HCSS reviews

The downsides of HCSS only become apparent after working there for some time. The company presents the idea of employees being empowered to think like owners, but the truth is you are really only empowered to think like THE owner. Mike Rydin is the founder, president & CEO of HCSS and holds the stock majority in the company. Every decision (and I do mean every) must go through him. From the colors of the software icons and the user interface layout to what each development team is to work on next must be approved by him. His decisions seem capricious and whimsical, and he will often contradict himself or completely reverse his position from week to week. This is the natural result of him trying to stay abreast of too many diverse action items and being unwilling to trust his employees to act. He and the senior management team that supports him refuse to recognize that there are some inherent problems with the technology platform (Visual Dataflex - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_DataFlex) the company has used since the company started in the mid 1980's. They have a couple of new and unsuccessful products that use C#, but the company has no plans to migrate any of their flagship products to a current technology. The one place where Rydin does not often micro-manage is Technical Services (Technical Support, Software Implementation and Training). This part of the company comprises around one third of the manpower employed by HCSS and is, for the most part, left alone by President Rydin. Unfortunately, the result is a cliquish mob whose leadership is dictatorial and petty. Scheming is rampant among the different cells of employees whose quest to increase their power base is most often at the expense of another employee's reputation.

The company went through a growth spurt and cultural change over a short period of time. Changes were not all good. Wages are far below competitive in the industry - 32K starting entry-level salary might have been acceptable back when the company was founded, but these days you might do better waiting tables. The company has little interest in using software technologies and processes developed and refined in this century. Its legacy codebase is all that matters. We hire and train more new entry-level software developers from scratch than experienced developers with real world experience - their "modern" approach to software development is out of place, and from a business perspective it is cheaper to train new developers in a technology that won't get them a job anywhere else. The developers who are lucky enough to work with newer technologies build new products and concepts that nobody cares about. Ridiculously complicated hiring process that wastes time and resources. It is a miracle that anybody endures it and gets an offer. The process begins with an employment test that must be taken on-site. It has absolutely nothing to do with the job and many applicants fail. If you pass, your resume gets a review and you might get a phone interview. Pass the phone screening and you get to come back to the office for several one on one interviews with your potential peers. Interviewers at this stage are often pulled in at short notice and each have their own idea of what an ideal candidate for a position is. If everyone you talk to approves, you get to come back yet again for a final round with the executives, and once again there needs to be a 100% consensus before an offer is considered. One might have better luck getting elected student body president at a small university. An artificial culture - lots of HR fluff pumped at the newer hires and job candidates. "Culture" is a well-crafted web of deceptions and half-truths to make the company look like something it simply isn't and never will be. Many who have been here for a while realize this but generally keep quiet (or amongst themselves). Newer hires who were talented enough to land better jobs left very quickly after forming the same realization.