I'm currently working for a client under a contract that defines the project scope as:
* Acme Ltd Projects
where Acme is my one of my clients end-clients (my client is a software house providing services to numerous end-clients).
Now, this end-client has a number of projects and I have been working on one of these, let's call it 'Acme Edge', dealing with the end-clients support tickets and a bundled piece of work for the next major release, say version 4.5.3.
I am the only active support/development resource on the 'Acme Edge' project - although my client employs a number of developers, some of which have experience with this system.
Version 4.5.3 has now been put on hold and the support tickets are sporadic at best - so my take is that the project is essentially ending. However, my client is saying that I can move onto 'Acme Blue' and work on that for the rest of the contract. At the end of the day the contract says 'Acme Projects' so that's fine ...... or is it? I smell MOO here!
The client has previously signed a 'Working Conditions Questionnaire' (from QDOS) where in response to the question "Is your end client obliged to provide your company with continuous work throughout the period of contract?" I selected "No" and stated "In the event that the project is completed early or prematurely terminated, our services would no longer be required and the contract would also be terminated.".
The questions I have are:
1. Should that project scope have been more specific, e.g. Development of Acme Edge v 4.5.3
2. Should I be doing the support tickets AND the development - isn't the former more 'task based'
3. If the project scope is fine then moving to 'Acme Blue' still smells like Mutuality of Obligation to me and something I'm not comfortable with. Maybe I should just ask for a new contract for this work (as per the MOO response above).
Any insight appreciate?
* Acme Ltd Projects
where Acme is my one of my clients end-clients (my client is a software house providing services to numerous end-clients).
Now, this end-client has a number of projects and I have been working on one of these, let's call it 'Acme Edge', dealing with the end-clients support tickets and a bundled piece of work for the next major release, say version 4.5.3.
I am the only active support/development resource on the 'Acme Edge' project - although my client employs a number of developers, some of which have experience with this system.
Version 4.5.3 has now been put on hold and the support tickets are sporadic at best - so my take is that the project is essentially ending. However, my client is saying that I can move onto 'Acme Blue' and work on that for the rest of the contract. At the end of the day the contract says 'Acme Projects' so that's fine ...... or is it? I smell MOO here!
The client has previously signed a 'Working Conditions Questionnaire' (from QDOS) where in response to the question "Is your end client obliged to provide your company with continuous work throughout the period of contract?" I selected "No" and stated "In the event that the project is completed early or prematurely terminated, our services would no longer be required and the contract would also be terminated.".
The questions I have are:
1. Should that project scope have been more specific, e.g. Development of Acme Edge v 4.5.3
2. Should I be doing the support tickets AND the development - isn't the former more 'task based'
3. If the project scope is fine then moving to 'Acme Blue' still smells like Mutuality of Obligation to me and something I'm not comfortable with. Maybe I should just ask for a new contract for this work (as per the MOO response above).
Any insight appreciate?
Comment