Two days after the proposal. The client's COO likes it, but procurement wants ten per cent off, and the COO wants the telephony work included for free. The engagement manager has to protect the price without losing the client. He doesn't give a discount; he changes who does part of the work.
Thanks for coming up. I'll say first that we liked it. The sentence on page two is already in a note to my board.
That's good to hear. Thank you.
My finance director read it twice, which is a good sign. He only reads things twice when he can't find anything to complain about.
Philip opens with what he likes before he raises any problem. In a negotiation this sets a cooperative tone: both sides know the deal is wanted, and the discussion is only about the terms.
We'll take that as a compliment.
Before the questions, one thing I noticed. Page eight, the retailer. You wrote that customer satisfaction dropped for two months. Why put that in?
Because it's true. And because it'll probably happen here too. We'd rather you planned for it than heard about it later.
My board will ask how long.
Two months there. Here, we'll have a better answer after the baseline. I don't want to guess a number today.
Owen put a negative result in his own proposal, and the client noticed. His answer is simple: it's true, and it helps the client plan. Clients trust advisers who show them the difficult parts before they sign.
You should. Now, I've got two questions, and Stefano has one. Mine are the price and the telephony work. I'll let Stefano start, because his is also about the price.
Thank you. I look after procurement for contracts of this size. First, I want to say the proposal is very clear. It's easy to see what we are buying.
Thank you. That was the idea.
But for a new supplier, we normally ask for ten per cent off the first offer. So my question is simple: can you do three hundred and fifty-five?
Stefano is polite, but his request is specific: a percentage and a number. Procurement teams often start this way. A clear request is easier to answer than a vague "can you do better?", because you know exactly what you are responding to.
I understand why you ask. And I'd like to give you a straight answer rather than a slow one. We don't discount the same work.
Never?
Not for the same work. If we take ten per cent off for the same twelve weeks, then our first price wasn't honest. And you'd be right to push again next time.
Owen refuses quickly and gives the reason in one sentence. A slow, uncertain no invites more pressure. A clear no with a logical reason is easier for the other side to accept, and to explain to their own manager.
I understand the logic. But my job is to bring back a better number than the first one.
That's fair. So let's look at what would change the number. The price comes from our time. If your team does part of the work, we need less time, and the price goes down.
Which part?
Two things. First, a programme lead on your side, full time, from the first day. Someone who knows the three centres and can open doors for us.
That would be Joanna. She knows all three sites better than anyone. I can free her up.
Thank you. She'll want to know what she stops doing. We should agree that with her in the first meeting, not leave it to her.
Fair. I'll make sure her manager is in that conversation.
Second, the data. Our proposal assumes cost and performance data from all three centres in the first two weeks. If your team collects it and sends it to us in one place, we don't spend those days chasing it.
And what does that do to the price?
It takes it from three hundred and ninety-five to three hundred and seventy-five.
Owen lowers the price only because the client takes on part of the work. The price per day stays the same; the number of days goes down. This is the difference between a discount and a trade: in a trade, both sides give something.
Can I ask how the time is made up? How many people?
Two of us full time, Meera and me. And Judith, one day a week.
Then another option. The partner at half a day a week. That would also save money.
It would. But Judith is the one who'll present the recommendation with us at the end. I wouldn't cut that, and I don't think Philip would want me to.
No. I want her in the room for the decisions.
Stefano looks for savings anywhere. Owen agrees the saving is real, then explains what it would cost the client. When the sponsor agrees, procurement has its answer. Let the person who values something defend it for you.
Right. My second question. Your page on what you're not doing. Telephony is on it, and to be honest, that's the part that worries me most.
Can you tell me why?
Because the three centres don't use the same phone system. If we move calls from one site to another, I don't know what breaks. I was hoping you'd include it.
Owen doesn't defend the out-of-scope page straight away. He asks "Can you tell me why?" The answer tells him what Philip really needs: not free work, but confidence that nothing will break.
That's a real concern. We saw the same thing when we prepared the proposal. That's why it's there as an option, with its own price, eighty-five thousand.
Eighty-five on top of three seventy-five is more than I can approve on my own.
Then here's what I'd suggest. You don't decide today. After the baseline, we'll know which centres would actually move, and which phone systems matter. At the first steering committee, we bring you that, and you decide then, at the same price.
So I'd be deciding with facts instead of worries.
Exactly. And if it turns out you don't need it, you haven't paid for it.
Philip can't decide well today, because he doesn't have the facts. Owen moves the decision to a date when he will. Offering "decide later, at the same price" often unblocks a negotiation without either side giving anything up.
I like that. Stefano?
And one more question about the option. If Philip says yes at the steering committee, does the twelve weeks change?
Yes, by about two weeks. Part of the telephony work can run alongside the rest, but not all of it. We'd show you the new plan before you decide.
Good. I prefer to know that now. Then for me it's fine, as long as the eighty-five is fixed. I don't want to see ninety-five in three months.
It's fixed until the first steering committee. We'll put that in writing.
And implementation? That's on the same page. Not included.
Not in this work, no. If you decide to go ahead after twelve weeks, that's a separate conversation. We don't want to sell you the second step before you've decided on the first.
That's refreshingly honest for a consultant.
We'll take that as a compliment too.
Good. Then one more try on the main price. You're at three seventy-five. If you could reach three sixty, I could close this today.
I...
Stefano, can I answer that one? We could reach three sixty. But only by taking out something Philip needs. And I don't think that's what you want to take back to him.
Judith said she would only speak about money or the relationship. Here it is both. She doesn't argue about the number; she connects it to what Philip needs. One short intervention from a senior person, at the right moment, can end a discussion that the team could not.
No. It isn't.
It isn't. Three seventy-five is fine, Stefano.
Then I'll write that the price moved because the scope changed. Honestly, that's a better story for me than a discount.
It's also the true one.
OK. Three seventy-five. One last point, the payment terms. Our standard is sixty days.
I can't agree payment terms in this room. Our finance team sets them. I'll come back to you tomorrow with an answer.
Tomorrow is fine.
Owen has authority over scope and price, but not over payment terms. He says so clearly and gives a time for the answer. Agreeing to something outside your authority, just to close the meeting, creates a bigger problem later.
Let me say it back, so we all leave with the same version. Three workstreams, twelve weeks, three hundred and seventy-five thousand.
On your side: Joanna as full-time programme lead from the first day, and your team collects the data from all three centres in the first two weeks.
Telephony stays an option at eighty-five, fixed until the first steering committee, where you decide. And I'll answer on payment terms tomorrow.
Owen repeats every part of the agreement, including what the client has promised. A deal that only exists in two people's memories will be remembered differently by each of them. Saying it back takes thirty seconds and prevents a month of arguments.
That's it. Stefano, you'll send the contract?
By Friday.
One more thing before you go. Javier runs the three centres day to day. He isn't convinced this is a good idea, and he'll tell you so.
Good. I'd rather hear it early than late. Will he be at the workshop?
He will. And so will Joanna. They don't always agree. What should I tell him before then?
Philip warns Owen that his head of operations is against the project. Owen's answer is "Good." A critic who speaks early gives you time to understand the objection. A critic who stays silent until the end is much more dangerous.
That we want his view first, before we show anyone any numbers. And that nothing has been decided.
Is that true?
It has to be. Otherwise the workshop is a waste of his time, and he'll know it.
Then it should be an interesting workshop.
I'm counting on it. Thank you both.