3 ms·

Wanting it fast, good, and cheap is also a red flag for lots of other little bonuses, such as: - You will constantly wait for them to make a decision. - It

by edw519 16y ago

Wanting it fast, good, and cheap is also a red flag for lots of other little bonuses, such as: - You will constantly wait for them to make a decision. - It will be your fault they took so long to make a decision. - They will have emergencies of their own making. - It will be your fault they have emergencies. - They will commit to little or nothing on paper. - It's not their fault because they never committed to that. - You think you have specs; they think you're prototyping, so... - You will do much work 2 or 3 times. - They will constantly change priorities. - They will forget they changed priorities, so... - They will complain when a lower priority isn't done. - You won't get paid on time. - You will spend lots of time trying to get paid. - They will always find some excuse to not pay. - You may never get paid. - If it's good, it's because they thought of it. - If it's bad, it's because you suck. - You can't win. Honestly, I wish we could tattoo these people to save the next developer all the heartache. Listen to OP; as soon as you realize they want it fast, good, and cheap, run the other way.

slantyyz 16y ago
When you're dealing with anyone outside the Fortune 10,000, money is still not something that is just thrown around willy nilly. So, in the grand scheme of things, --everyone-- wants it fast, good and cheap, if it's possible. If you can educate your prospect on why it's not possible, they'll usually come around and even be reasonable about things. So I would say if the prospect wants it fast, good and cheap, and it smells like they're going to be clueless dicks about it, then run the other way. With respect to many of the bullet points above, I would also say that you have to vet your prospects just as much as they are vetting you, and protect yourself with a contract that isn't heavily in favor of the customer (i.e., you're entitled to stop work if you're not paid on time, that you have an exit clause, etc., etc.) More often than not, you also have to put your bad cop hat on and manage the customer. I've seen so many projects fail because the Account Manager or PM was too scared to say anything to control the scope of the project.
- gaius 16y ago
  You're correct, but you're missing the point that many clients interests are not aligned with either yours or even their organizations. When someone refuses to commit to decisions in writing, even in an email, then you are a pawn in some game they are playing. You're being set up to fail and to be scapegoated because they believe that this will advance them in the organization quicker than you succeeding (e.g. the project's sponsor is a rival of theirs). That is why they are best described as toxic.
  - slantyyz 16y ago
    I would agree. Client interests are rarely aligned with yours. If the economic relationship, however, between you and the client is genuinely fair (i.e., they need you as much as you need them) then you're actually in a position to push back and get balanced results. I tend to find that most services companies are more obsessed with the 'close' than they are with making sure the relationship is going to work (i.e., vetting them, asking tough questions back) before signing on the dotted line. You also have to acknowledge that a high percentage of those who take on toxic clients and projects did it to themselves.
- roc 16y ago
  > "If you can educate your prospect on why it's not possible, they'll usually come around and even be reasonable about things." You're assuming they don't already know. I wouldn't lump the ignorant in with the Toxic, Evil bastards discussed in the article. They know full well what they're asking for. And what they're really shopping for, is someone desperate enough to take the work, because that will mean they have them by the short-and-curlies and can continue to take advantage of the relationship.
  - slantyyz 16y ago
    With the toxic projects I've been on, the clients have been naive and greedy, but have also yielded when we pushed back because they knew there was real scarcity in the labor force for the enterprise software that we deployed. I'm sure that if I was dealing with a more commoditized service offering in a buyer's market the case may have been very different.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

by edw519 16y ago

slantyyz 16y ago

When you're dealing with anyone outside the Fortune 10,000, money is still not something that is just thrown around willy nilly. So, in the grand scheme of things, --everyone-- wants it fast, good and cheap, if it's possible. If you can educate your prospect on why it's not possible, they'll usually come around and even be reasonable about things. So I would say if the prospect wants it fast, good and cheap, and it smells like they're going to be clueless dicks about it, then run the other way. With respect to many of the bullet points above, I would also say that you have to vet your prospects just as much as they are vetting you, and protect yourself with a contract that isn't heavily in favor of the customer (i.e., you're entitled to stop work if you're not paid on time, that you have an exit clause, etc., etc.) More often than not, you also have to put your bad cop hat on and manage the customer. I've seen so many projects fail because the Account Manager or PM was too scared to say anything to control the scope of the project.

gaius 16y ago
You're correct, but you're missing the point that many clients interests are not aligned with either yours or even their organizations. When someone refuses to commit to decisions in writing, even in an email, then you are a pawn in some game they are playing. You're being set up to fail and to be scapegoated because they believe that this will advance them in the organization quicker than you succeeding (e.g. the project's sponsor is a rival of theirs). That is why they are best described as toxic.
- slantyyz 16y ago
  I would agree. Client interests are rarely aligned with yours. If the economic relationship, however, between you and the client is genuinely fair (i.e., they need you as much as you need them) then you're actually in a position to push back and get balanced results. I tend to find that most services companies are more obsessed with the 'close' than they are with making sure the relationship is going to work (i.e., vetting them, asking tough questions back) before signing on the dotted line. You also have to acknowledge that a high percentage of those who take on toxic clients and projects did it to themselves.
roc 16y ago
> "If you can educate your prospect on why it's not possible, they'll usually come around and even be reasonable about things." You're assuming they don't already know. I wouldn't lump the ignorant in with the Toxic, Evil bastards discussed in the article. They know full well what they're asking for. And what they're really shopping for, is someone desperate enough to take the work, because that will mean they have them by the short-and-curlies and can continue to take advantage of the relationship.
- slantyyz 16y ago
  With the toxic projects I've been on, the clients have been naive and greedy, but have also yielded when we pushed back because they knew there was real scarcity in the labor force for the enterprise software that we deployed. I'm sure that if I was dealing with a more commoditized service offering in a buyer's market the case may have been very different.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]