I've been working on a project for a while with a 3-way relationship - the "owner" who pays the bills, the "Application expert" who "knows what the owner needs/wants" (who is a friend of mine, competent, and a nice guy), and me - the "technical expert/implementer".
The project started when the owner asked the "application expert" ("AE" for the rest of the post) for help designing a fairly large scale outdoor sound system. The AE brought me in as a consultant, and I established a time and materials relationship with the owner. The owner is unable/unwilling to contribute to determining the project design goals, saying "The AE knows what I need - work with him" (the owner seems to be stuck thinking that "sound" is a utility like electricity or water and has a hard time grasping that there are about 11 zillion ways to do this with hugely varying costs and capabilities).
This situation proceeded reasonably well for a while, but the time allotted for the project implementation was not remotely sufficient for the system to be done by the first event. The AE and I promised to make the event happen using portable equipment, duct tape, and bailing wire if necessary to get the event done (which we did, and the event went fine), and then we would finish up after that. Throughout this process, and even during the first event, the design requirements have been slipperier than a greased pig, and seem to constantly change in material ways - programming/control/wiring, output routing, etc.
Making a long story short, I have proposed a contract to finish the project - specific design goals, specific labor responsibilities for both sides, for a specific fee. The owner is withholding a large payment to me for labor already performed (still on the T&M basis) until he gets a "system that's done and easy to use", at which time he proposes that he will pay me the T&M money (which he admits I'm owed) plus the contracted amount. I am unwilling to do any more work until my invoice is paid (duh).
The hilarious part of this is that he still won't commit to any design goals. He wants contractual payment - one check to be done with the project, but is unwilling/unable to discuss what I would actually be building. His standard of "complete, and easy to use" could be the most subjective thing in the universe, and I could be stuck working hours, days, or weeks until we eventually meander into what he would accept as "easy to use", for a fixed (and way too low for this hassle) fee.
Ultimately the owner will be the loser if this ends up going south. He has a large hardware investment in the project, and though I'm not remotely the only person in the world who can finish the job, I will surely be the cheapest by far, since anyone else coming in would have to reverse engineer what I've built, navigate the communication challenges with the owner, somehow figure out what the project end game actually is, possibly want to make changes to the design due to differing opinions/philosophies from what I chose, and then supply the labor to actually do the work.
I have some sympathy for the owner who clearly ended up way over his head in this (again based on his belief that sound is like water and you can just "stick a speaker there"), but that's the consequence of not being willing to be involved in setting the project requirements. There are some situations in life where you don't have to engage much - car is broken - bring to repair shop, write check, receive repaired vehicle. Others such as "build me a house", or "build me a complicated distributed sound system" don't work that way. When you totally defer all decisions to someone else, you also give up the right to criticize the decisions made. You can't say "I don't like what you did and I'm not paying you until you you make it the way I want it" after the fact, without having previously explained what it is you wanted, and having an agreement to perform that.
The AE (who is actually a volunteer) continues to attempt to explain to the owner that this isn't going to work. Hopefully we will succeed - I really hope I don't have to take this guy to court.
The project started when the owner asked the "application expert" ("AE" for the rest of the post) for help designing a fairly large scale outdoor sound system. The AE brought me in as a consultant, and I established a time and materials relationship with the owner. The owner is unable/unwilling to contribute to determining the project design goals, saying "The AE knows what I need - work with him" (the owner seems to be stuck thinking that "sound" is a utility like electricity or water and has a hard time grasping that there are about 11 zillion ways to do this with hugely varying costs and capabilities).
This situation proceeded reasonably well for a while, but the time allotted for the project implementation was not remotely sufficient for the system to be done by the first event. The AE and I promised to make the event happen using portable equipment, duct tape, and bailing wire if necessary to get the event done (which we did, and the event went fine), and then we would finish up after that. Throughout this process, and even during the first event, the design requirements have been slipperier than a greased pig, and seem to constantly change in material ways - programming/control/wiring, output routing, etc.
Making a long story short, I have proposed a contract to finish the project - specific design goals, specific labor responsibilities for both sides, for a specific fee. The owner is withholding a large payment to me for labor already performed (still on the T&M basis) until he gets a "system that's done and easy to use", at which time he proposes that he will pay me the T&M money (which he admits I'm owed) plus the contracted amount. I am unwilling to do any more work until my invoice is paid (duh).
The hilarious part of this is that he still won't commit to any design goals. He wants contractual payment - one check to be done with the project, but is unwilling/unable to discuss what I would actually be building. His standard of "complete, and easy to use" could be the most subjective thing in the universe, and I could be stuck working hours, days, or weeks until we eventually meander into what he would accept as "easy to use", for a fixed (and way too low for this hassle) fee.
Ultimately the owner will be the loser if this ends up going south. He has a large hardware investment in the project, and though I'm not remotely the only person in the world who can finish the job, I will surely be the cheapest by far, since anyone else coming in would have to reverse engineer what I've built, navigate the communication challenges with the owner, somehow figure out what the project end game actually is, possibly want to make changes to the design due to differing opinions/philosophies from what I chose, and then supply the labor to actually do the work.
I have some sympathy for the owner who clearly ended up way over his head in this (again based on his belief that sound is like water and you can just "stick a speaker there"), but that's the consequence of not being willing to be involved in setting the project requirements. There are some situations in life where you don't have to engage much - car is broken - bring to repair shop, write check, receive repaired vehicle. Others such as "build me a house", or "build me a complicated distributed sound system" don't work that way. When you totally defer all decisions to someone else, you also give up the right to criticize the decisions made. You can't say "I don't like what you did and I'm not paying you until you you make it the way I want it" after the fact, without having previously explained what it is you wanted, and having an agreement to perform that.
The AE (who is actually a volunteer) continues to attempt to explain to the owner that this isn't going to work. Hopefully we will succeed - I really hope I don't have to take this guy to court.
