Client wants to skip unit testing to save time.
We think it's a terrible idea.
What do we do?
Most agencies pick one of two bad options:
→ Silently agree, build it their way, watch it break later → Argue until the client feels steamrolled
We do neither.
Here's our process when we disagree:
1. State Our Position With Data
We don't say "you're wrong."
We say: "Here's what happens if we skip testing: higher bug rate, harder to refactor, longer QA cycles. Based on similar projects, this adds 20-30% to future maintenance costs."
Data, not opinions.
2. Listen to Their Reasoning
Maybe they're under board pressure to ship fast.
Maybe they've been burned by over-engineered solutions before.
Maybe they know something about their users we don't.
We listen before we respond.
3. Document Both Perspectives
We write it down:
→ Our recommendation and why → Their preference and why → The trade-offs of each approach → The risks of proceeding their way
Everything goes in the portal. No ambiguity.
4. Let the Client Decide
It's their project.
Their budget. Their risk tolerance. Their business.
We push back hard when we think something's wrong — but we don't hold the project hostage over it.
5. Make Sure the Decision Is Clear
If they choose to skip testing, we document:
→ What we recommended → What they decided → The acknowledged risks
No "I told you so" later. Just clarity.
Why This Works
We never silently disagree and build something we don't believe in.
We also never make clients feel like they're fighting their own vendor.
We state our case. We listen. We document. We move forward together.
Disagreements don't kill projects.
Poor communication does.
How do you handle disagreements with vendors or clients? What's your framework?
#Consulting #ClientRelations #ProjectManagement #SoftwareDevelopment #Transparency
→ scopeforged.com
Philip Rehberger Founder, ScopeForged scopeforged.com
