The wife and I decided to try a new restaurant in Rolesville, Fitzgerald's Seafood. The place is always hopping on a Friday night, so it seemed a reasonable guess that it would be worth our while. It was not.
I imagine there must be rational explanations as to why so many folks like the place, and since this blog isn't about restaurant review I won't go into that here. What I will mention briefly is that we did not get great service. The impression we got was that the service you will get, may well depend upon whether you are well-known by the old timers. Come to think of it, when we were first seated we noted that all of the other patrons were white haired 60+ folks and their 40+ kids. The side-long glances from neighboring tables did not make us feel more welcome, and while this isn't exactly the fault of the owners one can always expect the same kind of fish to follow certain kinds of bait.
But it was the gruff and harried waitress that I felt it really important to comment on. The younger, dark haired ladies sitting nearby were largely ignored by her, as were we after the order was taken. Someone else delivered our order, and my drink was omitted. No one ever returned to ask us how the meal was, or if there was any way that we could be served. We waited patiently, enjoying our company and trying to catch the eye of the waitress with our ticket, then finally went to the cash register to end the experience. Another waitress got us a take-out box for over half of our meal left over, which we probably should have just refused.
All in all, the staff is not so much overworked as out of shape and unable to keep up given the organization. But that is no excuse for treating new customers like they don't exist. We left a small tip, a very small tip, to show our dissatisfaction.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Wake County Public School System and Prestige Portraits
Our kid is going into his senior year at high school, and as part of the yearbook process someone really special must have been put in charge.
Now, I support educational institutions, don't get me wrong. But like Homeowners Associations and local town boards, schools get corrupt mainly due to the neglect. The yearbook process is to me an indication of just how ugly it can become.
Take, for instance, the decision to take senior portrait photos in the summer prior to the senior school year. Kids are still growing, so their pictures look like junior year photos. They are also coming and going to different schools, so there has got to be a lot of coordination, and probably a lot of mistakes made in getting them into the right yearbook.
Then again, there are the printed instructions on the mail-in proof sets:
So, OK, all that could be forgiven if they were a startup still figuring it out, or a value-oriented operation. But Prestige Studios has had its hooks into our school systems for years and makes 1300 percent more profit from the smallest photo print ($65 for two 5x8's vs a $5 typical cost for a photo quality print = 13 times) . That is by definition price gauging by a monopoly.
Then there is the conflicting interests of the yearbook photos with the advertising of the photo sitting packages. The yearbook can only have two photos (at most), so paying extra for lots of additional shots is worth very little. The parents pay the sitting fee for the shots, then find out later that the photo packages run way out of line with customary and usual portrait fees, well into the hundreds of dollars. It is a formal bait and hook operation, advocated by the school system itself.
Now, I support educational institutions, don't get me wrong. But like Homeowners Associations and local town boards, schools get corrupt mainly due to the neglect. The yearbook process is to me an indication of just how ugly it can become.
Take, for instance, the decision to take senior portrait photos in the summer prior to the senior school year. Kids are still growing, so their pictures look like junior year photos. They are also coming and going to different schools, so there has got to be a lot of coordination, and probably a lot of mistakes made in getting them into the right yearbook.
Then again, there are the printed instructions on the mail-in proof sets:
Choose 2 poses for YB. Yux/Drape pose only on moonlight blue b/grnd and any casual pose that's not full body. NO HORIZONTALS.These instructions would be clear, except that the mailed package includes only one sticker for choosing a yearbook pose. "Ah," you think, "I can go on-line to select the portraits there!" But no, the on-line guidance is virtually non-existent. It says cryptically, to chose a "favorite" pose, and a "yearbook" pose. Once the yearbook pose is chosen, it is fixed... there is no option to make a change, so watch out if, oops, you chose wrong. Then again, what if you mail in a selected proof too? Sounds like whoever designed this process was an amateur shooting from the hip.
So, OK, all that could be forgiven if they were a startup still figuring it out, or a value-oriented operation. But Prestige Studios has had its hooks into our school systems for years and makes 1300 percent more profit from the smallest photo print ($65 for two 5x8's vs a $5 typical cost for a photo quality print = 13 times) . That is by definition price gauging by a monopoly.
Then there is the conflicting interests of the yearbook photos with the advertising of the photo sitting packages. The yearbook can only have two photos (at most), so paying extra for lots of additional shots is worth very little. The parents pay the sitting fee for the shots, then find out later that the photo packages run way out of line with customary and usual portrait fees, well into the hundreds of dollars. It is a formal bait and hook operation, advocated by the school system itself.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Backyard Bistro a bit slow on the uptake
So I tried to have lunch with my spouse at the Backyard Bistro during her lunch hour. I had lunch with a colleague once before; the food was nothing special, your typical slightly over-priced, average sports-bar fare. But it was different, and being only about 5-10 minutes away depending on traffic, we made it there and were ordering by about 10 after the hour. Two guys in military camo outfits followed us in, as well as another couple and a middle aged guy. By 20-of, all the others had been served food by some guy in street clothes. We waited and looked for the waiter, who was nowhere to be found.
I thought about it. Should I call a manager and futz about them forgetting our order while my wife's remaining lunch hour expires, let her go hungry, and end up being late? I did the next best thing: I walked out, got my wife a sandwich at Wendy's, dropped her off at work just in time, and returned to explain to the manager why I was unsatisfied with the service.
What really irks me is that the manager turned out to be that the guy in street clothes passing out the food to the people around us. The waiter never appeared again after initially taking the order. Instead I surmise that the manager took over and, confused about some detail, simply skipped us. Instead of acknowledging the oversight, he claimed the waiter said to him that the meal was ready 7 minutes after we ordered, and when he went to pick it up at the kitchen window we were gone. As he looked at me with glazed over eyes, I let him know we had been there for over a half hour waiting. He had no response except to look befuddled.
I thought it would be nice to try someplace different for a change, but I was wrong. It wasn't nice at all, it was an aggravating waste of my time.
I thought about it. Should I call a manager and futz about them forgetting our order while my wife's remaining lunch hour expires, let her go hungry, and end up being late? I did the next best thing: I walked out, got my wife a sandwich at Wendy's, dropped her off at work just in time, and returned to explain to the manager why I was unsatisfied with the service.
What really irks me is that the manager turned out to be that the guy in street clothes passing out the food to the people around us. The waiter never appeared again after initially taking the order. Instead I surmise that the manager took over and, confused about some detail, simply skipped us. Instead of acknowledging the oversight, he claimed the waiter said to him that the meal was ready 7 minutes after we ordered, and when he went to pick it up at the kitchen window we were gone. As he looked at me with glazed over eyes, I let him know we had been there for over a half hour waiting. He had no response except to look befuddled.
I thought it would be nice to try someplace different for a change, but I was wrong. It wasn't nice at all, it was an aggravating waste of my time.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Godaddy sucks like snail snot
Agile Markup Corporation is in the process of migrating its Web site to a new host. We were initially at oneononeinternet.com but feel they no longer provide a good value. We have long offered Godaddy hosting to our clients but we have seen the response times dragging and the amount of effort required to wade through the administrative menus is absolutely maddening.
Lately, we set up this Joomla system on a Linux Shared Hosting under Godaddy. We have found the response time to be extremely poor -- typically on the order of ten to fifteen seconds per request. If this were dog food we wouldn't feed it to our own dog. So we are looking for another solution, and will probably be using a cloud based service. So if you see this site, and wonder why it is so slow, don't blame PHP, MySQL, or Joomla. The brand recognition of Godaddy.com does not translate into a performance hosting solution.
Lately, we set up this Joomla system on a Linux Shared Hosting under Godaddy. We have found the response time to be extremely poor -- typically on the order of ten to fifteen seconds per request. If this were dog food we wouldn't feed it to our own dog. So we are looking for another solution, and will probably be using a cloud based service. So if you see this site, and wonder why it is so slow, don't blame PHP, MySQL, or Joomla. The brand recognition of Godaddy.com does not translate into a performance hosting solution.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Open Message about CyberPowerPC.com Gaming PC -- Don't Buy
I purchased a gaming system with SLI from Cyberpower, for my teenage son.
First thing, the Web site configurator did not mention that the gaming keyboard was backordered, so we were wondering when, or if, they had forgotten it in the initial order. There was no ETA on it. Several emails cleared that up.
When we unpacked it, cables were loose, not good.
The worst thing is that the system freezes up constantly.
We submitted a support request, and got NO RESPONSE. None. Nada.
Reading forums suggested that we turn off SLI, and that slowed the rate of freezing, but it still freezes up regularly.
Like memory, SLI is a basic feature of the system and should have been thoroughly tested, but my experience says that CyberPowerPC doesn't test adequately.
It was very poor customer service of CyberPowerPC to ignore our support request.
Now in every conversation he has, my son tells his friends to _avoid_ CyberPowerPC, and we know he influenced one purchase decision away from CyberPowerPC.
My own recommendations to clients, local friends, on Facebook, Twitter, and Blogger are to avoid CyberPowerPC.
A copy of this message was sent to CyberPowerPC. I will repeat blogging this opinion as long as I have a freezing CyberPowerPC.
First thing, the Web site configurator did not mention that the gaming keyboard was backordered, so we were wondering when, or if, they had forgotten it in the initial order. There was no ETA on it. Several emails cleared that up.
When we unpacked it, cables were loose, not good.
The worst thing is that the system freezes up constantly.
We submitted a support request, and got NO RESPONSE. None. Nada.
Reading forums suggested that we turn off SLI, and that slowed the rate of freezing, but it still freezes up regularly.
Like memory, SLI is a basic feature of the system and should have been thoroughly tested, but my experience says that CyberPowerPC doesn't test adequately.
It was very poor customer service of CyberPowerPC to ignore our support request.
Now in every conversation he has, my son tells his friends to _avoid_ CyberPowerPC, and we know he influenced one purchase decision away from CyberPowerPC.
My own recommendations to clients, local friends, on Facebook, Twitter, and Blogger are to avoid CyberPowerPC.
A copy of this message was sent to CyberPowerPC. I will repeat blogging this opinion as long as I have a freezing CyberPowerPC.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
TWC Strikes Again
For me, Time Warner's broadband Road Runner internet capabilities beats Embarq's by a long shot. But both businesses culture's discourage initiative and customer service that really sucks big time.
They are their own biggest fault modality: of the issues that I've had to endure as a customer, virtually all have been caused directly by unthinking, bureaucratic actions on the part of TWC people. Of course, a few have also been caused by unthinking Embarq contractors as well, and maybe some of the fault lies with the marking people too.
Here's the pattern that has repeated itself over and over:
1) marker guy walks all over my property spraying paint on my lawn and driveway, along the street, etc, etc.
2) contractors come out to dig something in
3) me or one of my neighbors points out that the marker did not mark the cable and/or phone. We say clearly "DO NOT DIG HERE" because there is something buried. We tell every one of the contractors on site.
4) Contractors ignore our information, trench directly across the cables. We lose phone and/or cable service for a couple of days.
5) Finger pointing beings.
Not to mention that these companies constantly send people out without notification to spin these problems, but can never identify exactly when a crew will fix the problems. You're supposed to be home "sometime between 9 to 1" or some such huge window. And even if it is noted as a cable cut on their work order, they may well test the signal at the pole and mark it "resolved" if no one is home.
I'm fed up with them. This last time it was the phone contractor who restarted the cycle. They were digging in fiber across the street. We went over and told them, look at the pole: we have internet and cable service coming from that pole. Please don't cut it. They cut it. Several hours later, TWC shows up and patches the cable.
Ok, fine, they patched it. But a week later, they show up again, this time with trenchers. I tell them, there is a phone line buried in my driveway, and ask why in the world they are replacing my cable, when it is SOUND. The cut was across the street. THERE WAS NO REASON TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE SPAN OF CABLE. It was completely unjustified. No, they said, this is how it is done. So away they go, and cut my phone line. Too bad they say, it wasn't marked by the guys who do the marking.
So now my phone doesn't work, and who knows when service will be restored. Worse yet, it is as likely as not that they guys who come in to fix that will again show their lack of competence by cutting through something else.
Stuff like this makes me yearn for a way to do without a phone company or ISP. The technology is sufficiently advanced to conjecture that a peer-to-peer urban/suburban wireless last-mile architecture could work. Something like an ISP co-operative. Something where the network terminators were themselves extenders for a co-op owned network segment, and segments were strung together through their nearest neighbors, with support provided by the cooperative but no ISP restrictions by a corporate ISP.
Of my service providers, the two who stand out as shining examples are Wake Electric, and Freedom Federal Credit Union. I would be much happier doing business with one of these kinds of companies than TWC or Embarq, who have completely lost touch with their local customers.
They are their own biggest fault modality: of the issues that I've had to endure as a customer, virtually all have been caused directly by unthinking, bureaucratic actions on the part of TWC people. Of course, a few have also been caused by unthinking Embarq contractors as well, and maybe some of the fault lies with the marking people too.
Here's the pattern that has repeated itself over and over:
1) marker guy walks all over my property spraying paint on my lawn and driveway, along the street, etc, etc.
2) contractors come out to dig something in
3) me or one of my neighbors points out that the marker did not mark the cable and/or phone. We say clearly "DO NOT DIG HERE" because there is something buried. We tell every one of the contractors on site.
4) Contractors ignore our information, trench directly across the cables. We lose phone and/or cable service for a couple of days.
5) Finger pointing beings.
Not to mention that these companies constantly send people out without notification to spin these problems, but can never identify exactly when a crew will fix the problems. You're supposed to be home "sometime between 9 to 1" or some such huge window. And even if it is noted as a cable cut on their work order, they may well test the signal at the pole and mark it "resolved" if no one is home.
I'm fed up with them. This last time it was the phone contractor who restarted the cycle. They were digging in fiber across the street. We went over and told them, look at the pole: we have internet and cable service coming from that pole. Please don't cut it. They cut it. Several hours later, TWC shows up and patches the cable.
Ok, fine, they patched it. But a week later, they show up again, this time with trenchers. I tell them, there is a phone line buried in my driveway, and ask why in the world they are replacing my cable, when it is SOUND. The cut was across the street. THERE WAS NO REASON TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE SPAN OF CABLE. It was completely unjustified. No, they said, this is how it is done. So away they go, and cut my phone line. Too bad they say, it wasn't marked by the guys who do the marking.
So now my phone doesn't work, and who knows when service will be restored. Worse yet, it is as likely as not that they guys who come in to fix that will again show their lack of competence by cutting through something else.
Stuff like this makes me yearn for a way to do without a phone company or ISP. The technology is sufficiently advanced to conjecture that a peer-to-peer urban/suburban wireless last-mile architecture could work. Something like an ISP co-operative. Something where the network terminators were themselves extenders for a co-op owned network segment, and segments were strung together through their nearest neighbors, with support provided by the cooperative but no ISP restrictions by a corporate ISP.
Of my service providers, the two who stand out as shining examples are Wake Electric, and Freedom Federal Credit Union. I would be much happier doing business with one of these kinds of companies than TWC or Embarq, who have completely lost touch with their local customers.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)