More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
by
Mahan Khalsa
Read between
July 6 - August 12, 2019
“Let’s bat around some numbers so you have something to work with. At this point:
1. I don’t know how much this will cost you. Every client situation is unique. 2. However, other companies in similar situations—successfully achieving the results we’ve been talking about—tend to invest between X and Y. 3. Can you see yourself falling somewhere in that range?”
“Fair enough. At this point: 1. I don’t know how much this will cost you. Every client situation is unique. 2. However, other companies in similar situations—successfully achieving the results we’ve been talking about—tend to invest between X and Y. 3. Can you see yourself falling somewhere in that range?”
“Well that’s good to hear. Just so there are no surprises, at this point: 1. I don’t know how much this will cost you. Every client situation is unique. 2. However, other companies in similar situations—successfully achieving the results we’ve been talking about—tend to invest between X and Y. 3. Can you see yourself falling somewhere in that range?”
They are not saying the investment it is not worth it; they are merely saying they have some logistical constraints.
Value, on the other hand, involves some version of “That’s all we think it’s worth.”
It is usually not a question of money; it’s a question of beliefs—typically one of three beliefs: 1. The client does not believe in the value of the solution. 2. They do not believe that what we do will give them that value. 3. They believe they can get the same value somewhere else for less.
when we get to this point in the conversation, and we’re so far apart on the value of doing this, I find one of three things is happening. Either: • you don’t believe in the value we discussed, • you don’t believe that what we do will provide that value, • you believe you can get the same value somewhere else for less.
we can negotiate changes in scope, timing, or division of labor that would achieve the desired price. Perhaps other key stakeholders have different views on value justification and we can enlist their help. Perhaps we can be more creative with our business model or deal structure. Or perhaps this is an unqualified deal and we are fortunate to find out early rather than late.
guiding the decision process. Fewer still gain access to all the key stakeholders, deeply understand what is important to them, and accurately elicit their criteria for making the decisions at hand. The few of us who do it well will be highly regarded and richly rewarded by clients, and will distance ourselves from the competition.
develop three key abilities: articulating and influencing the decision process; gaining access to key stakeholders; and understanding decision criteria.
To find out how each person will decide, talk with them personally. One of the key outcomes in this process is to find out the “how” directly from the “who.”
The Decision Process
The steps may not be well formed in their minds; they may omit or collapse steps; they may talk only about the first step, or perhaps the last step.
“It sounds like getting the results we discussed is critical for your company. What are the steps you’ll need to take as an organization to feel confident that whatever choice you make is the right decision?”
The argument was essentially to let the needs of the business drive the technology choice rather than letting the technology choice determine the needs of the business.
Our decision grid example might fill out as shown here.
First, in Opportunity, we developed an economic value of the business issues; let’s say it was $10 million a year. A six-month decision process could cost the client $5 million. The client is unlikely to save that much in a competitive bidding process. Second, as seen in Resources, there is a time by which clients want the results in place. Does the length of the decision process jeopardize this objective? If so, what creative options can the client pursue?
Some typical roles would be: • Initiator: Opens the transaction. • Gatekeeper: Controls information flow and access. • Champion: Willing to support our cause and aid access to decision makers. • Influencer: Nonbuyer who affects the purchase—from inside or outside the organization. • User: Affected directly by the purchase. • Decision maker: Makes the decision to buy. • Ratifier: Approves the decision to buy.
As you talk with the various stakeholders, keep asking who they feel you should be talking to.
If you feel there are key stakeholders who are critical to the decision process and whom have not been mentioned, bring up their names or functions and get a reaction. If these are people who are going to make or influence the decision, we would like to talk with them before they do.
It is difficult, if not impossible, for us to exactly meet the needs of people with whom we have never talked. For clients, how we “sell” is a free sample of how we solve.
As a result, many buyers would rather have a “less than optimal” solution than be aggravated by ignorant, arrogant, or incompetent salespeople. The norm for buyers in relationship to sellers is often “Don’t let them get to me; don’t let them waste my time.”
It is difficult, if not impossible, to exactly meet the needs of people with whom we have not talked.
“Our goal is to come up with a solution that precisely addresses your needs. From what you described to me, these people are key owners of those needs. To make any kind of intelligent proposal, I’ll need to talk with them. You know the company better than I do. How do we set that up?”
All we are asking for is about 30 minutes of each person’s time. If necessary we can do it on the phone.
We are going to pursue only two lines of inquiry when we meet with the people we’re trying to see: we need to know the Opportunity from their perspective, and we need to know their criteria for making the decision. We are only asking for about thirty minutes with each of them, and, if necessary, we are willing to do it over the phone.
If you cannot meet people where they are, you have not earned the right or ability to lead them someplace new.
Can the reason for not granting access become the reason for granting access?
One should doubt the professionalism and intellectual thoroughness of consultants who feel they can give a prescription without good diagnosis.
We want to be fair to the client stakeholders and develop a solution that exactly meets their needs. It isn’t fair to expect we could do that without talking with them.
how consultants sell is a free sample of how they solve, it is better for the client to find out early, rather than late, what each consultant is like to work with.
Communication will exhibit dilution, distortion, and generalization—it is unavoidable. How much is the only question.
suggest to the gatekeeper that we write down our questions in advance and then the gatekeeper schedules a thirty-minute conversation between us and the stakeholder to talk them through.
With good intent and good technique we will increase the percentage of times we meet personally with key client stakeholders.
Although that was admittedly a high-risk strategy, she was so committed to a solution that exactly met her client’s needs that she was willing to walk away rather than guess. And when people understood her intent, not only did they invite her in, they gave her the business.
Don’t paint yourself into a corner. This is something we want to fight for, not fight about. If we get blocked in gaining access, we have some choices: 1. Chunk it down. 2. Go around. 3. Decide not to play. 4. Play anyway.
We can ask our counterpart if there is one stakeholder with whom he or she feels comfortable and safe. Ask if the three of us can meet together. Only if our counterpart feels the conversation adds value will it be extended to another stakeholder. Our counterpart maintains control.
There is a risk in going around someone who doesn’t want us to. There is a risk in not talking with key decision makers. We have to assess which risk is greater and how to best reduce the risk we choose to accept.
“gracefully offer to exit.”
Combining inquiry and advocacy in one meeting is not ideal, but it is definitely better than no inquiry at all.
Engaging in rich dialogue with decision makers and influencers is the highest priority use of your time.
Understand the Opportunity from each person’s perspective. What are the key issues, evidence, impact, context, and constraints?
When people feel you have a good understanding of their criteria, they have more faith in you and your solution.
There are always alternatives. In addition to working with us, clients can decide to: 1. Do nothing. 2. Do it themselves. 3. Do it with someone other than us.
The smaller the number of competitors, the more likely the client has done due diligence and is ready to select; greater numbers suggest that a client is still in the information-gathering process.
On what basis will the client choose between alternatives? What is the difference that will make the most difference?
If there is an incumbent, why change?
Does someone have a vested interest in this not happening?
understanding the personal and professional motivation of key stakeholders can be tremendously important. If we can understand how individuals stand to win or lose, we have a chance to align what’s in their best interest with what’s in the organization’s best interest.
