This is a true story. The company names
have been changed.
Engaging the sub-contractor
When Acme Consulting was preparing to implement
a work order management and call centre processing application at Standard
Limited, Acme had several staff resources with expertise in the work order
application. However, their only employee with call centre experience had never
implemented this particular package. Acme had asked a sub-contractor to
participate in the sales process and, now that they had won the contract, to
work on the implementation.
Acme’s project manager had used the
sub-contractor once before. On that previous assignment, the client staff had
made some vague complaints about the sub-contractor, indicating her
documentation and follow ups were inadequate. However, the client wasn’t very
specific, and didn’t complain very much. The project manager knew that many
other companies had used the sub-contractor and that she was generally
recognized as having a lot of experience with that particular call centre
system.
Standard’s project
As soon as the project started, the
sub-contractor was dissatisfied.
·
As planned, Acme did hire the
sub-contractor to do some of the call centre module work, but because this was
a larger engagement, Acme also assigned their own resource to work on the team.
The other resource had industry experience, but he did not have experience with
this particular package, so was assigned a more junior role on the team. The
sub-contractor complained to the project manager that she was not assigned
enough hours on the project, as she expected to be assigned all of the call
centre tasks.
·
The sub-contractor worried that her
performance would be monitored by the more junior Acme resource.
·
The sub-contractor did not want to use
Acme’s implementation methodology, but the project manager, the Acme resource
and the client insisted on following it.
·
Differences in approach and work
habits, such as attention to detail and quality of documentation, caused
additional friction between the sub-contractor and the junior resource.
The project manager met with the Acme
resource and the sub-contractor together to clarify roles and responsibilities.
The sub-contractor agreed to follow the Acme Consulting methodology and both
agreed to work together on ensuring the implementation was delivered according
to the client’s requirements.
The problems continue
However, the client liked the more
junior person’s work habits and approach, and over time, the junior resource
informally led the team. In addition, although the sub-contractor appeared to
be knowledgeable about the call centre software, the client and the junior
resource did a lot of detailed analysis and didn’t always need the
sub-contractor’s expertise.
There were occasions when the client
felt the sub-contractor had given incorrect information about how the product
worked, so the junior resource corrected the problems and did not charge the
client for the time spent in re-work. Although the client was not overcharged,
she felt that the sub-contractor should have been more knowledgeable so the
work would not have to be re-done.
During the project, Standard Limited
required some custom programming work to be done, and Acme Consulting had no
resources of the right type available to do the work. So, when the
sub-contractor proposed using her own staff to do the custom programming,
Acme’s project manager did not object.
As the project continued, it became evident
that the sub-contractor had continued to provide additional staff for more
custom programming projects at Standard Limited. The sub-contractor team’s custom work
became a source of confusion on the project. Who was responsible for delivery?
Did Acme Consulting guarantee the work of the sub-contractor’s staff?
At the end of the project, Standard was
generally pleased with the work done by Acme Consulting resources. However,
they were very unhappy with the work done by the sub-contractor. In addition, when there were problems
with the custom work, Standard called the Acme Consulting project manager, who
had to refer them back to the sub-contractor.
Conclusions
Although the project manager had a
queasy feeling about the complaints regarding the sub-contractor at the
previous client, he ignored them because she was generally known as an expert.
That queasy feeling was an intuitive recognition of risk and should not have
been ignored. The project manager could have inquired further about the vague
complaints at the previous client, and made a more informed decision about
whether or not to use the sub-contractor at Standard Limited.
The sub-contractor assumed that Acme
would use her for all of the implementation work because had no specific
agreement had been made. Acme Consulting could have used the sub-contractor
during the sales process and paid her for her time instead of agreeing to put
her on the implementation project. Alternatively, a different resource could
have been used, perhaps a different sub-contractor, or an Acme Consulting
resource from another city or country.
Once Acme Consulting did decide to use
the sub-contractor, she should have been managed more rigorously from the
start. For example, a written agreement should have been drafted, covering the
amount of work that was awarded to her, the methodology to be used, the quality
of work expected, and how it would be measured. The agreement should have also
specified how to terminate the sub-contractor in the event that the work
delivered did not meet the standard required by the client.
The sub-contractor should have been
specifically prohibited from presenting her own staff to work on other projects
at the same client. The confusion caused by this practice led to a lack of
satisfaction with Acme Consulting that was not directly attributable to Acme’s
own work.
In retrospect, the project manager says
he made too many allowances for the sub-contractor, and should not have
“fluffed off” his vague feelings of discontent with the sub-contractor’s work
at the previous client.
Copyright
2015 Debbie Gallagher
