Comment by BeetleB | Hacker News Reader

Comment by BeetleB | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>I've worked in consultancy for a couple of years now and I've worked with sales people that say: "sure, we can do this", without having a clue and even asking an engineer. These projects, more often than not, run out of time and budget.

A lot of people here say this, and no doubt it is indeed a real problem. Yet none of the books I've read on negotiation ever suggested something as inane as the orange juice test. They all have sections or a chapter on "OK, now that you've got the deal, how are you going to ensure the counterpart follows through?"

The solution will depend on the situation. Some of it is your responsibility for monitoring. Some of it (probably a lot, actually) is putting penalties in the contract. Some of it is being proactive and exploring what constraints the other person may be under (Is he under-resourced? Are there other decision makers than him who can screw it up? Can he outline a plan so you can see potential flaws?).

But nowhere do they suggest playing opaque games.

> But nowhere do they suggest playing opaque games

My point was that it doesn't have to be an opaque game, the story just makes it seem that way. That's why I mentioned people reading too much into the story and not getting the point.

> They all have sections or a chapter on "OK, now that you've got the deal, how are you going to ensure the counterpart follows through?"

Sure, that's a valid way to approach this type of thing. It just means that in stead of spending most time on the actual project, you might be spending your time on managing the your supplier. If you can get around this by picking a supplier that makes a realistic bid, including a mention of possible issues, that might save a lot of headaches.

This is a choice in management strategy and I've experienced both types. I've also experienced that customers that do something like 'the orange juice test' are often better to work with and end up happier with the end result.

There's actually a huge issue in the Netherlands currently, where major consultancy firms make bids on projects the can't deliver. Multiple 8-9 figure government projects have ended that way and are now in litigation stages. This problem is both caused by the customer not knowing what they want and the supplier abusing that to get more hours in. Gotta make that sales target somehow!

>> "OK, now that you've got the deal, how are you going to ensure the counterpart follows through?"

As they say, you can’t squeeze blood [orange juice] from a stone.

If the counterpart is too incompetent to follow through no amount of negotiation will help.

In particular, having access to technical capabilities in your organization is not the same thing as being a competent project manager. You should interview the person that will be managing your project, and that interview will invariably involve opaque games (or small pilot projects, which are almost the same thing).

You missed the point.

The test is about finding people who understand the nature of the work. It to sort out the bullshitters who will agree to anything and then deliver a terrible solution over 3 months late and over budget.

You can likely find examples in your everyday life. Pay attention next time you hear people talking about doing work. Who is the defeatist (it can't be done in 3 months), who is deluded (I can do that in a weekend), and who understands the right answer is somewhere in between (maybe we could do it if x)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com