Sign in
Sign in
Sign in
Facebook Linkedin

Dear Savi,

Whose requirements are these anyway?

Got a problem that needs solving?

Requirements

I recently read and enjoyed the article submitted by Wishes he had a Time Machine.

I thought to myself, I have a similar problem, yet with me it is my supplier who is being chaotic and raising new requirements everywhere, not my users.

I am a Senior PM working in insurance. We have a set of systems we need to replace in a particular order in the next three years. Two systems are finished with two to go, and I am in ‘discovery’ with the latest supplier to set up the project specification and get them to start delivery.

Our teams have been great. They have gotten used to taking internal workshop invites, working through requirements, and confirming what is/what is not required, and we actually finished this project stage early and got praise from all suppliers involved in our tender regarding the quality of what we shared.

Our chosen supplier is a Subject Matter Expert company in this sector. I think this is what is going wrong. “The tail is wagging the dog” as they say.

Now that we are back in workshops with them, I go in as PM to oversee proceedings only to find they are dragging everyone down rabbit holes taking about their latest applications and add-ons and how we must consider adding these in.

Our people are not stupid, yet it is very appealing to see features that would make life easier so I have started to see a change in behaviours and some of the items shared are no longer being refused with puzzled looks.

In a workshop last week, I had to leave the room to answer a call. When I came back, the screen was open with a forecasting tool nowhere near what we requested. The supplier team is deep into discussion about how it can revolutionise some of our decision making and the internal team are talking about how it does seem helpful to the success of the company.

I was so angry at our supplier. I took them to one side after the workshop and completely berated them. Lo and behold, my Sponsor got in touch saying they felt I was being too conservative to the power of what they could deliver for “very minimal further budget.”

I nearly hit the roof. My Sponsor helped calm me down and really gets it. But I want you to let me know if there is a particular way to approach this conversation given I could easily go in very bluntly and tell them to stop the behaviour or we are retendering!

I just think it runs against the principle of us collaborating and the entire setup during supplier selection where we discussed how tidily we had managed user requests and what our priorities must be to get all four of our systems replaced by our deadlines.

This approach creates a risk of us being late and over budget. What’s the best approach here?

Controlling the Scope

GetSavi response:

Dear Controlling the Scope

I do not want to minimise the extent of your annoyance of this problem here. I do also want to offer you a milder perspective on it, even a positive.

Technology companies, especially those with very ambitious product roadmaps, can be super keen, even geeky in showing you what their tech has to offer.

In my experience technology companies are also full to the brim with creative problem solvers. In a way, software companies exist as giant problem-solving entities.

You do not need to be a cynic to see a lot of this can also have commercial drivers: selling additional features to existing clients is at the heart of a software company’s business model.

Yet with the supplier project team, it’s frequently simple enthusiasm that driving this behaviour,  rather than anything more commercial.

One of my straightforward suggestions here is to have the simple conversation loud and clear with your technology supplier’s account lead or Sponsor.

“Stick to the Spec. We have deadlines.” Seven words that may in themselves be enough.

I have also phrased it a different way to make the same point: “If you are showing us new software or features we are going to treat it as being included in the existing budget”.

Tactically you can also win back the room by shutting conversations down as the person responsible for guarding against scope creep. I must admit you may need to gain a tighter grip on workshops. But I think this sounds like it could work be because of how disciplined your user group is and has been in the past.

If you think there may be benefits from seeing new features, or you want to make sure you have all the options available to you, why not consider dedicating some allowance of time with your supplier, your trusted internal leads and you yourself to get demos on emerging features?

If you want to be really Savi, you might also remind your internal stakeholders that the more complex the features they insist get added, the more complexity their teams will find in learning them and testing them within the delivery deadlines.

This is a great example of what we call “being the intelligent client” – seeing the supplier’s own problem and opportunities, and working with them before it ever arises in reality.

In a project that is part of a well-defined roadmap, being strict about what gets delivered never fails. It’s much lower risk to start going live with the smallest set of new software and then expand on it later. This is often called the “minimal viable product” model and I am a big believer in it, because it really works.

Remember this and make it your point to remind your supplier the next time you see them.

SHARE THIS STORY

Share your thoughts!

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Letters

Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y

Our whole team is writing to you here. In protest! Not against you (!) but against our current supplier. We will save their shame by

Read More »
Shopping Basket