Many years ago I was working in San Francisco for a large company setting up a PMO. As part of that, we were trying to figure out what necessary pieces the organization was missing in order to establish a portfolio. After looking around, we noticed we were missing a good business process model. Nothing fancy, but enough detail to get our work done.
We kept looking but never could find what we needed. Nobody else had any answers, either. So a few weeks passed and we presented our report to the executive committee.
"Oh that," one EVP said, "We're already doing that."
News to us, and to everybody we spoke to. Where were these folks? In another building in the same city. Who were they reporting to? Some other business unit that wanted the information for some kind of audit to be done next year. Have they spoken to the people who are the most involved with the business process -- the thing they were supposed to be modeling? What kind of crazy question is that? They are working for a different project.
You need something, somebody else has it but it's not configured correctly. You need something else, there are three providers that can solve your problem -- but they all do it in different ways. You ask for a solution, you get four people who tell you that, given enough time, the thing they are working on will provide one. You find something for free -- and are told that the organization must pay for everything it uses. You generate one piece of business information -- and have to enter it into three different systems.
Lots of various questions, lots of people supplying answers to those questions, and none of it coordinated.
Welcome to vendor soup.
One large project I worked on for a government agency had left the initial stage and was getting ready for the beginnings of development. The client fired the suppliers and hired all new ones. Why? Because the new suppliers were experts in getting funding from the parent group. Execution of the project and continuity were important, yes, but nowhere near as important as making sure the favorite vendors were used so that senior management would let the project go forward!
It's enough to make a strong man cry.
If you've worked as a supplier to any organizations at all, you recognize the problem: you're out solving problem X, which touches on Y and Z. You walk into the client's office one day and there are a couple other vendors. One guy is an expert in Y. The other in Z. The client smiles and says something like "It's great to have everybody in one room!"
The problem here is that you could do Y and Z. You had hoped if you did a good enough job with X, they'd let you do Y and Z. Heck, the entire way you are solving X fits perfectly in with the way you wanted to do Y and Z. The Y guy? He could do X and Z too. He was thinking the same thing. And of course the Z guy could do X and Y. And guess what? You'd all do it different ways. And the different ways are not compatible.
Most noobs would think that vendors put in a situation like this must naturally fight to some degree; tell the customer he has to make a decision and have vendors compete to do the best job. After all, the solutions are incompatible! But in fact, nothing like that happens at all. You don't pee in your own swimming pool. The customer has already made the most important decision in your mind, he has decided to let you do X. Strategy indicates that the goal here is to do a damn excellent job with X and to be in a position for any kind of follow-up work. If you try to force a decision or solution, it'll just turn into what looks like a bunch of salespeople bickering over who gets a sale instead of what's best for the client. That's not good for anybody.
So instead of helping/asking the customer to make a strategic decision, which is in his best interests, vendors use game theory. They go out of their way not to step on each other's toes -- to the point of being positive and upbeat even when everything is falling apart. This is euphemistically called "managing the customer" The idea is that the customer has decided to purchase both your thing and the other guy's. Why rock the boat? Do your thing as best as you can. Let the other guy do his thing. At the end we'll just pound with a hammer, smooth over the problems, and spin like a politician caught in a whorehouse.
This actually works in small situations. A couple of vendors, small enough problem, smart people can make it work.
I have never seen it work in larger organizations.
So one day as a customer you're sitting on top of tens of millions in contracts, everybody is happy and working as hard as they can together, and things still don't work. And you don't know why.
Vendor soup is no fun to make. It's even less fun to eat.
