a

BACKGROUND

Please describe your company and position.

I am the Manager of a garden machinery service center

Describe what your company does in a single sentence.

Garden Machinery Service Centre

OPPORTUNITY / CHALLENGE

What specific goals or objectives did you hire NexusBond to accomplish?

• Redesign and modernise our existing e-commerce website to improve usability, performance, and scalability.
• Migrate over 4,000 existing products accurately and reliably from our legacy system into the new platform without data loss or disruption to business operations.
• Deliver a stable, fully functional e-commerce platform capable of supporting a large product catalogue and day-to-day commercial use.

SOLUTION

How did you find NexusBond?

google

Why did you select NexusBond over others?

Close to my geographic location

How many teammates from NexusBond were assigned to this project?

2-5 Employees

Describe the scope of work in detail. Please include a summary of key deliverables.

NexusBond was hired to redesign and rebuild our e-commerce website and to migrate our existing catalogue of 4,000+ products into the new platform. The agreed scope included: discovery and planning, UX/UI and page layout design, development of a new website on WordPress (using Elementor and WooCommerce), configuration of core e-commerce functionality (categories, product pages, cart/checkout, basic site settings), and a full data migration of products (including key fields such as titles, descriptions, pricing, images, categories/tags/attributes where applicable).

Key deliverables were presented as: a modernised website design, a functioning WooCommerce store with our catalogue imported, working navigation and product browsing, and a completed handover with admin access. We also expected basic validation/testing of the migration to ensure product data was structured correctly and the site was usable for day-to-day trading.

In practice, the redesign work progressed, but the migration was not validated early (despite requests for sample/test migrations). When the migration was eventually performed, product data was disorganised and core functionality was not working as expected, leaving the site unusable for commercial operations. The project ended with login credentials provided and the work marked as “complete,” despite outstanding issues and no effective remediation within the original scope.

RESULTS & FEEDBACK

What were the measurable outcomes from the project that demonstrate progress or success?

There were no meaningful measurable outcomes that demonstrated success or progress toward the original objectives.

While a redesigned website interface was produced, the core deliverables that mattered to the business—namely a usable e-commerce platform and a successful migration of over 4,000 products—were not achieved. Product data was incorrectly structured, key functionality was broken, and the site was not fit for live trading.

As a result, the website was never launched into production, generated no revenue, and could not be used operationally. No performance improvements, conversion metrics, or efficiency gains were realised. The project did not meet its stated goals, and the investment did not deliver measurable business value.

Describe their project management. Did they deliver items on time? How did they respond to your needs?

Project management was weak and inconsistent. Timelines shifted repeatedly, and key milestones—particularly around data migration—were delayed without clear justification. Despite data migration being identified as a priority from the outset, it was repeatedly deferred in favour of design work, and early validation steps such as test migrations were not carried out.

Delivery was not on time. Months were lost before migration was attempted, and when major issues surfaced, resolution timelines were vague and extended. After problems were identified, we waited nearly eight weeks for a quotation to address issues that should have been covered within the original scope, followed by an additional proposed six-week timeline.

Responsiveness declined significantly once issues became apparent. Initial communication was reassuring, but when problems arose, responses slowed and accountability weakened. Requests for clarification and support were often delayed or went unanswered, particularly toward the end of the project.

Overall, project management lacked proactive planning, risk management, and follow-through. Issues were addressed reactively rather than prevented, and our core business needs were not adequately prioritised.

What was your primary form of communication with NexusBond?

Email or Messaging App

What did you find most impressive or unique about this company?

At the outset, NexusBond were confident and persuasive in their sales communication. They presented themselves as capable of handling complex requirements and were reassuring when concerns were raised, particularly around data migration. Their initial willingness to speak confidently about solutions gave the impression of experience and competence.

However, this confidence was not matched by delivery, and the gap between what was promised and what was executed ultimately became the defining aspect of the engagement.

Are there any areas for improvement or something NexusBond could have done differently?

NexusBond should have managed expectations more honestly and validated the highest-risk requirement early. Because data migration was critical, they should have run a sample/test migration at the start, agreed clear acceptance criteria (what “successful migration” meant), and built the project plan around proving the migration before finalising design. Delaying migration testing until late in the project created avoidable risk and wasted time.

They also needed stronger technical due diligence on the proposed solution and a clearer assessment of whether the chosen setup could reliably support our catalogue and operational needs.

In terms of delivery, accountability and responsiveness should have improved once problems were identified. Work that was in the original scope should not have required additional charges, and remediation timelines should have been faster and better communicated.

Finally, the project would have benefited from a more stable, consistent delivery team. It felt at times like work was being handled through outsourced resources rather than a cohesive in-house team with ownership of the migration. If they do outsource, they need tighter oversight, clearer ownership, and better quality control—especially for complex migrations.