Re: Opinions on approach, please...



<docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:g1eili$sog$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <69vrmlF34n0orU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


<docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g1e4s6$7ns$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[snip]

You've found a way insure that a Corner Office Idiot doesn't slip in a
'well, I'm really Not Technical but I don't see why you can't, while
you're at it, slip in (x)... really, all ya gotta do is...'? Copyright
that method, Mr Dashwood!


Pretty easy really... don't work with Corner Office Idiots.

Work with the people who control them.

A pity, Mr Dashwood, that 'prior art' seems to prevent your copyright;
that cat's already been belled.

Far too subtle for me, old bean. I have no idea what you're talking about
:-).

I should also have mentioned above, that, in addition to dealing with the
people who control the COIs, it is also very useful (for all interested
parties) to have a statement of exactly what will be delivered, attached to
the contract... It isn't carved in stone, but can only be changed by
agreement between both parties and money will change hands as a result. So
far, on projects where I have adopted this approach, there hasn't been any
scope creep and further business has resulted. This seems to work pretty
well, and is fair to all concerned. Probably more difficult to do when
dealing with large corporations, (I haven't tried yet...) rather than SMEs..

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."


.