{"id":12781,"date":"2024-05-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-05-22T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scotwork.com\/nz\/blog-nz\/where-to-begin\/"},"modified":"2024-05-22T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2024-05-22T00:00:00","slug":"where-to-begin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scotwork.com\/nz\/blog-nz\/2024\/where-to-begin\/","title":{"rendered":"Where to begin?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

One of our clients needed help with a strategically important negotiation they were about to embark on. They just went through a complex RFP and were trying to tame an existing overbearing supplier. Time was of the essence because contracts were expiring soon. It was no surprise that their first question to us was, \u201cWhere do we begin?\u201d<\/p>\n

In this kind of engagement, we usually start with a simple question like, \u201cWhat do you want to achieve?\u201d Our client stated that they wanted to bring their supplier under control. They mentioned that they got great information from the RFP, and they wanted to use it to squeeze their supplier. They explained various threats and sanctions they could impose as well as incentives they could offer to get the supplier back in line.<\/p>\n

However, their biggest problem wasn\u2019t\u00a0how<\/em>\u00a0to do so, but\u00a0what<\/em>\u00a0they were actually trying to achieve. It\u2019s one thing to say, \u201cTame the existing supplier,\u201d but it\u2019s another to define that.<\/p>\n

One of the most common issues we see when consulting with clients about their deals is a lack of definition around success. Ambiguity creates opportunities for disappointment. If you\u2019re not specific about what success looks like, you can\u2019t evaluate a deal you\u2019re negotiating.<\/p>\n

When we ask clients to define what a successful deal looks like for them, it\u2019s not uncommon to hear things like:<\/p>\n