Captiva Conglomerate's software project communication failure

Captiva Conglomerate Case

There are several facts at play. First, there are two systems being supplied. Both are overdue, one by four months and the other by ten months. The manager who uses the system is not able to adequately elaborate in the English language what the problem is, just a generic statement of "It's a disaster" and "My people can't use it." Apparently, the problem relates to something about the usability of the system, that is too complex for the average user. There pricing issues and problems with the budget -- these issues are not elaborated on very well either. So there is a general sense of dissatisfaction, details about this are sketchy, and the sense is that there is no means by which the company can address these issues. It does not sound like anybody has actually talked to the supplier.

Major Problem

The major problem is that the people within the company are dissatisfied with the work of the software contractor. While their complaints lack specificity, they seem to revolve around missed deadlines, the project going over budget, and intended users struggling to learn the software. Ultimately, the major problem is communication. The statement of work was put together by multiple people. Given how poor the communication at this meeting is, it would not surprise if the specs provided to the contractor were of poor quality. That said, there has been no indication of communication between the company and the contractor. There needs to be, if these issues are to be raised and addressed.

III. Possible Solutions

There are many courses of action, but only one reasonable solution. The company could sue, as Al has suggested, but litigation as a first option is never a smart plan. Furthermore, the sense that there is no case to be made is probably right, and if so this would be a destructive option. The next option is the status quo, which is clearly not working for anybody. The third option is to communicate with the vendor. Captiva needs to have a single point of contact, and approach the vendor with a specific list of issues to be addressed. This will allow the vendor to understand what the issues are -- "it's a disaster" is not good enough -- and provide an opportunity for Captiva to get what it wants out of the deal.

There are no reasonable advantages to the first two options. Litigation is destructive to the relationship that Captiva has to the vendor, and will probably fail. Success may take too long, anyway, making a successful litigation a Pyrrhic victory. The status quo option has even less chance of success. While it is true that negotiation might not result in success, it would create the sort of open channels of communication that will allow the vendor to understand the issues, and provide an opportunity for Captiva to have its needs met.

Implementation

There needs to be one person designated as the point of contact with the vendor. That can happen at this meeting. That person then needs reports from each stakeholder about their issues with the vendor. Give them 24 hours -- no need to waste time. If the managers cannot be specific, press them for specifics. This is important because the vendor can only act on specific complaints -- it's the difference between telling someone to "move" and telling them "walk ten paces to the left and then stop." Specificity is critical here. The last point of implementation is to have a backup plan in the event that the vendor is intransigent on key issues (work, timeframe, money). If Captiva is to open up communication with the vendor, then Captiva needs to understand its best alternative to a negotiated agreement. In other words, Captiva needs to determine at which point it will sue for non-performance and seek another vendor. This can be decided within 48 hours, and then the vendor should be contacted at that point to begin the process of communicating the issues that Captiva has.