The Ford/Navistar thread in particular got me thinking about contracts in general (and maybe their application to the "real" world).
I've run some reasonably big contracts over the last 15 years, and have decided that in general, the further the contract document is away from the relationship (excepting particulars of works), and provided the relationship is built honestly from both parties, the better the result for all.
Yep, every so often, you have to pull out a commercial clause, but provided the relationship is sound, the project will proceed amicably, and to both parties benefits.
Seen too many people start playing tennis with clauses and definitions, then you get the absolute least that can be provided under the specification, and everyone walks out with a bad taste, vowing never again.
Got me thinking about relationships in contracting...and then on to Karma and Contracting...more precisely, the more negativity you pump into a process, the less likely you are to get a decent outcome.
I was fortunate (experientially) recently to see negotiations where the Principal was so set on an outcome, that the entire negotiation phase was focuses on the reparations if the project ultimately failed. The principal scraped out every possible failure, and put in a penalty for each.
Risk to the supplier grew with every remedy, so their guarantees grew less at every discussion...until finally they could guarantee next to nothing, the Principal felt slighted, and the negotiations dissolved.
Left me wondering if they could have invested equal effort into the positive aspects of the project, and pulled it off, or devoted themselves entirely to the positive aspects and resulted in a stellar performance.
Interesting process to observe...
led on to random wanderings about pre-nups etc. and the return on investment of positive or negative effort.
I've run some reasonably big contracts over the last 15 years, and have decided that in general, the further the contract document is away from the relationship (excepting particulars of works), and provided the relationship is built honestly from both parties, the better the result for all.
Yep, every so often, you have to pull out a commercial clause, but provided the relationship is sound, the project will proceed amicably, and to both parties benefits.
Seen too many people start playing tennis with clauses and definitions, then you get the absolute least that can be provided under the specification, and everyone walks out with a bad taste, vowing never again.
Got me thinking about relationships in contracting...and then on to Karma and Contracting...more precisely, the more negativity you pump into a process, the less likely you are to get a decent outcome.
I was fortunate (experientially) recently to see negotiations where the Principal was so set on an outcome, that the entire negotiation phase was focuses on the reparations if the project ultimately failed. The principal scraped out every possible failure, and put in a penalty for each.
Risk to the supplier grew with every remedy, so their guarantees grew less at every discussion...until finally they could guarantee next to nothing, the Principal felt slighted, and the negotiations dissolved.
Left me wondering if they could have invested equal effort into the positive aspects of the project, and pulled it off, or devoted themselves entirely to the positive aspects and resulted in a stellar performance.
Interesting process to observe...
led on to random wanderings about pre-nups etc. and the return on investment of positive or negative effort.
