Tips for Selecting a Web Development Firm?

cyrano asks: "The organization I work with is looking for nothing less than a complete re-launch of its web site - upgrading from cobbled together static HTML and ASP pages to nothing less than a dynamic, database-driven site with a full-featured Content Management System and a secure eCommerce component. I have already collected proposals from several firms, each advocating the benefits of Java and Struts vs. ASP.NET vs. PHP...however, the technology used by each firm will only form a small part in my final decision. My true concern is ensuring that the firm I contract will be professional, cooperative, timely and will ultimately deliver their services as promised. What sort of questions should I be asking them, and what sort of warning signs should I look out for to make sure I find the perfect fit?"

Comments

what they've done

[zerkon]

Simplest answer is the most obvious, look at their website, look at websites they've created, and if they've used the languages you want on your website, and have done it well, it stands to reason they are able to do it again.

Rabid dislike of anyone approach...

[haplo21112]

...you want people who will complete the work you are asking for...not evangelists rtrying to prove their tech choice is better.

If someone crying the superiority of Java over PHP over ASP, Windows over UNIX/Linux...they are not going to be making the best choices for the various parts of the product.

Each has strengths and weaknesses, and integrates better or wrose with certain things. A key question to ask them if if they know the best X to integrate thier solution with (X). The mythical (x) need not even be what they will be ultimately building against, its thoery question but they don't need to know that when you ask.

One Word: Portfolio

[Flooded77]

These are all questions that a development firm's previous clients would have answers to. Most company sites I see usually have some sort of portfolio listing previous and current clients. If you like the firm's work, start contacting their previous clients and ask them your questions.

As far as what technology they use, I'd say that as long as it fits your needs (each tech has it's own strengths and weaknesses) and is quality work, it doesn't really matter unless you've got something in mind.

Good luck.

Where's the focus?

[beegle]

You want to find a company that's concerned about how you're going to use and maintain the system. If they're developing use cases and trying to assess the technical knowledge of people who will use the system, they're on the right track. If they're worrying about whether to use Windows or Unix or something else, worry. If they're pushing a specific technology or product, worry.

When they present their proposals, ask why each piece is needed, and take the offensive. Ask why they didn't use something smaller or simpler. "Upgradeability" and "future growth" are, more often than not, excuses to sell you crap that you'll never use UNLESS you specifically told them that those things mattered to you. It amazes me how many people end up with a database-backed CMS for a relatively static site with a miniscule archive.

Ask about things like standards compliance and handicapped accessibility. A good company will either do that by default or jot down that it matters to you. It won't be a big deal to them. A bad company will try to convince you that IE on Windows (or whatever their technology of choice supports) is the only browser that matters.

You also want to be a little bit of a pest early on. Cold-call them a day or two after you meet to see how things are going. If they have -any- progress, you're in good shape. If the answer is "Oh, uh, we're still looking into that" or something equally evasive, well, it's not going to get better.

Re:W3C Validator and Browser compatibility

[white1827]

You actually SHOULD go so far as to state in the contract that all content MUST validate against W3C standards in one of the "strict" modes. If they even bat an eye when you request this, I would seriously be suspicious in the quality of their work. This will help insure that your investment in your website will work with future browsers for as long as possible.

A few heuristics

[JimDabell]

Disclaimer: I'm a web developer, and I don't always do things this way myself. They are rules of thumb, not laws that must be followed.

The most important thing to bear in mind is that you need to know what it is you want to achieve with the website. Some firms are all too happy to sell you an all-singing, all-dancing e-commerce haven (and charge appropriately), when all you actually need is a contact form, address and phone number on a single page.

Business stuff:

• Use a contract. This is for your protection and theirs. If they don't use contracts, the chances of them getting sucked into a legal battle with one of their other clients rises. It also outlines exactly what you expect from each other in clear terms, which is, amazingly, an overlooked step in building a site a lot of the time.

• Get concrete deliverables. Example deliverables:

  1. A systems requirement document detailing exactly what it is you need.
  2. A mock-up of a couple of pages to see how they look.
  3. A demo version that doesn't work in all browsers.
  4. A beta version that is supposed to do everything.
  5. Final version.

  These deliverables will be missed a couple of times. The important thing is that your contract states what constitutes acceptable quality and how slips will be resolved - if they lose money every time they miss a date or forget a feature, they'll keep to schedule and not rush things out the door.

• Every time you pay them, get the copyright for the work they have done so far signed over. If they start acting badly, you need to be able to take the work elsewhere instead of being forced to either put up with them or writing off the current investment.
• In a similar vein, make sure that the code they write isn't dependent upon any in-house tools. If you get your code off them, but it is built on top of their proprietary shopping cart API (for example), it's useless.
• As everybody else said, talk to a few of their clients.

There are a few signs to watch out for from people selling snake-oil.

• Unlimited bandwidth or disk space. The truth is, there are limits, and you won't know about them until they decide you're using too many resources.
• Guaranteed search engine placement. They can't do that. Additionally, ask them if they can guarantee stuff like this, how come they aren't #1 in Google for "web design"?
• "Meta tags". Virtually no search engine has used these in the past decade, so if they tell you they'll add them to each page, they are working with very obsolete information.

The human touch. Visit their offices a couple of times.

• Do people seem relaxed?
• Is it some guy in his parents' basement?
• Is it the same people both times?

Technology:

• Validate their HTML. If they have no errors, that's a good sign. If they have one or two errors, ask them about it. If they have dozens or hundreds of errors, stay away, they don't have any Q.A.
• Validate their CSS. If they don't use it, stay away, they are using 90s technology in the year 2005. If they have a couple of errors, ask them about it.
• Look through the validator output to see if they have any lines starting with width and ending in px; (percentages etc are fine). If any of them are setting anything to a width greater than 200px, it's a sign that they use fixed width layouts. This is a negative sign, but not the end of the world. Ask them what steps they take to deal with people on small screens - a technical explanation like "we offer alternative stylesheets" is okay, being blown off with "nobody has small screens like that" is very bad.
• Go to the front page of the most recent addition to their portfolio. View source. Are there <table> tags in there? Look at the