[alex_anglin]

>The company makes their money in different departments and making money is the name of the game.

The challenge here is that under this model the different departments get credit for the revenue they generate. What their relationship is with the in-house dev team is very much something that one should be aware of if they choose to be in that situation. It's not too dissimilar a situation to every single 'change management' model that has executive commitment as the number one success factor.

[ProAm]

I agree. It's a different animal that being just a developer at a consultancy. You are supporting other departments to become successful. If you are undeniably helpful people/departments/executives will know that. I personally do not care for credit at all for tasks accomplished. It's always the journey I find more rewarding. Give me my salary, benefits, opportunities to grow, etc... and Im good, but I know not everyone is like that, especially users on HN.

[ta988]

That's the thing unfortunately there exist places where the opportunities to grow are non-existent because not every executive realize what you are bringing. And their n+1 will hear about conflicting opinions and make their mind about that. You and people you helped may not have enough political power to save your ass.

[ProAm]

That is true, there are always bad places to work at. But by and large Ive worked at more places that appreciate good ancillary work than oppose it. It's important to work efficiently and economically (which is the antithetical to consultancy), communicate well, (what are you doing, why its important and why it will help the company tomorrow) especially to non-technical people. It's good to be able to speak clearly to C-level individuals spending their annual budgets on "IT services" and to also speak well to the people implementing those services. Seeing the broad big picture, keeping it in focus and getting the job done to help the company is invaluable.