Fourth root problem: We play the zero-sum game
In this chapter I break the pattern and show positive examples that it's possible to break our deeply ingrained zero-sum game mentality.
When you play the zero-sum game, you believe that the cake is limited and every piece of cake you can not eat, somebody else will. And this is something you need to avoid! So many companies don't want to focus and don't want to say no to any client. They prefer to make unprofitable contracts instead of doing projects with a lower volume but a higher margin. I see this with construction companies, but planners are the same. We will read more about this in Chapter Step 5: Empowering the Business Model.
This mindset starts at the company level and continues into the projects, even in different departments. Manfred Huber told a story of one of the projects he consulted. In this project, the client wanted to approach project delivery differently. Therefore, they did workshops about values and set up different decision-making frameworks. For example, they put a system in place that for every decision, the mixed decision board with representatives of the client, the planer, and the leading construction companies have escalation steps. The first one is to say: "I have concerns because I don't like it." Based on this, no immediate action is required - in the end, it's only personal taste - and as you know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The second level is: "I have objections because when taking this decision, project goals are in jeopardy." This objection leads to a discussion where the conflicting goals need to be solved. Either by changing the solution or by adapting the goal. This way works because a mediator keeps people on track and moderates every meeting as part of the team but without a stake in the solution.
In the same project, the construction company doing the excavation asked the engineer to plan the excavation by themself because they knew best what they needed to do the job. When approaching this with a zero-sum game view, the planner suddenly gets a smaller fee and loses, and the construction company gets more and wins.
But is it that simple? Is it a zero-sum game? I don't think so. The planner admitted they were not specialists in complex earthwork, so they would have had to learn in the project and probably would not have done the best job. By empowering the construction company to do the earthwork planning, everybody could focus on their specialty, and overall, the project execution was derisked and faster. The margin in % and not in volume increased for both parties - overall, a win for the involved parties and for the project.
These examples are the exception. Usually, project decision-making is heavily influenced by power plays, hidden agendas, and in transparent communication. Usually, handing over planning responsibility and waiving a fee is not done easily. The discussion quickly turns emotional, and the other's gain is my loss. With the emerging Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) contracts, this issue is addressed, but we don't have to wait for IPD; just being aware of the zero-sum game and taking steps in a more beneficial direction and changing our own mindset is already a progress.
Another aspect of the zero-sum game connected to digital transformation is the belief of having to do software development in-house. It’s a very expensive behavior because:
Development costs are usually always more than expected initially, especially when you build from scratch.
Maintaining and updating the code is even more expensive than developing. There are the direct and opportunity costs - what are you not doing when developing software?
Implementation and training costs. Usually, these in-house software developments fail, not because the tool is wrong, but because management will pull the plug. The efficiency gains typically don't justify the effort. After the prototype, patience runs out for further development, users don't accept the solution, and there is no money to implement, train and iteratively improve.
To avoid this trap, I recommend building on top of existing tools and optimizing how the information flows between existing solutions. The license cost will be lower than the development costs, and building some connectors will be cheaper. This means strengthening the tools position and the own one! You can even consider working together with your competition. Yes, work together! The software you use won't be a unique selling point (USP). The customer does not care how you do the job. Other industries have successfully worked in this frenemy cooperation, e.g., banking. Opensource can be an option as well. I took years to learn these lessons, and my employees had to pay for it.
All these examples break the zero-sum game and hopefully show that it’s possible and even beneficial to leave it behind.
I hope you enjoy the new layout and logo:
Please let me know!