Originally Posted by Dhraiden
This is slightly troubling to read about, and implies that they did not do proper project planning…shouldn't contracts or some kind of enforceable agreements been in place with whomever they hired - regardless of whether the workers are contractors or employees?
Even contractors are supposed to agree to be bound to hit certain deliverables within a certain time-frame, it's basic business sense, no?
I can understand as he says the less costly nature of using contractors instead of employees…but that's less costly sometimes at face value. Here we see an opportunity cost he failed to account for. Hopefully they'll get back on track despite the setback.