The answer to "7 critical errors when accepting an order for the production site".
After reading article 7 of critical errors in accepting an order for a website , I cannot help but answer obvious distortions.
I agree, the customer is almost never competent in writing TK, setting goals and objectives, etc. In this case, a potential client is usually very surprised when you have to pay for the TK. “How, you do not want to invest in our cooperation?” Said one failed customer. To which I noted that the ROI of such investments would be inadequately low. The person wanted an online store at a ridiculous price (he called himself, he called the price himself), and also wanted “detailed TZ” for free. Yeah, so I ran away and “invested” at least two weeks of work.
')
Keywords: in the business . When I worked as a doctor, I had patients who had "their own firm views on everything, including treatment." And I still treated the way I thought it necessary, and not "conspired urine," according to their "firm views." Or sent to the head, another doctor to ask. Because if you treat “as a patient wants,” he will simply die, he will still, and the doctor will respond.
The client knows how to do his job, and let design issues leave to designers.
Judging by the phrase “it would be strange to hear from the client which codes to prescribe the site for, ” such a “client” needs not a designer, but a photoshop driver, not a developer, but a bydlokoder to stupidly follow whims and whims, following “a hard look at everything”.
I agree that you should not do "to like it." Although sometimes it is necessary, and we do not even lay out such works in the portfolio. You know, first you speak with one person, adequate, and then either the boss-shovel or the stupid micro-manager connects. And rushed. And at that stage of the project, when the gap is unpleasant in terms of finances.
If the client is stupid, has “his own view on everything,” and the studio does, as it is right, and not “to make the client like it,” then the studio has a lot of problems. These customers do not have to do it right, but you don’t need to do “to like it” either. With such "clients" you just have to part, holding the advance.
According to clause 2, the customer with his “firm look at everything” does not want to hear the opinions of the studio. Let photoshop and code.
This is a client error, not a studio.
If we find out that the site is another tsatska for the customer, then we do not even sign the contract, we say goodbye right away. Because such a customer will bring more losses than profits. On the pleasure of work and can not speak.
This is a client error, not a studio.
What does the client not assume? What site should not be maintained? If the studio did not try to explain, then the studio is to blame. But, as a rule, studios explain.
Maybe the client does not assume that someone will have to pay for the site support? Does he pay employees? So have to. Not studios, so employees. Well, if you do not support the site, then this will be another disgrace, made according to "the client’s firm view of everything, including the sites." A sort of tsatska, "customer continuation."
That's about point number 7 - here I agree.
Answer to the first item:
I agree, the customer is almost never competent in writing TK, setting goals and objectives, etc. In this case, a potential client is usually very surprised when you have to pay for the TK. “How, you do not want to invest in our cooperation?” Said one failed customer. To which I noted that the ROI of such investments would be inadequately low. The person wanted an online store at a ridiculous price (he called himself, he called the price himself), and also wanted “detailed TZ” for free. Yeah, so I ran away and “invested” at least two weeks of work.
On item number 2:
“At the same time, the majority of customers of the site are adults and competent people, as a rule, who have achieved significant results in their work and have strong views on everything, including the creation of websites.”
')
Keywords: in the business . When I worked as a doctor, I had patients who had "their own firm views on everything, including treatment." And I still treated the way I thought it necessary, and not "conspired urine," according to their "firm views." Or sent to the head, another doctor to ask. Because if you treat “as a patient wants,” he will simply die, he will still, and the doctor will respond.
The client knows how to do his job, and let design issues leave to designers.
Judging by the phrase “it would be strange to hear from the client which codes to prescribe the site for, ” such a “client” needs not a designer, but a photoshop driver, not a developer, but a bydlokoder to stupidly follow whims and whims, following “a hard look at everything”.
On item number 3:
I agree that you should not do "to like it." Although sometimes it is necessary, and we do not even lay out such works in the portfolio. You know, first you speak with one person, adequate, and then either the boss-shovel or the stupid micro-manager connects. And rushed. And at that stage of the project, when the gap is unpleasant in terms of finances.
If the client is stupid, has “his own view on everything,” and the studio does, as it is right, and not “to make the client like it,” then the studio has a lot of problems. These customers do not have to do it right, but you don’t need to do “to like it” either. With such "clients" you just have to part, holding the advance.
On item number 4:
According to clause 2, the customer with his “firm look at everything” does not want to hear the opinions of the studio. Let photoshop and code.
On item number 5:
The fifth mistake is that the client sees the site as an extension of himself (especially if he is a business owner) or as an extension of his business, and the studio views the site as a tool through which money is earned.
This is a client error, not a studio.
If we find out that the site is another tsatska for the customer, then we do not even sign the contract, we say goodbye right away. Because such a customer will bring more losses than profits. On the pleasure of work and can not speak.
On item number 6:
Another mistake studios - the perception of the site as a reusable financial investment. Often the client does not assume that the site can be made in such a way that it will require additional remuneration of those people who will update the site, maintain it, and so on.
This is a client error, not a studio.
What does the client not assume? What site should not be maintained? If the studio did not try to explain, then the studio is to blame. But, as a rule, studios explain.
Maybe the client does not assume that someone will have to pay for the site support? Does he pay employees? So have to. Not studios, so employees. Well, if you do not support the site, then this will be another disgrace, made according to "the client’s firm view of everything, including the sites." A sort of tsatska, "customer continuation."
That's about point number 7 - here I agree.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/22261/
All Articles