Posts tagged as:

Consulting

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly RFPs

by Pearlbear on March 3, 2011

In my time working on web development for nonprofit organizations, I’ve seen more RFPs than I can even begin to count. I’ve even written a few. And, especially since I’ve primarily been someone in the role of having to respond to an RFP, I’ve gotten pretty good at spotting RFPs that I feel don’t serve either the organization, or the developers well. Here is, in my estimation, the good, bad, and ugly in the realm of RFPs.

I’ll start with the bad. A mistake I see very often in RFPs is an imbalance in what is articulated in the RFP, and the kind of work that is required to pull off what’s needed. Let me give an example: An RFP for a new website has 2 pages describing in detail needs provided by any modern CMS (web based WYSIWYG editing, drop down menus, new pages easily added, contact forms, etc.) and then a phrase dropped in like “integration with our CRM,” or “event management system,” without any detail as to what these things really mean (like, what is the CRM and what kind of integration is needed, etc.) This invites a world of hurt, as you can imagine. Kind of like the sound made when the Man from Mars starts eating guitars in the Blondie song.

Then there is the ugly. The mistake that organizations most often make is that they have a five- or six-figure imagination, and a four-figure budget.

So what’s the good? What makes a good RFP?

  • Do your homework: know what kinds of software options available to build the kind of system you want, and know what their capabilities are, and how much it generally costs to implement those basic capabilities. Learn about how hard customization of those platforms are (some are much easier than others.)
  • Understand that integration of most any two different systems is going to be four times as hard as you think, cost at least three times as much, and will do 1/2 of what you expect or want.
  • Hire a strategic consultant who really understands technology and the technological details of what you are looking for to help you figure out whether or not you can afford what you really want, and how best to articulate those needs in an RFP. Even an hour or two of their time will save you money and headaches. Someone who is a developer or who has been one in the past is a good bet.
  • Read this slide deck by Gunner of Aspiration!!

Tagged as: , , , ,

{ 2 comments }

The easier it looks, the more expensive it will be (or, how to avoid clusterfrack projects)

by Pearlbear on March 23, 2010

As most of you know, I’m a very long time veteran of web application building. I’ve been involved in web application development basically since they started – when a cgi-bin folder with some perl scripts to process simple forms was the norm. Until just a few years ago, there was very little sophistication about the user experience in web applications – what mattered most was functionality. and to make sure there weren’t too many errors when users did unexpected things.

I’ve considered myself pretty successful at both helping clients navigate the tough waters of web development projects, as well as accomplishing web projects for them. Recently, though, I had two projects that ended up, for wont of a better term, clusterfracks. And I’ve spent a lot of time lately trying to figure out what lessons I need to learn from those projects – what can I take away from them so I don’t make the same mistakes again. They were both custom web applications, both projects that I was a strategic, rather than engineering, partner on. Both projects were attempting to accomplish pretty sophisticated database functionality (such as case management). Functionality I knew how to get done, because I’d accomplished it before – so I had a very good feeling for what kind of code it would take to accomplish the task (and, ergo cost and time.) But what I hadn’t taken into consideration is how slick, AJAXy, easy to navigate, and easy to understand user interfaces people have gotten used to in the last few years. And, frankly, have come to expect. And how unwilling people are to sacrifice that for raw functionality.

I did a lot of self-examination: where did I go wrong? What could I have done differently? Was it the client? The developers? Me? I realized a fairly simple truth. It was all three.  In reality, I should have looked at the budgets of those projects, and looked at the clients straight in the eye and said, “double, or triple the budget at least, or don’t do the project.” And walked away if they insisted. The vendors should have bid triple what they did, and had more user interface expertise on board. The clients should not have expected to get slick 2009 functionality for a mid 5-figure budget.

The easier a user interface is to use, the more money and time it took to create. It’s that simple. What most nonprofit decision makers don’t completely realize is that the interfaces they work in every day when they shop,  or tweet and facebook, or use other online tools, are the product of millions and millions of dollars of venture capital, or, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of person hours of work in open source projects (or some combination of both.) Ground-up custom applications, even when written in great frameworks like Ruby on Rails or CakePHP, which save all sorts of development time, just are not going to have the user experience people are getting more and more used to without very serious investment of time and expertise. In addition, most small development shops don’t have the user interface expertise on hand to accomplish that task, even with a hefty budget.

So the lessons:

1) If you are embarking on a custom development project (such as a case management, for example) exhaust every possible option of using and customizing/modifying existing tools (Salesforce, CiviCRM, SugarCRM, other open source tools) before you begin to consider custom development from scratch.

2) If you have a budget of less than $100,000, go back, and stay, at step 1. I know this is high, but I’m serious. Obviously, simpler projects won’t need a budget of this sort. But simpler projects generally don’t need custom databases.

3) If you’ve got the cash to spend, and have exhausted all other options, when choosing a vendor, make sure the vendor you choose has UE expertise on hand. Look at other custom database work they’ve done. Dig in. Make sure it has the ease of user experience that you are expecting.

4) Remember the mantra: the easier it is to use, the more expensive it is to build.

Tagged as: , , ,

{ 3 comments }

Specify Story, not details

by Pearlbear on August 19, 2009

I’ve been a fan of user stories for several years now. User stories are a way to describe a set of functionalities of an application in a way that is focused on results – it’s easy to connect to mission. An example from an events management application:

The organization should be able to create several different kinds of events, and determine for each kind of event which detailed information will be taken. Those events can be displayed in a list or calendar format. Users can register for events, and pay using a credit card.

There are many ways to describe this story – it certainly can be a lot more detailed, but what’s clear is the result of this functionality. And, of course, user stories are great for agile development process.

Developers would determine how much this function would cost (based on our knowledge of the tools we use, and the time it takes using those tools to generate this sort of functionality), and clients would know exactly what they are getting from a functionality standpoint. When this functionality is complete, everyone is happy. The developers get reasonable compensation for a job well done, and the clients get the mission-based functionality they asked for.

And it would avoid a situation which I have become recently far too familiar with – vendors who underbid projects, and then feel the need to resort not to the intent of the contract, but the letter. Everyone knows it is utterly impossible to specify every detail in the letter of a contract – sometimes letter of the contract, unfortunately, details things like fields and queries, not functionality. The letter of a contract will be, almost by definition unless based on functionality, an inadequate representation of the final result needed. In this case, no one really wins. The clients either don’t get the functionality they expected, or they pay extra for it, and they leave the project with a bad taste in their mouth about the vendors, which will only come around to hurt the vendors later.

Tagged as: , ,

{ 4 comments }

Exciting changes afoot…

by Pearlbear on April 1, 2009

I have some exciting news. For the last few months, I have been working on a new collaboration called OpenIssue, which is a growing, diverse, self-reflective and constantly-learning team. We are focused on delivering quality web technology solutions to nonprofit organizations and social enterprises.

As you know, I have built a long-time expertise in open source software and web applications, particularly Content Management Systems (CMS) and online database systems, including CRM. Thomas Groden, my new business partner, has expertise in Software-as-a-Service Constituent Relationship Management Systems (CRM), as well as much more broad expertise in technology infrastructure.

All technology implementors have to choose their tools (unless they run a very large shop) and we have decided to focus on implementation of both Salesforce.com and CiviCRM as CRMs, and Drupal as a CMS. We are keenly interested in building on our expertise to integrate these open platforms in really rich ways, to allow organizations to create great online applications.

I’m excited to be a part of a team – I’ve been a soloist for a while, and it’s nice to build collaborations, and work together with people with shared ideals on larger projects than I’d be able to take on alone. And I’m really excited by the set of technologies we’re working on, and the kinds of applications we’ll be building with these technologies.

And you can follow us on twitter.

Tagged as: , , , , , , ,

{ 1 comment }