Managing Client Scope Creep: Conflict Resolution Techniques for Success

In this episode of the Conflict Skills Podcast, host Simon Goode delves into the issue of client scope creep, particularly in the construction and design sectors, and provides five conflict resolution strategies to address it. The strategies include addressing data, structural, interest, values, and relationship conflicts, offering listeners tools for effective negotiation and clear communication. Simon emphasizes the importance of understanding these different types of conflicts to better manage and prevent scope creep, ultimately fostering healthier client relationships

website: simongoode.com
email: podcast@simongoode.com

Transcript

0:02

Well, hello, and welcome back to the Conflict Skills podcast. It's a little bit of a different episode today because I'm actually recording a video at the same time as doing the audio. So if you'd like to see what I look like and follow along with, you know, a simple slide that I'm going to put on the screen at the same time, you can have a look on my YouTube channel. But it's really just a single slide, and I'm going to be describing it. So if you're just listening by audio, don't panic. You'll still be able to get the full amount out of the episode today. I'm talking about an interesting topic, scope creep, particularly when I'm doing conflict resolution training workshops with architects or designers. I do quite a bit of training with people in the construction sector, and scope creep is a really common challenge, I think, for a lot of people in that kind of work, like design, etcetera. But whatever the type of services that you're delivering, the potential exists for a client, say the mediation not to be realistic or maybe their requirements or what they're wanting throughout the project changes while you're working with them. And these can be really conversations to have when you've got somebody who wants something additional to be included, or maybe they've misinterpreted something that you've agreed to or something like that, And they're wanting something extra, and you're needing to decide, well, how accommodating should I be here? And so I'll talk about a number of different options that we can use from these 5 types of conflict when we can understand the conflict modes or or what are the elements that's contributing to a situation. What it does is it helps us to develop more options. And particularly if you're dealing with a recurring issue or there's been a problem that you've been trying to deal with and you're feeling a little bit stuck, just coming at the same situation from a different direction can be an incredibly helpful way of just brainstorming options for shifting things forward. So I when when I'm doing conflict resolution training, I talk about these 5 types of conflict, relationship, interest, data, value, and structure. I do a lot of workplace mediations myself. I'm my background is that I'm a professional mediator. And when I'm analyzing mediation, I often meet with the different parties involved initially. I use this as a tool that I can think through, well, what might be going on almost like as a way of analyzing the situation, if you know what I mean. But I also find it incredibly helpful as a coaching tool. Like, as I'm talking to somebody else who's actually involved in the conflict, using these 5 different kinds of conflict helps me to develop some good questions. And when I can come at a situation in a in a position that's genuinely curious, like I actually do want to know what's going on here, what I've noticed is that that tends to then help the other person to develop awareness about what's going on, what they want, what's important, maybe how they've contributed to a conflict, something like that. So even when we're thinking about something like scope creep, you could use this yourself, but you could also use this similar tool to support your team and staff that are under you. And if part of your succession planning is that you would like people to get good at negotiation, for example, or dealing with conflict or managing difficult conversations, then these 5 types of conflict can be a really helpful tool for that. So just briefly, the idea is that with any different conflict situation that we're dealing with, there'll be these 5 different elements that contribute. Relationship conflict might be the the misunderstandings, like you miss an email that's come in, so you take a couple of days to get back to the client, and they might start to get upset during that time. They think that you're not paying attention to them or not taking it seriously. So then when you meet them next time, they might be a lot more full on than you're anticipating just because of this background winding up that's been happening. And then for you, that might be the winding up or revving up moment for you when you cope that probably quite an over the top reaction. You might start to get your nose out of joint and think, well, you know, you don't need to talk to me like this, that type of thing. So relationship conflict often starts from some type of a misunderstanding, or there's some other external pressure that's causing the issue, like someone has had enough sleep or they're going through a divorce and separation or health issue or something. So they come and they inject some type of a negativity, whether it's a perceived threat or pressure, and then that tends to spread. Data conflict is when we're clear or not clear around expectations like who's supposed to be doing what. Maybe the client hasn't read through the contract correctly or they've misunderstood something that a different team member has told them as a promise. Whereas the person actually just said, we'll think about that or we'll see what we can do. Interest conflict is about what do you both want out of this mediation? Obviously, in most client interactions, the client is probably wanting as much as possible for as least amount as money. I mean, why not? Like, isn't that the way that we always tend to approach shopping, purchasing, you know, organizing stuff that benefits us? On the other hand, you in your business, you won't survive if you can't make money or at least break even. So making sure that you're earning enough to cover costs and making a profit at the end of the day is literally, like, that's your number one objective. So that would be your interest. But there would also be other things going on too. Like, maybe you're short staffed at the moment, so you're wanting to keep the workload as contained as possible. So this additional bit of work that you can do as part of the variation might not right now be something that is appealing at all given the fact that you're feeling like you're at the end of your tether, you know, before this conversation. In other situations, work might be quieter, and so you would appreciate getting extra work coming in. Or it might be something to do with your team, like you've got new team members coming on board or there's some restructure that's just happened. So right now is not a time to introduce additional complexity. And so maybe the variation is going to take some thinking power. And right now, you don't have the right team to do that. It could be values conflict. This is often things like what's fair enough to be included or not. All of us have some subjective element that we bring to these types of conflicts around what's fair, what's reasonable, what's professional, what's okay or not okay. And there will always be some ambiguity there, I think, around what the other person's expecting and to try to put forward your view in a way that's clear and transparent. And then the final option that we can use is structural conflict or structural ways of dealing with the issue. This is where we might think about factors like how frequently are we meeting with the client? How do we communicate them with them? How do we give them updates When we get them to agree to a small change, like, do they give a signature for that? Is there some type of formal element to this? How do we outline the consequences of a decision that they're making? For example, do we meet them on-site? Do we do a mock up for them? Is there some type of drawing? Maybe there are structural ways that you can resolve this scope creep from coming up either from clarifying expectations differently early on or looking at the way that you're reviewing and updating throughout the life of the the project or the work that you're doing with the client. So I'm just conflict to my notes pad, and I'll I'll pull up some of those ideas that I've jotted down in terms of dealing with these types of issues using those 5 types of conflict data interest structure relationship and and value. So I often suggest when we're dealing with scope creep, obviously, the initial starting point in many situations is starting with the data. Like, what does the contract say or what does the agreement say? If you work for yourself and you're a designer or some you do some type of work like that, this is a really important element for you to get right and to refine throughout the life of your business. How can I better provide information early on that creates the perception of value? And that's and that's a balancing act. It is like generosity versus wisdom, being firm versus being kind, being accommodating versus being competing and assertive, And you will need to decide what's the right balance for you, and that might even be something that changes over time. You could think in terms of data conflict about how frequently you update with the client where we've had issues with scope creep creep previously in a job, then I might want to give them more frequent updates. I'm wanting to check assumptions like it sounds like you're wanting this, but before we go ahead, I just want to make sure that we're clear about that. I wanna make sure that we're on the same page and even asking for buy in, like asking for commitment. If you'd like us to do this, then we need this document back by this date, etcetera. You should ask for what you want. I need you to do this by this date and then do this and be clear about that. I think a lot of the time when I'm doing workplace mediation, one of the things that I often show up and say is, have you ever let them know what you actually want? Oh, it's common sense, isn't it? They're an adult. Shouldn't they know what's professional communication? Like, I often say to people, I don't know. Where did you get the idea from that there was common sense? Have you ever met people? Like, it certainly doesn't seem like there's any common sense when you walk around and meet any collection of people in any setting, really. These unrealistic expectations, I think, that we often bring create a lot of the stress that we experience. Of course, we're disappointed if we think the other person's going to this quote unquote common sense. But if we assume that they might need additional clarification or that they might miss something, then it means that we're on the front foot at dealing with it. If they're wrong, this is the other element of data conflict. Like they have misread the conflict. They seem to be implying that something was included when actually it wasn't. Then we need to approach this in a way that's not too combative combative and adversarial. What we want to do is maybe use a focus on problem solving. Okay. It sounds like we've got 2 different options here. Let's have a think about what's going to be the best way forward. Or we could just notice the difference. Okay. It seems like you were thinking this should be included in that original quote, whereas I've just gone back and looked through the paperwork, and that wasn't actually something that was noted. So we're noticing the difference there, but I'm not saying you're wrong, you idiot, you know, criticism, and I'm not adding pressure. You need to do this. You will need to do this. This is what we can't do for you kind of thing. It's just, okay, we're in different spots here. We've got different perspectives. And then what we want to do, where possible, is to bring an air and a, what would you say, like a a tone that's curious and open ended. Okay. It sounds like you're wanting this under the contract that says y. Like x, you wanted under the contract that says y. Would you like some options for x, like, what you're requesting at different price points? If it's helpful, I can even include an option that's within that existing budget. However, we would need to move things around, like there might be some more affordable materials you can use in a different section of the building, which would mean we could make this change that you're requesting without any Or if you'd prefer to keep the materials as per the original agreement, then I can give you a price point to to make this change on top of that. So we're trying to approach this in a way that's respectful, but our focus, at least initially in terms of that data conflict, is clarifying the data. The next possible area that you could think about, and especially when we're dealing with scope creep, I think we go from data to structure or comfort conflict next. This is where we think about how frequently do we meet, how frequently do we communicate, how do we give updates, what kind of signing or acknowledgments might be in place. And we're looking here at the formal layers as well as the informal layers. The formal layers might be things like, what does the language say? What does the contract say? And for you, as much as possible upfront, you should include things like cancellation policies, for example. Even things like what might happen and how we're going to deal with it in the event that this does happen, like in the event of a delay due to extended periods of wet weather or material shortages or something like that. I think COVID has been a nice reality. Well, not nice, but it's been quite a reality check for a lot of people. Just noticing how quickly the landscape that you're working in can shift and building in better, like, what if type of options in terms of your business model as well as the the paperwork and agreements. And then you might even think about having different people involved on your end or sharing different information. So maybe with the client, they're requesting this change, but you know that since the beginning of the project, material costs have increased by 30%, or is the client might not know that. So that's an example of using structure like we could give them that information or meeting, look at it together on a bit of paper, and you could put 2 columns together. 2019, 2024 costs, you know. This is using structure as a way to really clarify that data. So that's why I think it's often helpful to start with these first few first couple of steps. Using formal language when needed, having different people involved. And we can escalate the level of formality there to maybe the directors coming to a meeting this time. And this might prevent the client from thinking that there's a precedent about something that was agreed to previously. I know that's a real challenge with scope creep is that you're not actually just discussing this issue. It's like, what will the client think that they can get away with next? The 3rd possible type of conflict you could consider is interest conflict. Here, you basically need to think about, well, is this an integrative negotiation or a distributive negotiation? Distributive, that's thinking about the situation as a fixed pie. Like, there are these 2 options, and I'm going to choose 1 type of thing. When we think about conflict in this distributive kind of way, it's fixed pie. There's this $20,000 inclusion that the client's asking for, and either we'll give it to them for free or we'll split the difference or, you know, we might cover the cost of the labor if they can cover the cost of materials or something like that. Or maybe we just say no. If you want us to do it, it's $20,000. When we think about it in that fixed pie, it really does limit our options to being firm and holding the line, being accommodating and giving in, or some type of compromise or meet in the middle. The other way to think about interest conflict is is integrative negotiation. In other words, we're incorporating additional elements to this original conflict or this original discussion. So if the client's making a request for a change in the scope, then you might take this as an opportunity to discuss other things that are important to you. Like, maybe there's some delays that you can foresee coming or you would like to move things around as, you know, in terms of value engineering because that would be better for you. You've got a few different projects that are all going to need this piece of equipment, so it would be more economical if you could do this next month instead of this month. So in other words, we might be able to find additional options to create an actual win win situation using that options to create an actual win win situation using that integrative negotiation approach. Now, not always. And if not, then there's no magic wand, and you'll need to decide how assertive you be. And each of those will have different positives and negatives. If you're accommodating, it keeps the client happy, but you pay the cost for it, whether it's dollars or additional stress of additional work or whatever else it might be. If you're firm and hold the line, it means that you're not giving away something that's important to you. But the negative impact might be on your relationship with the client, the potential for future work, that kind of thing. The 4th area that we could address is values conflict. This is kind of like either the big picture worldview values that we have, like someone really about really values environmental sustainability, for example, and so they want really environmentally sustainable options throughout a project. Somebody else might, I don't know, be valuing growth in the business. So you're wanting things that are able to be scaled and and more, you know, efficient processes, for example. And these are both valid, so to speak, perspectives. People have often come to these perspectives over a long period of time. And when we're thinking about something like scope creep, it might be that the client's value is the thing that's driving this. They think that they should get something more because they've already paid a large amount of money. I know for me, I can remember I was dealing with a particular not for profit and they worked with, like, people who had survived cancer. So there couldn't be more of an organization that would tug on your heartstrings. But I can remember I originally agreed on a quote with them for a training workshop for some of their staff, and then some of their staff couldn't make it because they had health issues. So I agreed to do a Simon workshop without any additional cost. So from my end, I've given them literally double the original value. And that original quote, I think, was a a discount from what I normally charge corporate companies corporate clients. So, anyway, I'm giving them sort of a 2 for 1 special plus already working from a discounted rate, and I can remember one phone call with the organizer and she was saying, one of the people can't make it. Can you do a 1 on 1 session with them? And I'm thinking, I mean, I can. But, like, this is now going to be 3 like, 12 hours of my time versus 4 of what I originally anticipated. I mean, I'm in a position where I probably could do it, and I did end up negotiating something with this person. But when I said to her, I mean, potentially, but what's behind that request for you? And she said something like, I don't want the rest of the team to miss out or something like that. And I was like, yep, that's fair enough. Like, that's her value is some type of inclusivity or making sure that she's supporting their team as best she can. Like, that's her value. But then she said something like, well, it should have already I mean, we did or I thought it would already be included in the, you know, I can't remember the 2 k or the 3 k or the 4 k or whatever it was that they paid originally. And, you know, it was that type of language. And I can remember thinking, oh, to you, that seems probably like quite an astronomical amount of Simon. Like, even $2,000 for a training workshop, that's a huge amount of money if we're paying out of our pocket. I mean, of course, that's the going rate that organizations often pay for training workshops. So, sometimes I charge a lot more than that, but I know that that was not about data. It wasn't that she thought I'd agreed to this. It was that she thought I should include this additionally. And so when we're dealing with that type of conflict, if we just come back and talk about the data, we often miss the mark there. Either I could have said, actually, that wasn't in my original quote, and she probably would have felt like I didn't particularly care about her or her team. And fair enough, I think arguably I'm saying no to something that they need. Whereas the better option, I think in many situations is to meet them where they're at, which is values conflict. And there's 2 different ways that we can do this. One is we can explore different perspectives with different valid values. So maybe we're talking to a client about scope creep. We could say something like, look, it sounds like you're wanting to make sure that you included everything needed, but you aren't blowing out costs without, you know, an unknown ceiling. That, of course, isn't going to be an effective way of managing your project. So you're wanting to limit the amount of unknowns, keep the budget within the original training, and want this additional thing, something like that. And the value underlying that is it might be fairness. It might be, what they think is appropriate in their role. It might be the previous interactions that you've had with them and what they've come to expect from you. But here's where you clarify your values. It's on our end. We need to be clear about the work that we're doing because, of course, we can't just commit unlimited amount of hours to the different projects that we work on. It's not going to be an effective way of running our business. We're just not going to survive. So it seems like we need to get on the same page then in terms of what's involved, how we're going to be dealing with these kind of changes moving forward. And for this particular request that you've got coming up, finding a way that we can reach an agreement around that, too. So it's like I've got 2 different values here. You're wanting to make sure that, you're holding people accountable or you're having a say in the work that's done that affects you. On our end, we need to, be clear around what we're committing to because the last thing we want is staff are in a position where they've committed to something that they can't deliver. Like, that's our value. I wanna support my team, or I wanna make sure that we're on the same page, or I like to be transparent about these kind of things. We can also sometimes outline previously agreed values, especially when it supports your position. Like, maybe you're dealing with a government client in a construction job, and previously they've used words like, we like to work in a very collaborative way. And however it goes, we want to make sure that it's resolved in a fair way. So those values, those language elements, we can include back to them as a way of justifying why they should agree to our proposal, for example, or why their proposal is not realistic. Look, I'm I'm just looking through this email that you've put through. It sounds like you're requesting these additional things. And from your perspective, it sounds like you're thinking that that should have been included within the original quote. I'm just not sure how that's fair given the fact that we've given you a price, not factoring in these elements. And so this would now be an additional cost on our end. I'm not sure how this is fair. Can you walk me through how this seems like it's fair? Or I know for you, you're wanting to come to a fair outcome or working collaboratively something collaboratively is something that's particularly important to you. And so you've had a chance to outline what's important to you. Would it be okay if we talk through our perspective as well? It's like, of course, you're wanting us to share our perspective. After all, you work very collaboratively. Right? So the final option for dealing with scope creep is relationship conflict, and I've left this one until last because, actually, that's often the way that I recommend dealing with it. This might be having a coffee with them, clearing the air, letting them have a chance to vent if they're feeling like they have been hard done by or they've missed out on opportunities previously. Maybe they're a little bit frustrated or there's an an element of pressure or something that's sitting there for them. And if you can just lower the stakes, lower any potential perceived criticism or threats or pressure, give them a chance of feeling heard, demonstrate empathy, use the active listening techniques like that I talk about in other episodes of the podcast, then you'll find that you often get a much higher level of buying from them as a result. And even if it's a business to business type of interaction where you're dealing with, you know, government clients or large corporates or whatever, it's still a human on the other end. And if they don't feel like they're being acknowledged or listened to, the likely inclination is that they're going to ramp up the level of pressure and probably become a lot more adversarial on their end and create a whole lot of extra dramas and headaches that you potentially didn't need to deal with. So how have you found that using those 5 different types of conflict as a way of thinking about that issue of scope creep and and some of the options that we have for dealing with this. If you're watching on on YouTube, on video, I'd love to hear, like, what's your perspective? How does that resonate with you? What do you think about this approach to delivering this kind of information? Would you like more resources and tools dealing with conflict, whether it's workplace situations or outside of work? Let me know. I'd love to hear from you, and if it has been helpful, I'd be incredibly grateful if you would press like, and considering following or subscribing. If you're listening to the podcast, thank you as always for listening, and I hope to meet you again in a future episode of the podcast. Bye for now.