good = “There’s an issue with the sample size and methodology plus I think this was written by a marketing person”
Remote work is good = “Go off king”