Intermediaries or why in Russia a performer is always “guilty” on the example of an IT project

Content

1. Introduction
2. Who is the middleman?
3. What is the mediation in the IT business?
a. How should the circuit work?
b. Reality: not collaboration, but mediation
c. The results of the "chain of intermediaries"
d. Why is the programmer always guilty?
e. How to identify a chain of intermediaries in practice?
f. Intermediaries - a negative impact on business
g. Why so rarely change the responsibility of the customer?
2. Another mediation option: subcontracts
3. How to avoid the problem of intermediaries?
a. Study the subject of the project before choosing the artist
b. Control of all phases of work - the basis of success
c. Erroneous solution: working with a programmer directly
d. And if you hire a few specialists?
4. Epilogue

Introduction

I decided to write this article after I once again faced the problem of working through an intermediary. And here I mean not so much intermediaries in the direct sense of the word (a company or an individual who resells an order or hires subcontractors), but mediation as a fact that occurs even in the case of entering into an agreement between the customer (consumer) of the product and the company executor.

Personally, this is not the first time I've come across a situation where cooperation between an IT company and a customer ends in disastrous. Moreover, this situation is very common in the Russian IT segment. Customers refuse to cooperate with performers in the middle of projects, they are outraged that it becomes more difficult to find specialists every day, as the number of companies offering IT-services is increasing, and choosing professionals among them is becoming more difficult. At the same time, programmers are traditionally criticized.

Probably, you also heard or even repeated the phrases: “they took the programmers again, but they didn’t do anything”, “they have diplomas, they know nothing, they can’t do anything”, “there are very bad programmers in this company, they couldn’t even a simple website to make "etc.
')
I admit, there was a period when I myself repeated similar phrases. But over time, I realized that the real essence of the problem is most often not programmers. Moreover, if you correctly set the task, then many “bad” programmers turn out to be excellent specialists who solve the customer's problem with high quality and in a short time.

But the real trouble of the Russian business is mediation. Moreover, not only invited specialists, but also company employees can be in the role of mediator.

Who is the middleman?

Intermediary - a natural or legal person who provides assistance in conducting trade and procurement operations, reduces the seller and the buyer, earning on intermediary services, usually a specified percentage.

In today's Russian business, when they talk about an intermediary, they mean a person or an organization, which is an additional link between the seller and the buyer of the goods or services. In some cases, the mediator finds a buyer (seller) and for a certain reward simply brings the parties together. But more often, he also participates in the process of information exchange, rather than slowing down this process, and sometimes even distorts the transmitted information, creating the effect of a “damaged telephone”.

The mediator is not interested in the result, the successful completion of the project is not his goal. He cares only his own benefit.

Very often, employees of the customer company and the executive company who participate in an IT project begin to act as intermediaries, rather than employees. To understand the difference, it is worth referring to the definition:

An employee is someone who works with someone to help with a specific job. The employee receives a salary and works in the interests of the company. That is why his goal is to bring the greatest benefit with the least expenditure of resources.

It is very important to see the difference: the employee helps to perform certain work, tries to bring real benefits, and the mediator is only interested in getting some benefit. The result of the work and the quality of the services provided by the mediator are of little interest. If this is an intermediary in the literal sense of the word, then it is important for him that the transaction takes place, and he will receive the due fee.

If an employee of the company begins to perform the functions of an intermediary, this means that the employee is also not interested in the result, it is more important for him to work as little as possible, but also to get the benefit: to do without penalties in case of unsuccessful completion of the project and remain a trusted manager.

What is the mediation in the IT business?

Suppose the head of the company comes to the conclusion that the time has come to update the site, for example, transfer it to a new platform, set up automatic notifications, some order processing options, add new online payment methods, and so on.

What happens after making this decision? Usually the manager chooses among his subordinates a person who is appointed responsible for the project. This employee receives a list of requirements and wishes from the manager, after which his duties include searching for the performer (web studio), as well as monitoring the project’s performance and solving some current issues arising in the process of project implementation.

Further, this employee contacts the web-studio, which, for its part, also appoints a responsible person (manager) to work with the client on the current project. This manager (or his manager) defines a programmer who will be engaged in the implementation of the task.

How should the circuit work?

Ideally, the sequence of actions of each of the participants in the process is as follows:

1. The head clearly sets the task for his subordinates.
2. The person responsible for implementation (from the customer’s side) studies the problem in detail, determines the ways to solve it, finds time to study the issue in depth. Then he recycles the task, removes unnecessary from there, adds something of his own (detailing, clarification), creates an updated and already more detailed task for implementation.
3. Responsible for the implementation of the project selects the implementing company.
4. The manager (sales manager) of the web studio makes a detailed survey of the customer’s representative, clarifies all the requirements, helps to detail them and passes the task to the project manager.
5. The project manager on his part studies the task in detail, removes the unnecessary, adds the necessary, after which the detailed description is agreed with the customer.
6. The finished and agreed technical assignment is passed to the programmer.

In this case, each participant in the chain is not just an intermediary, but adds some value to this process.

Each of the participants in the process in terms of the definitions given above is an employee, he helps to implement the project.

Reality: not collaboration, but mediation

In reality, this chain most often works differently; I call this approach the “trouble of intermediaries”. And it lies in the fact that all participants, except the head of the customer company and the programmer working on the task, do not bring anything useful to this process.

All participants of the described chain simply conclude a deal and transfer information from the direct customer (company head) to the performer (programmer), i.e. become intermediaries in the truest sense of the word.

Responsible company does not study the topic, does not try to understand the issue, does not deal with the detailed task. He simply focuses on information received from the manager, and advertising, for example, on the Internet, and finds some kind of web studio.

The person responsible for the implementation of the project did not contribute any value to the project!

So, the employee of the customer company found a web studio. What's next? In theory, he should communicate with the manager (seller of services), who will carefully examine all the wishes of the customer and clearly determine that this can be done, this is not, and this can be done, but a little different, etc.

In reality, often the manager also becomes just an intermediary, i.e. he does not delve into the nuances, cannot (does not know) determine which of the tasks set can be realized, and which cannot, he simply transmits the information without any changes further down the chain. In the best case - will issue information from the client in the form of a brief.

The representative of the web studio also did not add anything of value to the project.

The task still looks like this: “you need to make a website”. And in this form it receives the project manager. He also adds nothing, does not diminish, and quite often does not even delve into all the nuances, simply finds a programmer (on staff or on freelance) and sends him a brief from the customer.

None of the middlemen added any value to the order.

The programmer starts the implementation of the project, based on the existing version of the task. And then the result of the work goes back through this chain. Also, without serious checks or testing of the result, without adding any value.

Let me remind you that now we are talking, above all, about programming. With work on the design of the site, often, everything is much easier. Here decisions are made directly at the management level without intermediaries on the principle of “like / dislike”. In programming, everything is somewhat more complicated, the site must meet certain requirements for speed, security, convenience, and a list of functions.

The programmer implements the task assigned to him by the customer, in the way he understood it and how he was able to accomplish it. The participants of the chain from the web studio transfer the results of the work to the customer’s representative, who, let me remind you, did not penetrate into the specifics of the order, and therefore is not able to correctly assess the quality of the work. As a result, the customer representative says “yes, everything is fine,” and reports to the manager that the web studio has completed the work. The result of such cooperation is a product that often does not meet the requirements of the customer.

The results of the "chain of intermediaries"

Due to the lack of the desired result, a disgruntled manager from the selected web studio and programmer, most often, refuses because they did not cope with the task. Sometimes (but rarely) they also change the person responsible for the project. And the process starts over.

As a result, this sequence of actions is repeated many times, many iterations occur. But with the new performers the chain remains the same, people are actively doing something, but the site is not updated, the task is not solved.

In principle, this situation is beneficial to all but the business owner:

• Responsible for the project on the part of the company can always blame the web studio for disrupting the project.
• Responsible on the part of the performer (web studio), in turn, blame the programmer for everything.

As a result, the programmer is to blame for any failures in the IT project . That is why at the address of programmers one can hear so many, most often, undeserved negatives.

And it does not matter that the programmer has no direct connection with the customer and performs a task that has passed through the hands of several intermediaries. It also doesn’t matter that the customer’s representative who accepts the work doesn’t understand anything in technology, and he doesn’t want to know anything about them, although it’s not realistic to verify the result correctly, without even having general information about how the site functions. In any case, the programmer is to blame.

The result of cooperation looks like this:

• Web studio receives prepayment. At the same time the site is not ready, but the money is not returned.
• Responsible on the part of the customer, in order not to incur the wrath of the authorities, closes the contract quietly and peacefully.

As a result, everyone is happy. In addition to the head of the company, who spent the money, but did not solve the task. In cases where the business owner and manager are different people, another intermediary is simply added in this chain. Otherwise, everything remains the same.

Why is this so? Why are such people taking part in this scheme? This is a topic for another, separate conversation. Perhaps even the topic of a separate study of sociology. And I just share information about the method of work that is widespread in our country, which I personally observed in practice many times.

The most interesting thing is that this scheme itself is a working one. It can function perfectly if all participants in the process work as they should. This is possible if the manager finds a competent executor (assistant) who is able to select competent performers for the project, and if the entire process is monitored.

Here I am talking about small and medium-sized businesses, where a manager can control such work. I had cooperation experience with such companies, and it turned out to be positive. With the right approach, the circuit consisting of a chain of performers works great.

Why is the programmer always guilty?

Here it is important to understand the peculiarities of remuneration "in Russian." The classical Russian scheme works: there is a “pipe” (money from the customer), they flow to the performer, but only a thin streamlet flows to it. To keep this performer, you need to pay him a decent salary, for which, in view of the above, you have to load the specialist with large amounts of work so that a lot of “trickles” will be added up to the amount that suits him. But the high load of the programmer often leads to a decrease in the quality of work. The alternative is to hire a mediocre specialist who agrees to a low salary. Both in the first and in the second case, the quality of work will be rather low, and the programmer will also be blamed for everything.

In general, in the domestic IT-sphere to lay the blame for any failures in the implementation of projects on programmers has become a traditional decision.

Although, my experience shows that programmers are the best link in the chain. Weak links are the managers (customers), their responsible employees, as well as the manager (seller) from the web studio. And the main problem can be described as follows:

Inside the company there are many intermediaries. The project is not working on sales and project management, but simply intermediaries who are practically not engaged in anything.

I watched a similar story more than once when I started working with a company that was already in the process of working on the site. For example, I deal with automation of 1C and CRM, a warehouse and a sales department, and at the same time I am involved in the process of working on the site.

How to identify a chain of intermediaries in practice?

If I am attracted to participate in the work on the site, I first of all meet with the customer’s employees and find out in detail what was done, who is working on the project and other details. Most often, already in the process of communication, I have confidence that there is also a familiar chain here: there is a business owner, a manager, a client responsible, a manager on the performer’s side, a programmer. I personally contact with the head of the company (mainly on my work), with the employee who is responsible for the work on the site, sometimes with the manager of the web studio. I, as well as other participants of a chain from the customer, do not see the programmer.

And very often I observe this situation. I send a letter to the responsible person for the site’s work on the part of the customer, which contains some clarifications, suggestions, questions. He simply forwards this letter to the person in charge from the web studio, and that one to the programmer. And the programmer is already answering my questions. Tracking it more often than not is difficult, as they are really just forwarding a letter, often even slaughtering or do not consider it necessary to remove “fvd”. It turns out the usual intermediary scheme, where no one adds any value to the process.

The problem of intermediaries: a negative impact on business

The customer cannot develop, the project is not executed on time, rather big money is lost. The customer simultaneously loses money on unsuccessful attempts to implement the project, and also incurs losses associated with lost profits.

The IT market receives an incredulous and greedy customer, as this businessman spends funds for the same task for the second or third time or even more. Naturally, with each unsuccessful attempt, frustration and distrust of specialists grows; it becomes difficult to work with a client.

Many businessmen refuse to change at all. Most likely, each of you more than once came across statements like: “and we still use 1C.7 and everyone is happy,” “and we still have a site on Drupal 6, and everything suits us.” In fact, this situation does not develop because it’s true that everything is as good as these people say; it’s just that they didn’t manage to get out of this intermediary scheme and the management refuses to invest again in attempts to upgrade.

Why so rarely change the responsibility of the customer?

It seems to be a legitimate question, because if time after time a project fails, it means that the person responsible on the part of the customer also fails to cope with his duties, at least he does not know how to choose the right performer and correctly accept the work. And, nevertheless, this person is changed last. Why?

Here you need to pay attention to the identity of the head. Most likely, in his business, with his customers, he himself is nothing more than an intermediary. He buys goods abroad or even in our country, and resells it with its mark-up, without adding anything useful to its customers. At the same time, a significant part of his earnings is based on the client’s ignorance of his goods.

For example, I had a similar client (I refused it and now I refuse it immediately), who sold plumbing. As you know, plumbing is very different, and the quality and price. This company was engaged in buying cheap low-quality plumbing, and selling it more expensively than its real value, taking advantage of the fact that customers often do not understand the brands and features of various models.

Such companies do not educate and train their customers, do not offer them high-quality items with a minimum mark-up, but on the contrary, use their inexperience to sell cheap goods with a maximum mark-up.

If the head of the company is of the type described, he will expect similar behavior from contractors and contractors, and even from his own employees. After all, each of us judges others on our own, and businessmen are no exception. And because he thinks that any web studio will necessarily profit from his ignorance. This man is sure of himself, he is a successful businessman, from his point of view, smarter than many. But in people and companies that provide services to him, such a person will always doubt, because he will expect that they will act in relation to his project in the same way as the company of this businessman with his customers. Such people are usually trusted by a rather narrow circle of people, these are relatives, friends, and trusted employees.

This type of businessmen is pre-configured to be deceived by contractors, and these people tend to trust only a narrow circle of people. They are guided, first of all, by loyalty, and not by knowledge of technology.

In the intermediary scheme, not so much knowledge as loyalty is important, and, moreover, it works at all stages of the chain. As much as you like a person, how loyal you are to him, the likelihood that you will cooperate with him in this matter increases as well. As a result, almost none of those who are participating in the project knows the topics they are working on. Therefore, the manager himself (the customer) is also to blame for the occurrence of such chains.

Other mediation option: subcontracts

I think practically everyone has come across this intermediary scheme. Its essence is very simple: an intermediary (web studio or a certain person) offers you a project, and a certain percentage is charged for services.

The scheme is very simple:

1. The customer goes to a specific person or company.
2. Those transfer the project directly to the performer, presenting it as “our specialist”.
3. The amount of payment for the project consists of the cost of the work of the direct performer and the percentage of the mediator.

The main disadvantage of this scheme is a significant increase in the cost of services for the customer. In different areas, the interest of the intermediary is different, in my memory the maximum reached 62% of the project cost!

Of course, like other performers, I performed and more than once similar tasks. But for the customer, the cost of work increases very much compared to cooperation directly.

How to avoid the problem of intermediaries?

In fact, to avoid the drawbacks of the “intermediary scheme” is not as difficult as it seems. The most important thing is to follow the path of finding competent specialists, to put knowledge at the forefront, and only then - loyalty. This applies to both the customer services and participants in the chain by the artist. How to implement it?

Study the subject of the project before choosing the artist

Be sure to study the question yourself. Do not trust relatives, friends, trusted employees more than should be in any job. You are the leader and you should be able to control the whole process. So do not be lazy to spend 2-3 weeks to study the topics of your project. For example, if you order a website, read what CMS are, how they work, what technologies are considered effective today, what solutions are popular, etc. You do not need to know all the nuances at the specialist level, rather general principles.

Do you feel sorry for the time to study a new subject for you? Then about 1 - 1.5 years of attempts to implement your project are waiting for you. It is this time that most often lasts for the implementation of most of the tasks in the IT sphere when using an intermediary scheme. Calculate how much money you will lose on unsuccessful attempts and lost profits! Most likely, after this time and effort spent on studying the subject of your project will seem to you a justified decision.

I once had a client who very carefully approached the issue of problem solving choice. We worked with him to implement the transition to a new accounting system 1C. The task was difficult, but interesting. When I first came to him (the customer), he showed me certificates from 1C, indicating that this person really understands the question. On the one hand, it was difficult to work with such a client, as he was very picky when testing and accepting the work done. A deep understanding of the features of 1C allowed him to identify any shortcomings, he demanded high quality and optimal solutions at every stage, in every detail. But all his claims were substantiated, all were in the case. On the other hand, it is convenient and simple to work with such a customer, since the statement of the problem is always clear, and there is no need to explain why it is impossible to embody one or another of his ideas in the form in which you want.

This is very convenient when the client understands what he wants and is able to explain his needs to the specialist, and the customer is very useful in the ability to recognize incompetence or erroneous decisions in the early stages of the project. Spend time learning so you save money, time and nerves.

Control of all phases of work - the basis of success

It happens that the head of the company believes that he will no longer be able to delve into all the nuances by state and status, for this there are subordinates. In large companies, this approach will work in certain cases, but I am now talking about medium and small business.

I have seen entire companies fall apart due to this managerial attitude. The businessman ceases to delve into all the nuances, believing that there are enough subordinates for this, and as a result, the company declines and goes bankrupt. The reason may be any - poor work of the warehouse, insufficient control of financial flows, and even a decrease in the position of the site in search engines (competitors managed to get ahead). But the main reason is always the lack of control over all the nuances of work by the manager.

When I work on a project, I always go directly to the company management. And it is very important that the manager understands the basics of what he orders. You do not need to know everything seriously, it is enough to understand what a CMS is, what kind of specialists are needed for the project, etc. All information that may be required by the customer is publicly available. For each of the topics there is a lot of information on the Internet, including in my articles.

Erroneous solution: working with a programmer directly

It happens that the manager, after the unsuccessful application of the intermediary scheme, comes to the conclusion that no one can be trusted. Any web studio, from his point of view, will deceive and only drag out time and money. And then it would seem to him that the ideal solution would be to work with the programmer directly, without managers and other intermediaries.

As a result, projects like: “A programmer is required to create a turnkey website” appear on freelance exchanges. Or "you need a 1C programmer to make the transition." At the same time they are looking for a programmer, from the services of studios, IT-companies or other variants of the worked team are refused in advance.

This decision often also ends in failure. Programmers respond to similar projects sometimes through inexperience, sometimes for some other reason. Whenever you pay money, there will be someone who will try to master your budget with more or less benefit for you. For small tasks, the search for a programmer is fully justified, especially in cases where you know exactly which specialist you need and can clearly describe the task (create a technical task). And in large projects, such as creating a website or switching to a new 1C platform, a team of different specialists is required.

And if you hire a few specialists?

Unfortunately, the consultancy market in our country is not developed at all. And because usually the customer either applies for services in a web-studio or IT-company, or tries to work independently with specialists, hiring them on freelance exchanges. At the same time, they usually look for a web programmer to create a site, for setting up 1C, respectively, 1C programmer, etc.

But the system can not be fooled. Modern technologies require narrow specialization. For example, creating a website will require not only programming, but also good design, and content, integration of payment systems and much more.

The reality is:

• Option 1. The programmer tries to do everything himself. In the case of the site, it will be, in addition to programming, including design, filling the site with content, etc. As a result, the customer receives a poor quality product, most often with a template design and non-unique content.
• Option 2. The programmer performs the functions of an intermediary. Those. the programmer performs his part of the work personally, and for design, content, or any other non-core things for him, he hires subcontractors. But a programmer is only a programmer. He should not be engaged in his business, otherwise he also turns into an intermediary, as it will simply convey the wishes of the customer to the designer, copywriter, content manager and other specialists. The programmer does not know and should not know the peculiarities of their work, and therefore will not be able to bring any value to this part of the project.
• Option 3. The customer personally hires various specialists. In this case, the customer himself turns into a mediator in a lot. Of course, he knows what he wants. But he understands very poorly who to hire, what requirements to make to work, how to correctly assign the task to each of the performers. As a result, the customer focuses on the fragmentary information that he receives from the programmer, from other specialists with whom he is negotiating. The work of the specialists is inconsistent, the requirements from the customer are often contradictory, the project is delayed due to constant improvements, changes in the terms of reference, change of performers. I personally know the customer who decided to save in this way. As a result, in principle, an uncomplicated website is being made for the third year, and the end of this work is not yet visible.

Another common mistake of the customer, who independently hires specialists, is an attempt to involve two programmers into the project at once, who will work on different parts of the project, hoping to get results faster.

In those rare cases when a business consultant is involved in solving a problem, he explains to the customer why this cannot be done. There are stages of work that can neither be missed nor accelerated. , .

- , , , . , , , .

, ( -, -).

, , . – , , , , . , , , ( ), .

, . , , , . , , . .