Case Study - Case of the Cagey Customer

Jack was assigned to oversee a portion of a major change initiative. Jack’s company, Carefree Consulting (CareCon), was the primary vendor on the contract with a staff of 12, overseen by a partner and a senior project manager, Jill. Jack reported directly to Jill. The WatchUrBack Corporation was in second position on the contract, with six staff members and an associate partner as its team lead.The client, Sludge Clean, Incorporated (SCI) provided wastewater collection and treatment for all of the residential and commercial customers in seven states. SCI was profitable, reasonably efficient, and well managed.A federal regulatory agency issued a series of rules governing wastewater treatment intending to improve the environment that would mean a significant change in business practices and a major investment in wastewater infrastructure. SCI fought the rules and, using its power and lobbying influence, was able to persuade the regulatory authority to authorize a feasibility study conducted by an independent consulting firm. If the study showed that SCI could not recover its investment within seven years, the new regulations would be suspended and alternative solutions to the environmental concerns explored.When CareCon began the study, its partner and project manager envisioned a long-term opportunity for the company once the study was complete and the change initiative had begun. Jill met with SCI officials and sketched out the ways that CareCon could support the change initiative. WatchUrBack was surprisingly silent on that question. As the weeks went by, Jack began to sense that there was something amiss. He could not put his finger on it, but one-by-one, SCI complained about CareCon personnel — poor performance, poor people skills, poor communications skills —and one-by-one, CareCon’s numbers began to shrink. In the meantime, a WatchUrBack staffer confided in Jack that his company was “certain” that SCI was intent on orchestrating the outcome of the feasibility study to its own benefit (i.e., it did not want to conform to the new environmental regulations). While CareCon was pushing a long-term relationship with SCI, assuming that the change initiative would go forward, WatchUrBack accurately understood the political landscape, aligned its own efforts to show how SCI would suffer a dramatic financial reversal should it have to comply with the feds, and quietly maneuvered to gain prime position on the contract.Jack shared this information with Jill. Jill refused to believe it. Meanwhile, her staff continued to shrink and, not surprisingly, WatchUrBack’s personnel footprint grew. Nine months into the project, SCI exercised a rescission clause in its contract and terminated CareCon. 

What are your thoughts on CareCon and WatchUrBack? Is all fair in love, war, and contract work? What are your thoughts on how both companies managed the situation?

Tres Roeder shared an idea within this week's TEDx Talk relating to being right and wrong. To paraphrase the observation, he concluded that there is no one correct answer in a given situation. There are many perspectives, and different subgroups of people will form and align with one of these various beliefs. The broader point he was making related to adapting your change management message to accommodate multiple perspectives of your stakeholder audience. Looking at this week's prompt, I have a clear-cut "answer" to the question but recognize that other folks may interpret the situation differently. 

My first take is that Sludge Clean Inc. is "wrong" for trying to break federal regulations. The regulation was likely approved to keep all society members safe and able to drink clean water. If SCI can successfully bypass this regulation, it may put citizens of seven states at a health risk. 

Reviewing WatchUrBack's strategy of meeting the client where they are at and pivoting their strategy to accommodate SCI's goals, I admire them at first glance. However, at the next level of the situation, I realize that, ultimately, they are putting the citizens of seven states at risk because of their strategy. From my perspective filter, I do not appreciate the avenue that WatchUrBack took. 

Reviewing CareCon, my initial take was critical of why they were not more proactive when SCI kicked CareCon members off the team one by one. They should have figured out how to pivot during the first signs of problems. Sharing this, I do not know what that pivot would look like if SCI were steadfast in manipulating their feasibility study to prove they couldn't receive their investment in seven years. Ultimately, this scenario may not have been a good fit for a CareCon and SCI partnership. 

Regarding the question, "Is all fair in love, war, and contract work?" -Fairness does not exist readily in society, especially in business (and love and war, for that matter). These competitive actions should be anticipated and integrated into the pre-planning strategy for CareCon. They should have considered this threat and determined if they could have mitigated it before finding themselves in a situation where they lost their contract. 

Posted 9/6/23