Feedback on the Framework - an analysis

Re-examining the Contract Innovation Goal Framework

I was delighted to receive my firstly deeply substantive feedback on the Contract Innovation Goal Framework (defined and referred to hereafter respectively as the “Feedback” and the “Framework” in the spirit of all things contracting). I copy the Feedback verbatim below before analysing it.

“Abraham, thanks for sending. It makes sense, but I think there are some important outcomes missing from your list of ultimate goals: major, in the "make it better" category, there are many other ways to make something better than by reducing risk (which itself is kind of a negative goal). Here are some positive goals: make it easier; make it more reliable; make it less complicated; make it more attractive; make it kill 2 birds with one stone; make it so that it reduces the demands on my attention; make it so that I have greater status; make it so that things are more fair; make it so that I end up with more autonomy; make it so that I feel a greater sense of meaning; make it so that I feel more connected, e.g., to people, or to something bigger than myself; and make it so that I feel more competent at the end of the day. Hope that helps.”

The Feedback is great! This list of goals makes many of the goals proposed as alternatives (by little pig no 1 (LP1) in the original writeup) seem like strawmen. Will the Framework hold up against the Feedback? Let’s take a harder look.

Restating the Framework for convenient reference.

To clarify the Framework’s purpose, it is meant to lay down the complete list of goals that apply and can be adapted to any contracting improvement or perhaps legal innovation exercise. The goals are organized in 2 tiers. Each set is mutually exclusive and cumulatively exhaustive (MECE) meaning: 1) the goals do not overlap, and 2) there are no other goals at that level of importance.

Managing risk NOT reducing risk

One vital call out at the outset that is that we are “managing risk” NOT “reducing risk”. (This goes to a central point that seemingly underlies the Feedback that reducing risk is a negative goal.) Why is the distinction important? Because, as clarified at the start of the Framework introduction, 

“It helps to remember that “Risk” includes both
a.      the risk of NOT obtaining intended commercial objectives or profits AND
b.     the risk of unintended consequences, loss, or liability”.        

Why not then make these two separate goals? Because risk and reward cannot be separated. They are sides of the same coin. It’s like separating the brakes and accelerator on a car, or offence and defence in basketball. These are aspects of the same goal that overlap and work in tandem. 

“Manage risk” is NOT a negative goal. It is how we protect and ensure desired business outcomes. Within the Framework it is synonymous with and qualifies the word “Better”. With that positive intent established, let’s break down and classify the other proposed goals.

Reiterating the Framework’s value

Before we do that, I must reiterate the Framework’s value (see also response to little pig 4 in the original writeup). To say our goal is “Do it Better” is not very insightful or value adding by itself. So,

1)    Firstly, we clarify that “Faster” and “Cheaper” are not included in the goal “Better” as we have used it in our Framework (though they are, in a general sense, ‘better’ and being slow and expensive are also ‘risks’ that must be ‘managed’.)

2)    Secondly, we add “Happier” as a separate goal (not included in “Better”). “Happier” (is also, in a general sense ‘better’, but) in every context deserves separate and adequate consideration.

3)    Thirdly, we clarify that Visibility, Agility, Consistency and Collaboration (which are all generally speaking ‘better’) are not included in “Better” as an Ultimate goal. Though always desirable, they are different in that they are “Facilitative”, not ends in themselves unlike the “Ultimate” goals i.e., “Faster”, “Cheaper”, “Better” and “Happier”.

Why the proposed goals in the Feedback are not ‘Ultimate’ goals

Each of the other potential goals mentioned in the Feedback above, I argue, is:

1)    Not always: not necessarily appropriate or desirable in every context, and hence not suitable either as an additional or alternate “Ultimate goal”, OR

2)    Included: connected to and included within one or more of the Facilitative or Ultimate goals.

From the Feedback I have clubbed together similar goals, reordered them and commented on why these goals may not fit in some contexts. To be clear, I like these goals and feel our thinking about contracting or legal innovation would greatly benefit by keeping them in mind, when appropriate.

Just as we added a layer in between Volumes, Complexity, Risk and Stakeholders to define the problem and consider the relevant solution ingredients, I propose we add bubbles to the ultimate goals to fill in aspects of each goal that A) are included, and B) are worth considering in context, but C) might be missed out or forgotten.

I’ve saved the hardest ones for the end. I personally consider them indisputable in terms of importance and ignored more often than not so it’s hard for me to argue they should be not elevated in the overall consideration or explicitly set out as a goal.

“…feel more competent” I’m translating as “should be a learning experience for those involved”- Of course, why ever not? BUT we consistently invest in training and learning much less than we should.

“…more fair” – how can I (or anyone) argue otherwise? YET our working world remains so unfair.

Lastly, “…greater sense of meaning/ or connected to something bigger than myself” taking that as “purpose driven”, again why would we want it any other way? BUT it’s so rare this is done right and consistently.

Here is my challenge. The practical reality is that the world pays lip service to these goals but prioritizes them much less than it should. I’m keen the Framework should be a practical mechanism to advance how we work together, NOT prescriptive, preachy or pie in the sky. By proposing and putting forward a mechanism for stakeholder happiness to be consistently considered on par with commercial goals I’m already raising the bar. This has significant practical implications and scope for application and is hopefully something that we can all agree to as filling a gap in our approach so far. Furthering objectives such as inclusiveness, fairness, autonomy, and learning are part of making things ‘better’ but it’s much harder to bring them adequately in focus or prioritize them without stakeholder happiness as a trigger. At the same time, however much I believe in them, it’s realistic to recognize that not everyone shares the same intensity or conviction, and it may not be practical to target them in every situation and context.

The present effective alternative to the Framework (including the clouds above) could be represented like this.

I do not (entirely) mean to be satirical here or present more strawman goals. Limiting or interpreting “Better” as “Managing Risk” and tying ourselves to a finite short list of goals does run the risk of leaving out many potentially worthwhile goals. However, adding “Faster”, “Cheaper” and “Happier” (and distinguishing Facilitative goals) gives us ways of pursuing them all when appropriate with greater clarity and purpose. Especially, the inclusion of “Happier” as a goal can potentially stop us from neglecting many issues that are sadly left out of conversations today. I trust this Feedback and its analysis makes that clearer.

People matter. Happiness is important. Details and priorities depend on context, and we can hope to converge. I trust I’m not selling short.

So, does the Feedback suggest it is all over for the Framework!? I think not. It has enhanced its form a bit (see clouds above). The Feedback - properly understood, strengthens, and reinforces the Framework.

Do tell me what you think. (Who knows what more feedback will do?)