Koch reviews

Even though it's good that the roles are well defined, they're done to such a degree that someone who wants to work on a variety of things will probably be unfulfilled or frustrated with their narrowly defined role. You could be the person that just does new server builds/decommissions, but you won't troubleshoot them, or you could be the person that builds packages for deployment, but not manage the deployment application. If there's a need or desire from a customer to have something that's not supported, it just isn't done. There might be lip-service of "we can investigate that", but KBS's model is to automate their narrowly defined offerings, and not engage in activities that won't generate cashflow for billable services. A recurring theme is "KBS doesn't do that", even if it's something that's easy to do for a novice, the only thing a customer can have is what's on the menu. What this means is that if you're happy with a 9-5 that you do the same thing day-in and day-out, it's very likely that you'll be very satisfied. New products to do the same thing are introduced regularly (even to the detriment to the customer), so some methods change, but not the roles/offerings. The reason that there is a lot of shuffle is partially because of the silo'ng, but also because receiving a substantial raise (despite years of service) can be very difficult. While pay is competitive, it's average at best, and annual pay review aren't technically standard. Any employee can technically receive a raise at any time, but there has to be sufficient justification beyond "this person has been here for another year and has done a good job". According to the business philosophy to receive a raise you need to go above and beyond, and be able to show sufficient "value creation" (ie making the company money, or saving money) through activities that aren't part of your role already. As such, it's much easier to receive a raise by applying for a new role that has a higher pay, because if your supervisor/management can't (or don't want to) prove you've created additional value, your pay will stay largely the same. On that same note, the annual review process is painful, requiring pages of documentation of what you have/haven't done over the last year. While retirement benefits are very good, medical benefits aren't amazing. The only plans (at the time of this writing) are high-deductible plans, which while extremely affordable on the low end, are not a very rich plan if the employee needs to take advantage of them. Additionally, "perks" like company sponsored outings or department-paid meals (barring extraordinary circumstance) aren't present, so there shouldn't ever be an expectation for the company to treat you to a meal, even after a big project was completed. The reliance of KBS on MBM (Market Based Management, the Koch business philosophy) is EXTREMELY heavy. There are a lot of very good fundamentals that anyone can glean of MBM, but KBS puts an emphasis on it that is truly over the top, to the point where one should expect to spend upwards of five hours a week on reading, MBM-related projects and training. The use of buzzwords and just day-to-day consumption is just too much. In general I think MBM is great for people who can't make rational/logical decisions for themselves, but spending time every day consuming/praising it. The company culture puts on a very positive face, and training is very clear about behaviors, but if you look past the surface things can appear to be defined for shallow reasons. These things are defined not because they're "the right thing to do" but because engaging in behavior that doesn't fall in line with the training will result in the loss of value (government fines, personnel being unable to perform, etc). It's fair to say most companies do these things for the same reasons, but they don't try to put a veil on top of it. Additionally, when I first joined KBS they were launching a new technical center in India. Employees were reassured that only low-talent roles would be filled there, and that no jobs in the United States would be impacted. Less than three years later following knowledge sharing, sizable portions of groups are being terminated following their transition to this new technical center. It would certainly be naïve to believe management that such a large investment wouldn't lead to loss of positions eventually, but being specifically told that it would not happen only for it to come to fruition a short while later is not reassuring. Lastly, someone onboarding to KBS (from a "transitioned" group from a Koch company) should understand what the expectation is within the org for them. Someone might have a similar role to what they did with their company previously, but eventually there will be an expectation that they'll be absorbed into one of the capabilities within KBS. But naturally, there wouldn't be a financial advantage for KBS to absorb 100% of the staff, keep them on board, and still turn a profit, so eventually if someone can't "create value" they would eventually be downsized.

No cons from my end as of now