# data[].attributes.body
There were a lot of data and data viz errors caught in various deliverables. We def need a process for reviewing for errors

# data[].attributes.body
It seemed like we had to make our client mtgs feel more robust than they really were. Raises the question of how to run client projects w/ very discrete scopes (that aren't overly complicated or complex; more black and white)

# data[].attributes.body
Became all hands on deck during the transition. That was good. Folks made themselves available to talk and be a resource

# data[].attributes.body
1st LT session fell flat. Adopted it from Lola's work, but worth discussing how to conduct those intro sessions...people want more than they can really handle

# data[].attributes.body
survey deck! the level of depth and integrity is a good model for future surveys

# data[].attributes.body
poor scoping

changes in A/ R roles

not documenting scope changes

# data[].attributes.body
Refreshed the data analysis approach, findings deck, and report to improve clarity and transparency of DW approach

# data[].attributes.body
Overall the scope execution was a flop based on what we laid out but we salvaged the relationship and gave them a strong runway for improving their team and culture

# data[].attributes.body
Demonstrated evidence that when there is an effective

lead who is highly communicative and effective in the work, this client moved from disgruntled to singing our praise in a matter of months. truly seemed unsalvageable in the summer.

# data[].attributes.body
New staff in the R role w/ a new A was a recipe for a lot of the challenges faced

# data[].attributes.body
Original conversation of the 'mgmt training' scope into 'leadership facilitation' did not make sense and felt unclear to all involved, well into the engagement.

# data[].attributes.body
Hours focus made it difficult to do the work well

# data[].attributes.body
Client relationship was a rollercoaster, but landed so nicely

# data[].attributes.body
engagement was a product of poor scoping without a clear plan, and low communication until tiffany got on the project resulting in a dissatisfied client and difficult internal client team transitions

# data[].attributes.body
A transition was rocky but eventually settled and was able to gain trust of client in short order

# data[].attributes.body
scope was manageable and we did things we already had a lot of background and depth doing (didn't have to create much from scractch)

# data[].attributes.body
$30k carryover was messy, and lack of clarity/limitations around scope allowance in Q4 - permitting major hours overages

# data[].attributes.body
elevates the imp of clear scope transition documentation

# data[].attributes.body
Still confused about how retainer factors in to hours considerations

# data[].attributes.body
ran with Lola for a long time outside of our normal systems - need to reset expectations

# data[].attributes.body
Handoff from Lola to AJM seemed successful all things considered

# data[].attributes.body
I think our work has a real arc to it year over year and we've done a good job of sharing that narrative whenever we're in front of their team/leadership

# data[].attributes.body
The sales process with SEIA seems more complex

# data[].attributes.body
We got comfortable with them and didn't always adhere to our internal systems/processes because of it

# data[].attributes.body
they're still a great client to work with and a great example of clients who want to dig in with us on strategy and orienting their people work to make a bigger impact (which I personally really enjoy)

# data[].attributes.body
talked about them as an "easy" client and it made them get deprioritized in a way that isn't true to how we work

# data[].attributes.body
Highly responsive to in-person training

# data[].attributes.body
changed the R at a real cost to the client

# data[].attributes.body
created a norm with them that we'll add/subtract work as we go and don't come back to them on hours/timeline bc they were typically so easy to work with - ended up coming back to cost us

# data[].attributes.body
role changes - shifting Rs on our end, shifting roles on their end

# data[].attributes.body
Scope elongation from Jan-Sept to Jan-Dec was confusing. Perhaps that was related to the "off" month consideration.

# data[].attributes.body
Making it "work" for a long term client even though it is out of our current pricing model. how can we retain long term clients while being true to our pricing?

# data[].attributes.body
pulse survey (wasn't executed - lapse in project management)

manager cohort - lack of engagement

# data[].attributes.body
PD policy, trainings, etc. is all a line of work I think we've done with them well

# data[].attributes.body
"Month off" doesn't really work. We still need the time to effectively move the work forward

# data[].attributes.body
Hours landed right where they should be!

# data[].attributes.body
overall a steady long term client, they see us as a valuable partner

# data[].attributes.body
we shaved hours on coordination, saying we'd meet with them as needed, and the coordination group's roles have shifted, no longer 1 clear decision maker

# data[].attributes.body
strong relationships, and they have a real investment in the work

# data[].attributes.body
Lots of internal convo about whose values were aligned and misaligned with the project itself (re: Alana). Is there something we need to do internally to not run into this again

# data[].attributes.body
Values alignment with the client was named as a prereq from the client, to what end will we provide values aligned service teams in the future and what is the process/ expectation there

# data[].attributes.body
It felt like we both did pro bono and tried to keep within hours that were never possible to begin with, which had significant impacts on those working on the project feeling like something was going wrong when really it felt like it was impossible from the beginning

# data[].attributes.body
Not using our normal systems made this challenging to keep track of the work

# data[].attributes.body
felt like what they wanted was comp and they backed int the restructure because that was a necessary input - felt then like we put the emphasis on the project they were less interested in/motivated to do

# data[].attributes.body
Overall seamless transition of work back and forth across multiple A's, constant R made that possible.

# data[].attributes.body
"pro bono" process - should define if we want to replicate this - what is the target profit margin? we aim to have values alignment with all our clients, so what determines the clients that we want to offer this kind of arrangement to?

# data[].attributes.body
The context for this client was really different than most of the clients we work with - even down to them not having teams. It required an approach to the work that felt different than any of the other work we do, and there were implications that I think stretched our ways of thinking/doing that we didn't initially account for

# data[].attributes.body
Seems like their expectations around comp process were quite robust, particularly seeking out and utilizing comparable org comp models. This is very timely and wasn't accounted for or clearly named as something outside of scope for the client

# data[].attributes.body
The client team shifts were difficult to track from an admin perspective, and communication around that could have been more clear

# data[].attributes.body
totally makes sense why they have this, but could be good to talk about when clients want us to use their systems (Nextcloud)

# data[].attributes.body
I think we suggested the right level of change for a move from flat to bringing in necessary heirarchy.

# data[].attributes.body
not sure how other people are feeling re: roles switching - not sure that everyone is up to speed/fully out?

# data[].attributes.body
clear project plan from the beginning that has been followed very closely

# data[].attributes.body
implementation - not scoped for and makes for a dissatisfying feeling of now what?

# data[].attributes.body
comp - I think we've questioned whether this should be an offering bc of our lack of solidified approach

# data[].attributes.body
complicated project, lack of clear vision from leader, and conflict aversion made this feel like a more challenging path fwd

# data[].attributes.body
This isn't totally about project management, but they are lovely humans in general which made working with them on execution particularly enjoyable

# data[].attributes.body
the org charts sparked necessary conversations (though implementation was sort of untouched)

# data[].attributes.body
very tightly scoped, on very complicated project

# data[].attributes.body
Deep trust established by referral and team care in fielding client needs and requests

# data[].attributes.body
key points of contact are decision makers who tend to move asynchronously fairly well

# data[].attributes.body
felt like there was a level of trust from the get go, decision-maker present in all convos

# data[].attributes.body
When I did hear about this project, it was all drama. Is that ok?

# data[].attributes.body
Even when we can see what it is needed, the leadership/ team has to be ready and willing to change. if not the entire thing feels like pushing against the grain

# data[].attributes.body
Pacing and expectation felt wonky, like plans and decisions were made but in execution none of that seemed applied or to matter

# data[].attributes.body
by the end, we were doing work they didn't even want and we didn't have the relationship to successfully pivot - how do we approach that in the future?

# data[].attributes.body
Role changes and lots happening in coaching led to confusion and lack of clarity on project work

# data[].attributes.body
separating leadership work from engagement survey work meant no one had a full picture of all the work moving and led to working out of scope and way over hours

# data[].attributes.body
Didn't seem like we were on the same page with them from the start

# data[].attributes.body
++ lack of buy in, differing opinions on what they needed/ wanted and no one being clear or directive about what they needed to do

# data[].attributes.body
hot potato role changes on facilitators left those sessions difficult to drive fwd

# data[].attributes.body
helping Lee Ann and Jaclyn understand and begin living into their full potential

COS was right move

# data[].attributes.body
lack of buy-in to the work from the decision maker at the end of the day I think is where things fell apart

# data[].attributes.body
introducing a COS was still the right move - they needed someone in that role

# data[].attributes.body
Decision maker/ Seth didn't fully trust us, got to a penny pinching what can I squeeze out sort of place that was really weird and uncomfortable

# data[].attributes.body
Scope shift to go virtual to save $$ on the LT sessions made those conversations a slog

# data[].attributes.body
projected org charts - actually a fun project to pull together leadership restructuring + staff engagement survey into what things could look like 5-10 years from now

# data[].attributes.body
Lots of trust/ relationship issues among the group we were working with without adequate time to address them

# data[].attributes.body
by the end, very transactional/relationship breakdown

# data[].attributes.body
Moved forward under the impression of a scope expansion, shouldn't have altered work until that actually happened

# data[].attributes.body
stuck between project we wanted to do vs. project we were scoped to do

# data[].attributes.body
strayed from the scope without explicitly saying it - had a promise for expansion but didn't acknowledge that what we were spending time on was out of scope with the client until the ship had already sailed

# data[].attributes.body
Not much TBH, I think the structure we put forward would prove helpful but I have no idea if they actually implemented it.

# data[].attributes.body
Overall capacity pull required for this level of engagement

# data[].attributes.body
good example of changing roles not having a negative impact on the client

# data[].attributes.body
On going fractional - it still feels like something that we aren't fully sure how we are going to live into it and the implications

# data[].attributes.body
how will we coordinate internally if we significantly up our involvement? (don't have to figure out today but we should have a concrete plan in place before we start)

# data[].attributes.body
As scope changes move from potential to probably to discarded or approved comms between client team and ops could increase + use more clarity

# data[].attributes.body
With everyone getting pulled in at different times, it made it hard to operate from a single baseline. With so much moving and so many involved, slack updates and mentions were not enough to keep all on the same page and minimize confusion

# data[].attributes.body
weekly roundups are effective in keeping us on the same page as Claire

# data[].attributes.body
Overall willingness and desire to change

# data[].attributes.body
more work moving = more time to coordinate it and we didn't initially plan for this as much as we should

# data[].attributes.body
Sticking to our weekly coordination calls on this has been incredibly helpful

# data[].attributes.body
Monday board evolution over the early part of scope was extensive and we are in a much better place with Monday client boards now

# data[].attributes.body
Their franticness/ urgency is difficult to manage. imp to keep lots of hours free for managing the priorities that come up ie. last min perf reviews for no good reason

# data[].attributes.body
Retreat - when they say that they don't want logisitcs going forward, it feels like we either need to require them to get Jen Carpenter at that point or that we need to also handle logisitcs. Logisitics are so closely tied to full retreat execution that poor logistics end up reflecting back on us

# data[].attributes.body
engagement survey - successful in the end, but the process was designed to be rushed and had delays and challenges because we didn't really assess their readiness to receive the information, and what we heard from their was one of the (if not the) most concerning/difficult. not sure if we were totally prepared or prepared them.

# data[].attributes.body
Handbook - Claire sat on this for so long and it feels like it's reflecting back as our fault that it hasn't happened yet. Same with the partner charter, actually.

# data[].attributes.body
Capabilities, not really the highest priority at the time and it likely will need to evolve quite a bit as the company restructures

# data[].attributes.body
Controversial, but I think the Slack chat with Claire was helpful.