John Upham wrote:
Angus French wrote:Dare I suggest that some bigger questions ought to be asked? Does the ECF understand what it it owns (I assume that it does own CoM) and what involvement has it had to date in the development of the system? For example, was it involved in drawing up the requirements? Was it involved in user acceptance testing? Has it signed off the system - and if so, who signed it off and what were the acceptance criteria?
Angus, could you transform your hidden agenda into a visible one so that we are clear as to what you are suggesting?
John, I donâ€™t have a hidden agenda. But Iâ€™ll try to explain why I asked the questions I did.
I am concerned that the ECF is rushing into endorsing the CoM product and pinning hopes on it as a revenue generator. However, I rather get the impression â€“ from what has been written on this Forum - that the ECF has had little involvement in the development of the product; that you and your team have done all the running. And now some questions have arisen about the product offering (the pricing of â€“ was any research done on this, BTW - and the rewards).
On Stewart Reubenâ€™s response to my questions: Does a contract define the requirements of a project? More likely it would be for implementation of requirements which are defined elsewhere, wouldnâ€™t it? Perhaps Stewart can give us a summary of what he believes the requirements to be? Yes there was some testing but it wasnâ€™t user acceptance testing, was it? At least not in my understanding of what UAT is - I didnâ€™t involve the owner of the software, did it? Has the product been signed-off by the ECF?