|
|
| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
| Anyway, here, with feeling, are the seven wastes, as applied to contract [[negotiation]]: | | Anyway, here, with feeling, are the seven wastes, as applied to contract [[negotiation]]: |
|
| |
|
| ===1. {{wasteprov|Overproduction}}===
| | {{overproduction}} |
| ''Don’t make what you don’t need.'' <br>
| |
| | |
| Don't make things ''before'' they are needed, or if they ''aren’t'' needed. Seems obvious, right? In the contract [[negotiation]] world, “manufacture” is [[sales]]-led and the negotiation process with direct client — you can’t negotiate without one, so there is buyer for every product, right? — so {{wasteprov|overproduction}} seems irrelevant. But is it?
| |
| *Many {{tag|contract}}s get negotiated, but never executed: the client may not be serious, it may change its mind, or it may not accept your fundamental terms. Some times this is foreseeable, but it should be [[Sales]]’ job to identify and weed out clients who are highly likely never to executed a contract. Finding out you have a deal-breaker after a nine-month negotiation is a ''huge'' waste of time and resources.
| |
| *Even where the contract is executed, the revenue that accrues is not a function of executing the contract, but ''trading'' under it. A {{tag|contract}} that is concluded but rarely or never traded under is an example of [[over-production]]. Again, Sales should be responsible for identifying good quality potential revenue, and should be [[incentive|incentivised]]<ref>This means penalised for costs the same way Sales is rewarded for revenues.</ref> not to introduce poor prospects into the funnel.
| |
| | |
| '''Summary''': {{wasteprov|Overproduction}} is generally a [[sales]] problem. It is not easy to fix as it involves predicting the future, but the costs can at least be allocated to sales (in the same way that revenue is!)
| |
|
| |
|
| ===2. {{wasteprov|Waiting}}=== | | ===2. {{wasteprov|Waiting}}=== |