History - one project on "Trust". Or how big the little ones get hurt
One small, but very proud IT firm, worked as a subcontract for the “monsters” of the domestic IT industry. They started their cooperation even before the crisis, when they didn’t particularly consider the money, allocating as much for development as they needed. Measured by eye, well, about that much, showing the gap between the thumb and forefinger, making it clear that the required thickness of a wad of money. In this situation, there was no particular reason to strain with the exact calculations of the project budget. Roughly figured and ran. We made a mistake, well, it doesn’t happen to anyone, technologies change all the time, the customer can really explain what he needs. The main thing is to withstand the timing. You feel that you do not have time, attracted more specialists and you are driving the development to the deadline. It turns out of course a bit more expensive, but it is a workable scheme, it was enough for everyone, and most importantly, the head didn’t really hurt from the problems.
But as the crisis deepened, questions began to arise to the budget, or rather to its lack. Since this happened, as always unexpectedly, first, a certain discomfort arose in the campaigns, squabbles, searching for the guilty and punishing the innocent began. All those who need to be punished of course, but for some reason the problems remained. Pondered here. How to continue to live with it?
Again, for the most part, the specialists of large IT firms know and are able to competently and effectively make up budgets, but somehow they have somehow lost the habit of this, as superfluous. Immediately you have to strain yourself, somehow take responsibility, fiddle with nuances, keep abreast of and react, react and react. In short, keep yourself and others in good shape all the time. And people in big firms are completely venerable, serious and busy with all sorts of important things. Again, all the time there are some meetings, meetings and distracted by such trifles as painstaking work on the optimization of design work, they no longer have either time or energy, and most importantly desire. This is where the pattern breaks. The volume of budgets is not the same, and to make money you need to deal with small things every day, delve into the nuances, and oh, how you do not want to do this. What is the way out?
')
Since in IT firms people are basically stupid, prone to analysis, and life, as we found out, does push them to reflections, of course, they have found a way out: how to change everything so drastically so as not to change anything especially for yourself personally.
And the answer is right there, on the surface - a subcontractor, small IT firms. After all, all the risks can be shoved at them. Let them evaluate and voice budgets. There are not enough requirements from the customer - the problem of the subcontractor. It can be reassured: “May we collect to you then these your requirements, in the course of the project, do not worry. In the meantime, think for yourself what you might need there, just don’t get carried away and design it easier, but reliably so that it’s cheap and good. And you do not want to work like this, we now just whistle and teams will come running to us and will line up. ”
And that is not all. The scheme can be improved. How else to insure the venerable IT company? And let's include in the contract with the subcontractor a fad that if the customer is not satisfied with something, then consider this as a mistake of the subcontractor and charge him with all the costs of eliminating them. And now it will not matter that they forgot to clarify something at the customer, that they did not include something in the requirements, and the specialists of the same venerable IT campaign did not include it. And why should they strain now? After all, now the subcontractor will be responsible for this. Something in the requirements is not indicated - nonsense, we will write off the errors of the subcontractor. And please do not argue with the customer - it is useless, he is a state structure. Just listen to the phrase: "state order". What sounds like, eh? Well, you must, after all, understand all the responsibility and high trust placed in you! And who will let the poor subcontractor directly to the customer’s body, in order directly to learn and explain everything from the first mouth? After all, there are people in the state service and distracting them with all sorts of nonsense is not the essence. But this is all for the subcontractor to open later, when the trap will be placed
This is how this scheme works.
But in practice it looks like this. For example, the aforementioned small firm was persistently offered to fulfill a contract for the development of an automated workplace for a manager (hereinafter AWP). The same state. order. Proposed senior partners - a large IT firm. Let's call it the company "Trust", but what about without trust. From the requirements, what and how specifically to implement it was provided: 1) Technical specification for 1.5 leaves, 2) pictures - “comics” on the subject, how the user interface should look like from the point of view of the customer, and 3) excerpts of requirements for similar developments in other projects. With the words: “Nothing complicated here, this was done 100 times already,” they estimated the costs, added a percentage of the risks, shook hands, and ran. Yes, here is one more find of the trustful management of the Trust Company - the settlement with the subcontractor should be made after the delivery of the finished product to the customer, which is approximately 4-5 months after the start. Insure so insure, because as the classic said: "Complete peace of mind can give a person only an insurance policy." And if this approach does not suit "... we are now just whistling and teams will come running to us and line up ...", well, you remember, I already wrote about this above.
And here it also turns out that the customer already has a working system, it suits him in general, why he needs a new one, no one can explain it sensibly. But for the sake of justice, it should be noted that one simple argument nevertheless was found - “ARE SO NEED!”. That is, the customer is not motivated: make a “super-super” system well, you will not, and to hell with it, we will work with the old one.
And it is necessary to do an automated workplace not anyhow, but on the platform provided by the Company “Trust”, which, to put it mildly, doesn’t fit the user interface’s frivolity, as it was written in the customer’s comics. And accordingly, the costs are already growing by another 30%. But this, as stated above, is already a problem of the subcontractor. And the developed AWS should interact with the main program, through a ready-made mechanism developed for mobile solutions, and already used with grief in half, but with a bunch of restrictions that also do not tally with the intended desktop AWM solution. The documentation for this mechanism is (small, small), but it is partly outdated, and partly unreliable. That is, the developed AWP has yet to integrate with the main system, through a certain black box developed “on the knees” and which can puff for hours, synchronizing data. What happens in it, why so long and how to accelerate it, no one can tell, even its developer. This significantly increases the cost of the project. But managers of Trust do not care anymore - after all, the problem is no longer them, but a subcontractor.
Further, when they made the first prototype and showed it to the customer, he was surprised to realize that he was expecting a completely different, completely opposite to what he saw. No, the “comics” provided to them with the user interface fully corresponded to the prototype developed, the face of the program turned out to be painfully familiar. But it turned out that behind the pictures the customer assumed in mind, also a certain functional, which in his opinion the developers themselves should have been able to see. And the managers of "Trust" to clarify this was not enough. At the same time, “Trust” completely isolated the subcontractor from the customer (as a firewall). Remarks and wishes of the managers transmitted mostly verbally, on the run, excited after the show, by phone, shouting over the wind and the noise of cars. People are busy, that's what was deposited in the memory of the conversation with the customer, and then passed. Just in case, let me remind you that if a subcontract team does not like it, then "... we now just whistle and teams will come running to us and line up in a queue ...".
And at this time ..., testers of the Trust Company, received a task - everything should be tested. And they certainly rushed into battle. What was their surprise when they found out that there were no full-fledged demands, but there are only scattered pieces from other projects. They were upset ... But since they had been working at the Trust Company for more than a year, they didn’t grieve for long. They strained, contrived and contended their version of what and how should be implemented in the target product. And it so happened that this version did not coincide with the “comics” of the user interface submitted by the customer. But there is nothing to do, QA specialists are harsh people - there is a discrepancy, get a correction task.
When the developers corrected all the testers' comments and handed over the version for display to the customer, the changes surprised him a lot and were stunned. He reasonably remarked: “I didn’t ask for this, where did you get all this from?” Return everything as it was back, ”and in addition, in order not to run twice, I demanded to add some more functionality. I had to remove recently implemented features. And almost all remake in connection with the newly discovered circumstances.
At this time, the managers of the Trust Company had to convey to the management the operational situation on the fronts, on the project. It was no longer possible to hide one’s negligence and inaction. They said: we are managers are white and fluffy, but they are subcontractors “kosyachniki”, they really can't do anything. The management in anger gathered a workshop and called the subcontractor to answer: “How did you allow it?”. When it turned out that there are no requirements, and there is simply no worthy design according to the standard, which by the way exists in “Trust”, and there are no requirements at all, the management was very surprised and scolded their managers. Those, in turn, tried to justify themselves, parrying: they say some materials were provided, everything was not all that hopeless and too early to despair. Acknowledging their flaws, the management of “Trust” swore to the subcontractor that if only some other problems or defects on the part of the managers of “Trust” were noticed, you should immediately ring the bells and beat the drums (or vice versa, in general, how it will turn out). Scoundrels will immediately be attached and severely punished. Here it is the highest justice, thought in a small IT firm. There is truth on earth!
When they implemented the next prototype with the capabilities that were modified after the first demonstration, the customer realized that it was extremely inconvenient to work this way, as he assumed at the beginning, and everything had to be redone. But as? "ARE FROM OTHER"!
In the meantime, the deadline for the project has ended, and the product that satisfies the customer has never been born. And here the customer showed humanity, entered the difficult position of the Trust Company, agreeing to extend the project for a few more months. Naturally not paying anything. Accordingly, the subcontractor’s team did not receive the contractual funds and continued to work at its own expense.
It was the 6th month of the project ... At the same time, the Trust Company did not lose much, well, it was extended and extended.
Mindful of the sincere conversation with the leadership of "Trust" and his promises to restore order, the subcontractor addressed him with a description of the inhuman conditions of his existence, without paying for the work performed. And the management responded, promising oath that in fact it would necessarily pay for all the processing, but only later, someday. At the same time, the managers of “Trust” continued to insist that the subcontractor corrects his own mistakes and should do it at his own expense. All the promises to improve the work of its management, the Trust Company management has completely forgotten and forwarded all the claims of the subcontractor, how do you think to whom? The very management. They are their own, sorry for her. What about the subcontractor? If the strong comes up, and the weak - no place on the market.
And then a small IT firm had a choice: either continue to work on the project further and save a chance - someday return the money specified by the contract, or maybe even get something for rework, or leave everything and not get it under a contract for which spent 5 months nothing at all. And at the same time to lose your customer in the face of the Company "Trust". To be fair, it should be noted that the “Trust” small amounts were still dropped by the subcontractor, solely so that the team members did not run away to other firms. It looked noble, patronized.
As a result, the subcontractor chose to continue working. We figured out how to implement the necessary functions in the product so that it would be convenient to use them. Changed the whole concept again and redid the product again. Lost a fair amount of time again.
And at this time ..., testers of the Trust Company, again got the task - how to test everything. They are grated on rolls and now they were not so self-confident in the search for suitable materials for making test cases. Appealed to the developers, for clarification: "But how should it now work?". Since the managers of the Campaign “Trust” did not bother to develop any requirements, the subcontractor team had to prepare a document on the “Technical Solution”, describing what is currently implemented in the product. As a result, testers did not create test cases according to the requirements, but actually by how the developers implemented the product. It turned out it happens.
And so the subcontractor released the next release of the product, more precisely, a remix for previous versions and delivered to the customer. He, as usual, refused part of his previous wishes that had already been realized. But in general, what he saw now did not cause him a sharp rejection.
Once again, a small IT company is reworking all sorts of trivialities in a product and waiting for this horror to end ...
Or maybe Trust Company will offer a new project?
But as the crisis deepened, questions began to arise to the budget, or rather to its lack. Since this happened, as always unexpectedly, first, a certain discomfort arose in the campaigns, squabbles, searching for the guilty and punishing the innocent began. All those who need to be punished of course, but for some reason the problems remained. Pondered here. How to continue to live with it?
Again, for the most part, the specialists of large IT firms know and are able to competently and effectively make up budgets, but somehow they have somehow lost the habit of this, as superfluous. Immediately you have to strain yourself, somehow take responsibility, fiddle with nuances, keep abreast of and react, react and react. In short, keep yourself and others in good shape all the time. And people in big firms are completely venerable, serious and busy with all sorts of important things. Again, all the time there are some meetings, meetings and distracted by such trifles as painstaking work on the optimization of design work, they no longer have either time or energy, and most importantly desire. This is where the pattern breaks. The volume of budgets is not the same, and to make money you need to deal with small things every day, delve into the nuances, and oh, how you do not want to do this. What is the way out?
')
Since in IT firms people are basically stupid, prone to analysis, and life, as we found out, does push them to reflections, of course, they have found a way out: how to change everything so drastically so as not to change anything especially for yourself personally.
And the answer is right there, on the surface - a subcontractor, small IT firms. After all, all the risks can be shoved at them. Let them evaluate and voice budgets. There are not enough requirements from the customer - the problem of the subcontractor. It can be reassured: “May we collect to you then these your requirements, in the course of the project, do not worry. In the meantime, think for yourself what you might need there, just don’t get carried away and design it easier, but reliably so that it’s cheap and good. And you do not want to work like this, we now just whistle and teams will come running to us and will line up. ”
And that is not all. The scheme can be improved. How else to insure the venerable IT company? And let's include in the contract with the subcontractor a fad that if the customer is not satisfied with something, then consider this as a mistake of the subcontractor and charge him with all the costs of eliminating them. And now it will not matter that they forgot to clarify something at the customer, that they did not include something in the requirements, and the specialists of the same venerable IT campaign did not include it. And why should they strain now? After all, now the subcontractor will be responsible for this. Something in the requirements is not indicated - nonsense, we will write off the errors of the subcontractor. And please do not argue with the customer - it is useless, he is a state structure. Just listen to the phrase: "state order". What sounds like, eh? Well, you must, after all, understand all the responsibility and high trust placed in you! And who will let the poor subcontractor directly to the customer’s body, in order directly to learn and explain everything from the first mouth? After all, there are people in the state service and distracting them with all sorts of nonsense is not the essence. But this is all for the subcontractor to open later, when the trap will be placed
This is how this scheme works.
But in practice it looks like this. For example, the aforementioned small firm was persistently offered to fulfill a contract for the development of an automated workplace for a manager (hereinafter AWP). The same state. order. Proposed senior partners - a large IT firm. Let's call it the company "Trust", but what about without trust. From the requirements, what and how specifically to implement it was provided: 1) Technical specification for 1.5 leaves, 2) pictures - “comics” on the subject, how the user interface should look like from the point of view of the customer, and 3) excerpts of requirements for similar developments in other projects. With the words: “Nothing complicated here, this was done 100 times already,” they estimated the costs, added a percentage of the risks, shook hands, and ran. Yes, here is one more find of the trustful management of the Trust Company - the settlement with the subcontractor should be made after the delivery of the finished product to the customer, which is approximately 4-5 months after the start. Insure so insure, because as the classic said: "Complete peace of mind can give a person only an insurance policy." And if this approach does not suit "... we are now just whistling and teams will come running to us and line up ...", well, you remember, I already wrote about this above.
And here it also turns out that the customer already has a working system, it suits him in general, why he needs a new one, no one can explain it sensibly. But for the sake of justice, it should be noted that one simple argument nevertheless was found - “ARE SO NEED!”. That is, the customer is not motivated: make a “super-super” system well, you will not, and to hell with it, we will work with the old one.
And it is necessary to do an automated workplace not anyhow, but on the platform provided by the Company “Trust”, which, to put it mildly, doesn’t fit the user interface’s frivolity, as it was written in the customer’s comics. And accordingly, the costs are already growing by another 30%. But this, as stated above, is already a problem of the subcontractor. And the developed AWS should interact with the main program, through a ready-made mechanism developed for mobile solutions, and already used with grief in half, but with a bunch of restrictions that also do not tally with the intended desktop AWM solution. The documentation for this mechanism is (small, small), but it is partly outdated, and partly unreliable. That is, the developed AWP has yet to integrate with the main system, through a certain black box developed “on the knees” and which can puff for hours, synchronizing data. What happens in it, why so long and how to accelerate it, no one can tell, even its developer. This significantly increases the cost of the project. But managers of Trust do not care anymore - after all, the problem is no longer them, but a subcontractor.
Further, when they made the first prototype and showed it to the customer, he was surprised to realize that he was expecting a completely different, completely opposite to what he saw. No, the “comics” provided to them with the user interface fully corresponded to the prototype developed, the face of the program turned out to be painfully familiar. But it turned out that behind the pictures the customer assumed in mind, also a certain functional, which in his opinion the developers themselves should have been able to see. And the managers of "Trust" to clarify this was not enough. At the same time, “Trust” completely isolated the subcontractor from the customer (as a firewall). Remarks and wishes of the managers transmitted mostly verbally, on the run, excited after the show, by phone, shouting over the wind and the noise of cars. People are busy, that's what was deposited in the memory of the conversation with the customer, and then passed. Just in case, let me remind you that if a subcontract team does not like it, then "... we now just whistle and teams will come running to us and line up in a queue ...".
And at this time ..., testers of the Trust Company, received a task - everything should be tested. And they certainly rushed into battle. What was their surprise when they found out that there were no full-fledged demands, but there are only scattered pieces from other projects. They were upset ... But since they had been working at the Trust Company for more than a year, they didn’t grieve for long. They strained, contrived and contended their version of what and how should be implemented in the target product. And it so happened that this version did not coincide with the “comics” of the user interface submitted by the customer. But there is nothing to do, QA specialists are harsh people - there is a discrepancy, get a correction task.
When the developers corrected all the testers' comments and handed over the version for display to the customer, the changes surprised him a lot and were stunned. He reasonably remarked: “I didn’t ask for this, where did you get all this from?” Return everything as it was back, ”and in addition, in order not to run twice, I demanded to add some more functionality. I had to remove recently implemented features. And almost all remake in connection with the newly discovered circumstances.
At this time, the managers of the Trust Company had to convey to the management the operational situation on the fronts, on the project. It was no longer possible to hide one’s negligence and inaction. They said: we are managers are white and fluffy, but they are subcontractors “kosyachniki”, they really can't do anything. The management in anger gathered a workshop and called the subcontractor to answer: “How did you allow it?”. When it turned out that there are no requirements, and there is simply no worthy design according to the standard, which by the way exists in “Trust”, and there are no requirements at all, the management was very surprised and scolded their managers. Those, in turn, tried to justify themselves, parrying: they say some materials were provided, everything was not all that hopeless and too early to despair. Acknowledging their flaws, the management of “Trust” swore to the subcontractor that if only some other problems or defects on the part of the managers of “Trust” were noticed, you should immediately ring the bells and beat the drums (or vice versa, in general, how it will turn out). Scoundrels will immediately be attached and severely punished. Here it is the highest justice, thought in a small IT firm. There is truth on earth!
When they implemented the next prototype with the capabilities that were modified after the first demonstration, the customer realized that it was extremely inconvenient to work this way, as he assumed at the beginning, and everything had to be redone. But as? "ARE FROM OTHER"!
In the meantime, the deadline for the project has ended, and the product that satisfies the customer has never been born. And here the customer showed humanity, entered the difficult position of the Trust Company, agreeing to extend the project for a few more months. Naturally not paying anything. Accordingly, the subcontractor’s team did not receive the contractual funds and continued to work at its own expense.
It was the 6th month of the project ... At the same time, the Trust Company did not lose much, well, it was extended and extended.
Mindful of the sincere conversation with the leadership of "Trust" and his promises to restore order, the subcontractor addressed him with a description of the inhuman conditions of his existence, without paying for the work performed. And the management responded, promising oath that in fact it would necessarily pay for all the processing, but only later, someday. At the same time, the managers of “Trust” continued to insist that the subcontractor corrects his own mistakes and should do it at his own expense. All the promises to improve the work of its management, the Trust Company management has completely forgotten and forwarded all the claims of the subcontractor, how do you think to whom? The very management. They are their own, sorry for her. What about the subcontractor? If the strong comes up, and the weak - no place on the market.
And then a small IT firm had a choice: either continue to work on the project further and save a chance - someday return the money specified by the contract, or maybe even get something for rework, or leave everything and not get it under a contract for which spent 5 months nothing at all. And at the same time to lose your customer in the face of the Company "Trust". To be fair, it should be noted that the “Trust” small amounts were still dropped by the subcontractor, solely so that the team members did not run away to other firms. It looked noble, patronized.
As a result, the subcontractor chose to continue working. We figured out how to implement the necessary functions in the product so that it would be convenient to use them. Changed the whole concept again and redid the product again. Lost a fair amount of time again.
And at this time ..., testers of the Trust Company, again got the task - how to test everything. They are grated on rolls and now they were not so self-confident in the search for suitable materials for making test cases. Appealed to the developers, for clarification: "But how should it now work?". Since the managers of the Campaign “Trust” did not bother to develop any requirements, the subcontractor team had to prepare a document on the “Technical Solution”, describing what is currently implemented in the product. As a result, testers did not create test cases according to the requirements, but actually by how the developers implemented the product. It turned out it happens.
And so the subcontractor released the next release of the product, more precisely, a remix for previous versions and delivered to the customer. He, as usual, refused part of his previous wishes that had already been realized. But in general, what he saw now did not cause him a sharp rejection.
Once again, a small IT company is reworking all sorts of trivialities in a product and waiting for this horror to end ...
Or maybe Trust Company will offer a new project?
"And we wait for the wait,
When will you send again
For our dinner, a dozen
New and sweet galoshes! ”
Korney Chukovsky.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/340586/
All Articles