In a workshop I listened to one thing that has resonated in my head for a while. We were talking about construction and project management and a lawyer stated:
“During the procurement process, we intend to fit the project requirements into the contract…. But when the contract is signed, the contract requirements try to fit within the project”
I have always stated that a project manager is as good as his/her contracts. If you are an experienced and good project manager, but your contracts are bad… you might spend the project in damage control mode.
If you are a bad project manager, but the contracts you are running are good, you can still mess it up, but you may have good chances of having an easier life.
When I say that contracts are good, I do not mean that they are 100% client or contractor bias (depending where you are). I mean that they are very well specified in what needs to be done and the parties really are capable of doing what is stated in the contracts, risks are well identified, and planned…
In my opinion, contracts need to be somehow balanced. If not, they are not properly defined for a Win-Win situation, and frankly speaking, you don’t want to work in an environment that your contractor, or your client is pissed off with you from the very beginning because they feel screw up. Someone may say, “ok, if this is the case, they should have not signed”, and I agree, but it is not always so simple.
Anyhow, coming back to the point of this post, once the project is in execution mode, the dogma for the project managers is to do things on budget and on schedule. To the point, where PMs, Contract Managers, Claim Managers… try to do whatever is possible to make things in your side.
This is the right attitude… but a Project Manager, or at least, the manager of the project manager (the sponsor, or whatever role) needs to know when to push the stop bottom.
I have seen occasions that in order not to look weak, or not to report a loss, the PMs try to fight with the contractor/client to the very bitter end…
The “good thing” is that you will never see the final result if you took other path. You will only know the result of the path you took and therefore, you only know that outcome, and you will defend that this is the only outcome.
My point is that there is fear to lose in the moment. I have seen PMs trying to protect themselves, and escalating the problems, to the very end, and this means going to arbitration. Once you are in that situation, I wonder if there is a clear winning. You will spend several years, plus some lawyers costs to get to a point where the judge will split somehow the cake.
If the judge does not split the cake, the only explanation is that someone was very blind to not see it coming.
Anyhow, if at the end, the result is to divide somehow the cake, would it be acceptable an earlier agreement where you may not get the same good outcome?
Will not be a victory a withdraw on time? To be honest, it takes bravery to “lose” because it is not the outcome you want to take home. In an organization, you will never be seen as good if you come with bad news… if the arbitration comes with a slightly better result, even thought the “real net” result is worse, many people will prefer to go to the bitter end.
This is the common fear that I have seen in the organizations and I have been part of. These days, from outside, it is easier to identify 😊
Hope to be able to identify it earlier next time I am inside.
