What are the best methods to mitigate a risk that arise from dealing with stakeholders that change previous agreements, believing and trying to make others believe that colleagues owe them?
Quitting is not an option since such attitude was vastly adopted by many national businesses and should be dealt with on many levels. Saving Changes...
Financial Management Specialist | US Peace CorpsYaounde, Centre, Cameroon
Here you need a combination of an affirmative nature and diplomacy to handle such stakeholders. As the situation may be, agreements should be respected Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
Project change management process. They must be included as the people that must decide about the change. Saving Changes...
Document your agreements. I have seen numerous variations of this. Often they rely on verbal agreements and try to re-interpret what was said later. If it's in a meeting, include the decision in the meeting minutes. If it is on a phone call, send an email with the appropriate other parties CC'd that provides a record of the phone call. Now the decision is in your words, so you get to shape it.
I find that people prone to this catch on to the fact I have become much more formal regarding documenting agreements, and they quit playing that game. This can come off as confrontational despite how you are playing defense to their offense, so I would let your management know your strategy because often the other person will try to go over your head to resolve the situation when it becomes apparent that you're not going to be manipulated easily. Saving Changes...
Emilio Reyes-HernandezOwner| ER Projects & Engineering ConsultingNaples, Fl, United States
I concur with Keith Novak: Have everything of everything in writing with the express approval of the corresponding stakeholders or by tacit default if they don't respond with any disapproval, comments or opinions against your statements. Making clear to the stakeholder from the project kick start you intend to keep track of everything in writing will certainly prevent misunderstandings as well as discourage and avoid this ever changing targets and goals attitude and behavior for all parties involved. This approach should be applied from the early stages of the project definition, scope of work (SOW), Contracts, Planning & Scheduling, Reporting, all the way through the project's life to the handover, close-out; with special emphasis on the Management of Change (MOC) basis, procedures, approvals and acceptance. A final piece of advice, keep all your project related emails and communications in general carefully recorded, archived and keep track of them in a log that allows you find and retrieve any communications when you need them. Saving Changes...
Highly appreciate your replies.
I believe sending a follow-up email could be indeed very useful on most occasions. Since preparing something in writing at or after the meeting would make it too official and could meet rejection and in some cases sense of distrust, email could be the solution.
And agreeing on the rules of writing core agreements down at kick-off meetings is a great idea, especially in case with new teams. The rules if agreed by all could be changed latter on.
...
1 reply by Emilio Reyes-Hernandez
Dec 04, 2020 2:38 PM
Emilio Reyes-Hernandez
...
Pavel,
If you find preparing something in writing may become an issue with the client, of course an email could be the solution and if you don't get a response in a reasonable time, maybe a follow up phone call would help, specially if you keep a call log with a brief summary of each conversation. the key is leave a paper track of all significant communications, just in case you might need it handy at some point during or after the project life. Trust me, I have been there, done that, and keeping a good record have saved my day more than a couple of times, however it is of course your call.
Regards,
Saving Changes...
Peter RapinSubject Matter Expect; Project Delivery| Independent ConsultantOntario, Canada
As part of the communications/confirmations make sure you address the impact of changes on cost, time and quality. Typically the "understanding" from the stakeholders is that the changes have no impact, or it isn't a change but a clarification, therefore there should be no issue with authorizations or official documentation. Later when the proverbial crap hits the fan; "it was only a suggestion" or "why didn't you tell be there would be an impact?" becomes the standard response.
Another secret is to make changes onerous from the beginning - follow the change process. Once a trend or precedent is set its hard to break. Ever try to unscramble and egg? Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Pavel,
as others said, documenting agreements and change control is key from a process viewpoint.
There is also the human viewpoint, and you should look to gain influence over these stakeholders. At best by gaining their trust and reduce their strive to exert their power on you. But if you do not succeed with this, you can also try to build your own power, defensive and offensive. For example by getting other executives support, by establishing a system of rules they agree to, by giving them something (e.g. information) they do not get elsewhere, ... Saving Changes...
Thank you for the advice. I indeed think that acting in a more official manner could be beneficial. Probably, it could help with issues with stakeholders that might change agreements without consent of others parties involved, therefore influencing project’s results. Saving Changes...
If someone tried to change an existing agreement, I would treat it as a change REQUEST. "I heard that there is a discussion about changing this agreement, so let's start the change request process and talk about whether we should execute this change." I would not even acknowledge that someone has already agreed to anything yet. Even if they have some level authority to make agreements for the business, they still need to follow the change request process for the project first and have it approved. Saving Changes...
Peter RapinSubject Matter Expect; Project Delivery| Independent ConsultantOntario, Canada
Note that there is a chance of the issue becoming confrontational. This gives rise to a new set of risks. From a project delivery perspective confrontation is not an effective management tool. You have to find a way to accommodate yet not become a door mat. Always aim for a win-win resolution looking at the long picture.
...
1 reply by Bob Cunningham
Dec 04, 2020 3:49 PM
Bob Cunningham
...
Great point Peter. Let me add to that a bit.
If the company assigns me to be responsible for a project, I cannot have it undermined. If you are an engineer on a drafting board and the manager scribbles all over your drawing, how would you react? Obviously you need diplomacy - but your whole job is to make sure this project gets handled in a specific way and if someone back-door undermines it, there needs to be some type of confrontation. When I have had to make these types of confrontations, I have always come away being more respected. After all, why hire me to perform a function if you are going to undermine me?
Everyone's style is different, and I can count the number of confrontations with top management on one hand for the decades of my career. But there are times we need to be strong about defending our project. If they hire me for a job - to have a project executed optimally - then occasionally I will need to demonstrate my strength and determination to not let anyone undermine what I'm supposed to be doing. Negotiation, in all of its forms, is a key component of successful project management.
Community Champion
