Would you rather be an in-house enterprise architect, or a consultant leading a variety of businesses on their technology journey?

I had a fairly long tenure in-house with one of New Zealand's largest banks. I'd had a variety of roles there. The last one I landed on was an enterprise architect, a role I was performing while I was also studying towards a Master of Management. From both of these I saw that big companies have the scope to take on roles like enterprise architect, to build a strategic function and a team that's future focused and looking at what the organization needs to be doing to overcome the challenges of tomorrow. They can also afford to pop down the road to a consultancy company and bring in the knowledge when they don't have it, and they can afford to absorb the mistakes along the way. What I was starting to realize was, that's great at the top end of town, but in New Zealand, 96%-97% of our companies are classified as small and medium. So that's up to 200-300 staff, with turnover of between $5-$20 million dollars. And these smaller companies would get the same benefit of having that advice on how to structure their digital footprint to actually enable the business and make the jump from some of the legacy tech platforms, particularly on-premises to more cloud focused. They need it, but the problem is they can't afford it, and they don't necessarily have the budget to take that role in-house full time. So when going out into a consultancy model from in-house, what I was looking at was to take that in-house model, big business thinking and put it in a mid-sized, mid-market budget. That concept is realised in my role as a virtual CTO (vCTO), and enables me to spend time with a range of businesses helping them realise that tech strategy.

Anonymous Author
I had a fairly long tenure in-house with one of New Zealand's largest banks. I'd had a variety of roles there. The last one I landed on was an enterprise architect, a role I was performing while I was also studying towards a Master of Management. From both of these I saw that big companies have the scope to take on roles like enterprise architect, to build a strategic function and a team that's future focused and looking at what the organization needs to be doing to overcome the challenges of tomorrow. They can also afford to pop down the road to a consultancy company and bring in the knowledge when they don't have it, and they can afford to absorb the mistakes along the way. What I was starting to realize was, that's great at the top end of town, but in New Zealand, 96%-97% of our companies are classified as small and medium. So that's up to 200-300 staff, with turnover of between $5-$20 million dollars. And these smaller companies would get the same benefit of having that advice on how to structure their digital footprint to actually enable the business and make the jump from some of the legacy tech platforms, particularly on-premises to more cloud focused. They need it, but the problem is they can't afford it, and they don't necessarily have the budget to take that role in-house full time. So when going out into a consultancy model from in-house, what I was looking at was to take that in-house model, big business thinking and put it in a mid-sized, mid-market budget. That concept is realised in my role as a virtual CTO (vCTO), and enables me to spend time with a range of businesses helping them realise that tech strategy.
1 upvotes