Web Design in a Pig Pen

Several years ago, I put together a functional prototype in Joomla for a non-profit organization. In the process I hoped to educate them about how they could operate the site mostly by themselves, with minimal support costs after the site was up. Bear in mind that the site was substantially complete, and completely free to them. In discussing the site with a business member working with me on the site, he suggested that the non-profit could monetize the site by advertising. At that point, the board of the non-profit decided to give the site development to a local PHP Independent Software Developer (ISV). One of the board members had worked with the ISV on a business venture, and they liked the work that was done.

The board asked for a quote to create a Web site with unspecified features. Despite all the effort that had gone into analyzing and developing the site, it became evident that the non-profit had neither fully understood their own Web strategy nor appreciated the value of the efforts already expended, voluntarily, to create the basis of the necessary Web site. Knowing that the decisions had already been made, I first wrote a somewhat incensed response and then softened the tone, but still felt it important to include a detail of the risks and support issues regarding the ways a site could be deployed. Being a resident of the area served by the non-profit I am genuinely concerned about their success, but must admit I was not too troubled about not getting their business. The ISV was given the business having done nothing at all for the non-profit.

All I had lost was a substantial investment of my time, which after all was said and done, was offered voluntarily anyway. Still, I learned to be more discerning about the character of the non-profits for whom I perform work. I also learned that it is possible for people to completely miss a value proposition even when it is sitting in their lap staring them in the face and knocking on their forehead. Clarity in communication is key, and we did not have the ear of the power brokers on the board.

The non-profit had lost in the transaction too, not just from the thousands of dollars in work it had discarded, but also in demonstrating an organizational inability to be forthright with its volunteer members. Impressions like this last and have consequences far beyond what might initially be obvious.

No Good Deed Ever Goes Unpunished

Recently I had a chance to speak with the non-profit about their Web site in conjunction with a separate promotional initiative. It turned out that the ISV had used the non-profit -- their client's -- money to write custom software. Without full realization of their agreement the non-profit had funded the development of a home-brew, custom, one-of software product. The software was a kind of bare-bones PHP based content management system, intended for use as a community portal. Indeed, it appeared to be much like a version 0.3 level of any number of popular open source CMS projects like Joomla or Drupal.

The software was similar to Joomla because it used the same low-level PHP MVC framework and template engine. Yet the code was home-brew, and it was missing virtually all of the critical features of the mature CMS projects which in my professional opinion are critical for promotional activities. On the other hand, the features they had implemented could have easily been deployed using minor adaptations to existing components.

The non-profit client had paid several thousand dollars to the ISV, considerably more than the quality of the Web site might suggest to a good designer. Simply put, developing new Intellectual Property (IP) is expensive. It is considerably more costly than integrating off-the-shelf components and focusing on a coherent branding and a usable design. It is simply silly to pay a mechanic to build a car when they are commonly available both new and used. In the client's case, the initial cost was only two or three times the reasonable cost of a decent site. The ISV knew what would be "good enough" to pass acceptance by un-knowledgeable users and succeeded in that respect, but neither the design nor the software were worth several thousand.

In speaking with the client, it became evident that the most fundamental question of ownership of the IP were not well understood. They were more or less unaware of the distinction between having a Web site developed for them, and of funding someone else's proprietary software product. The issue was raised when the ISV refused to replace the site Flash banners saying they were a part of the code, not the content. It is unclear that the developer has any intent of releasing the source code, allowing access to the database, or providing enhancements to the site. Ownership of the IP is now an issue.

Such behavior sullies the profession and has an appearance of being unethical on its face. Simple updates, like posting a PDF file, are not possible. The client thought they were getting the ability to update any content on the site, but the ISV's response is that posting some of the requested content actually constitutes a change to the template, and that such modifications require additional money. This is what I call a "vendor hook".

In this situation, the client has little choice: either pay for additional development, or discard their investment. The ISV has a complete monopoly, and the client has little real power to determine the future direction of their own Web site.

Now, it should be pointed out again that the client was warned of these same issues when the volunteered Joomla site (probably already worth a few thousand dollars itself) was discarded. The client neglected the advice, failed to exercise its own due diligence, and got exactly the result one might have expected. They funded someone else's development effort, and now have neither the capacity to maintain the software product nor clear ownership of their design templates, which is to say, their own brand.

Summing it Up

Client contracts for Web Site, pays for Software Product
Under pretense of Web Design, Vendor develops Software Product
Vendor neglects to inform Client of potential Intellectual Property interests
Vendor effectively asserts copyright over the design, just because the templates are "part of the code"!
Client was ignorant of the comparative cost differences between deploying features using one-of custom code versus off-the-shelf prepackaged components, or of use of an open-source CMS versus home-brew platforms, despite clear warnings.

Questions of Ethics

Caveat Emptor. Despite the Client's inability to cope adequately, is it in any way ethical behavior for an ISV to fund a software project when the client believes they are paying for a Web site? Or to reserve the right to refuse modifications to the design templates when the design was commissioned and paid for by a client? As a professional, my view is that this is not even arguable, and the answer is no.

Further, I think it is questionable behavior to even take a client on such a bait-and-switch ride, using funds clearly intended for one purpose to achieve one's own goals, when the client is obviously ignorant of the alternatives and consequences of their choices. To my mind, the vendor used the ignorance of the client in a parasitic manner. Clarity of communication and helping the client to discern consequences of decisions, are what XP and Agile development are all about. Too often, truthfulness is not a value held by ISVs, even by those who would promote themselves as "Honest and Ethical" or -- dare I say it -- followers of Christ.

Another way to view this issue is in terms of standards of professionalism, or lack thereof. Suppose I feel unwell with pains in my back, and seek out two doctors. One doctor happens to be a back surgeon, who takes no history but suggests invasive back surgery. The other happens to be a generalist, who takes a history and suggests a referral to a podiatrist. In this case the generalist may lose the business but is acting in my best interest, whereas the surgeon is well-qualified for the work but is remiss in failing to adequately assess the proper treatment protocol. If the surgeon were to work on my back, it would clearly be unethical, even if I knew of other options. A doctor's profession obligation is to follow a protocol that presents the least risk and best opportunities for long-term outcomes, but that is true for any professional.

Never argue with a pig, it just frustrates you and annoys the pig.

I've decided the best thing to do at this point is back away slowly, and try to avoid being a party to what appears to be an inevitable conflict. Perhaps they can work it all out -- the ISV has shown itself adept at navigating social situations to its advantage -- but observations suggest a continued disconnect between what both parties say and what they do, contrary to what should be an ethical concern for mutual best interest.