When buying products or services we are faced with choices, which technology is right, should I go with the high costs deluxe version or the more prudent basic. These and dozens of other questions will guide you towards your decision to sign a purchase order. The question that often drops to the bottom of the list is who should I buy from. In my experience there are two type of sales organisations, ‘partners’ and ‘sellers’.
‘Sellers’ are easy to spot, they have more answers than questions. They instruct you on what needs to happen for THEM to have a successful implementation and the unknown is always talked about in terms of change controls, phase 2 or new projects, all of which are code for more money. Sellers never talk about anything that is post implementation other than service contracts and project extensions. In blunt terms dealing with a seller will feel like ‘wham, bam, thank you ma’am, you’ve just been ‘implemented’.
‘Partners’ are a much rarer breed. You’re allowed to talk, they’ll spend their time asking questions looking for clarification on what’s needed. They want to understand where requirements come from. Change is something that is factored in. A project feels like the start of a relationship rather than a one night stand.
I was responsible for the purchase and implementation of a large scale multinational ERP system. During the bid process we contacted large international and smaller local implementers. The difference between sellers and partners was apparent at a number of levels.
For example the sellers only ever had the sales team on site and quoted based on industry standard template implementations and a remote review of the requirements documents by their consultants. Were as the partner’s consultants who would do the work, spent a considerable amount of time understanding the underlying processes and tweaking the requirements before quoting.
In the content of the proposals from the various companies the differences were also apparent. The sellers essentially presented a list of ‘demands’ that they required if they were to work effectively. Large office spaces with access to their own office equipment, exclusive access to staff. Delays in providing either the equipment or access to the appropriate staff were automatically assumed to be changes and therefore chargeable etc. Were as the partners assumed that they would fit in were possible and try to disrupt the business as little as possible. Even the in the pricing sections the differences were apparent, sellers assumed that every deviation from the requirements was an additional chargeable item which would involve a tedious and expensive process of change control, which appeared to be discouraging the organic improvements that naturally arise during a project. Whereas the partner proposals assumed change was integral to the project and offered simple processes and minimal financial impact.
After a review process the operational departments involved choose their implementers. The accounting elements of the project were awarded to a ‘big 5 consultancy’ and the manufacturing elements went to a local implementation partner.
The seller’s staff moved into the office they requested and were seen only when they were summoning someone they needed or when they leaving the premises for lunch. Whereas the partner’s staff were to be found sharing offices with their internal liaisons and eating lunch in the company canteen.
The differing approaches were highlighted by the final results of each projects. The ‘seller’ delivered a ‘cookie cutter’ finance system that met the requirements as listed but not necessarily those that existed, handed the over the quote for a maintenance contract and left never to be seen again.
The partner delivered a system which didn’t meet the original requirements but massively improved efficiency. The deviations were suggested by consultants who understood and cared for the business. The partner’s staff were given a party and still regularly call and meet with their opposite numbers to discuss possible improvements and updates.
More important than methods or project output, was the impact on the users. The perception was that the financial system was ‘handed down’ by experts, who knew best. The result was users who didn’t own the new system and subsequently its full benefits were never realised. Whereas, in the manufacturing system those involved were encouraged to take ownership, with the result that the delivered system exceeded expectations and continues to develop because of a committed user base.
When assessing potential suppliers for a project don’t only consider the costs and the solution on offer. Look for partner who wants to deliver a project whose results are beyond either monetary value or the base technology. Obviously who you buy from can’t change a bad solution into a gem but it can ensure that you have the best possible experience.
photo by Esparta / Flickr