Politicking can kill not just projects, but damage enterprise value systems !

It was an opportunity of a lifetime for the newly appointed team of the entity formed as a joint venture between two behemoths; anyone would have vied for a part of the action, the team was handpicked with high performers in their respective fields. They collectively created an audacious vision for the project with many pioneering steps none of which had been successfully executed in the past. The endorsed vision required engagement of experts from various disciplines to be brought together for specific activities.

Well-funded, they sought the best in each field to take charge of the tasks and forge ahead to fulfil the vision – a talking point within the industry. The best felt a sense of excitement at attempted the almost impossible, they came onboard easily; the energy of the team was infectious and recruited others with ease. Surprisingly the team of experts did not cross swords with each other and rather collaborated happily with each other, the glue being the leader and success that would deliver self-actualization.

One such duo comprising strategic and operational excellence was on boarded to shape the systems, process, and technology, a necessary foundation for success. Both were industry legends in their own right, their collaboration was expected to bring the necessary magic required. They hit off well with the veteran providing experience to rein in youthful ambition and risk taking; the project thus took off with the industry amazed at the quality of inputs and discussions based on the benchmark beating framework conceptualized.

Well and ill-intended pressure notwithstanding, the team delivered a path breaking schema at which everyone gawked at in disbelief. Global interest kindled, the battle was well fought among partners who wanted to be part of the now much discussed project. Surprisingly for everyone, the underdogs went on to impress the evaluation team to win the project much to the dismay of few sore losers who attempted to undermine the credibility of the winners; with time the pressure eased off and the team started execution.

Emboldened by success, the organization retained the consultants for further definition of tech based projects, evaluation and award to thus selected partners. Transparent evaluation criteria was the hallmark of past success where aspersions could not be cast on any step or player; the second project too benefited from similar governance thus cementing the relationship between consultant and company. The industry applauded the partnership and spread the good news around for others to emulate.

The organization had now got used to the best and success that came easily riding on the experience of the consultant. The third project of reasonable complexity had multiple solution possibilities and thus many providers who could have executed with varied degrees of success. Lobbying started from the inception and announcement with providers and integrators, big and small, pushing for change in specifications and dilution of qualification criteria, and leniency in the evaluation process to give a chance to every aspirant worthy only in their own eyes.

Business team faced pressure; influencers of all types – good, bad, ugly – pushed the team to accommodate vested interests. They met the consultant, cajoled, threatened, and attempted every trick to swing the decision making criteria in their favor. Some of the changes were forced to accommodate additional vendors with clout with senior management and the Board. The consultant uncomfortable through the process, continued to work in the interest of the project and the relationship with the team that had brought success.

The bids were finally accepted after multiple changes and timeline extensions; many bidders were beginning to lose hope smelling something fishy. The consultant remained tight lipped and started evaluation of the submissions and turned in his recommendations. After that days became weeks and months with no announcement as the partners hounded the Consultant for updates. Clueless he redirected everyone to the evaluation committee head, who steadfastly maintained that evaluation was still on.

Unknown to the Consultant, the lobbying with the management had taken its toll; some of the new staff members were willing to bend the rules in return for favors. They poisoned the effort and proclaimed inadequacy of specifications as well as evaluation by the Consultant, recommending scrapping the project, which unfortunately was accepted. Aghast the Consultant exited the relationship which threatened to compromise the value system on which the relationship was built, and damage his credibility.

It is evident what went wrong, some of which was controllable, and some probably not with vested interests holding power over decision makers. The collapse of the value system unfortunately polluted the rest of the enterprise which prided itself on its professionalism and lofty audacious goals that they had proclaimed, attempted and completed successfully. A year later, the company was looking no different from any other in the industry, the magic was lost and the high performers had moved on !

People build companies, people destroy companies too !

Harsh realities in a tender world, buying decisions gone awry

Vision of the company had received high visibility with an audacious plan and well-articulated fast track execution; everyone wanted to be associated with this new star which demonstrated some pioneering traits. Global consultants and local talent flocked to provide inputs to the team flooding them with goodwill and empowering them to create the hereto unknown foundations for similar future projects in the industry. The company had done well to define boundaries in which they needed to procure services and products.

Soliciting interest they were flooded with requests to partner leaving them spoilt for choices. They fell in the ambit of tender based selection which was run fair and square despite a few pushes and pulls from vested interests. As the project progressed, they also realized that success begets many leeches and catches attention of the unscrupulous; pressure from highly placed sources put the management in a spot freezing decision making. The grandiose plans which had brought them into the limelight now began to appear out of reach.

Rifts began to show between the well-meaning Advisors and the internal decision makers, who were finding it difficult to stay unaffected by the pressures. The goals had not shifted, path to achieving them now needed to traverse and overcome boulders and potholes that had suddenly appeared to slow them down. Each step required careful analysis of impact, outcomes and how to keep decisions fair with the highest levels of integrity. The friction started slowing decision making, bickering started and soured relationships within the team.

There are many types of enterprise buying behaviors; these are institutionalized based on past experience or driven by industry, geography and status of the company –private, public sector or government enterprise. Public and Government enterprise typically use tendering as a vehicle to evaluate potential vendors and solutions. They have fairly rigorous processes, documentation and compliance requirements which need to withstand pressures, regulatory scrutiny as well as challenges from sore losers.

Tenders were created as a process to bring in transparency and independence from biased buyers who may be influenced by various means – ethical or otherwise. Tenders require capture of detailed requirements, terms of reference and engagement, qualification criteria, timelines, definition of success and failure, and what have you. These voluminous and comprehensive documents also clearly define the process that will be used to select the final bidder thereby ensuring that no aspersions can be cast on the process or people.

Over a period of time the tendering scene became a vehicle to source the lowest cost services or merchandise for defined requirements or specifications. Technology led reverse auctions became a price discovery mechanism for the lowest cost after tender based selection for minimum viable product or service meeting specific requirements. Celebrations were short-lived with compromises associated with lowest price leading to even more rigor in the pre-selection stages with resultant delays in decision making.

To overcome the challenge, another stream evolved with Quality and Cost Based Selection or QCBS improving the decision making. Weightages could now be attached to quality and cost based on which mattered more. Typical scenarios ranged from 70-80% focus on quality to the advantage of the buyer to get better quality at a good price. The perceived highest quality provider needed to be competitive too to get the benefit of QCBS; similarly the lowest price did not guarantee business if comparative quality was low even if it met MVP.

The company had adopted QCBS with independent marquee advisors and evaluators providing their experience in the creation of the tender documents and subsequent assessment of MVP leaving the final decision to fate determined by price. Bidders big and small attempted no holds barred efforts to create high and low watermarks for their participation and leave out others citing highest value at one end to the lowest price at the other. Push, entice, threaten, cajole, plead, they tried everything and anything they could.

External advisors refused to put their credibility on the line, unwilling to bend or change their scores or dilute specifications; the dialogue broke down frequently, the outcomes now uncertain. Inaction was not an option; market reputation began to show signs of withering jolting into action some of the people who wielded power and influence over the direction the company could take. Mediating and helping the impacted stakeholders, they were able to fend off the undesirable elements paving way for an objective decision.

Myth or reality ? The story repeats itself every day in almost every organization attempting to stay above board, more so when there is a perception of incorrigible nature of the buyers created over a period of time. 

How to select a vendor

That was a big debate as debates go though not as big and passionate as the Business IT alignment or for that matter on the changing role of the CIO or the shortest trigger which is the CIO reporting to the CFO. Conflicting and alternative views were aired by those present; by the time the group broke up there was no consensus and everyone agreed to disagree in defining or classifying a “best practice”. The innocuous subject of discussion was how should the IT team and/or the CIO select a package or solutions vendor !

For business as usual application support, break-fix maintenance services, system or database administration, network management, data center and then the servers, storage or network devices, vendors are largely selected and managed by the IT team. In many cases the CIO is happy to let go and have his/her team manage these relationships, service levels and depending on the governance model, the negotiations. These all comprise operational IT which is essential to run the business and is only noticed when something breaks.

Enterprise projects or new initiatives represent a different set of dynamics; the heads of function(s) impacted their CXOs and their operating staff which will feel the change, most of them have a view on the right or the best or the cheapest solution. Industry benchmarks based on global industry and local market view and competitor information provide a starting point. Then there are favorites based on past experience or use in previous company that skews the selection process depending on the seniority of the person pushing it.

Most initiatives start with an internal discussion with internal stakeholders on solving a business problem or tapping an opportunity which culminate into documented requirements and outcomes. This is when business likes to handover the reigns to IT to find the most appropriate solution, negotiate, implement and deliver the outcomes. Technology CIOs love this though this hands-off approach “I know the business and you know the technology” has had its share of challenges with iterative development and delayed timelines.

The more formal process expects a Project Initiation Document or some kind of document prepared by Business and IT, which is then circulated and signed off to formally start the search. RFIs and RFPs follow resulting in colossal volumes of paper which no one reads; subjective and objective scoring of responses create a vendor shortlist who are invited to present to the group that sees diminishing participation over time. Final set of vendors are grilled and the winner is announced; such a process requires high level of maturity to sustain itself.

Research companies and third party assistance for independent assessment based on formally defined parameters was touted as the way to drive a decision transparently. This was accepted as the best and irrefutable methodology in the past though not too many had used it due to the cost of conducting such an exercise and the discovery of secret alliances such companies had created with vendors.  Then a junior CIO murmured about a research company changing the parameters to put forward a vendor based on his boss’ choice and directive.

The view of many in the group was that users don’t know enough about the landscape and choices available; they should stick to defining the problem or articulating the opportunity; partake in the requirement gathering and participate in the testing, training and deployment. The counterview expected business collaboration through the project with equal ownership from concept to execution. Both camps spoke of their experiences – successes and challenges – which were in ample quantity to pick from.

As I see it there is no right or wrong way to select a vendor; in many cases the choices are not really choices with dominant vendor position for the process, function or industry. IT maturity, governance and credibility play a strong role in whether a unilateral or collaborative approach is best. Internal strife if any is best managed within; in either case, it is critical to not lose focus of the expected outcomes and project a unified view to potential vendors and partners. For CIOs to stay relevant as business partners they need to be adaptable.