I’m leaving the title off today’s post, instead opting to start with a short story about a studio searching for a service partner. Let’s see if you can identify the mistake made by the founder, whom we’ll call Jamie.

Jamie’s studio is facing a problem. After several internal discussions with their team, they’ve mutually agreed to seek out a service provider for assistance. Jamie begins their search by asking friends and colleagues, who have faced similar challenges, about the providers they’ve used in the past and which ones performed well.

Jamie receives a list of potential service partners and supplements that list with their own research. They then arrange meetings at an upcoming conference, preparing questions to better understand how these service providers can offer help.

Following these initial meetings, Jamie prepares a shorter list of the most promising potential partners for further discussion. They involve more members of their studio in these second meetings so they can describe the problem they’re facing in more detail to the final candidates.

The providers then take the information they’ve learned from that meeting and prepare proposals to send to Jamie.

Jamie’s team evaluates the bids, does a bit of due diligence to make extra sure the provider they’ve chosen can deliver, and informs that company of their winning proposal.

After a bit of negotiation, the deal is signed, and the engagement officially begins.

…did you see it?  What mistake did Jamie and their team make?

The major mistake is that Jamie went to market with problems, not requirements.

Or in other words - instead of spending the time to define exactly what their studio needed in advance to solve their problem, Jamie left it up to the potential service partners to define the solution.

Why is failing to define requirements upfront such a mistake?  Well, let’s take a look:

- Less Competitive Pricing: Without detailed documentation of project requirements, proposals from providers may be priced higher than necessary due to uncertainties and scope creep.
- Difficulty in Comparing Proposals: Proposals are likely to vary significantly in approach and scope, making direct comparisons difficult and complicating the decision-making process.
- Higher Risk of Capabilities Mismatch:  Jamie’s team did not specify the capabilities required to solve their problem, leading to a less targeted search and the potential selection of a candidate lacking the necessary skills.
- Over-Reliance on External Definitions: By allowing the service provider to define the solution, Jamie’s team risks adopting a solution that caters more to what the provider can offer rather than what is best for their studio.

The ironic part of all of this is that someone at Jamie’s studio will still need to go through the process to define requirements, goals, timelines, methods for accountability, etc - to create alignment with their chosen partner.