A project manager with 17 years of experience has deeply realized after hundreds of projects that A and B are actually a “community with a shared future”, like a pair of chopsticks, and only tacit cooperation can succeed. This article will analyze the “doorway” in contract signing and execution through several personal cases, and discuss how to achieve risk sharing and win-win cooperation between both parties on the basis of clarifying the boundaries of rights and responsibilities, so as to clear obstacles for the smooth progress of the project.
As a project manager who has worked in the software industry for 17 years, after handling hundreds of projects, I feel more and more that the relationship between A and B is like a pair of chopsticks – just one can’t hold up the food, and it can only be done as a pair. Once the contract is stamped, the two sides will become a community with a shared future.
Today, I would like to talk to you about the “doorway” in the contract through a few personal cases.
Part 01 The “fuzzy art” of technical agreements: the project was postponed indefinitely, and the “old driver” also fell into a stumbling block
When it comes to contracts, we have to mention the most troublesome project.
A few years ago, we received a project to achieve data connection with various business systems, similar to building a business middle office to connect upstream and downstream systems, and the customer was the production unit of a group.
In addition to the commercial part and technical requirements, the project technical agreement also comes with the user function requirements plan. The project manager of Party A who docked with us is the person in charge of the information business, has rich experience in business negotiations, and knows how to control the “art” of technical agreements.
At the time, it was understandable that his original intention was to help the company maximize its profits. As for us, because the agreement also stipulates that there is a plan review and demand confirmation before the implementation of the project, and the prototype signing and confirmation is also carried out before development, so we don’t have too much worry about the agreement.
Who knew that this “open-mouthed” agreement laid a “big pit” for our work with this project manager in the later stage.
To “data penetration” means to integrate with full-stack systems such as enterprise portals, ERP, MES, LIMS, PDM, finance, and contracts. What seems to be a clear need is a wide range of things behind it.
For example, the agreement only requires “completion of integration with the ERP system”, but the business department puts forward requirements during the implementation of the project: data should be synchronized in real time, data should be pushed in batches, data should be cleaned, and ERP operations should be triggered in reverse at the end of the approval process…
Take the “process approval” function as an example, usually, the initiation, approval, and completion of any process are completed in your own system. But in this customer unit, all the data originates from other systems, as an independent heterogeneous system, it is necessary to take over the data first for an integration and then to advance the process. Therefore, these requirements of the business department have brought us huge communication costs and workload in the early construction requirements plan, as well as in the later stage of project implementation and operation and maintenance.
To achieve these three challenges, product managers will only continue to appreciate
Good product managers are very scarce, and product managers who understand users, business, and data are still in demand when they go out of the Internet. On the contrary, if you only do simple communication, inefficient execution, and shallow thinking, I am afraid that you will not be able to go through the torrent of the next 3-5 years.
View details >
A simple ERP system integration work, after repeated communication with Party A’s project manager and business department, we made at least 30 interfaces, and it took us 3 people a month to complete the work that could be completed in 15 man-days.
In this process, the complex business needs of the business department also made Party A’s project manager physically and mentally exhausted, and he sighed to me privately: “The scope is not clearly written in the agreement, and when the business department mentions the demand, the leader feels that it is a ‘matter of duty’.” If I stop them, I will become a sinner who ‘hinders business’. ”
The original “good intentions” finally turned into “bad things”, the project was postponed for half a year, the project manager’s year-end evaluation was affected, and our team’s reputation was also covered with dust.
Key Questions:Party A’s project manager seems to have won “extra” rights and interests for the business department by virtue of the “broad terms of the agreement”, but in the long run, this is laying a “pit” for his work. With the blessing of the agreement, no matter how much work is done in the later stage, the business department and leaders will think that this is the project manager’s job. On the contrary, if the project manager can coordinate Party B to do more work under the specific circumstances of the agreement, the leadership can think that this is to win additional benefits for the enterprise.
If the project can be completed early, it is the result of Party A’s project manager; If the project is postponed, even if Party B takes the blame, it is impossible for Party A’s project manager to be rewarded. Only under clear “boundaries” can Party A and Party B agree on their respective rights and responsibilities to truly deliver the project.
Part 02 When the “gentleman’s agreement” hits the “iron audit”: the contract terms are the basis for project acceptance, and the psychology of luck is not necessary
Let’s talk about the project of laboratory management system construction.
At that time, the customer needed to launch a LIMS system to realize the management of all elements of the laboratory’s “human-machine, material, and legal ring”.
Because we have done several projects of the same type before, and have some experience accumulation and benchmarking cases, the process of docking needs and business negotiations with this customer is very smooth, and the customer is also very satisfied with the plan we proposed. It’s just that when signing the contract,The description of some product functions in the contract terms is inconsistent with the needs of early docking, and is even difficult to achieve。
For example, regarding the function of “experimental task allocation”, the technical agreement states that “the system automatically generates experimental tasks.” The system should be based oneveryoneBy default, key information such as the number of items, current tasks, the number of tasks completed today, and the number of similar tasks completed this month will be automatically assigned.” However, because the task assignment logic of each position in the laboratory is different, it is very difficult to implement.
In this regard, we discussed with the project manager of Party A: “In fact, the division of experimental tasks in the unit of ‘group’ can meet our needs, so is it too broad to write in this way?” His answer was: This is some of the group’s ideas for the LIMS system, and we also think it is difficult to implement, but the leader has mentioned it, so let’s add it. And promise us:The later stage does not come according to the contractAs long as the experimental tasks of the 6 inspection teams can be automatically assigned, the supervisor will manually divide each person’s tasks at that time.
After all, it is an old customer who has been cooperating for many years, and this answer makes us feel at ease. But unexpectedly, in the second half of the project, the customer group changed the leader, and the new leader implemented a series of measures to modernize the enterprise reform, especially to strengthen the audit and tracking of the project.Strictly review the situation of the “two skins” of projects and contractsThis can pose a big problem to our project delivery.
After allProject acceptance requires a strip card contract, no matter how good the early discussion is, it is not worth the black and white words on the contract.
In the end, even if the project has reached the second half, some feature implementation has to be redone. We worked with Party A’s project manager to find out the contract, compare each item, and just do a lot of customization with the function of “automatically assigning experimental tasks for everyone”, which is 270 man-days more than the normal estimated workload.
As a result, we incurred more costs, and Party A’s project manager was also held accountable by the leader for “not grasping the demand accurately”.
Key Questions:Some functions are not necessarily easy to implement, but they have to be written into the contract, which not only “digs holes” for our delivery, but also “digs holes” for the acceptance of Party A’s projects. I believe that when Party A’s project manager promises to “not card you according to the contract in the later stage”, he really thinks so, but as internal and external audits become more and more stringent, he has no choice when encountering system requirements or other variables.
Project acceptance must be carried out strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract, and any prior verbal agreement or informal negotiation cannot replace the validity of the written contract.
Part 03 A and B are a community with a shared future, comrades-in-arms in the same trench
After working on the project for so many years, my deepest insight is:Party A’s project manager and Party B are actually a community with a shared future and comrades-in-arms in the same trench.
At a project review meeting, the person in charge of the information center of Party A with our long-term cooperation said the truth: “I am your Party A, and I am also Party B of our business department and leader, so I also hope that the contract will be written as clearly as possible, so that the rights and responsibilities of both parties can be defined, and you can complete it on time, and I will be able to cross paths.”
The core of high-quality contracts is “customer satisfaction, controllable risks, positive cash flow, and reasonable profits”. High-quality contracts not only bring positive business value to customers, but also allow both parties to avoid potential risks and ultimately achieve a win-win situation.If Party B does not consider costs and risks in the early stage of the project, and puts these problems in the delivery process, it will not only cause its own losses, but also be irresponsible to customers.
Now I lead the team to do projects,Three iron laws must be followed：
1) Establish a consensus on a “community with a shared future”
Reach a consensus with Party A’s project manager: Party A and Party B are not opponents, but “partners” for risk sharing and win-win cooperation. Only when the project is completed is the common achievement of both parties.
2) Strengthen the review of contract consistency
Strengthen the consistency review of “from demand to plan”, “from plan to bid” and “from bid to contract”, and only by accurately writing requirements into the contract and strictly performing the contract is the optimal solution to avoid risks.
3) Do a good job in demand change management
The agreement clearly states: “Requirements beyond the scope of this agreement require both parties to sign separate commercial terms”.
In the final analysis, whether it is for Party A or Party B,It is not who is more “shrewd” in doing projects, but who is more “kind”. Clarifying boundaries in black and white is the greatest respect for each other.
Share.
