{"id":1674,"date":"2023-08-21T14:37:08","date_gmt":"2023-08-21T14:37:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/quantiv.com\/?p=1674"},"modified":"2023-08-22T10:05:22","modified_gmt":"2023-08-22T10:05:22","slug":"why-being-on-the-side-of-the-project-is-key-to-success","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quantiv.com\/why-being-on-the-side-of-the-project-is-key-to-success\/","title":{"rendered":"Why being on the side of the project is key to success"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chris Conway
\nChief Architect, Quantiv<\/p>\n<\/div>
Over the years, I\u2019ve been involved in many meetings between customers and suppliers.<\/p>\n
Originally, this was on the supply side, acting for a company<\/a> that was providing a product.<\/p>\n Now, I work more on the demand side, with my usual role being akin to a client adviser. It means I sit between the customer and the supplier.<\/p>\n At the end of a recent meeting, a supplier asked me the insightful question, \u2018Whose side are you on?\u2019<\/p>\n I\u2019d like to think this was because he was surprised by the line I\u2019d been taking, because although sponsored by the client, I was still defending an approach taken by the supplier.<\/p>\n I could claim this was just a double bluff, i.e. pretending to be on the supplier\u2019s side so they\u2019d be more likely to accept the client\u2019s wishes if expressed by me.<\/p>\n But in truth I was taking a different, and oddly easier, line: being loyal to the project.<\/p>\n You may see this as unexpected, unconventional, or simply lazy, but I\u2019d argue it\u2019s the more natural course to take.<\/p>\n It\u2019s an approach that isn\u2019t about rushing or being pushy, controlling, inflexible or political. Instead, it\u2019s about focusing on the success of the whole project.<\/p>\n And while it may initially appear to be a difficult balancing act, it\u2019s actually an easier path to tread than concentrating on the outcome for just the client<\/a> or the supplier alone.<\/p>\n Working in this way means decisions can\u2019t be skewed by personalities, timescales or \u2018agendas\u2019. Instead, decisions are based on goals and desired outcomes.<\/p>\n But this is only possible if there\u2019s some rationale to the approach, besides just convenience and honesty. It must be more than a black art, magic trick or bland marketing; there must be some science behind it too.<\/p>\n As a technique, business analysis can often suffer from these problems. It comes across as a vague activity designed to postpone any meaningful decision or change, while giving the impression of action.<\/p>\n \u2018We need to carry out a review of the business\u2019 or \u2018we’ll know more after an operational<\/a> assessment\u2019 are answers you might hear to any complex organisational problem. They suggest an idea of at least doing something but without really specifying what might be expected to be found, done or achieved.<\/p>\n Without a basis on which to carry out a review or assessment, such activities can be meaningless, or more generously, hit and miss. And even if such a basis exists, systems need to be available to ensure appropriate changes can be developed to support any decisions. Otherwise, conclusions will understandably still be seen as irrelevant or at best unreliable.<\/p>\n The right method can help provide that basis and dispel some of this fuzziness. It can help clearly identify the sorts of data that could be useful in establishing operational performance and the points at which it would be most useful.<\/p>\n And a good IT service can support the approach by providing a simple and accessible way to implement and monitor any changes identified by the analysis.<\/p>\nWhose side are you on?<\/h3>\n
What\u2019s behind this method?<\/h3>\n
Help with identifying key information<\/h3>\n