Managed or standalone: two ways to commission a website

The decision most briefs omit

Most website briefs describe what the website should do and how it should look. Few address the question that determines how the website will fare in its second and third year: who will be responsible for it after launch. The answer shapes the platform chosen, the hosting arrangement, the documentation produced and the commercial terms, and it is better decided at the outset than discovered later.

There are two common models. In the first, the website is delivered and then maintained by the same provider under an ongoing plan. In the second, it is delivered in full to the organisation, which assumes responsibility for its operation. Neither is inherently superior; they suit different organisations.

The managed website

Under the managed model, the project is followed by a maintenance plan for an agreed minimum term. The provider operates the hosting, monitors the site, applies updates, maintains backups, verifies forms and critical flows, handles routine changes within an allocation of hours, and reports monthly. The organisation retains ownership of the website and its accounts but is relieved of its day-to-day operation.

This model suits organisations without an in-house technical function, which describes most businesses. It also has a practical advantage: because the provider knows it will be maintaining the site, it builds the site to be maintainable, selecting a platform that updates cleanly, hosting it can monitor, and forms it can verify.

The standalone website

Under the standalone model, the website is delivered in full and the organisation operates it, usually through its own technical team or an existing supplier. A responsible standalone delivery includes an extended handover: complete documentation, transfer of all accounts and credentials, a walkthrough with the team that will operate the site, and a limited warranty period during which defects are corrected without charge.

This model suits organisations with established technical capability and existing operational processes. It requires the organisation to take on monitoring, updates, backups and support itself, and to accept that after the warranty period, work is engaged as needed rather than covered by a plan.

Ownership under both models

Ownership should not differ between the models. On completion of the project and settlement of the final invoice, the website, its source code, its design files and all associated accounts should belong to the organisation. A maintenance plan is a service delivered on top of an asset the client owns; it should never be a condition of access to that asset. Any arrangement under which leaving the provider means losing the website should be declined.

A third structure: the subscription

Some organisations prefer to distribute the investment over time. Under a subscription structure, a reduced initial fee is combined with a fixed monthly amount over a defined term, typically twenty-four months, with maintenance included throughout. At the end of the term the organisation either continues on a maintenance plan or acquires the website outright under terms agreed at the start. The essential safeguards are the same: ownership, early termination and transfer terms set out in writing before the engagement begins.

Cost of ownership over three years

The comparison between the models should be made over the life of the website rather than at the point of purchase. A standalone website carries obligations that do not appear on the invoice: staff time for monitoring and updates, the tooling required to back up and monitor the site, the expertise to diagnose and resolve incidents, and the cost of an incident that is discovered late. Organisations with an established technical function already carry these costs and can absorb a website into them. Organisations without one tend to discover them at the least convenient moment.

A managed website converts these obligations into a predictable monthly arrangement with a defined scope and a report that evidences its delivery. The appropriate comparison is therefore not between a project fee and a project fee plus a plan, but between the plan and the internal cost of doing the same work to the same standard.

Moving between models

The decision is not permanent. An organisation that begins with a managed website can take the site in-house once it has the capacity, with a handover conducted as it would be for a standalone delivery. An organisation that begins standalone can bring the site onto a maintenance plan later, following a technical audit that establishes its current state. What matters is that the option remains open, which depends on the ownership terms agreed at the outset.

Questions to ask a provider

Who operates the hosting, and in whose name is the account held? What is monitored, how often, and how are incidents communicated? How are updates applied and tested? How often are backups taken, and has restoration been verified? What is the first-response time for support? What does the monthly report contain? What is the minimum term and the notice period? And, on departure, what exactly is transferred and in what form?

How we approach it

We deliver websites under either model and recommend the managed model for most organisations, because it keeps a responsible party in place from the first day after launch. Under either model, the client owns everything delivered, hosting and services are established in the client's name, and the terms are set out in writing before work begins.