Zco - Zco took 9 months and $90k to develop this pitiful and nonfunctioning website www.zco-imqr.com.

Posted on Sunday, March 9th, 2014 at 1:08pm CDT by samuel w.

Product: zco-imqr.com

Company: Zco

Location: 58 Technology Way
NASHUA, NH, 03060, US

URL: www.zco.com

Category: Computers, Software

Choosing Zco, who is clearly out of their league for this type of advance technical endeavor, was the worst decision I have ever made. I?m embarrassed that they gained my confidence, and then took advantage of my industry inexperience to deliver a product that does not function at any level - and will never function at any level. The product suffers from terminal regression due to being build without standardized automated testing.

Please go to www.zco-imqr.com and register. If you don?t get a conformation email (one of many bugs) just figure you?re in and try to use the site - especially the photo uploader.

The worst part is that they can take money for such worthless projects and have written their contracts so that they can get away with it; ?UNDER AND THEN ONLY TO THE EXTENT OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, ZCO DOES NOT MAKE, BY VIRTUE OF THIS AGREEMENT OR ORTHERWISE. AND EXPRESS WARRANTIES WHATSOEVER. ZCO HEREBY EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL SOFTWARE, ANY PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED SOFTWARE, OR ORTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON- INFRINGEMENT. ?

Beware - This provision comes on PAGE 4 - AFTER YOUR SIGNATURE ON PAGE 3.

On 1/9/14, I contacted Mike Beares of Sourcingline (www.sourchingline.com). Sourcingline is the premiere reviewer of Web Development companies like Zco.

Mike Beares tested the Zco imqr.com site personally and his team of reviewers edited my initial review and two follow up telephone interviews into what they believe is a fair assessment of Zco?s performance.

https://www.sourcingline.com/review/web-development-imqrcom

Zco claims in their Sourcingline comments; ?We had not yet finalized this project and were in the midst of working with the client to incorporate all of their feedback as of mid-December. We stand behind our work and will fix any genuine deficiencies at no cost.?

This claim is contradictive to an email dated 12/17/13 from Account Executive Courtney Le Claire clearly stating;

?We need around 6 person days to implement this ($1,536.). Please note that we have heavily discounted this entire project and the team has put well over $110,000 of effort

????

into this so far. I hope that you and Sam can understand this and approve the additional work so that we may move forward.?

Courtney Le Claire

Hi Sam,

Shine checked with the team regarding other payment options to collect the payment information upon signup. We have found that we can leverage Authorize.net CIM. Using CIM, we can tokenize and store the customers 'sensitive payment information on Authorize.net secure servers.

For Integrating CIM in IMQR:

1. We need to place a " Payment Information" button in the place of the payment details section in signup & upgrade page section for all type of users.

2. While sign up, when the user clicks on " Payment Information" button, Authorize.net Payment Info popup will display and all the details are updated to their database by creating a unique customer profile and we will get a unique profile Id in response.

3. We will keep this profile Id in our database and using this Id we can do the payment at any time (during imqr upgrade /basic user free trial expiry) without asking heir payment details again.

We need around 6 person days to implement this ($1,536). Please note that we have heavily discounted this entire project and the team has put well over $110,000 of effort into this so far. I hope that you and Sam can understand this and approve the additional work so that we may move forward.

Note: Sample Authorize .net CIM payment popup is attached with this mail. Thank you,

Courtney

-

Specific Technology Issues and genuine deficiencies with the Zco Application:

After discussing matters with our technical consultant, we note the following specific technology issues with the Zco application.

Because the ?business logic classes? are ?coupled? with the databases, there is no way to test the program without implementing the databases - and manually filling them with data.

In other words, you would need to run manual tests on real user data, or add fake data - and then delete it after running every test. This is not a modern method of testing - and it?s plainly inefficient, expensive and feebly conceived.

The current accepted method to writing code would be to create ?unit tests? for each function of the program. This is made possible by what's called a ?dependency injection? that allows the program to be tested without accessing the database.

In this way, testing can be automated, rather than ran manually. This also allows for efficient database upgrades. This should be basic principle in a modern application of programming. Why Zco, a self-proclaimed leader in ?cutting edge? technologies would create a code in any other manner; is to me, the client - a neophyte, mindboggling.

There was no dependency injections or unit tests written into Zco?s code. Switching to a different database technology would be impossible without a complete rewrite of the database code. Again, this is because Zco has failed to create the dependency injection.

In properly written computer code, the dependency injection would tell the program how to interact with a given database technology. If we wished to switch or upgrade, a new section would be added to the dependency injection with parameters for the new database.

Because this was never created, our only option for upgrades was to continually pay Zco to manually recreate our database rules. This is an inefficient, obsolete and expensive proposition and does not take into consideration further development in the future and germane advancements in technology.

Zco made no database upgrade process.

On a technical level, typically, a series of scripts would be created that make simple changes to the database an automated process. Zco, for whatever reason, chose not to do this - so again, our only option for database changes is to manually rewrite the database structure.

No ?installation process? was created.

Typically, then another series of scripts would be written to install and build the code so that we, as the code's owners would be able to install, build, run and modify the code at our discretion.

Because Zco never created these processes in the first place, we still can only view the one example of the code that was implemented by Zco.

Any further changes to Zco?s code would have to be managed by Zco itself from the ground up and at our expense.

To summarize the Technology Issues:

? No dependency injections ? No unit tests

? No installation process

? No DB upgrade process

Writing code in this manner seems reckless and unsuitable for any application of this scale. I believe Zco; in order to standby its claim of producing ?cutting edge technology? owes an explanation for this stupendous underachievement.

In conclusion, I hired Zco because they advertise 30 years in technology. I didn?t realize they meant 30 years stuck in 1980?s technology.


0 Comments

Post a Comment