Re[2]: Personal Quality Standards

Subject: Re[2]: Personal Quality Standards
From: Joy Zigo <Joy -dot- Zigo -at- HARPERCOLLINS -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 12:28:32 -0400

I agree emphatically with Kris.

Probably a number of us has worn both hats: contractor and client. In the
client's hat, I've not been happy to receive work that was other than the work
agreed upon, even if it represented a big step up in quality and the contractor
had gone out of his/her way to put in a lot of extra time on it. Perhaps it was
not done in the way we would have wanted it done, if we *had* decided to improve
the overall product. As Kris suggests, perhaps we (the client) might plan to use
the product only a short time and then revise in a completely different way.

In the contractor's hat, I've also been tempted to do a really superior job, go
beyond the requirements, use my special formatting that has always been well
received by other clients, etc., without negotiating with the client. But it has
worked out better when I overcame the temptation, or did a small sample to take
to a meeting with the client where we could discuss the options and negotiate
any changes. "Better" even if the result was doing the job in the humdrum, less
perfect way the client preferred in the first place.

Joy Zigo
Curriculum Developer
HarperCollins Publishers
joy -dot- zigo -at- harpercollins -dot- com

Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, and not my employer's.

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Personal Quality Standards
Author: Kris Olberg <kjolberg -at- IX -dot- NETCOM -dot- COM> at Internet-Server
Date: 10/16/96 9:12 AM

This thread has been fascinating to follow, mostly because of the incredulous
sug gestions. I am amazed that so many of the suggestions (except tgr's and mine
and possibly a few more) virtually ignore the other major player: the client.
The fir st step in resolving this should be this:


There are myriads of possibilities, including the one that the client already
kno ws that the manual is written badly but doesn't want to spend the money to
make i t better. Maybe they're shooting for technical accuracy only. Maybe they
have pla ns to rewrite it next year. Maybe ...


Talk to the client.

kjolberg -at- ix -dot- netcom -dot- com (preferred)
kjolberg -at- aol -dot- com
kolberg -at- actamed -dot- com
102031 -dot- 3556 -at- compuserve -dot- com
s -dot- othoudt -at- worldnet -dot- att -dot- net

Previous by Author: FW of RoboHELP 95 and new 4.0 training (Blatant Plug)
Next by Author: Flowcharting tools
Previous by Thread: Re: Personal Quality Standards
Next by Thread: Re: Personal Quality Standards

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads