1

Topic: Control of communications

Colleagues, share the useful books/articles. How correctly to build communications, how to draw out on  the difficult, not organized customers, delirium transfer in , etc. In advance thanks.

2

Re: Control of communications

Hello, __ SPIRIT __, you wrote: __ S> Colleagues, share the useful books/articles. __ S> how correctly to build communications how to draw out on  the difficult, not organized customers, delirium transfer in , etc. the Literature I will not tell, but for years of guiding of projects worked out some rules 1) It is impossible to short communications on one person, and from both sides. However the temptation was not great to raise the importance thus - so categorically it is impossible to do. 2) ring, instead of write letters. If by phone it is difficult to explain something, +followup the letter. 3) to register ways of escalation of questions from both sides 4) Reveal from the customer who is sponsor (it is interested in the project) and power sponsor (possesses the power, sufficient to solve a question independently), they will be in escalation ways in 2. If do not make, spend  time for dialogue with  which solve nothing and in what are not interested. 5) in negotiations ALWAYS a position win-win 6) If try  find the compromise, favourable everything, do not leave in  and disagree on all at once. 7) Any bad news influencing a course of the project (that that the customer sees) inform at once. Do not justify, and offer decision ways.

3

Re: Control of communications

Hello, gandjustas, you wrote: __ S>> Colleagues, share the useful books/articles. __ S>> how correctly to build communications how to draw out on  the difficult, not organized customers, delirium transfer in , etc. G> the Literature I will not tell, but for years of guiding of projects worked out some rules G> 1) It is impossible to short communications on one person, and from both sides. However the temptation was not great to raise the importance thus - so categorically it is impossible to do. + G> 2) ring, instead of write letters. If by phone it is difficult to explain something, +followup the letter. Here it do not agree. Did so in storage who as a result is then erased that offered. As a result to us our sentences produce as them, and here jambs hang up all on us. As a result came to: 1) all important in letters. It is possible to consider further. 2) if something needs to be considered - a call +  As a result vocal arguings became more focused and distinct. G> 3) Register way of escalation of questions with both sides Can more in detail? It is not assured that understood. G> 4) reveal from the customer who is sponsor (it is interested in the project) and power sponsor (possesses the power, sufficient to solve a question independently), they will be in escalation ways in 2. If do not make, spend  time for dialogue with  which solve nothing and in what are not interested. And if transfers it is interested? G> 5) in negotiations ALWAYS a position win-win  dreams of dream... If they try to thrust  in a vice? How to create win-win? To depart that not ? G> 6) If try  find the compromise, favourable everything, do not leave in  and disagree on all at once. And if  on the technical moments as which it is possible to count? And counting you understand that 3.14... But to arguments do not listen from a word absolutely? If so to leave that will be Lose - Lose or Win - Lose. But they lose of hundred poods, instead of whether we play depends not so much on us, how many from coincidence of circumstances? G> 7) any bad news influencing a course of the project (that that the customer sees) inform at once. Do not justify, and offer decision ways. It yes. We sometimes inform even during that moment when they are not confirmed but probable to hammer in time for the decision. It is all rather simply. Our case: From our side all technical command, from the customer 2 persons with technical expert appraisal. We should coordinate technical decisions with them. In most cases it looks so: 1) we complexly assort a problem. Also we roll out a sentence. Normally it already in itself contains balance of our possibilities in a current situation 2) In the answer we receive a heap of questions and in couple of days to us offer design from a shit and sticks. In which basis the dial-up of assumptions which nobody found time to check up lies. 3) We get to a situation of the contradiction and where here to find the compromise? In certain cases it turns out to convince. Sometimes they rest a horn and persistently try  to itself a head.

4

Re: Control of communications

Hello, __ SPIRIT __, you wrote: G>> 2) Ring, instead of write letters. If by phone it is difficult to explain something, +followup the letter. __ S> here it do not agree. Did so in storage who as a result is then erased that offered. As a result to us our sentences produce as them, and here jambs hang up all on us. It you about arguings, on them unambiguously protocol. I speak about personal contact between participants of the project. G>> 3) register way of escalation of questions with both sides __ S> Can more in detail? It is not assured that understood. If Instead of can solve a question to address to, if cannot to address to In and so on. Otherwise there will be situations that the question on the customer was hung up, and he does not dare and  what to do. G>> 4) reveal from the customer who is sponsor (it is interested in the project) and power sponsor (possesses the power, sufficient to solve a question independently), they will be in escalation ways in 2. If do not make, spend  time for dialogue with  which solve nothing and in what are not interested. __ S> and if transfers it is interested? If it is interested, it becomes the sponsor. But interest should be objective, instead of is simple in words. G>> 5) in negotiations ALWAYS a position win-win __ S>  dreams of dream... If they try to thrust  in a vice? How to create win-win? To depart that not ? To begin with to clarify what for they it do. If want fried eggs it is possible to make it with ready smaller sufferings. G>> 6) if try  find the compromise, favourable everything, do not leave in  and disagree on all at once. __ S> And if  on the technical moments as which it is possible to count? And counting you understand that 3.14... But to arguments do not listen from a word absolutely? The auctions it not belief. __ S> if so to leave that will be Lose - Lose or Win - Lose. But they lose of hundred poods, instead of whether we play depends not so much on us, how many from coincidence of circumstances? Then can and it does not make sense to agree? Set initially impracticable conditions for them and lower on arrangement brakes. In my practice there was a case that the customer wanted simply unreal parameters on high-speed performance. Theoretically they could be reached, but it was necessary to refuse a platform on which all worked. They knew about this problem Exposed requirements on latency of a network between servers at which it is possible to provide such high-speed performance, for the customer it appeared impracticable. A month later returned to a question already with normal requirements. __ S> it is all rather simply. Our case: __ S> From our side all technical command, from the customer 2 persons with technical expert appraisal. We should coordinate technical decisions with them. __ S> in most cases it looks so: __ S> 1) we complexly assort a problem. Also we roll out a sentence. Normally it already in itself contains balance of our possibilities in a current situation __ S> 2) In the answer we receive a heap of questions and in couple of days to us offer design from a shit and sticks. In which basis the dial-up of assumptions which nobody found time to check up lies. __ S> 3) we get to a situation of the contradiction and where here to find the compromise? And you clarified in advance where at the customer win? Why offer such design? Can be consider that periods too big offer - define period less and make in this period a functional part. You just show that do not aspire at all to a situation win-win, from it and all problems. Even in setting sounds as we vs THEY.

5

Re: Control of communications

Hello, gandjustas, you wrote: G>>> 5) In negotiations ALWAYS a position win-win __ S>>  dreams of dream... If they try to thrust  in a vice? How to create win-win? To depart that not ? G> To begin with to clarify what for they it do. If want fried eggs it is possible to make it with ready smaller sufferings. All of them want here and now. Long planning is not present as a class. The sentence to descend in shop or is ignored or made comments that will be not too sick. G>>> 6) if try  find the compromise, favourable everything, do not leave in  and disagree on all at once. __ S>> And if  on the technical moments as which it is possible to count? And counting you understand that 3.14... But to arguments do not listen from a word absolutely? G> the Auctions it not belief. M? __ S>> if so to leave that will be Lose - Lose or Win - Lose. But they lose of hundred poods, instead of whether we play depends not so much on us, how many from coincidence of circumstances? G> then can and it does not make sense to agree? Set initially impracticable conditions for them and lower on arrangement brakes. G> in my practice there was a case that the customer wanted simply unreal parameters on high-speed performance. Theoretically they could be reached, but it was necessary to refuse a platform on which all worked. They knew about this problem Exposed requirements on latency of a network between servers at which it is possible to provide such high-speed performance, for the customer it appeared impracticable. A month later returned to a question already with normal requirements. And sense? (Or I did not understand something) G> And you clarified in advance where at the customer win? Why offer such design? Wines for them it to make quickly. But some years ago, when we took the project, it was in the semidisorganized state, as consequence of such approach. G> Can be consider that periods too big offer - define period less and make in this period a functional part. Periods small it is exact. And here their saving leads to cyclic alteration => periods grow multiply. G> you just show that do not aspire at all to a situation win-win, from it and all problems. Even in setting sounds as we vs THEY. Probably, sentences what to correct in conservatory are welcomed

6

Re: Control of communications

Hello, __ SPIRIT __, you wrote: __ S> Hello, gandjustas, you wrote: G>>>> 5) In negotiations ALWAYS a position win-win __ S>>>  dreams of dream... If they try to thrust  in a vice? How to create win-win? To depart that not ? G>> To begin with to clarify what for they it do. If want fried eggs it is possible to make it with ready smaller sufferings. __ S> all of them want here and now. Long planning is not present as a class. The sentence to descend in shop or is ignored or made comments that will be not too sick. So, stop, and they generally sponsors of the project? In their interests the project becomes? Similar that the project just AGAINST their interests. Go to the sponsor, and it is better to power sponsor with specific arguments (expressed in money). G>>>> 6) If try  find the compromise, favourable everything, do not leave in  and disagree on all at once. __ S>>> And if  on the technical moments as which it is possible to count? And counting you understand that 3.14... But to arguments do not listen from a word absolutely? G>> the Auctions it not belief. __ S> m? Aha, at many such response. The transaction like as is necessary to both sides, but everyone wants to beat out for herself conditions better. It would Seem if it is necessary to both why not to agree at once, but the modern culture of business assumes  to wring out  at the counterpart. As the price same decisions for the different sides different, it is possible to agree always. More operation  the same money then demand  an advance payment want from you, demand from the client a case and interview with general, demand contacts of clients \partners and the recommendation which you can sell a product, demand more money for the service contract. Especially well it turns out if you see the reason on which there are those or other requirements in the auctions. __ S>>> If so to leave that will be Lose - Lose or Win - Lose. But they lose of hundred poods, instead of whether we play depends not so much on us, how many from coincidence of circumstances? G>> then can and it does not make sense to agree? Set initially impracticable conditions for them and lower on arrangement brakes. G>> in my practice there was a case that the customer wanted simply unreal parameters on high-speed performance. Theoretically they could be reached, but it was necessary to refuse a platform on which all worked. They knew about this problem Exposed requirements on latency of a network between servers at which it is possible to provide such high-speed performance, for the customer it appeared impracticable. A month later returned to a question already with normal requirements. __ S> and sense? (Or I something did not understand) Sense that else before project start one of managers promised almost general unreal high-speed performance and sincerely considered that it more important, than other factors. But when counterclaims could not fulfill, creation turbidity transited. General by and large page 0,3  or 1  not important opens, he all the same with a stop watch will not sit. G>> and you clarified in advance where at the customer win? Why offer such design? __ S> wines for them it to make quickly. But some years ago, when we took the project, it was in the semidisorganized state, as consequence of such approach. And what hinders to make quickly, but it is not enough? Mahlo in sense to cut off a part of functions to release, but to make them qualitatively. It normally quite comprehensible compromise. As all functions unequally are implemented, one are necessary directly from first day of maintenance of the program, and others can be  years. G>> can be consider that periods too big offer - define period less and make in this period a functional part. __ S> periods small it is exact. And here their saving leads to cyclic alteration => periods grow multiply. Reduce amount of works. G>> you just show that do not aspire at all to a situation win-win, from it and all problems. Even in setting sounds as we vs THEY. __ S> it is possible, sentences what to correct in conservatory are welcomed To begin with sponsor and power sponsor the project, not to communicate with . To reveal real requirements on periods (justified by a business situation, instead of someone's desire), if really press periods to reduce volume, rolling out on the first iteration the most necessary.

7

Re: Control of communications

Hello, __ SPIRIT __, you wrote: __ S> all of them want here and now. Long planning is not present as a class. The sentence to descend in shop or is ignored or made comments that will be not too sick. In it there is nothing criminal. It is quite probable that their requests follow from new requirements of business. What for it long-term planning if business requirements can quickly exchange depending on leaking ? __ S> wines for them it to make quickly. But some years ago, when we took the project, it was in the semidisorganized state, as consequence of such approach. It is necessary to reconcile that a product not yours, and them. You simply employed that it to accompany. I do not see sense to worry because of symmetry of architecture of a developed software. __ S> periods small it is exact. And here their saving leads to cyclic alteration => periods grow multiply. It is their problem. It is quite probable that they presume to themselves small expenditure every month and do not want to spend a great sum for time for the sake of development of more harmonous architecture. Probably, as a whole, attending of the project with the thought over architecture will manage more cheaply, but single expenditure for architecture alteration will be very heavy for your customers. It seems to me, you need to think how to organize operation so that to make demanded changes quickly enough and cheaply since it is the cores, judging by your words, requirements of your clients.

8

Re: Control of communications

G> 2) Ring, instead of write letters. If by phone it is difficult to explain something, +followup the letter. I will specify. Experience similar to the previous commentator. Therefore 1. If something is required difficult - the letter with a detailed explanation is sent. 2.  with arguing. 3. By results  the letter with short : results of arguing who, as to when should make. In an ideal to receive acknowledgement from participants.