| p>Conflict that extends outside the project team | | | | position doesn't allow you to interface directly with |
| brings an additional layer of complexity to the | | | | the stakeholder you should deal with the project |
| problem. Given that the conflict is negatively | | | | manager on the customer side, or the person in |
| impacting project performance, or will impact it in | | | | the customer's organization who is responsible for |
| the near future, you will still want to take some | | | | overseeing the project for them. You won't be |
| action to remedy the situation, but now you have | | | | able to escalate to your project sponsor in case |
| an additional objective to meet: preserving | | | | your customer is unwilling to engage in conflict |
| stakeholder relationships. Meeting this objective | | | | resolution with you. Review the conflict with your |
| becomes even more important when the | | | | team member and assess the possibility of |
| stakeholder is an external customer or client. This | | | | conceding the point. What will the impact be if the |
| doesn't mean that all the remedies described in | | | | point is conceded? Can the negative impact be |
| my article about handling conflict within the team | | | | absorbed in the budget and schedule? If the |
| are useless, it just means that you need to use | | | | answer to these questions is yes then concede |
| them differently and in some cases this objective | | | | the point. It is important when conceding the point |
| may influence which remedy you choose. | | | | that the customer be pleased with the outcome. |
| This article is not meant to be a comprehensive | | | | Go that extra mile to ensure this happens. There |
| manual on the subject of conflict resolution, it is | | | | is no worse outcome than to make the |
| meant to provide you with some tips and tricks | | | | concession, pay the price, and still have an |
| which may help to solve the problem. You should | | | | unhappy customer! |
| avail yourself of the multitude of training products | | | | There will be some conflicts that arise from |
| in this area if you want to become an expert in | | | | technical issues which will be impossible to |
| the area of conflict resolution. There are also | | | | concede. You hope that in such a case, the |
| many consultants who specialize in the field of | | | | customer can be made to see that |
| conflict resolution where the situation demands | | | | "doing it their way" may be good customer |
| immediate outside help. This article does not | | | | relations policy but is not possible in this case. If |
| address the area of contractual disputes. Contract | | | | you cannot make them see this, you will be |
| disputes should be handled by the resolution | | | | forced to trigger the conflict resolution actions |
| mechanisms specified in the contract. | | | | that the contract calls for. |
| I discussed the circumstances under which a | | | | Perhaps the most common cause of conflict in |
| conflict between two team members should be | | | | the area of customer/vendor relationships are |
| addressed and the circumstances under which | | | | requirements in projects that involve the |
| they should not. Conflicts between a member of | | | | development of software systems. The |
| your team and an external stakeholder should | | | | Statement of Work (SOW) and contract will |
| meet the same criteria and one additional criteria: | | | | never contain the specificity required to prevent |
| the conflict is harming, or is likely to harm, | | | | all differences of opinion on whether a specific |
| stakeholder relationships. This criteria is particularly | | | | feature or function is supported by them or not. |
| important when the stakeholder is a customer or | | | | The dispute will start when a functional |
| client. Communicating the project's goals and | | | | specification or design document is reviewed, or |
| objectives is still important and a preventive | | | | the software is tested and will go something like |
| measure that will avoid conflicts. | | | | this: |
| Conflicts with an External Customer or Client | | | | Customer: "This design/software system doesn't |
| This is perhaps the most sensitive situation and | | | | do x when I do y and it should" |
| the most difficult to handle because now it is very | | | | Your team member: "That feature/function isn't |
| important to preserve a good relationship with | | | | anywhere in the SOW or contract. That's why it |
| your organization's client or customer. The | | | | isn't in design/software system. If you want that |
| benefits of preserving a good relationship will likely | | | | feature/function you'll have to author a change |
| extend beyond this project whereas destroying | | | | request." |
| the relationship may mean the end of your | | | | Customer: "That feature is implied in requirement |
| project! Meet with the team member involved in | | | | x in the SOW, so you don't need a change |
| the conflict to hear their side of the story. You're | | | | request from me, just fix the design/software |
| not doing this because you're taking sides in the | | | | system" |
| conflict, but because you're preserving the morale | | | | This is the point at which you'll become involved. |
| of the team. You may have very limited ability to | | | | Your team member should bring the dispute to |
| take their interests into account and you should | | | | you as soon as they have this conversation, but |
| communicate this to your team member. Asking | | | | if not you'll be informed of it at some point when |
| to hear their side of the conflict as a first step will | | | | either the customer or your team member |
| at least convey the impression that you are | | | | escalates the issue. You can avoid some of these |
| supportive of their interests. The best remedy | | | | conflicts by ensuring that requirements are all |
| for the resolution of the conflict may be a face | | | | supported by an item in the SOW and all features |
| to face meeting, if the cause of the conflict is a | | | | or functions are supported by a requirement (see |
| technical disagreement, but you may not be able | | | | the articles entitled "Requirements Gathering") but |
| to approach the stakeholder directly. Treat the | | | | you can never guarantee there will be no |
| situation exactly like a technical dispute between | | | | disagreements. It's even unlikely that you'll get |
| two team members if you can deal with the | | | | through a project without a dispute. |
| stakeholder involved directly. I describe how to | | | | Your first step is to get the technical details of |
| arrange, conduct, and get the greatest possible | | | | the conflict from the analyst or programmer on |
| benefit from the meeting in a companion article to | | | | your team. Have them provide you with a rough |
| this one: Performance Issues: Conflict Within the | | | | order of magnitude estimate of the cost of the |
| Team. | | | | feature or function the customer is asking for and |
| You'll need to consult with the stakeholder's | | | | why your team member does not believe the |
| manager where your political environment | | | | SOW does not support it. Be certain you |
| prevents you from dealing with the stakeholder | | | | investigate all the way back to the SOW because |
| directly. Don't get into the technical details of the | | | | the cause of the conflict may be a requirement |
| dispute at this point, but do explain the the | | | | that was missed that is supported by the SOW |
| detrimental affect the dispute is having, or is likely | | | | and wasn't detected until the functional |
| to have, on the projects goals and objectives. | | | | specification was written or the software system |
| Suggest a face to face meeting facilitated by | | | | was built. If your team member is correct and |
| you, the stakeholders manager and you, or a 3rd | | | | the feature or function is not covered in the |
| party. At this point, you've only gathered | | | | SOW or contract, assess the impact of giving the |
| information from your team member. They may | | | | customer the feature they are asking for. |
| offer an opinion on the stakeholders position, or | | | | Go ahead and give the customer the feature if |
| repeat what they believe the stakeholder to have | | | | your assessment indicates your project can |
| said but you should avoid repeating this | | | | absorb the cost and time required to deliver. You |
| information to the stakeholder's manager. You | | | | may want to reach this decision in the |
| need to be as neutral as possible when stating the | | | | face-to-face conflict resolution meeting described |
| information your team member has provided you | | | | elsewhere in these articles and this is one way of |
| with. Avoid using personal pronouns (e.g. "he | | | | giving this issue a higher profile so your customer |
| said......", "she said....", etc.) when describing the | | | | appreciates your contribution to the relationship. |
| conflict and keep you problem statement brief | | | | Another way of emphasizing the contribution is to |
| and to the point. You're ready to arrange your | | | | manage the change through the change |
| face-to-face meeting if the stakeholder manager | | | | management process. Have the customer author |
| has agreed upon this approach. If the stakeholder | | | | the change request (or author it yourself), and |
| offers another approach that you're comfortable | | | | track the addition cost and time. Should these |
| with and wants to handle the approach, lend your | | | | steps fail, you've reached an impasse and you'll |
| support. | | | | have to resort to the conflict resolution remedies |
| You may need to ask for help from your Project | | | | stipulated in your contract. |
| Sponsor, if the stakeholder or their manager is | | | | You should be able to achieve your twin goals of |
| unwilling to engage in any conflict resolution | | | | preserving the project's goals and objectives and |
| activities. Don't take this step lightly. Escalating the | | | | preserving your relationship with your customers. |
| issue to your Project Sponsor implies that you | | | | You have control over the means to accomplish |
| cannot handle the situation yourself. That's OK if | | | | both these goals in every case except when the |
| your Project Sponsor views the situation the | | | | conflict must be resolved using the contract's |
| same way, but not a wise career move if they | | | | conflict resolution tool. Ask yourself the question: |
| believe you should be capable of resolving the | | | | "Will this resolution allow me to meet the schedule |
| conflict on your own. | | | | deadline?" "Will it allow me to meet the budget?" |
| You will need to take additional steps when the | | | | and "Will I be able to deliver a product that meets |
| stakeholder is an external customer or client. You | | | | customer requirements at an acceptable level of |
| have two objectives to meet which may not be | | | | quality?" If the answer to any of these questions |
| compatible: preserve the goals and objectives of | | | | is "No", you have more work to do. Ask your |
| the project and preserve your organization's | | | | customer: "Are you happy with the resolution |
| relationship with the customer and each is equally | | | | we've agreed upon?" If the answer to that |
| important. Again, you may be in a position of | | | | question is "No", you have more work to do. This |
| trust which allows you to approach the | | | | work may not be finding a better solution, it may |
| stakeholder directly, in which case you can handle | | | | be just be better communication of the benefits |
| to situation as described above. Where your | | | | the solution provides your customer. |