When an organization decides to hire a contractor to build a software tool, usually the relationship begins with a meeting, in which representatives of both organizations go over some version of the following:
- The client elaborates on their needs
- The contractor displays credentials and past experience
- They talk about the project
- What it’s about
- Goals
- Obstacles
- Time
- Budget (sometimes)
- The client asks the contractor to draft a proposal
Should that proposal be accepted, work will begin. If not, it shall be tuned until it meets the client’s requirements, or it will be discarded and another relationship will begin, with a different contractor. Such is the lifecycle in the software contracting ecosystem.
There is one major problem with this approach: it makes so many assumptions about so many things.
It assumes that the client knows what problem they are trying to solve. It assumes that the client knows what tools they need to build in order to solve that problem. It assumes that the client knows how to judge the contractor’s credentials and past experience. It assumes that one meeting going over the project is enough. It assumes that, from that one meeting, the contractor can devise a comprehensive proposal that can encompass the client’s needs and requirements, estimate how long it will take to build, and how much it will cost.
That’s a lot of assumptions. And assumptions are spots of uncertainty. If a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, this means we’re dealing with a pretty weak chain. But it can be done another way.
Thinking things differently
At the end of 2019, we came in contact with a very interesting startup, looking for a tech partner to bring a new project to existence. Their business had been flourishing, they had recently finished a great round of funding, and they were determined to spend that money wisely.
They did two very unconventional things that differ so much from that traditional approach we just described, we might as well say it’s a different sport altogether: they made it into a competition, with more than one potential contractor, and they decided to pay each competitor for their efforts during the competition.
This is the very definition of groundbreaking. We were on board immediately.
Understanding that there was a lot of uncertainty to be dealt with, they decided to maximize the chances of creating a truly innovative product and an experience to go with it. Most companies would look at this and think it’s unnecessarily expensive and too far-out-there; but can you think of a better way to minimize risk?
This is how you know a company is serious about innovation.
Having worked with organizations of all kinds for over 20 years, we’ve learned that this is a determining factor of success for a project: leaders with the clarity to see what they need as a company, and the will to execute on their ideas to attend those needs.
They believed it was very important to bring a Tech Product Development agency early in the process of designing and developing their vision. So they did. They wanted to bring in the best one they could find, so they devised a mechanism to find it. It is definitely not the “industry standard practice”, but as the saying goes “if it sounds ridiculous but it works, then it’s not ridiculous”. This approach takes a huge step forward in terms of ensuring that they would get the best out of every competitor: it eliminates every possible reason to hold back on the flow of ideas. When candidates know they’re in a competition, they know they have to bring their A-game.
But perhaps most importantly, when contractors get paid for the time and effort they put into designing a proposal, they can dive into it. If time spent writing a proposal is not generating revenue, then that contractor needs to spend time and energy trying to generate enough revenue to afford spending time on writing proposals. This is the way business development works, sure, and in principle, there’s nothing wrong with it. But for all the money you save in getting a proposal for free, think about the attention you’re letting get away. Funding a proposal guarantees that your contractor is going to be fully invested into it.
This is how you know a company is serious about collaboration.
Doing things differently
Another structural weakness in the traditional scheme is the fact that the contractor works alone during the proposal design stage. There is little to no interaction between the parties involved, except for the occasional check in.
For this project, the interaction with the competing teams was built into the process, by design. Within the four-week duration of the competition, there was a weekly meeting scheduled, to discuss progress, bring up doubts, give and get feedback.
Here’s what is great about that: once you have a communication structure in place, you can make good use of it to dynamize the design process. The proposal design phase is no longer a static one, where the parties work alone, incommunicated. It became a dynamic interaction, full of enriching exchanges, where the product grew and evolved in concept before the client even had to settle for one of the competing contractors.
Also, in the spirit of transparency, everyone involved in the competition had access to the same information, including the evaluation criteria, since day one. Everyone knew who the client was, what the problem space was, what the situation was, and how it would be resolved. We all began at the same starting point, and had the freedom to design and pitch our own vision, within clearly communicated parameters.
Getting different results
After a very exciting month of working on this proposal, the time came to show our work and be evaluated. The situation was a bit unusual, yes, but all in all, enjoyable. Though it was a competition, it was a fair and amicable experience. And the overall process was definitely fruitful for everyone involved.
From the client side, this is a way to maximize what you get out of this stage: instead of the usual pdf with a bunch of credentials, a vague overview of ideas of what your product might come to be, and a price tag, this approach allows you to co-develop the project with specialists. Client and contractor explore ideas and make decisions together, and both parties have a say in what the construction plans are going to end up looking like.
From the contractor side, you have strong incentives to bring your best ideas to the table: even if you lose the competition, you are getting paid for your time and ideas; and if you win, you also get a new project and client, plus the confidence that you are going to build something that makes sense for everyone involved.
Takeaways
Most of our everyday activities are defined and structured around processes. These are fine when they speed things up and help organize the work we do. But it’s easy to get absorbed by the process, and end up suffering through it and producing less than optimal work, just because “that’s how it’s done”.
As this startup proved, innovation can be the outcome of a process, but it can also –and perhaps should– be applied to the process itself.
I encourage you to rethink your own processes and approaches, not just for building software. And reach out if you feel you need help with the redesign.