I am currently managing a project that have initial timeline of 5 months, but not it is now running for 9 months. The customer was very unclear during initial requirement phase and changed lots of scope during development. As the PM, I had to postponed the timeline and this was agreed during the meeting.
Customer is now late for payment and payment is a milestone for UAT. System UAT is already completed and signed off by custommer.
Now the client PM sent me email about missing basic features and refuse payment until everything is fixed.
What should I response to the client PM? How should I approach this Saving Changes...
Unfortunately, you're very late for establishing acceptance criteria. At least according to the literature, late requirements changes are one of if not the top reasons for project failures.
Your requirements validation (do we have the right requirements defined in a way where they meet the needs and we can verify acceptance?) has failed. Now you need to re-establish what is "good enough".
I would be very cautious about how you frame that discussion, but you absolutely need to establish your acceptance criteria and it directly applies to your getting paid, so that should be a top priority. Saving Changes...
Does your company have a contracts or legal team? If so, have them review all relevant documentation and make a recommendation. You should also review the documentation with the client PM and compare notes. If the documentation supports the customer, you need to execute to what has been agreed upon. If it doesn't, and the customer still refuses to pay, it's usually not the project manager's role to threaten legal action. Let the legal/contracts team guide you in how to proceed. Saving Changes...
Did you sign a contract with the detailed specifications the project must accomplish? If the response is yes, and basic features are missed on the results, you are obligated to complete them to receive payment. For the other part, if these features weren't detailed in a signed document, this should be managed as "extra work", and the client should pay not only the initial payment accorded but also an extra payment for the additional work or changes made outside the scope. Saving Changes...
Anonymous
Your operating model seems to be broken if you can reach an impasse like this. You've already had some good advice about the immediate problem but if you do decide to continue you would benefit from a new contract / customer relationship that allows you to collaborate and deliver output regularly without putting the commercial side at risk. Frequently changing requirements are a positive thing for both customer and contractor so it doesn't make sense to operate in a way that turns change into an obstacle. That's what agility is all about. Saving Changes...
Financial Management Specialist | US Peace CorpsYaounde, Centre, Cameroon
I see a contractual crisis here. If there ever was a contract, this should be inside.. The acceptance criteria should be clearly spelled out Saving Changes...
As Keith mentioned, you should have had a clear and well-detailed spec. and acceptance criteria in order to mitigate the risk of "picky" customers. Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Well, if you involve lawyers, your customer will do so too and the situation might escalate and be taken out of the hands of both you and the customer counterpart.
Not sure if the customer wants this, it might be an option to respectfully discuss with him to avoid this. No threats, you need to establish trust and common ground.
And you need to understand what the minimum set of requirements is the customer can sell to his users, what are things he can give and what does he probably stick to.
This might be not only a career defining situation for both of you but also threatening your health.
Do you have a mentor?
Good luck.
Thomas Saving Changes...
Peter RapinSubject Matter Expect; Project Delivery| Independent ConsultantOntario, Canada
Going legal is the nuclear route and is to be avoided if at all possible. Many parties go the legal route before doing the analysis figuring its the easiest and lazy way to get the file off your desk. The opposite is true.
Do the analysis first (you'll have to do it in any case) and you may be surprised as to what you find out. Do a detailed timeline complete with backup documentation. Note that hiring an assistant to do this is considerably cheaper than a lawyer and his/her clerk/sidekick. Once you have done this it becomes much easier to meet with the client and discuss not only the past, but the future as well. You may find that your "understandings" or "assumptions" were not in line with the client's - that's its not all "me good, you bad". You might find some relief in certain areas and maybe accept responsibility in others. It will most likely result in a better relationship going forward.
If the initiative fails, you will have a better idea of your strengths and weaknesses and much of the research already completed.
Whatever the outcome, make sure the lesson learned is actually retained by both you as the PM and the corporation. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing twice over and expecting different results. Saving Changes...
"Life is but a walking shadow,
a poor player that struts and
frets his hour upon the stage
and then is heard of no more.
It is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing."
Community Champion
