[dragonwriter]

> I really think the idea that "consulting" is some special thing that "contractors" and "freelancers" can't do is harmful.

Most consultants are contractors (whether they are also freelancers or not depends on whether they are individual contractors or are contracted firms), though there are some cases where internal employees job function includes consulting for some other internal group than the one to which they directly report.

But not all contractors (freelance or otherwise) are contracted to consult, and those that aren't contracted to consult shouldn't be called "consultants", in the same way that people that are contracted exclusively for tasks (including consulting) that don't include developing software shouldn't be called "software developers".

[tptacek]

See, now I think you're using the term in a subtly different way than Brennan is. Brennan couldn't have sold that Access to Web conversion deal as a pure consulting project, in the Arthur Anderson "split up implementation and consulting" sense of the term.

Everyone working independent needs to think of the business value they're creating; they need to think about their services the way product managers think about Feature/Function/Benefit charts. We call the people who are good at this "consultants", even when most of what they actually do is (say) Rails apps.