CASE STUDY - THE EXPERTS' ADVICE:SARAH AND QWR find themselves in a difficult position, many commitments have been made and have not been delivered upon which has damaged the company's reputation considerably and reduced its chances of entering the business training market.
It is undeniable that mistakes have been made and that the first attempt at this project is considered a failure by all concerned. However as Henry Ford once said, "Failure is only the opportunity to begin again more intelligently" and this project is not beyond redemption if QWR act quickly and decisively.
The key to recovering will be strong customer communication regarding how QWR are going to address the issues they face. Our experience in crisis management consultancy has shown that many of QWR's customers will be willing to judge the business on how they react to their mistakes; and not that they have occurred.
QWR will firstly need to admit the problems faced and clearly outline how and when these issues will be addressed. Just as importantly, the remediation undertaken by QWR must be both successful and timely. This will be challenging for QWR as the project to date has been missing many of the elements needed for a successful outcome.
PricewaterhouseCoopers, when helping its clients to address "problem projects", recommend that fivefactors are considered:
One: Stakeholders must be committed and this is perhaps the most significant issue faced by QWR's project team. QWR have not obtained the support it required from the external business guru, Dan Jones. Going forward, Murphy, the chief executive, will have to manage this relationship more closely in order to ensure that Jones' inputs are more formally agreed and scheduled. Murphy will also need to reassure Jones that initial teething problems will be addressed in order to prevent him from putting any more distance between the project and himself. If this is not successful, QWR will need to consider re-launching their business training service utilising a new PR platform.
Two: Business benefits must be clearly defined. The business benefits that the project will achieve should be foremost in the project manager's thinking during all aspects of the project. A greater understanding of the underlying benefits may have assisted O'Neill in understanding that the objective of the project was not "the creation of a successful online service", but rather to break into the business training sector by leveraging Jones' name and experience. In this context the project deadline becomes a reasonable project constraint that must be appropriately managed.
Three: The scope and schedule of the project must be realistic and well managed. Many projects must operate within the constraint of an immovable deadline. However, it is important to realise that within such an environment the scope must be controlled and potentially reduced. In this case, the significant increase in functionality suggested by the chief executive could only be achieved by increasing resources or at the expense of a decrease in quality.Four: Project risks must be mitigated. The early identification of potential project risks can yield significant benefits to a project if actions are put in place to mitigate these risks before they arise. For example, risks relating to Dan Jones' availability or succession issues for Simons could have been anticipated.
Five: The project team must be high performing. A high performing project team requires resources with appropriate knowledge and experience, a clear governance structure, strong communication links and a motivated team.
QWR's chief executive appears to be directing responsibility for the project failure squarely at the new online manager's door. O'Neill clearly recognises that she may have been overwhelmed by the pressure associated with the project, but also feels she inherited many of its problems. However, it is important for QWR to recognise that the blame game is at this point a futile exercise. O'Neill will be much better off defending her position by focussing on how to rescue the project. She should clearly outline in her meeting with Murphy what steps must be taken to rectify the issue and how long this will take.
****
This smacks a little of the managing director being taken in by the business guru at the annual conference. Doing a deal with Jones on the back of the proverbial beer mat probably seemed like a piece of inspired opportunism at the time, but the consequences of not involving the online team, at least in their second discussions, must have been evident. It was myopic of Murphy to centre the entire project around such an artificial deadline as Jones' retirement.
Firstly, taking a practical PR perspective: if Jones' personal brand had such value, surely the association could have been exploited in the media a month or two later? Why jeopardise the entire launch just to "ride along the coat tails" of his imminent retirement? Of course, the project should never have been so publicity-driven in the first place. "Get the product right, stupid," is the clear message here. It has doubtless been echoed in BAA's and BA's boardrooms a few times of late.
There's a branding lesson also. If developing a strong brand is QWR's aim - and it should be - they're going the very wrong way about it. Founding brand reputation on a tenuous alliance with a relatively unfamiliar guru is misconceived. For one, it's high risk - all the brand equity is as likely to end up with Jones as with QWR.
The "quick win" of free publicity, which so dictates the project, may be an avenue to brand awareness, but it won't contribute to a lasting reputation.
As it is, they're clearly on a course to irreversibly tarnishing the brand, and the primary and secondary school product lines will not emerge unscathed either. In the unforgiving battlefield that is the internet, where word of mouth assumes enormous force, the damage is likely to be swift and far-reaching.
Murphy's prized asset has proven a liability. The company has paid the price for relying too heavily on an unknown entity which it allowed become the linchpin of the enterprise. That his role appears little more than signing off on work makes the strategy all the more misguided.
Quick response is called for. Disentangle from Jones and concentrate on a robust business strategy of product differentiation and customer service. These can be the pillars of competitive advantage in the long term. And take immediate actions to repair the brand. They can start by: quickly reaching out to customers; properly staffing an efficient helpline; providing refunds where necessary; and communicating credible timelines on the website for additional features.
As countless crisis episodes can testify (think of Tylenol in the 1980s), the customer is invariably forgiving if a supplier is perceived as dealing openly and honestly. Just as viral word of mouth can damage at speed, so too can positive feedback recover lost ground more quickly than in past times.
As for the protagonists, O'Neill's crime was to sheepishly accept a poisoned chalice only a Newcastle United manager could relish. She seems young and she will learn from the experience. Most of all, she needs real empowerment and sign-off authority in her role. It serves no purpose for the organisation to make her a scapegoat. On the contrary. The product is far from dead and the company needs her know-how to help with its rehabilitation. And there's the internal fallout of such a rash move to think of. One can easily picture O'Neill's colleagues thinking: "That could be me in six months - no thanks".
Murphy, for his part in the debacle, might consider another retirement deadline - one the entire organisation can look forward to.
