[consulting] Feasibility

Tue Feb 14 19:01:59 UTC 2012

We have literally made a business rescuing failed projects.  People come to use with Rails projects, PHP name your framework projects, poorly built deployments, etc.  It has nothing to do with Drupal or Rails.  It has everything to do with level of knowledge, exper and experience.  Some people don't need amazing well crafted websites nor can the afford it.  Likewise people who shouldn't be developing websites fancy themselves experts.  The marketplace is large.  One reason why it pays to shop around. 

I for one don't lead with the technology.  I am very upfront with my customer about trade offs.  I try to help them make an informed decision.  (Un?)fortunately Drupal has brand recognition to the point were we have people come to use saying the way Drupal.  We are happy to oblige if we determine it isn't better built under rails.

So I have come to expect poorly built projects not just poorly build Drupal projects.  There is a reason people are going an looking for a new vendor.  They are unhappy with their existing vendor.  If they are happy why would they shop?  That is why you probably never see that sort of work.  

----- "Sam Tresler" <sam at treslerdesigns.com> wrote:

> From: "Sam Tresler" <sam at treslerdesigns.com>
> To: "A list for Drupal consultants and Drupal service/hosting providers" <consulting at drupal.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 1:24:58 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [consulting] Feasibility
>
> There is zero development involved in setting up CCK, Views, Features,
> 
> Actions, and Triggers, and it is incredibly easy for non-developers to
> 
> build a site 'wrong' using those tools.
> 
> It's not just hacking core that causes sites to need rebuilding, it is
> 
> misusing the tool that Drupal provides.
> 
> To continue your analogy, yes, a hammer is a tool. It is a simple
> tool. 
> Drupal is an entire construction site, with cranes, backhoes, welders,
> 
> and cement trucks. I wouldn't send an inexperienced client in there 
> without a hardhat and a representative OSHA presence.
> 
> Which is why I find an anti-pattern in the Drupal marketing. Drupal is
> 
> simple, any one can use it, except when someone points out anyone
> can't 
> use it, then you should have expected to hire an expert from the
> beginning.
> 
> I'm not saying that Drupal should dumb down itself, or even suggesting
> 
> that it change, but I am saying, at this point, it is misleading to 
> indicate that a lay person can pick Drupal up and run with it. That is
> 
> an unrealistic expectation.
> 
> To be fair, I think d.o doesn't purposefully give that impression, but
> 
> that impression exists, whether through consultants, or inexperienced
> 
> web developers getting in over their head. The evidence is in the 
> aforementioned sentiments about 'expecting a site to be built 
> incorrectly' and in my own experience of 2-3 out of every 4 clients 
> coming to me with a product that they or another vendor has built
> poorly 
> in the first place.
> 
> Am I incorrect in thinking crappily built sites are endemic to Drupal?
> 
> Is this just the learning curve, or some broader issue that gives 
> clients and vendors the impression that Drupal is a drop-in or 
> set-it-and-forget-it solution?
> 
> Regards,
>    Sam Tresler
> 
> On 02/14/2012 12:47 PM, Joel Willers wrote:
> > I tend to think of Drupal as a tool, not a product. A hammer is a
> tool when used correctly builds useful things, and, when used
> incorrectly it can also be useful, just not in a way that is easily
> duplicated. When people hack core, it's impossible to upgrade easily.
> I've heard over and over again how you shouldn't hack core, but people
> do it. What's the cure for that? It isn't a negative for Drupal. It's
> a positive for Drupal developers. Yes, there is a learning curve. If
> there wasn't, there wouldn't be a need for developers. If you want a
> product to use, they exist. If you want a tool that aids in building a
> nice site with an extensible CMS, Drupal is for you.
> >
> > Just remember, all tools are not used the same by different users.
> That doesn't make the tool any less useful.
> >
> > Joel
> >
> > From: consulting-bounces at drupal.org
> [mailto:consulting-bounces at drupal.org] On Behalf Of Keith Smith
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:39 AM
> > To: A list for Drupal consultants and Drupal service/hosting
> providers
> > Subject: Re: [consulting] Feasibility
> >
> > I've been learning and configuring Drupal for a couple of websites
> that I want to put online.  I find your observation to be very
> interesting.  One of my concerns is the amount of time it might take
> me to maintain multiple Drupal installs.  And with such limited
> knowledge of Drupal I question if I am configuring things correctly.
> >
> > I still think Drupal is a great tool.  I also think one has to
> either become an expert or hire an expert.
> >
> > Keith
> > ------------------------
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [consulting] Feasibility
> > From: Sam Tresler<sam at treslerdesigns.com>
> > Date: Tue, February 14, 2012 10:27 am
> > To: A list for Drupal consultants and Drupal service/hosting
> providers
> > <consulting at drupal.org>
> >
> > Honestly, this is becoming one of my sole biggest issues with
> Drupal. We
> > can talk about the learning curve being steep, and rewards being
> > plentiful all we want. However, when the automatic assumption is
> that
> > the site was built wrong in the first place, and (I would hazard
> the
> > guess) the majority of sites being built un-upgradable, then I have
> a
> > very difficult time recommending it as a good platform to build
> upon.
> >
> > Sure, you can build amazing things on Drupal. But if only a
> marginally
> > slim category of rock star developers is doing it in a sustainable
> > fashion, then what is the point?
> >
> > More and more when I find myself in a situation where upgrade is
> > impossible due poor original build, I step back and re-assess the
> > client's needs out of a CMS and see if the complexity of Drupal is
> > something that will ever be in their wheelhouse.
> >
> > I'm aware that sounds incredibly negative, but there are only so
> many
> > "Drupal Disasters" that I can see without getting some negative
> > attitude. Although, I do maintain Drupal has an easy upgrade path
> when
> > executed properly.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sam Tresler
> >
> > On 02/14/2012 07:59 AM, Christian Pearce wrote:
> >>
> >> ----- "Sam Tresler"<sam at treslerdesigns.com>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: "Sam Tresler"<sam at treslerdesigns.com>
> >>> To: "A list for Drupal consultants and Drupal service/hosting
> providers"<consulting at drupal.org>
> >>> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 3:52:53 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada
> Eastern
> >>> Subject: Re: [consulting] Feasibility
> >>>
> >>> I have found myself in a the middle of an upgrade where I thought
> it
> >>> might be easier to rebuild, but only when it was built incorrectly
> in
> >>>
> >>
> >> That is an excellent point. We rarely have people come to us with
> an upgrade were the site is very well built. (I am going to
> generalize). Typically people come to us unsatisfied with the past
> performance of their existing developer. When we look under the hood
> we see why. I guess I just assume it isn't going to be well built.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> From: "Sam Tresler"<sam at treslerdesigns.com>
> >>>>> To: "A list for Drupal consultants and Drupal service/hosting
> >>> providers"<consulting at drupal.org>
> >>>>> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 11:26:50 AM GMT -05:00
> US/Canada
> >>> Eastern
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [consulting] Feasibility
> >>>>>
> >>>>> " Part of providing value as a consultant is knowing when we
> >>> should
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> when we shouldn't do something for a customer unless they say
> we
> >>> don't
> >>>>>
> >>>>> care do it our way."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Right. And as a consultant we probably shouldn't be making
> blanket
> >>>>> recommendations without assessing the actual situation first.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Right that is why I said "points well taken." I was simply
> offering
> >>> my opinion and thoughts to see what others were.
> >>>>
> >>>>> In my experience it is a rare site that actually needs a
> rebuild.
> >>> Why
> >>>>>
> >>>>> would we bother with an upgrade path at all if that weren't the
> >>> case?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I am speaking specifically to third party modules that don't
> upgrade
> >>> well.
> >>>>
> >>>>> These instances stand out in our mind because that's A) usually
> >>> when
> >>>>> they call the consultants in, and B) They're a giant PITA. But
> as
> >>> far
> >>>>> as
> >>>>> 'always being more cost effective to rebuild' I think that is
> very
> >>> far
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You are paraphrasing me. I didn't say always.
> >>>>
> >>>>> off the mark. And not a good or true impression to leave a
> client
> >>>>> with.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> So have you ever found yourself in the middle of a complicated
> >>> upgrade were you thought, huh, might have been better to just
> start
> >>> from scratch?
> >>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Sam Tresler
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 02/13/2012 11:21 AM, Christian Pearce wrote:
> >>>>>> Points well taken. What ruler do we use to decide quickly if
> it
> >>> is
> >>>>> a simple site that is could be upgraded easily? Sort of doing
> the
> >>>>> upgrade to see if it works. For example are you using CCK and
> >>> views?
> >>>>> If so then no it isn't worth it? Or how much content do you
> have?
> >>>>> Part of providing value as a consultant is knowing when we
> should
> >>> and
> >>>>> when we shouldn't do something for a customer unless they say
> we
> >>> don't
> >>>>> care do it our way.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ----- "Sam Tresler"<sam at treslerdesigns.com>  wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: "Sam Tresler"<sam at treslerdesigns.com>
> >>>>>>> To: "A list for Drupal consultants and Drupal service/hosting
> >>>>> providers"<consulting at drupal.org>
> >>>>>>> Cc: "Christian Pearce"<pearcec at xforty.com>
> >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 11:08:26 AM GMT -05:00
> US/Canada
> >>>>> Eastern
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [consulting] Feasibility
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm not sure I agree with this. It depends on what/how the
> site
> >>>>> was
> >>>>>>> built originally. I've upgraded simple sites along that path
> (5
> >>> to
> >>>>> 6,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> then 6 to 7) in less than a day. More complex sites or sites
> >>> that
> >>>>>>> weren't built properly in the first place, the assertion that
> >>>>> rebuilt
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>> cheaper may be true. I don't think this is a blanket
> statement
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>> can say until we know more details about the site.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Upgrading themes is fairly simple if you follow the well
> >>> published
> >>>>>>> step
> >>>>>>> by step guides.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I guess my main point is "Upgrades are never smooth" is not
> the
> >>>>> case.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Frequently they are, and when they aren't it's generally due
> to
> >>>>>>> problems
> >>>>>>> that need to be fixed regardless of the upgrade.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>> Sam Tresler
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 02/13/2012 10:45 AM, Christian Pearce wrote:
> >>>>>>>> (Please don't turn this thread into garbage. Which tends to
> >>>>> happen
> >>>>>>> from time to time.)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Amy, I don't want this to necessarily be about you or
> turn
> >>> you
> >>>>>>> off from our list. So please accept my advanced apologizes if
> >>> it
> >>>>>>> does.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I wanted to get people's thoughts on upgrade versus rebuild
> >>> from
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>> cost perspective. Seems to me going from 5 ->  7 would
> >>> require
> >>>>> going
> >>>>>>> to 6 first. Upgrades are never smooth. Having to go from 5 ->
> >>> 6
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>> the 6 ->  7 would be effectively paying for 2 upgrades.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What are the pro's of upgrading?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1. Site content comes along for the ride.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What are the con's?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1. More expensive then a rebuild
> >>>>>>>> 2. Might be forced to redo functionality
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Seems to me in either case you need to upgrade the theme to
> >>> work
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>> 7. And you are more then likely finding replacement modules
> for
> >>>>>>> existing functionality. So if you are already forced to redo
> >>>>>>> functionality, might as well put the money towards a refresh.
> >>>>> Further
> >>>>>>> I would venture to say on small sites it would be more worth
> >>> while
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> redo functionality and redo the content by hand.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Please lets have a healthy, no flame, honest and open
> opinions
> >>>>>>> discussion. Also please don't talk ill of Amy's request. I am
> >>>>> sure
> >>>>>>> several non-profits are in her shoes. And I would suspect
> budget
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>> limited. Hence my reason for bringing it up. What is going to
> >>> be
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>> most cost effect.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ----- "Weinstein Amy"<amy at achildrensbraintumorcure.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From: "Weinstein Amy"<amy at achildrensbraintumorcure.org>
> >>>>>>>>> To: consulting at drupal.org
> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 9:46:58 AM GMT -05:00
> >>> US/Canada
> >>>>>>> Eastern
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: [consulting] Please post this job listing on the
> >>>>> mailing
> >>>>>>> list...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Freelance job opportunity with small non-profit (501c3)
> >>>>>>> organization
> >>>>>>>>> dedicated to funding children's brain tumor research.
> >>>>> Experience
> >>>>>>>>> required includes Drupal 5, 6 and 7. HTML, SQL, PHP.
> >>> Position
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>> part time and would require upgrade of existing website
> from
> >>>>> Drupal
> >>>>>>> 5
> >>>>>>>>> to Drupal 7. Also, transfer of site from existing host to
> >>>>> Drupal
> >>>>>>>>> Gardens. After upgrade is complete, ongoing maintenance (10
> >>>>>>>>> hours/week) would be welcomed. Please respond ASAP to
> >>>>>>>>> amy at achildrensbraintumorcure.org
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> consulting mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> consulting at drupal.org
> >>>>>>>>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> consulting mailing list
> >>>>> consulting at drupal.org
> >>>>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> consulting mailing list
> >>> consulting at drupal.org
> >>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > consulting mailing list
> > consulting at drupal.org
> > http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
> > _______________________________________________
> > consulting mailing list
> > consulting at drupal.org
> > http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
> _______________________________________________
> consulting mailing list
> consulting at drupal.org
> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting

-- 

xforty technologies 
Christian Pearce 
888-231-9331 x1119 
http://xforty.com 