[thelist] conference question/evaluation

martin.p.burns at uk.pwcglobal.com martin.p.burns at uk.pwcglobal.com
Mon Feb 4 05:06:06 CST 2002


Memo from Martin P Burns of PricewaterhouseCoopers

-------------------- Start of message text --------------------

Hi Meredith

If you don't have someone looking after it for you (and
just relaying the distilled instructions "you need to do *this*"),
you'll need to understand the concepts at least, if not all the
terminology.

You'll be *so* much more likely to get paid.

Here's an example - Scope Creep. That's when the project
does more than it was originally intended to do - say you need
to redevelop their authentication model to get the agreed
personalisation going.

In your original quote, you didn't cost in the time needed to
do this. How do you get the client to agree to pay for the extra
work if you can't point to where it's more than was in the original
contract? If you can draw a big ring round it and write "Scope
Creep" in big red letters, it makes it very easy to get the client
to face the choice of:
1) Paying for the extra work, and swallowing any deadline changes
   that come with it
2) Not requiring you to do the extra work

The alternative of course being that you have to do the extra
work, don't get paid for it, and your deadline doesn't move. Which
is the *last* thing you want if you're running a small business.

Acceptability criteria are what you need to meet for the site to
be good enough for you to get paid. So if your aim is that the
site works perfectly in every browser, but the acceptability
criteria exclude NN4, then the client accepts that if it's a bit
crap in NN4, that's OK - you still get paid. Actually, if they
exclude NN4 entirely, then you don't even need to spend the
time testing with NN4.

Note here the difference between 'perfect' and 'good enough'. 'Good
enough' gets you paid. And if the client isn't paying for it, why are
you still working on it?

O'Reilly doesn't (AFAIK) do business stuff like this, but there's
some info at:
http://evolt.org/article/thelist/20/15355/index.html

Cheers
Martin



To:   "thelist at lists.evolt.org" <thelist at lists.evolt.org>
Subject:  [thelist] conference question/evaluation


In a vaguely tangential thread, evolters are discussing the
value of coding to standards.  I wonder how many evolters
don't do this because we're too small/too swamped/lack the
resources to keep up with changes, etc. (I'm in this
category.)  I confess to testing sites in too few browsers
(latest IE/Netscape on Win/Mac, Netscape on linux, plus
Opera on Win) and I don't often bother to validate my code,
even though I know I should, because it just doesn't seem
that relevant right now.

Similarly, I have a chance to attend a Managing Web
Development Projects conference, sponsored by CIO magazine,
in early March.
(http://www2.cio.com/events/viewevent.cfm?EVENT=4722)  The
copy says, "This introductory course is intended for people
who want to understand and practice the process of managing
the development of a Website."  Then it says, "Talk Like A
Project Manager.  [I'm not sure I want to do that.]  Project
Management has a vocabulary all its own. Understanding terms
such as acceptability criteria, critical path analysis,
Gantt chart, scope creep, and work breakdown structure is
necessary for communication with your team and other project
managers."  Again I wonder, how important is it for me to
understand "scope creep?"  Will "acceptability criteria"
allow me to keep checking sites in the same few browsers?

Bottom line: how relevant is this stuff to small business
folks like me?  Should we pay attention to it?  Make a
serious effort to learn and stay on top of it?  Buy an
O'Reilly book or two about it?


--------------------- End of message text --------------------

This e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If an addressing or transmission error has
misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by replying to
this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient you must not
use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail.

The principal place of business of PricewaterhouseCoopers and
its associate partnerships is 1 Embankment Place, London
WC2N 6RH where lists of the partners' names are available for
inspection. All partners in the associate partnerships are
authorised to conduct business as agents of, and all contracts
for services to clients are with, PricewaterhouseCoopers. The
UK firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers is authorised by the
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales to
carry on investment business. PricewaterhouseCoopers is a
member of the world-wide PricewaterhouseCoopers
organisation.

PricewaterhouseCoopers may monitor outgoing and incoming
e-mails and other telecommunications on its e-mail and
telecommunications systems.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit our website http://www.pwcglobal.com


----------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.   If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer.




More information about the thelist mailing list