Consulting

January 30, 2009 —

There’s this point in a project where you pour your guts in. You put yourself fully inside an idea, and you sort things out. Then you spend hours writing about it. It’s only later that you find out if you’re going to be paid. So goes the process of landing new work.

We’re six hours into any given project by the time the prospective client ever sees a proposal. Sometimes the time spent is significantly greater, but this isn’t to complain. I don’t see it as spec’ work since the initial documentation is as much a service to us as it is to the client.

Every so often, though, we get an inquiry asking for more than a proposal. It usually starts like this: “We’re looking for a partner in this. We want you to let us know what we should be doing.” In other words, they need consulting time, but, depending on the individual, it can be hard to distinguish between writing a proposal and developing a blueprint. The latter, of course, is a lot more work (and should be billable.) So, what seems like a simple request has the potential to be a lot more.

I mentioned the proposal process above. We don’t move on to a fully detailed scope document until we get project approval. This limits the time we spend on speculation, but, more importantly, it lets us formally schedule work / assign tasks as we plan. In the example I use above, the prospect is asking to see a full scope before they decide, and that scope would be based on research. So, now it’s spec’ work.

There’s a lot of grey area in this. We don’t position ourselves as strict contractors, and we wouldn’t be doing our job if we weren’t recommending what clients *should* be doing throughout the process. But it’s probably fair to point out we’re being paid to do so.

Our instinct lately seems to be to bounce the inquiry to a firm that has this all figured out. Two problems. 1) We don’t know any. 2) It always seems like we’d be bouncing a problem.

In the spirit of full disclosure, we’ll break just about every rule we can come up with if the client is cool enough. Problem #2 above is probably the bigger issue.

Simpler

January 21, 2009 —

Very little makes my head hurt like the back and forth needling of contract negotiations. It’s with this understanding that I propose the following text be considered standard for all service contracts.

Company and Client endeavor to be decent to one another. Each party agrees to the Scope of Service and Payment Schedule. In no event shall litigation become an option for conflict resolution so long as coins or taverns continue to exist.

Think about it.

The unicorn’s horn looks crooked

January 20, 2009 —

Yesterday, I mentioned http://usaservice.org and the significance of President Obama’s understanding and use of the web. Today, the new http://www.whitehouse.gov was unveiled, giving further proof.

Both sites demonstrate something we’ve never before seen: an administration with a genuine desire to connect with the public. And they’re using the internet to do it. This desire alone is a profound move forward for the country.

What makes it exciting as a web guy, though, is the idea that our government is now demonstrating an appreciation for design, usability, and accessibility* on the web. The fact that these sites validate is big. So is the White House’s new creative commons license on site content.

There are other observations being made around the coolers, though. The code isn’t semantically correct. The site is running off of asp.net. As far as I’m concerned, these are distractions. The negative comments remind me of those coming from the trolls on Zeldman’s post regarding the Apple store redesign. Unnecessary.

Maybe it’s time to cut back a bit on the elitism and recognize that sometimes better comes in steps. What we got today is a really big step.