A Hopeful Beginning
I didn’t immediately notice that something was wrong.
At first, everything seemed well-organized: clear division of responsibilities, transparent agreements, and mutual trust.
My role was to create a website using materials provided by the client.
The partner — the intermediary — was responsible for communication, keeping the schedule on track, and managing information flow.
In theory — an ideal setup.
In practice — step by step, the boundaries of my work began to blur.
First came minor delays, then shifting requirements, and finally — direct expectations that went far beyond what we had agreed upon initially.
This story taught me more than any project management handbook ever could.
And today I know that not every collaboration that starts with a handshake and the words “trust me” should even start at all.
Clear Assumptions
At the beginning, everything seemed clear.
The project had defined boundaries, specific needs, and a clear scope.
My task was to build a website consisting of a dozen or so individual pages plus a portfolio section, all based on a single, repeatable template.
The assumption was simple: the client would deliver all content and materials, and I would structure the site after receiving all texts and images.
The dynamic portfolio was supposed to follow a clear pattern:
each entry would include the same types of data:
- a photo,
- a title,
- a description,
- basic information.
Straightforward, transparent, without unnecessary complications.
We also agreed on one revision round — after project completion — to keep the process smooth and efficient without unnecessary extensions.
The division of roles was also clearly outlined.
The intermediary was to support communication with the client, ensuring that all decisions were conveyed and implemented on schedule.
My focus was to be on what I do best:
designing, structuring content, and building a functional, aesthetic website.
Everything was well thought-out.
Everything was documented.
Everything was… until it wasn’t.
Early Signs That Something Was Going Wrong
The first signs that the project was starting to derail appeared sooner than expected.
The materials that were supposed to be provided before layout work began never arrived.
Then the intermediary relayed a new client expectation:
he wanted to see the site’s layout first, so he could know what content to write and how much would be needed.
This was a major shift.
Instead of building the site based on finalized content, I had to design the layouts “in the dark” — relying solely on intuition, experience, and a general sense of what might fit.
I structured the layouts to be:
- logical,
- clear,
- suited to the client’s industry.
I also prepared:
- sample headings,
- short introductory texts,
- suggested section layouts.
Everything was designed to help the client fill the site without much effort.
We clearly agreed: the client would adapt their content exactly to the provided structure.
And once again — theory is one thing, practice another.
In many places, the client couldn’t deliver texts that matched the planned sections.
I had to discard entire modules and layout parts.
The time I spent designing, refining, and optimizing them — was lost.
Moreover, the sample texts I had created as mere examples were almost entirely accepted as final website content.
Preparing those samples required:
- not only writing,
- but also market research,
- competitive analysis,
- and strategic communication planning.
Normally, such work is the job of a copywriter and business consultant — priced separately and highly.
In this project, that work was absorbed into the original pricing without any additional compensation.
This was one of those moments where I clearly saw how easily a small change in scope could turn into many hours of extra work —
hours that were neither planned nor accounted for in the original estimate.
A Project That Kept Growing Endlessly
While I tried to manage the initial changes, new ones appeared.
The originally agreed number of subpages — used for pricing — started doubling.
Each new section, each divided piece of content meant:
- more layout work,
- more design decisions,
- more elements to optimize,
- more content to structure and SEO-optimize.
These were not minor tweaks.
They were new subpages — each requiring its own layout, design process, and execution time.
Portfolio — From Simplicity to Chaos
The portfolio became an even bigger challenge.
The initial plan was very specific:
- each project would have a title,
- one video,
- six photos.
It was supposed to be repeatable and easy to implement through a single dynamic template.
In practice, however, things quickly got complicated.
It turned out that not every project had a video.
I had to create a conditional display mechanism — ensuring the layout remained clean whether a video was present or not.
Photo Galleries — an Endless Challenge
The photo galleries became an even greater challenge.
Instead of six photos per project:
- some projects had two photos,
- some had six,
- some had as many as twenty-six.
Each such case required:
- adjusting the dynamic gallery layout,
- ensuring proper and aesthetic display,
- maintaining layout consistency regardless of photo count.
These adjustments — seemingly small — meant huge amounts of extra work:
- creating new display rules,
- testing responsiveness,
- optimizing performance for larger galleries,
- manually checking the appearance of every project page.
Once again — all this extra work was done outside the original scope and without additional compensation.
I did my best to rescue the project and maintain high quality,
but it became increasingly clear that the gap between the initial assumptions and reality had grown too wide to ignore.
A Lesson I Had to Learn
Looking back on this project, I clearly see how small shifts in assumptions can turn a well-planned collaboration into a series of misunderstandings and mounting difficulties.
But I also see something more.
Most of the decisions that introduced chaos and extra work didn’t come directly from the client.
In many cases, it was the intermediary who, with the best intentions, promised the client full flexibility — without consulting me about the consequences or the impact on the agreed scope.
I understand that the intentions were good.
I understand that the desire to satisfy the client can sometimes overshadow practical realities.
But that’s why I now know how crucial it is that every change must be discussed and agreed upon beforehand, with full awareness of its consequences.
I have great respect for the cooperation and the person I worked with.
That’s why I believe it’s even more important to draw conclusions:
- set clear communication rules,
- clearly define responsibilities,
- establish specific work accounting rules.
Because professional collaboration isn’t just about completing a project.
It’s also about mutual respect for each other’s time, effort, and commitment.
A New Standard for Collaboration
This project taught me more than I expected at the start.
I realized how critically important precise arrangements are:
- not just the scope of work,
- but also communication methods,
- the change approval process,
- and responsibility for decisions along the way.
I learned that even the best intentions — if not supported by clear rules — can lead to:
- misunderstandings,
- unintentional overload,
- and frustration.
Today, I know that every collaboration, whether direct with a client or through an intermediary, must be built on the same foundations:
- respect for time,
- respect for agreements,
- mutual responsibility for the project.
I don’t regret this lesson.
On the contrary — I see it as an investment in the future.
Because every experience, even a difficult one, brings me closer to building better, healthier, and more satisfying collaborations.
And it is on these principles that I want to base all future projects.