Novi Website Design and Development

Survive a procurement read. That means scope, capability, capacity and certification stated plainly and checkably, program history expressed in a way your contracts allow, and no claim that cannot be evidenced. Corporate buyers discount superlatives automatically and reward specificity.

Yes, and it is routine. Describe the component type, the process, the annual volume band, the launch role and the years in production without the customer name. Buyers in this industry read that fluently — it is how the sector talks about work it cannot attribute.

Assume it is checked the same evening, on a phone, by somebody who spoke to you for four minutes. That argues for a fast site, a clear statement of what you actually do, and a follow-up path that does not depend on them remembering which stand you were.

Routinely. Corporate guidelines, an asset library, an approvals chain, an IT security review or a mandated hosting posture are all normal here. We would rather plan around them from the start than meet them at design review — it is usually the approvals timeline that moves a date, not the guidelines.

Yes. Spec sheets, drawings, certificates, packaging standards and terms, behind a login where that is appropriate. It is frequently the highest-value part of a supplier build and almost always missing from the original scope.

Usually. Epicor, Plex, NetSuite, Dynamics, Global Shop, IQMS or something older with one person left who understands it. If it has a database, an API or a reliable export, we can work with it — and where it genuinely cannot be reached we will say so rather than sell an integration we cannot deliver.

By scoping it before design rather than after. That ranges from a confidentiality statement at the point of upload, through a click-through mutual NDA, to keeping controlled work off the public site entirely and routing it through an access-controlled path. If it applies to any part of your work, raise it in the first conversation.

A focused marketing site is eight to twelve weeks. Catalog, quoting and integration work runs longer and gets phased so something useful goes live first. Content and feedback turnaround on your side moves the date more than our capacity does, which is why we agree both up front with dates attached.

Scoped in phases with a budget against each, approved one at a time. We are not the cheapest option in the area and do not try to be — the work we get hired for is usually the work that goes wrong when it is done cheaply.

The people you meet. We are deliberately small and senior, so the person who scopes your project builds it and answers when you email eighteen months later. That limits how much work we take on and it is the main reason clients stay.

Often, and it works when the split is explicit. We tend to own the site, the integrations and the technical search; they own campaigns and brand. What fails is an unclear boundary where both sides assume the other is watching the numbers.

Most of what we look after, we did not build. We audit it first — what is installed, what is out of date, what has been edited directly on the server, what is at risk — and give you a plain assessment before anything is agreed. Occasionally that assessment is that it is not worth maintaining.

Four business hours for a first reply, from somebody senior enough to assess the problem rather than log it.

Yes, and most clients take it. Updates applied and verified, nightly off-server backups, monitoring, malware scanning, and a monthly report written by the person who did the work rather than exported from a dashboard.

They are protected deliberately rather than hoped for. Every old URL is mapped before launch, redirects verified in a single hop, and the structure designed so the pages that already rank keep a home. A migration without a redirect map is the fastest way to lose traffic you paid years to build.

No, though it is a large share of what we do. The common thread is a technical buyer and a considered purchase, which describes a lot of businesses that have nothing to do with vehicles.

Both, separately and clearly. Buyers evaluating capability want the plant — equipment, capacity, certification scope, location. Buyers evaluating the company want the head office. Merging them into one vague 'about us' is how supplier sites end up unable to answer either question, and it is a structural problem rather than a copy one.

They convert from the follow-up, and the website is the follow-up's credibility check. Somebody who spoke to you for four minutes will look you up that evening on a phone, usually in a hotel. If the site is slow, vague or clearly out of date, the conversation quietly ends there and you never learn why.