HTML Development and Delivery Issue

[Umar]

In Joe's ecommerce shop, we are trying to be minimize project costs and work with vendors to be creative so that we can keep the software developmentscosts reasonable. The costs for web design and development, outsourced to an agency (vendor), has a pretty high $ value.

In a project the annotations document for a Web project has been developed internally. Only HTML development has been outsourced to the agency.

When the vendor was initially engaged, it was assumed that the vendor, using the annotations document as reference, would identify the relevant HTML pages that existed in production. However, the vendor relayed that there would considerable effort (labor) to identify these HTML pages and wanted Joe to identify and provide these pages. However, the baseline HTML pages that were provided by Joe to the vendor were somewhat flawed.

The results have been less than desirable.

In the microcosm of Joe's eCommerce world, there are multiple projects being executed and the web experience that is being delivered to the customer is constantly evolving. Joe's team just deployed a major release a couple ofweeks ago.

Joe sees a plethora of HTML issues that need to be resolved by the vendor ASAP.

There is no source code control for the HTML pages in either Joe's shop or at the vendor.

Fast forward to where we are now....

1. Joe asks the vendor to "identify and aggregate the HTML pages from the production environment that will serve as the "new and accurate baseline"".

2. Joe asks the vendor to incorporate the previously developed HTML snippets (using the old baseline) into the new baseline.

The vendor reviews the above ask in 1 and 2 and states that the question isnot clear.

I'd be glad to obtain feedback and figure out:

* The steps to educate the vendor regarding how to do (1) [intent as statedabove]
* Similarly (2) [intent as stated above]

Joe has been going back and forth on this. So right now the feeling is would we need to draw a picture to make this as clear as mud.

Any insights on how to challenge the vendor's point of view is that this isa major implementation effort.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Mike Duffy]

The vendor reviews the above ask in 1 and 2 and states
that the question is not clear

I'm in total agreement with the vendor on this point.

Any insights on how to challenge the vendor's point of view is that
this is a major implementation effort.

If the specifications you give to the vendor are like the explanantion
given above, you are indeed facing a challenge.

If you feel that the vendor is exagerating the effort, try a few other
vendors. More importantly, get a clear idea yourself of what the web site
should look like. If the "annotations document" is clear and concise,
turning it into a web site should be straightforward.

 

[Denis McMahon]

I'm in total agreement with the vendor on this point.


If the specifications you give to the vendor are like the explanantion
given above, you are indeed facing a challenge.

If you feel that the vendor is exagerating the effort, try a few other
vendors. More importantly, get a clear idea yourself of what the web
site should look like. If the "annotations document" is clear and
concise, turning it into a web site should be straightforward.

It sounds to me as if Joe may have made the mistake of going to a cheap
and cheerful offshore web shop that may not have taken the time to fully
understand and obtain from Joe details of what he wanted to start with.

Because the web shop has failed to understand Joe's business, and Joe's
way of doing things, Joe and the web shop have travelled down two broadly
parallel roads occasionally shouting something to each other and hoping
that it can be heard by the other party.

However, the roads were slowly diverging and are now so far apart that
both Joe and the web shop have to cross some boggy marshes and sandy
deserts to meet in the middle.

Good luck with that.

 

[Mike Duffy]

... Joe and the web shop have travelled down
two broadly parallel roads occasionally shouting
something to each other and hoping that it can be
heard by the other party.

However, the roads were slowly diverging and
are now so far apart that both Joe and the web
shop have to cross some boggy marshes and sandy
deserts to meet in the middle.

Excellent analogy! If they are lucky, they will meet in the middle.

If not, each will dig a few foxholes and start launching mortars.

 

[Denis McMahon]

Excellent analogy! If they are lucky, they will meet in the middle.

If not, each will dig a few foxholes and start launching mortars.

I'm not sure what Joe expected from "the Vendor" in the first place.

That sounds to me as if Joe was expecting "the Vendor" to identify a
subset of web pages from an existing web site developed by I have no idea
who based on the contents of Joe's "annotations document".

So presumably Joe already had some sort of web site, but wanted "the
Vendor" to do something to the web site based on some document that
didn't actually say what Joe wanted "the Vendor" to do to the web site,
but rather contained notes about the web project.

Well that's not a great surprise. If Joe doesn't know what he wants in
the first place, when he wrote the annotations document, then how on
earth is "the Vendor" meant to determine what Joe wants?

It sounds as if Joe was unable to "identify the relevant HTML pages that
existed in production" despite having written the "annotations document",
and that as a result of Joe's failure, the resulting website is a mess.

Fairly fundamentally, if Joe, who wrote the annotations document, and
presumably has an idea of what Joe wants, was unable to identify the
existing web site pages that would form the baseline of the new web site,
then "the Vendor" would have had little or no chance of doing so.

And then:

Joe still expects "the Vendor" to carry out a task that Joe, despite
having written the annotations document, has been unable to do. My
response to this is that until Joe works out what he wants and manages to
clearly and succinctly convey that information to "the Vendor", "the
Vendor" will be unable to deliver what Joe requires.

What old baseline? The web site that existed before Joe brought in "the
Vendor", or the flawed baseline HTML pages that were provided by Joe to
"the Vendor"?

Now Joe asks:

* The steps to educate the vendor regarding how to do (1) [intent
as stated above]
* Similarly (2) [intent as stated above]

What is actually needed is for "the Vendor" to educate Joe as to how Joe
should be presenting information to "the Vendor". If Joe is asking for an
existing web site to be modified, which it sounds like, then Joe needs to
clearly identify to "the Vendor" who will be doing the work what aspects
of the web site Joe does and does not want to keep, what Joe wants
changed, and how Joe wants it changed.

If Joe has in mind some core set of pages on the web site that he wishes
to form the foundation of the new web site, either in the information
they convey, the style and layout of the pages, or some other feature of
those pages, then Joe needs to accurately convey that information to "the
Vendor".

Yes, Joe may need to draw pictures, or at the very least, have to clearly
explain to the vendor in terms that the vendor understands what it is Joe
wants.

Yes. Tell Joe that it is a major implementation effort, and that every
change that results from a failure on Joe's part to identify what he
wanted with appropriate clarity and for which he subsequently updates the
requirement will result in an additional charge to Joe.

If Joe wants a website designed, then Joe has to specify what he wants.
If Joe keeps changing the specification, then Joe should expect to pay
both for the work done in producing the old specification, and the work
done in making the subsequent changes to meet the modified specification.