Good at what it does; some limitations
Pros
Some exceptionally bright staff and amazing work ethic. Interesting projects and opportunities to work in different domains. Good client relationships; some great and clever deployed solutions. Generally friendly place to work; people are trusted to get on with the job with minimal supervision. Light-touch management. Most of the staff like it and tend to stay for a long time. Efficient HR and admin processes. Reasonable car and benefits package. On-site catering and ample parking.
Cons
Over-tolerance of eccentricity in certain staff who have been with the company for a very long time, and are cantankerous and awkward to work with but not actually as good at their jobs as they think they are. There seem to be a lot of politics and baggage at board level for a company of this size. Most of the directors and department heads seem to mistrust each other. This results in a rather siloed business structure where it is difficult to move staff between areas to resource projects rapidly. This has led to the ludicrous situation where one BU has staff on the bench while another is struggling to meet its contractual commitments. One gets the impression that certain senior staff are coasting to retirement and don't want to rock the boat before they sell out. Company is constantly restructuring (but little actually changes for the better). Regular 'boom and bust' cycles: every so often, the company decides it is not doing well and makes a load of redundancies; a few months later it realises it has not got enough staff to do the work and so recruits like mad. Escher's Staircase. Despite expressing aspirations for growth, it seems content to be a subcontractor and chokes when faced with opportunities to prime bigger programmes. Salaries have not kept pace with competitors' (or inflation) over the past ten years or so. Taxi-rank approach to allocating work. Square pegs banged into round holes on a needs-must basis, with little consideration given to personal aptitudes, aspirations or career-development needs. Technical skillsets falling behind the curve. Attitude of management to up-skilling is 'read a book'. Lack of career opportunities for middle managers. Dead man's shoes at the top. Only way up is out.
