It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This is the Second Installment in a series of three installments.
A colleague from the Museum (BG) and I had traveled to London to attend a professional conference and trade show; and that night we were at a reception offered to all participants by the Science Museum. It was around 10pm when we received a long distance call on my mobile phone: the team had just been awarded the competition for the Hannover Pavilion. As anybody else at the reception BG and I held one glass of champaign each, courtesy of our host. We toasted our glasses and clutched at each other in jubilation. Colleagues started to gather around and we shared the good news with everybody. Soon, a full wing of the reception turned into a celebratory happening. Many potential suppliers approached us and we exchanged notes. The next day, we discussed with key suppliers about materials and time frames for the implementation of several installations.
The following factors contributed to our win:
The first phase of the project had concluded and the two primary concerns that we needed to address before starting the next phase were as follows:
Regarding the first area of concern, we identified the Trust as our primary contact and because of that the Trust was going to be, by common agreement, our main channel of communication with its Technical Committee and with the Inter-Ministerial Commission appointed by the President of Mexico.
In parallel, we opened a direct channel of communication with the Presidential Office which resulted in a presentation of the winning proposal in petit committee to the President of Mexico. With the attendance of the four pillars of our team, the presentation was quite successful and created a promising collaboration bond between our team and The Trust with the blessing of the highest office.
This bond of collaboration with the Trust, however promising, was going to be challenged repeatedly throughout the project for the following reasons:
And The Trust was no exception.The Trust Office was structured by its General Director who appointed four high-ranked officers underneath him. These officers took the project as their own and were committed to its success as long as their points of view were, as they put it, "seriously taken into account". Since in the winning proposal those sections corresponding to the architectural design, to the thematic script, and to the main message were all practically frozen, the Trust Officers directed their batteries towards the message delivery, a component that was yet to be processed in detail.
A heated discussion, for example, ensued around the use of technology. One of the Trust Officers did not believe, and rightfully so, in the use of technology by the technology itself. Using this as a sophistic argument, however, he proposed that we discarded all technology and assembled a group of young, contemporary Mexican artists in substitution. These artists, he contended, would create the necessary art pieces to deliver the message using a purely aesthetic language without the interference of any "blemishing" technology. In one of the unending discussion sessions, he even produced a list of artists that we were to convocate for the task. We later learned that some art dealers had a concealed interest in promoting some of those artists internationally using the EXPO as the main forum; we decided not to investigate further into the matter.
We were entrapped in a relationsip with a "customer proxy" that wanted to change an entire section of the winning proposal. An unrelenting group of people that most certainly had the power and the influence to effect such a change. Our position had, nevertheless, been firmly stated since the beginning: we would imprint our signature on any product if it evolved from the winning proposal; but never, on unrelated product alternatives like the ones being suggested. It was a constant battle because the suggestions on how to deliver the message kept coming. The discussions were endless and in consequence we had not yet been able to initiate the second phase in this important branch of the project.
The second area of concern was not going to be easy to deal with either. In preparing the winning proposal we had confronted opposition from at least two internal Directors who questioned the strategic value of the Museum's participation in the competition. And this opposition was going to remain in disguise throughout the entire project. Unfortunately, we were not aware of their hidden agenda until the end, when we realized the extent of the disservice that they had done to the project.
We announced the following decisions in order to diminish the organizational stress generated by the responsability of the new project:
These measures served their purpose. The core team was excited at having to do only with the creative chores of the new project, and happy not to be dealing with the tasks of international procurement and parallel fabrication under time pressure. Also, easing the pace of the renovation project and appointing a substitute project manager for the execution phase relieved additional tension within the organization.
Some unrest, however, remained in the background. It had to do with the fact that the Hannover project, if successful, would catapult the consulting brand of the museum into the market with very positive estimates on future possibilites. And most people inside the organization shared the perception that all subsequent consulting was going to take place under the direction of one of the main actors in the Hannover project. And the two opposing Directors, who had lifted up their hopes too high about taking command of the consulting branch in due time, feared that the very success of the Hannover project could thwart their aspirations. These Directors were particularly concerned about the person writing this narrative who in some occasions had expressed his interest in leading the consulting branch until it reached financial stability and market recognition.
In summary, the project had finalized its first phase successfully; in the second phase, the architectural design was already on its way, and the thematic script was also being refined and finalized; but the experience design was falling behind. We urgently needed to negotiate and reach suitable agreements as follows:
I requested a meeting with my boss, the Executive Director of the Museum, and we analyzed possible courses of action. This is what we agreed:
I ask in retrospect: Would the above measures really let us continue our work without further friction? Which alternative courses of action would you, reader and colleague, have recommended at this point and why?
I will launch the discussion by addressing two early reactions from outside colleagues expressed prior to the posting of this installment. Their reactions and my replies would be included below as comments to this main post. The discussion is an integral part of the Real_Case Analysis. All comments and precisions would enrich the case. Thanks.