What infuriates the customer
Due to all the possible circumstances, I ran into it myself and listened to many stories of friends about the unsatisfactory work of web studios. I will try to summarize what infuriates the customer in collaboration with the developer.
1) Opacity pricing
Many studios neglect the need to apply a table with an explanation with an explanation - where the price comes from.
It is important to understand that the customer must understand - how much is each stage, each module, how much does a developer's day. Only in this case, the statements of the studio “the functionality has grown / your requirements have changed, which led to an increase in the price” - can they have the right to life. If the compromise says “your project will take XX months and cost XXXXXXXXXXXX RUR”, then the studio will give itself into slavery. which of course, it will be unpleasant for her to admit afterwards.
')
2) Disgusting compreds
Compreds are often written as if the author wanted to write an article in a journal. Instead of a clear description of the project - a lot of words about the greatness of the company-developer, assurances of customer focus (false by 99%), and many other unnecessary words. Moreover, the project itself is often ill-conceived.
The ideal commercial offer contains:
- the most detailed description of the future project
- terms and cost of development with an approximation of 5-10% (of course, only according to the functionality described in the comprede). This item should be broken down into stages of coordination and separate modules - for greater flexibility.
- a short (BRIEF !!!) description of the company with a portfolio attached to this particular case.
Yes, the specifics are such that after writing a technical assignment, very often the scope of work changes. But the compromise should have such a detailed description so that the client cannot tell you “why did you promise me the same thing a month ago twice cheaper?”. No one will understand that by “integration” you meant “sucking in” an unpretentious Excel tablet, and not full integration with 1C. No one wants to know that “illustration” was understood as a small drawing, without coordinating the plot, and not a full-fledged flash drive. Any ambiguity that you want to interpret in your favor will be regarded as an attempt to deceive the client.
3) Optional and carelessness
The lack of commitment and carelessness often manifests itself already at the stage of preparation of the compromise - when it is impossible to achieve even the exact dates of receipt of the constructor from the developer - “we need time to write an individual compromise for you”.
in the future, it also does not come to "no". To leave in the contract the details of the counterparty with whom the contract was concluded, which served as our template - is almost the rule. The lack of a uniform design in the technical assignment is almost the norm, which is why it is impossible to make (already by myself) a normal table of contents.
Texts written "in a fit of inspiration" can not be read.
4) disruption of terms.
Disruption of terms is the total misfortune of our developers. And this is the key claim of all customers. No developer without strong pressure will not write in the paper schedule. The developer also leaves the time for the processing of “incoming” customer remarks to be uncertain. Meanwhile, often the timing, rather than price, are key when choosing a contractor for a particular project.
Still, even the notorious "working days" are not maintained. To achieve a clear implementation of the plan is impossible. Neither penalties, nor the signing of annexes to the supplementary agreements to the annexes to the contract will not save.
The reason for this, as far as I can tell, is the total lack of organization of the work process in the studios, firstly, and the managers completely misunderstanding the importance of meeting the work schedule for the customer, and secondly.
The classic idea is the triad of "quality-cost-time", in which you can choose only 2 points. Any sane person understands this - cheap, fast and good does not happen. But even if you pay above the market, the deadlines will still be broken.
It is the disruption of terms that is the cause of most conflicts between the customer and the performer. This reason is aggravated by the fact that the manager often perceives the client not as a project partner, but as an enemy.
5) Lack of normal interaction between customer and client managers
At a recent gathering where customer and artist relationships were discussed, studio representatives complained massively about the following problems:
- customer incompetence
- changing requirements during the project
- “consumer terrorism”
Thus, often both parties see the only problem of successful completion of the project in the counterparty. Yes, there are problems with customers. They spoil a lot of blood to projects, increase the cost of the project and lead to the birth of crooked freaks, instead of planned beautiful artifacts.
On the other hand, the main problems of project management by the executor (as they are seen by the customer) are:
* lack of timely communication between companies
The client will know about the problems when he is already beginning to get angry and ring the performer. This is quite annoying person.
It is important for the client to “keep control” over the project, to understand what is being done, where his money goes, and when he can wait for the result.
The lack of understanding of the importance of this (even if purely psychological) control from the studio projects almost guaranteed turns any small problem (and they are certainly unavoidable) into an excuse for the exchange of complaints.
Special mention deserve the justification of studio managers. A disease of a key member of a team can meet the understanding and sympathy of the customer once, well - two, during a long-term project. But when the designer is sick for 3 days every week - the project loses the trust of the client, and forces him to tighten the requirements for control over the project. That, in turn, causes dissatisfaction with the project, a decline in the quality of project management, and leads to an increase in the conflict in a spiral.
We often hear: “we discussed something about the project, our opinion changed and we needed time to rework” or as an option “we worked on your project for a long time, but the result does not meet our strict internal quality criteria, so we will do everything new, wait for the sake of a brighter future. ” This position, indeed, would be worthy of respect, if supported by facts. When you make a contract, any client hears that the time lays the risk of processing and alterations on his comments. At the same time, when it comes to business, the deadlines are broken down tightly, as I wrote above. And now the deadlines are broken, and the client does not see any result of the work, and he listens to tales of "high standards." In such cases, you always want to answer: "a small lie gives rise to great distrust."
There is another version of the previous statement "IT turned out to be more difficult than we thought at the stage of the compred and writing the TK, but we will do everything for free, just wait." These kinds of things work well at the programming stage, but unfortunately, one has to hear them more often during design.
Finally, as a curiosity, the most absurd excuse for delaying work: “well, the designer is a creative person, we cannot put him in the frame of the schedule”.
Colleagues, in time telling the customer about the difficulties - you only contribute to the establishment of relationships.
* Inaccessibility of the manager
Genetically related to the previous problem. A person working for a client should be available during working hours - if not by ICQ, then by phone, or as a last resort - by soap. And he should immediately reply to emails and messages. Well, at least to report, they say, "I received, I will answer your question exactly then." It's a shame when you are ignored, do not give you value. this can be treated with humor, you can not pay attention, but "sediment remains." The studio manager should ALWAYS be available.
* Blurred responsibility
This is the case when a “design chief” or “programming chief” appears in the project. The project should be accountable to the client for everything. When you are forced to communicate with several people on your project, they say different things and there is no one to make a complaint, because they nod at each other — they drop the studio in human beings in the eyes of the customer.
* Change of responsible persons leads to a revision of obligations
Such a situation, as a rule, arises due to undocumented arrangements. "Your old manager promised" - a terrible phrase for anyone who accepted someone else's project. The situation is no less tragic for the customer: if the oral agreements were not transferred when the project was changed, the project can be considered practically unmatched.
Thus, my main thesis is: colleagues, let's talk to each other, but we should carefully record all our friendly conversations, and then - strictly adhere to our obligations :)))
Clarifications, objections, additions and other comments are welcome!
1) Opacity pricing
Many studios neglect the need to apply a table with an explanation with an explanation - where the price comes from.
It is important to understand that the customer must understand - how much is each stage, each module, how much does a developer's day. Only in this case, the statements of the studio “the functionality has grown / your requirements have changed, which led to an increase in the price” - can they have the right to life. If the compromise says “your project will take XX months and cost XXXXXXXXXXXX RUR”, then the studio will give itself into slavery. which of course, it will be unpleasant for her to admit afterwards.
')
2) Disgusting compreds
Compreds are often written as if the author wanted to write an article in a journal. Instead of a clear description of the project - a lot of words about the greatness of the company-developer, assurances of customer focus (false by 99%), and many other unnecessary words. Moreover, the project itself is often ill-conceived.
The ideal commercial offer contains:
- the most detailed description of the future project
- terms and cost of development with an approximation of 5-10% (of course, only according to the functionality described in the comprede). This item should be broken down into stages of coordination and separate modules - for greater flexibility.
- a short (BRIEF !!!) description of the company with a portfolio attached to this particular case.
Yes, the specifics are such that after writing a technical assignment, very often the scope of work changes. But the compromise should have such a detailed description so that the client cannot tell you “why did you promise me the same thing a month ago twice cheaper?”. No one will understand that by “integration” you meant “sucking in” an unpretentious Excel tablet, and not full integration with 1C. No one wants to know that “illustration” was understood as a small drawing, without coordinating the plot, and not a full-fledged flash drive. Any ambiguity that you want to interpret in your favor will be regarded as an attempt to deceive the client.
3) Optional and carelessness
The lack of commitment and carelessness often manifests itself already at the stage of preparation of the compromise - when it is impossible to achieve even the exact dates of receipt of the constructor from the developer - “we need time to write an individual compromise for you”.
in the future, it also does not come to "no". To leave in the contract the details of the counterparty with whom the contract was concluded, which served as our template - is almost the rule. The lack of a uniform design in the technical assignment is almost the norm, which is why it is impossible to make (already by myself) a normal table of contents.
Texts written "in a fit of inspiration" can not be read.
4) disruption of terms.
Disruption of terms is the total misfortune of our developers. And this is the key claim of all customers. No developer without strong pressure will not write in the paper schedule. The developer also leaves the time for the processing of “incoming” customer remarks to be uncertain. Meanwhile, often the timing, rather than price, are key when choosing a contractor for a particular project.
Still, even the notorious "working days" are not maintained. To achieve a clear implementation of the plan is impossible. Neither penalties, nor the signing of annexes to the supplementary agreements to the annexes to the contract will not save.
The reason for this, as far as I can tell, is the total lack of organization of the work process in the studios, firstly, and the managers completely misunderstanding the importance of meeting the work schedule for the customer, and secondly.
The classic idea is the triad of "quality-cost-time", in which you can choose only 2 points. Any sane person understands this - cheap, fast and good does not happen. But even if you pay above the market, the deadlines will still be broken.
It is the disruption of terms that is the cause of most conflicts between the customer and the performer. This reason is aggravated by the fact that the manager often perceives the client not as a project partner, but as an enemy.
5) Lack of normal interaction between customer and client managers
At a recent gathering where customer and artist relationships were discussed, studio representatives complained massively about the following problems:
- customer incompetence
- changing requirements during the project
- “consumer terrorism”
Thus, often both parties see the only problem of successful completion of the project in the counterparty. Yes, there are problems with customers. They spoil a lot of blood to projects, increase the cost of the project and lead to the birth of crooked freaks, instead of planned beautiful artifacts.
On the other hand, the main problems of project management by the executor (as they are seen by the customer) are:
* lack of timely communication between companies
The client will know about the problems when he is already beginning to get angry and ring the performer. This is quite annoying person.
It is important for the client to “keep control” over the project, to understand what is being done, where his money goes, and when he can wait for the result.
The lack of understanding of the importance of this (even if purely psychological) control from the studio projects almost guaranteed turns any small problem (and they are certainly unavoidable) into an excuse for the exchange of complaints.
Special mention deserve the justification of studio managers. A disease of a key member of a team can meet the understanding and sympathy of the customer once, well - two, during a long-term project. But when the designer is sick for 3 days every week - the project loses the trust of the client, and forces him to tighten the requirements for control over the project. That, in turn, causes dissatisfaction with the project, a decline in the quality of project management, and leads to an increase in the conflict in a spiral.
We often hear: “we discussed something about the project, our opinion changed and we needed time to rework” or as an option “we worked on your project for a long time, but the result does not meet our strict internal quality criteria, so we will do everything new, wait for the sake of a brighter future. ” This position, indeed, would be worthy of respect, if supported by facts. When you make a contract, any client hears that the time lays the risk of processing and alterations on his comments. At the same time, when it comes to business, the deadlines are broken down tightly, as I wrote above. And now the deadlines are broken, and the client does not see any result of the work, and he listens to tales of "high standards." In such cases, you always want to answer: "a small lie gives rise to great distrust."
There is another version of the previous statement "IT turned out to be more difficult than we thought at the stage of the compred and writing the TK, but we will do everything for free, just wait." These kinds of things work well at the programming stage, but unfortunately, one has to hear them more often during design.
Finally, as a curiosity, the most absurd excuse for delaying work: “well, the designer is a creative person, we cannot put him in the frame of the schedule”.
Colleagues, in time telling the customer about the difficulties - you only contribute to the establishment of relationships.
* Inaccessibility of the manager
Genetically related to the previous problem. A person working for a client should be available during working hours - if not by ICQ, then by phone, or as a last resort - by soap. And he should immediately reply to emails and messages. Well, at least to report, they say, "I received, I will answer your question exactly then." It's a shame when you are ignored, do not give you value. this can be treated with humor, you can not pay attention, but "sediment remains." The studio manager should ALWAYS be available.
* Blurred responsibility
This is the case when a “design chief” or “programming chief” appears in the project. The project should be accountable to the client for everything. When you are forced to communicate with several people on your project, they say different things and there is no one to make a complaint, because they nod at each other — they drop the studio in human beings in the eyes of the customer.
* Change of responsible persons leads to a revision of obligations
Such a situation, as a rule, arises due to undocumented arrangements. "Your old manager promised" - a terrible phrase for anyone who accepted someone else's project. The situation is no less tragic for the customer: if the oral agreements were not transferred when the project was changed, the project can be considered practically unmatched.
Thus, my main thesis is: colleagues, let's talk to each other, but we should carefully record all our friendly conversations, and then - strictly adhere to our obligations :)))
Clarifications, objections, additions and other comments are welcome!
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/91177/
All Articles