A dispute over the outcome of development or implementation almost always reduces to a single question: does what was delivered correspond to what was ordered. The parties answer it differently, because they rely on different documents and on different readings of the same wording.
The client proceeds from the result expected and judges it by fitness for use. The supplier proceeds from the technical specification and judges the result by the volume of work performed. Both conclusions may be correct at once: the work may have been performed in accordance with the specification while what was delivered does not answer the purpose for which it was ordered.
This service establishes the facts: what the documents provided for, what was in fact delivered, what accounts for the divergence, and what part of it falls within the subject of the contract. The conclusion is expressed against documents and evidence, not against the positions of the parties.
To obtain a preliminary estimate of scope, timing and fees, please complete the questionnaire. A response is provided within several business days.
Typical situations
|
The result is not accepted
|
Work performed, payment withheld
|
The project does not conclude
|
|
The client declines to sign the acceptance certificate, considering that what was paid for does not correspond to what was expected. The supplier points to the technical specification and to agreed changes. What the documents provided for and what was in fact delivered must be established. |
The supplier holds records of performance and of agreed revisions, yet payment is delayed on grounds of quality. Independent confirmation of the volume performed and of its correspondence to the specification is required. |
Deadlines are extended, the volume of revisions does not diminish, and the parties differ as to the cause. It must be established what drives the accumulation of revisions: the content of the assignments, the manner in which they are set, or the state of the supplier’s development processes. |
What is established
- the requirements arising from the contract, the technical specification, records of agreement and correspondence between the parties, and their internal consistency
- the actual composition of what was delivered: the functionality implemented, the state of the documentation and the completeness of the materials handed over
- the correspondence of the result to the requirements, item by item, identifying the source of each requirement
- the composition and justification of changes made in the course of the work and the manner in which the parties agreed them
- the causes of revisions: incomplete or inconsistent assignments, changes of requirement during the work, or the state of the supplier’s development processes
- the volume of work actually performed and its relation to the amount presented for payment
- the operability of the result in the client’s environment and any circumstances preventing its use
Development processes as a subject of examination
A substantial proportion of disputes over quality arises not from the content of the assignments but from how the work was organised on the supplier’s side. The absence of unified version control, work in local copies without merging, and the failure to record requirements and test results all lead to revisions being repeated many times over, which the parties then read as bad faith on the part of the other.
The examination accordingly covers the version control system and the completeness of its use, branching and merging practice, build and deployment arrangements, the composition and results of testing, the recording of requirements and client requests, and the allocation of roles within the project team. Establishing these matters frequently allows a dispute to be resolved without recourse to litigation, since it shows where the divergence came from rather than who is to blame for it.
Course of the work
|
1
|
Instruction and framing of questions
The questions to be answered and the materials required to answer them are settled. Whether an answer is attainable by the available means is assessed; where the materials are insufficient, this is communicated before the contract is signed. |
|
2
|
Collection of materials
The contract and its annexes, the technical specification, records and certificates, correspondence between the parties, tasks and requests held in tracking systems, the contents of the version control system, and the development and production environments are examined; where required, so are the workstations of members of the project team. |
|
3
|
Examination
Requirements and result are compared item by item; the history of changes is analysed; the operation of the result is reproduced under controlled conditions; and members of the project team on both sides are interviewed where they consent. |
|
4
|
Report
The circumstances established are set out, identifying the source of each conclusion. The positions of the parties are recorded as circumstances, not as grounds for the conclusion. |
Working with the parties
Instruction may come from one party or from both jointly. Joint instruction is preferable: it affords access to the materials of both sides and materially improves the prospect of resolving the dispute out of court, since the conclusions rest on the full body of documents.
Where one party instructs, the report rests on the materials available and any limitation of scope is stated expressly. Information obtained from one party and not corroborated by independent evidence is recorded as an assertion rather than as an established fact.
The existence of a contractual relationship with one of the parties has no bearing on the conclusions. A report whose conclusions turned on who had paid for it would be of no use to either party.
Status of the report
This service belongs to the civil rather than the procedural setting. The report is prepared under agreed-upon procedures and is intended for use by the parties in resolving their differences, in deciding upon acceptance and payment, and in preparing or answering a claim.
Where the examination is instructed by an investigative authority or a court, or is intended to serve as evidence in proceedings, a different procedure and a different form of document apply: Computer forensic examination →.
The determination of the cost of creating a software product as a subject in its own right is addressed under Software cost and IT value →.
Timescales
The duration follows from the volume of materials and ordinarily ranges from three to eight weeks. The completeness of the documents provided and the availability of the project team have the greatest bearing on the timetable.
Frequently asked questions
May one party alone instruct the examination
Yes. The report then rests on the materials available and any limitation of scope is stated expressly. Joint instruction is preferable, as it affords a complete examination.
Is a party found to be at fault
No. Circumstances are established and documented: what the documents provided for, what was delivered, and what accounts for the divergence. Their legal characterisation is a matter for the parties, their advisers and the competent authorities.
What must be provided
The contract and its annexes, the technical specification, certificates and records, correspondence between the parties, access to the version control system and to the deployment environments, and information from task tracking systems. The list is refined by reference to the questions posed.
Is an examination possible where no technical specification exists
Yes. Where no formal specification exists, the requirements are established from other sources: the terms of the contract, correspondence between the parties, minutes of meetings and the functionality represented to the client. The absence of a specification is recorded as a circumstance bearing on the allocation of risk between the parties.
May the report be used in court
The report constitutes documentary evidence and is weighed by the court alongside other evidence. Where an expert opinion in the procedural sense is required, the work is performed under a different procedure.