Discussion on:

How do you avoid being unfairly blamed for project failures?

First of all, plan to write off the 70 days as an expensive lesson in business. Secondly, if your instincts are that your working with a troubled client, listen to them. Make sure you get paid incrementally to limit your downside exposure. As a last ditch effort, approach the project committee and ask for a compromise...but be prepared to lose it all.

One day older, one day wiser. Just don't "march on Russia in the winter again".

Complete the project according to the design that was agreed to in writing.

Complete the project according to the design that was agreed to in writing.

It sounds like the problem was well documented, the next problem is using that documentation. If George required the changes, and they were properly documented (read he signed off on them), then he shouldn't be able to deny them.
However, in the future, requiring a signature on every change before it is implemented will save some headaches.

If I wrote a solid contract - then if they don't pay - would try a little negotations - First I would sit down with my district management and show them the documentation, explain to them the problems encourted and get them on my side. Then I would take all my documentation and district managemenet to the committee and explain to them the problems, show them all the information reported to the Project Mgt - and ask what they want, and try to make them a happy customer.

If their demands are beyond reason - and If they still don't pay - then it's hippy-hop to the courts for breach of contract. And go for twice or three times what is owed plus costs. (as would be stated in the contract..got to spell out everything) - A winning point on myside would be that failed bidders where on the committee holding up the payment - hum sounds a little retrobution and conflict of interest..

But I would first try everything within reason to make that customer happy -

Hopefully - Ed wrote a good contract - and it sounds like he kept the client updated on the status of the project. Ed needs to get his management to back him - then arrange for a meeting with the committee.

One situation that complicates this mess is Ed is a subcontractor and not the direct contract holder. Ed is really in a bad place if the company he contracts with does not jump in and take control. Ultimately, both reputations are on the line. If this does not happen, then Ed's first mistake is not having a solid contract with his contractor for services. As a subcontractor, my "contract" would seek payment from the contractor not the client. If the client fails to pay but I have completed my job with signed acceptances from the client, then the question of payment should be with the contractor, not the sub. And, as long as I can prove I did what was asked and within the realm of the project, I would seek whatever means to affect payment. Unfortunately, no matter how good Ed's paperwork is, if the main contractor is "absent" from the process then this is nothing more than a recipe for disaster.

Here is a quote from another discussion this week:

"Not my job - to tattletale on my follow staffer - who cares - what are you the Truth Police - Did you tattle on your big brother and sister all the time...

God - get a f'en life... so he lied - so he screwed up a machine - why is it you business to worry about what he did... Why are you concerned what he did - Why Do You Care what he did... Becuase he may get away with something - that you didn't ... he may get more than you ..

GrowUP - It's not your position to Tattle on him - This Aint the Kindergarden Play ground... and sand box... Get a Freeking Life..

From: JimHM Date: 1/8/03 "

Unless, of course, you're a glutton for punishment and name-calling.

Hey reality get a life - and you say your an IT Director - of what Kiddy Land in Disney World...Grow Up

but my whole team (and even other non-tech employees at the firm) have been clamoring for more material from you all day after they read the posts on http://www.techrepublic.com/forumdiscuss/thread_detail.jhtml?thread_id=115431

You started the flood and even encouraged it - or are you the Thought Police now?
Eventually, I hope to publish a book of your posts, but there won't be any royalties for because the book will be free.

I just believe that before anyone engages in a civil disagreement with you that they have right to know what they're in for. Sorry, again, I was perfectly willing to let this go, but you made yourself a laughing stock on TechRepub, not I.

Again, my sincerest apologies to your mother on your behalf.

If you were USMC - You will understand this one ... You Have No Code - You Have No Honor - Period ...

May your career continue ..

I live the code and I have proven my honor.

May you find yours one day. What branch of the service were you in anyway? Now, be a good boy and post something ridiculous again.

As for my post:
As soon as Ed saw the problems with George, he should have drawn up new cost estimates, re-established the goals with George, and submitted it all to the governing committee - all within as short a time as possible of George being appointed.

One situation that complicates this mess is Ed is a subcontractor and not the direct contract holder. Ed is really in a bad place if the company he contracts with does not jump in and take control. Ultimately, both reputations are on the line. If this does not happen, then Ed's first mistake is not having a solid contract with his contractor for services. As a subcontractor, my "contract" would seek payment from the contractor not the client. If the client fails to pay but I have completed my job with signed acceptances from the client, then the question of payment should be with the contractor, not the sub. And, as long as I can prove I did what was asked and within the realm of the project, I would seek whatever means to affect payment. Unfortunately, no matter how good Ed's paperwork is, if the main contractor is "absent" from the process then this is nothing more than a recipe for disaster.

Definitely. Usually sub-contractors are responsible to the main contractor, and should firt pursue avenues with them.

If you get the money from the contractor, let them worry about getting it from the customer. If they don't, they'll probably feel more inclined the next time around to take an active role in the project.

Here is a quote from another discussion this week:

"Not my job - to tattletale on my follow staffer - who cares - what are you the Truth Police - Did you tattle on your big brother and sister all the time...

God - get a f'en life... so he lied - so he screwed up a machine - why is it you business to worry about what he did... Why are you concerned what he did - Why Do You Care what he did... Becuase he may get away with something - that you didn't ... he may get more than you ..

GrowUP - It's not your position to Tattle on him - This Aint the Kindergarden Play ground... and sand box... Get a Freeking Life..

From: JimHM Date: 1/8/03 "

Unless, of course, you're a glutton for punishment and name-calling.

Here is a quote from another discussion this week:

"Not my job - to tattletale on my follow staffer - who cares - what are you the Truth Police - Did you tattle on your big brother and sister all the time...

God - get a f'en life... so he lied - so he screwed up a machine - why is it you business to worry about what he did... Why are you concerned what he did - Why Do You Care what he did... Becuase he may get away with something - that you didn't ... he may get more than you ..

GrowUP - It's not your position to Tattle on him - This Aint the Kindergarden Play ground... and sand box... Get a Freeking Life..

From: JimHM Date: 1/8/03 "

Unless, of course, you're a glutton for punishment and name-calling.

Here is a quote from another discussion this week:

"Not my job - to tattletale on my follow staffer - who cares - what are you the Truth Police - Did you tattle on your big brother and sister all the time...

God - get a f'en life... so he lied - so he screwed up a machine - why is it you business to worry about what he did... Why are you concerned what he did - Why Do You Care what he did... Becuase he may get away with something - that you didn't ... he may get more than you ..

GrowUP - It's not your position to Tattle on him - This Aint the Kindergarden Play ground... and sand box... Get a Freeking Life..

From: JimHM Date: 1/8/03 "

Unless, of course, you're a glutton for punishment and name-calling.

The best think to do is to be like a baby and cover your butt in paperwork. If there is a change made to a contractual specification, you need to get it in writing. That way you have on record, the source of the changes. Also, you should have documented any meetings with Charles for the purposes of showing what was discussed and resolved during each one. That will provide you the basis for bringing suit against the company that you contracted for.

The best think to do is to be like a baby and cover your butt in paperwork. If there is a change made to a contractual specification, you need to get it in writing. That way you have on record, the source of the changes. Also, you should have documented any meetings with Charles for the purposes of showing what was discussed and resolved during each one. That will provide you the basis for bringing suit against the company that you contracted for.

First, I would ask for a meeting with George, the members of "the committee", Company A officials on the contract, and George's agency's contract officer(s). At the meeting I would ask for specifics on what "doesn't meet the original objectives". Then I would use my documentation to either show how I did meet each objective or how that objective was changed. I would show the contract officer(s) corelation to the contract requirements and George's agreed changes. Hopefully my documentation showsthat I met all contract requirements and/or the agency's representative (George) asked for and approved the changes. This sets my legal floor. Then, I would offer to "fix" some of the complaints if we could all reach a compromise. The compromise would include getting back as much of my unpaid time as possible, and avoid putting any more time or materials into the job than I felt I could afford (taking into account how badly I wanted to do future business with these customers). Government contracting officers are bound by strict regulations -- they do not argue semantics, they just look for contract compliance and your act of good faith. The Government is required to pay you if you honored their contract (including making changes as directed by them) regardless of whether they like the result or not. Really, Company A has the contract and should be holding this meeting, and honoring your subcontract separately, but you need to help them (and might grow more business with them for doingso). If it comes to lawsuits, you have to sue Company A and let Company A worry about the Government agency themselves.

Ask for a contract review meeting. Attendees should include you, George, Company A reps, and the Government agency's contract officer(s). The "committee" shouldn't be present unless they are bound by your same contract. List every complaint that they have about the finished site. Use your documentation to show (for each point): 1) you met the requirement, or 2) there was an approved change, or 3) it is not in the contract. This sets your legal floor. Then, I would offer a compromise about fixing some of the complaints -- based upon getting as much back pay as possible, putting in as little additional time and materials as possible, and deciding how badly I wanted to do future business with these customers. Government contract officers operate under strict regulations. They must pay you if you fulfilled their contract, including changes authorized by their representative (George). Check the contract's FAR clauses. Really, Company A should be heading this up and honoring your subcontract separately, but you need to help them.

sorry about the double response. I got a message that my comment didn't submit, but behold! it did.

Sounds like there wasn't any change control management on this project. When George asked Ed to make changes that weren't in the original scope they should have been documented along with impacts to time and cost. Then the project shareholders should have approved the change control document prior to Ed moving forward with the changes. Then there wouldn't have been any surprises at the end of the project.

Sounds like there wasn't any change control management on this project. When George asked Ed to make changes that weren't in the original scope they should have been documented along with impacts to time and cost. Then the project shareholders should have approved the change control document prior to Ed moving forward with the changes. Then there wouldn't have been any surprises at the end of the project.

Many of the comments thus far treat this like a squabble in a corporation, and suggest getting management to back you, etc.

The actual situation is independent contractor to client though, and that is different. (In this case Ed is the contractor, and Company A is the client, not George. George is the client's representative, but does not pay the bills.) This situation usually comes about from lack of professionalism. As some have pointed out, the change policy needs to be defined in the original agreement, and the amount of time to be spent in meetings with the client needs to be defined, and documented as it is used up. Time spent teaching the client about how the internet works is billable time. All this needs to be documented, and explained to the client. And once again, the client is Company A, not George. The client has to be defined by who is signing the check, and they have to be the ones to authorize changes in scope before any work is done. If they give authority to George to authorize billable work to be done, it has to be in writing, or Ed will be up the proverbial feces creek without a paddle in a screen door canoe.

If the contractor wants to be treated like a professional, they need to treat the client like a client, and not as a friend. They are doing work, not a favor. No one would expect a lawyer to spend time explaining how the justice system works for free.

If the relationship between the professional and the client is established from the beginning as a professional relationship, these types of clients will seek out someone else to torture (someone amateur, or semi-professional). If you don't set the expectation from the beginning that you will be doing work, and providing expertise, and inreturn you will be paid without exception, this is the kind of situation you will find yourself in.

Many of the comments thus far treat this like a squabble in a corporation, and suggest getting management to back you, etc.

The actual situation is independent contractor to client though, and that is different. (In this case Ed is the contractor, and Company A is the client, not George. George is the client's representative, but does not pay the bills.) This situation usually comes about from lack of professionalism. As some have pointed out, the change policy needs to be defined in the original agreement, and the amount of time to be spent in meetings with the client needs to be defined, and documented as it is used up. Time spent teaching the client about how the internet works is billable time. All this needs to be documented, and explained to the client. And once again, the client is Company A, not George. The client has to be defined by who is signing the check, and they have to be the ones to authorize changes in scope before any work is done. If they give authority to George to authorize billable work to be done, it has to be in writing, or Ed will be up the proverbial feces creek without a paddle in a screen door canoe.

If the contractor wants to be treated like a professional, they need to treat the client like a client, and not as a friend. They are doing work, not a favor. No one would expect a lawyer to spend time explaining how the justice system works for free.

If the relationship between the professional and the client is established from the beginning as a professional relationship, these types of clients will seek out someone else to torture (someone amateur, or semi-professional). If you don't set the expectation from the beginning that you will be doing work, and providing expertise, and inreturn you will be paid without exception, this is the kind of situation you will find yourself in.

Is it possible, in hindsight, to anticipate that if the project leader or any other lead "player" is replaced, then this might be regarded as a "breach of contract," in which case, a penalty must be charged and parts of the contract renegotiated?

In retrospect, Ed should have Documented each of the discussions, recorded if possible, and/or tried to have a 3rd person included in all discussions from the beginning, or at the very least from the point a problem was evolving.
Contract review to stipulate conditions that prevent witholding of payment for undue circumstance would be a good idea to prevent future incident.
Requiring signoff by Company A and end Customer on every step of project (and subproject if necessary) would also limit possibility of this scenario.
-mis@sens-usa.com

Make sure that everything is documented and then stick to your guns for payment for everything George has asked you to do. Don't charge for anything you yourself have added. Take to court if necessary. Your contract is with Company A.

Also contact your government contact and explain that things did not work as planned and why. Suggest you work direct in the future. If they like your work and need to work through Company A then they will add their weight to your argument.

Pity George.

I believe the manager explained his/her problem when she wrote: "My relationship with this employee has been purely professional and I cannot leverage any personal loyalty or respect in any discussion."
WAKE UP!
Professional does not mean impersonal. It means doing the job competently and with due dillegence. And if the job is managing people, then you better damn well know how to inspire loyalty and respect.
There is no good solution for the manager in question except to get used to dealing with all the myriad problems associated with emloyee turnover.