The Model of Conflicting Demand Management

"The university is so many things to so many different people that it must, of necessity, be partially at war with itself" (c) Clark Kerr "The Uses of the University."

The way to manage conflicting demands  

While updating this post regarding demand management, a question was raised on the realism of advice to eliminate wasteful demand by managing internal stakeholders. Such advice is easy to throw at the audience but hard to accomplish, especially when it concerns the behavior of the C-suite.

Therefore, the decision came to write this post about analyzing and managing conflicting demands within an organization. 

Managing conflicting priorities by multitasking and controlling the merge bias

For many of us, the adjective "conflicting" comes with priorities as much as demands. That's the ugly side of modern corporate life, where people are overwhelmed with myriads of "top urgent" and "on CEO radar" priorities.

Possibly, there's no smarter way to navigate among conflicting priorities than by multitasking. 

We wrote a separate post with some deep scientific and computational research on different aspects of multitasking and merge bias (your share of dedication while you multitask.)

A brief summary is that if you're not one of 2,5% natural-born multitaskers, your productivity and cycle time will likely deteriorate from multitasking. However, you may avoid even more substantial degradation of your KPIs if you watch the merge bias.

The meaning of conflicting demands

Organizations are complex entities comprising different groups promoting different values, goals, and interests. These groups are an endless source of conflicting demands and agendas.

Furthermore, conflicting demands may arise from stakeholders outside an organization - they allocate resources, establish regulatory requirements, etc.

An organization's response to conflicting demands is a function of the nature of these demands and the degree to which demands are represented within this organization. 

Demands conflicting by nature may differ by the goals (core values) and means to achieve such goals.

Otherwise, demands may differ by internal representation, i.e., the extent to which members of this organization adhere to and promote a given demand. 

Conflicting demands may be represented by external actors only, i.e., with no internal representation. Otherwise, they may be represented by single or multiple groups of stakeholders. 

Conflict resolution scenarios 

Like the other strategic tensions within an organization, conflicting demands can be resolved according to four scenarios:
  1. A "puzzle" is a situation where one "ideal" solution is possible. However, it only works well to manage fixed systems functioning in stable environments, e.g., manufacturing.
  2. A "dilemma" is a situation with two competing extremes leading to the "either… or…" choice.
  3. A "trade-off" is a problem with many possible solutions, each striking a different balance between two conflicting pressures. It means that the choice is not so much "either...or" but "how much" of each available option we are ready to consider.
  4. A "paradox" is a situation in which two seemingly contradictory factors are actual simultaneously. Unlike in the dilemma case, there is no choice between "either.. or…", but "both… and…". Unlike in the case of trade-off, there is no need for compromising one factor at the expense of the other.

Response strategies for conflicting demands

Typical response strategies available to organizations to rule out conflicting demands are:
  • acceptance,
  • compromise, 
  • defiance, 
  • avoidance,
  • manipulation.
These strategies are readily available to observe in reader's organizations and don't require any clarifications.

Three-dimensional model of conflicting demand resolution 

We will propose a three-dimensional model based on factors, resolution scenarios, and response strategies.

This model is subjective to 
  • an experience of a particular expert attempting to manage conflicting demands,
  • organizational and leadership culture and heritage, 
  • type of business environment, e.g., stable or dynamic, private or government,
  • balance of powers within the organizations, etc.
Therefore, the following snapshot can be adjusted to the conditions of a particular firm where the demand management is taking place.

We limited the model to internal representation factors only, as we believe demand is homogeneous for all stakeholders.

3D conflicting demand resolution model

We assumed that no one would want to take responsibility for clear-cut decisions in the scenario of no internal representation, i.e., having no personal or departmental interests. Therefore, the response strategies would balance between avoidance and compromise. 

A single power group would want to force or manipulate the preferential decision. They would only refrain from opposing a compromise in the trade-off scenario. Hence, they'd be likely to exercise avoidance. 

Multiple interests would defy a single solution, manipulate or defy a dilemma (depending on a number of conflicting groups,) and likely compromise on win-win scenarios.

The dilemma scenario is familiar to most managers, as they all need to make tough decisions about hiring or firing people and running or closing projects. Therefore, managers prefer to exercise avoidance unless sensing a winning balance of powers.

A single extra degree of complexity, e.g., unbalanced powers of interest groups, may lead to defiance in most multiple interest scenarios. 

The complex art of stakeholder management 

This model is not prescriptive or exhaustive. Yet, it isn't oversimplified to the degree of corporate commandments "be professional" and "be flexible."

Instead, it is meant to show the multi-dimensional complexity of stakeholder management in one of the most challenging situations of conflicting demands.

Perhaps, the traditional classification of stakeholders into neutral ones, blockers, and advocates is oversimplified. This is because the institutional environment has many more dimensions of powers, interests, and values. 

Therefore, some colleagues prefer to exercise their dominant position on suppliers instead of looking for a true value by analyzing, mapping, and managing internal stakeholders to sort out their conflicting demands.  

This blog is featured by Feedspot among the Top 35 Procurement Blogs. Please vote for us!


To keep receiving new insights and research, please subscribe here. 


More information on this and other exciting topics can be found in "The Technology Procurement Handbook." It represents 23 years of experience, billions of dollars worth of successful sourcing projects, and 1000s of hours spent on research, analysis, and content creation for the most demanding professional readers.
The Technology Procurement Handbook front page
 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

The Importance of Supply Chain Collaboration

Image
  Why is supply chain collaboration essential? Once, I was asked what makes the supply chain important to a company. Our profession may not be rocket science. Other peers around the company overlap with us in their functions - Technology tends to manage suppliers , Finance owns the demand planning and budgeting , and Sales and Marketing monopolize the end-customer value chain.  These and other colleagues do not always appreciate us; some believe they are even better at our job.  Shadow procurement, supply chain, and logistics have become standards for many companies.  However, some critical differentiators - like collaboration - justify the very existence of our profession!  The supply chain is the most collaborative function in the business.  We find peers everywhere, even behind enemy lines. We welcome any opportunity to form a cross-functional team with anyone who can bring business value through supply chain strategies, sales  and operations planning,  inventory management,   B
Read more

The Discovery of Procurement Value

Image
Procurement value demystified Unfortunately, " procurement value " became another buzzword – everyone tells us to generate, capture, and sustain it.  This post attempts to provide the most comprehensive view on procurement value and practical methods of its realizations compared to many other web sources replicating slogans and mystifying logical and straightforward concepts.  The meaning of value Value is not substantive. It is rather adjectival. It characterizes something or results from the application of something. It doesn't exist in its raw form; it's being created. It's a universal differentiator between good and bad things or actions. This 1914 philosophical article defines value  as the object of proper judgment . How easier does it make the explanation of value? The value is equally apparent for those who know the truth.  Therefore, we will give different definitions, not pretend to have found the unilateral value formula. Value is paramount t
Read more

The New Looking of Industrial Buying

Image
Industrial buying has been subjected to research for over a half-century.  Instead of treating the act of buying as a spontaneous event, researchers viewed it as a series of patterns explained by the nature of actors, demands, and relationships.   Such a new looking provides a relationship-centric context of industrial buying instead of superficial product characteristics shaping the entire process. Buygrid Framework : An Introduction to Industrial Buying Theory  The Buygrid Framework  (1967)  classical procurement theory analyzes the industrial (B2B) buying behavior and business processes.  It presents industrial buying not as a single event but as an organizational decision-making process where multiple individuals decide on a purchase.  The framework comprises a matrix of " buyclasses " and "buy phases." Buy phases Buy phases pretty much remind the steps of the source-to-contract cycle: identification of needs, establish specifications, Search for alternatives, e
Read more