- False sense of dependency on incumbent - I have never had a request where there was only one firm that could do the job. Even if the incumbent did phase 1, 2, and 3 that does not mean that they should just be 'handed' phase 4. There are ways to either prevent this scenario or position the client company for implementation phase leverage.
- Poorly defined service request or requirements - If you are even remotely familiar with the dismal success ratios of IT projects, then you are familiar with this reason. It all boils down to GIGO.
- Engagement terms structured in vendor's favor (so that they are not held accountable for overages or failure to deliver) - Most of the time this is due to inexperience of the hiring manager or requester. If you don't negotiate service engagements on a regular basis, then you are most likely going to miss some basics of contract writing and negotiation.
- Work starts before agreement is signed - Some might say you get what you signed up for. (Get it? If the vendor starts work before a contract is signed, should you really expect anything? What could you hold the vendor accountable for, contractually?)
- Lack of options (competition) from truly viable vendors - If there is no real threat of losing the business, then why should a vendor concede anything? If you had 2 bids from 2 different vendors and they were completely identical in all respects except one was priced 30% less than the other, would you select the higher price bid? No, of course not. So why would you expect a vendor to just give you money?
The Sourcing Center @ SFS not only helps you avoid these pitfalls, but turns the table on vendors and saves you money.
Comments