This is a true story. The company names
have been changed.
Background
Acme Services was selling version four
of its sales and distribution system to Standard Inc., a new customer. Version four had many features that Standard
wanted, including pre-built integration with several other industry-standard
systems used by Standard.
Timing would be critical, as Standard’s
existing system could not support upcoming regulatory requirements, and price
discounting calculations that the marketing department believed were holding
them back from significant sales.
What
version to implement?
In May, Standard’s VP IT told the Acme
sales rep that the regulatory changes were going to be government-approved
sooner than anticipated. The system implementation would have to be completed
by mid-July.
This date was not possible, as version four
would be released in September, and then would need to be configured and tested
before go-live.
Standard and Acme discussed other
options. For example, could version three be implemented immediately, followed
by an upgrade to version four later? That approach wasn’t feasible, as version
three didn’t meet Standard’s integration and reporting requirements. Just as
important, version three took several weeks to implement, so could not be
completed by mid-July.
The Acme sales rep suggested to the
Acme project manager that he should push the version four delivery date earlier
and give Standard a September go-live date. The Acme project manager refused to
guarantee an earlier completion and delivery date because he knew that version
four couldn’t possibly be ready and implemented by then. The Standard VP IT was
irritated that the mid-July date was not being taken seriously.
Back to requirements
The project manager asked Standard detailed
questions about immediate requirements. Although Standard wanted everything
that version four had to offer, what elements could wait and what elements really
had to be in place in July?
Standard’s VP said they could live
without the flexible configuration, management reporting, and integration for a
short time, but absolutely had to be able to meet regulatory requirements for
distribution of their new product by July 15. Some of the discounting features
were also crucial to their marketing strategy.
The project manager suggested that what
Standard needed by July 15 was version one, with some customizations. Doing the
custom programming for version one would delay the release of version four, as
the same programmers would be used. When version four became available, then
Standard could implement it and get all of the features they wanted.
Standard’s VP thought version one was
an acceptable interim solution. However, the Acme sales rep said there were
some technical issues that would be problematic. She and the project manager
retreated to another room to make phone calls to the Acme technical staff.
Friendly fire
As soon as they closed the door to the
other room, the Acme sales rep let the project manager know that she was very
angry. This was a terrible solution, as the sale for version four would not
fall in the current year’s revenue, nor would her commission. There was no
license fee for version one, so the only revenue would be for the custom
programming and implementation fees. The phone calls made were not to technical
staff but to the Sales VP and Executive VP at Acme.
The project manager was on the
receiving end of a tirade from the sales rep, the Sales VP, and the Executive
VP. They really wanted the version four revenue booked this year. They felt
that if they pushed hard enough, they could convince Standard to accept the
September delivery date for version four, allowing the version four sale to
occur in the current year. Then, when the software was not ready, Standard
would have no choice but to accept the delays.
Implementation
Acme did customize version one and
install it at Standard by July 15. Although version one did not have much
functionality and was inflexible, it was able to do the basics that Standard
needed.
Standard was very pleased with Acme for
coming up with a solution to the timing problem. They operated version one
until March, when Acme implemented version four of the software at Standard.
Conclusion
Sometimes the project manager has to
stand up to members of his own team to deliver what the customer really needs.
The project manager’s recommendation was based on the customer’s best interests,
but his own organization was displeased about the delayed revenue.
The version one approach allowed
Standard to meet its regulatory obligations and use the price discounting
features to expand the market for its product, so the effort was appreciated.
Standard became a high-profile, very satisfied customer reference for Acme.
In order to figure out how to solve the
customer’s timing problem, the project manager had to re-visit the customer’s
requirements. This additional analysis was the key to determining how to solve
the customer’s problem.
Copyright
2015 Debbie Gallagher
