On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 10:26:18AM +0000, James O'Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Michael Stevens wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 08:47:35AM +0000, Roger Burton West wrote:
> > > Contracts _should_ say that the client pays for changes to what he
> > > originally said he wanted. Sometimes they do. It's quite rare, in my
> > > experience, for this payment actually to be demanded. (Usually some
> > > excuse along the lines of "it's a big customer and we don't want to
> > > annoy them".) This XP approach seems to require a lot more firmness
> > >
> > I've also found a lot of customers are absolute *geniuses* at fudging the
> > issue of what they did and didn't agree to, no matter how specific
> > you attempt to be.
> >
>
> All changes no matter how small should be passed through a change control
> process, normally put in place by the project manager assigned to that
> specific job.
>
> A change control document will normally be produced which will detail what
> the client wants, how much it will cost and what the effects are on the
> project timeline. This will need to be read and physically signed off by
> the client before any work is undertaken.
a) you need to be able to persuade management this is a good idea
b) you need to get someone writing specs who is actually able to be specific.
And you need to have some way of dealing with a client who will refuse to
pay until you implement something that they say is contained within the
spec, and you don't. Despite the fact you're both reading the same spec.
>From memories of my last job, both of these can be a problem.
Michael
