When the designer/client relationship should begin
Posted in Web strategy on: Wednesday, May 2, 2007 by Paul Boag
In the last couple of posts I have looked at the role of the website owner. This has also started me thinking about the relationship between designer and client. In particular I have been considering the point at which this relationship starts and wondering whether the designer should actually be engaged earlier in the development cycle.
Think about how the average web design project runs. Presuming the client doesn’t have an incumbent web design agency or an internal team, it almost always starts with the client writing a brief. Depending on the client, this brief may be based on a varying level of upfront planning. A really switched on client may well have thought through the areas I outlined in my last post:
- the business objectives that underpin the project
- the success criteria against which the project will be judged
- the pros and cons of the existing site (if it exists)
- lessons to be learnt from reviewing the competitions websites
- a clear understanding of who the target audience is and what they want from the site
However, not many clients are experts in the web design process. After all that is not their job. They are marketing people or IT managers, they are not web designers. They may well think of the issues listed above but that does not necessarily mean they are best placed to work out how they apply to the website.
Many decisions made without the web designer
Before the web design agency ever sees a brief, a considerable amount of decision making has already taken place. Clients have often decided who their target audience is, what functionality they want built, how much this is likely to cost, when it needs to be delivered, the list goes on. In many cases the client alone is not the best person to make these kinds of judgments. It should be the web design agency and client working together that defines the scope of the project.
Even when there is a more informed client working through this definition stage, I would still argue that the designer should be sitting down beside them. In order to produce the best site possible the designer needs to understand all of this background information and the best way to do that is to help form it in the first place.
In short i am coming to the conclusion that wherever possible the designer should be involved in the writing of a development brief.
Practical application
So how would this work in practice. Well, instead of the client issuing a normal invitation to tender (ITT) outlining all of the work that needs to be completed, they would instead issue an ITT for an initial consultancy stage. This mini project would help to define the scope of the actual development work.
The beauty of this approach is that not only does it mean the agency is involved in defining scope, it also allows the client to ascertain whether they like working with the designer. So instead of committing a sizable amount of spending with a company they hardly know, they invest a small amount in a consultancy phase that allows the client to see exactly what the designer is made of.
As far as I can see it everybody would win. The client gets to know the designer better and is guided through the difficult definition phase. The designer on the other hand gets a better defined brief that reads like an actual specification instead of a wish list of “nice to haves”.
5 Comments
Comments are for the discussion of this post. If you have other questions / comments then post them to the forum or send me an email
Interesting idea, but I think it’s probably impractical in most web projects, unless the agency and client have an established relationship.As a website owner, I would struggle to justify paying a design agency to help scope out our project, which would be seen as an internal matter (a lot of decisions get made way before anyone is ready tho think about suppliers, designers, etc). Also, I don’t think I’d be comfortable having that kind of initial discussion in front of a supplier, as they tend to be fairly unfocused brainstorming affairs and probably utterly confusing to anyone from outside the company.
I couldn’t agree more…. but sadly I just can’t see this happening.
It’s a bit of a catch 22 situation; if a client was very clued-up about the web design process then they would know that an initial consultation would be a good thing and may well put out an ITT for that stage before kicking off the main project. However, as they are ‘clued-up’ then they may not need this stage as badly as the ‘clueless’ client, who by their uninformed nature is extremely unlikely to realise the benefits that an initial consultation could bring and therefore won’t factor this stage into their equation.
The only way around this would be to educate all potential clients before they know that they need a new website, which would be quite a task!
I agree with you totally on this one Paul. I often read tender briefs and think: they don’t need that, or that, or that, but they could do with thinking about these areas. This would cut their costs considerably but still end up with a great solution.
Now I may not always be right, but I think that a web professional should be on hand when writing a brief. But then, for all fairness the agency that the the web pro is attached to shouldn’t be able to apply for the tender. They are just paid for their consultancy services. Otherwise talk of foul play will obviously come in, and you’ll have a massive head-start on other agencies.
Okay let me respond to some of the comments made.
Firstly, I understand that people struggle paying for scoping work because it is perceived as an internal project. However, that is exactly the problem. I don’t believe it should be a completely internal process. Its a false economy. You are saving some money up front only to spend it later when you end up having to redevelop work that wasn’t thoroughly planned upfront.
I also disagree with the idea that the web designer shouldn’t be exposed to “unfocused brainstorming”. By excluding them from that process you are excluding their vast experience that can contribute to the project.
Finally I disagree with Gary’s comments that the designer shouldn’t then be allowed to tender for the work. I would suggest that unless the client is unhappy with the designer through the specification phase they would naturally be the ideal person to do the development. Yes they would have an unfair advantage but from the clients perspective this isn’t about fairness to the web designer, its about the best value for money! Anyway it is no more unfair than a tendering process where there is already an existing agency on board.
However, I do agree with Marks comments that clients are not aware of this approach and so only the savvy would ever adopt it. This is a problem and it will only change over time as designers keep suggesting to clients this is a better way. Its the same as we are seeing with speculative design.
You seem to have thought this one through, Paul. I wonder if the process would take significantly longer? It seems like a company could issue consultancy ITT, find a designer, reject them and their work, and still be at square one. Perhaps this is better than scrapping a whole website. Even with my objection, as a freelancer, your suggestions make sense to me.