Why a signature does not automatically create clarity

In logistics projects, a great deal of time is often spent comparing quotations, negotiating prices and assessing different suppliers. Once the signature is in place, the feeling often arises that everything is clear and the project can begin.

Yet in practice I regularly see that most discussions arise precisely after the quotation has been signed.

Not because either party deliberately did something wrong. And usually not because someone withheld information.

The discussion often arises because both parties think they agreed the same thing, while in reality they have a different picture of what is going to be delivered.

That happens more often than many organisations think.

Two perspectives, one document

One of the causes is that quotations are often read from different perspectives. A supplier looks at technical specifications, terms and assumptions every day. For the customer, this is usually not daily fare. As a result, terms or descriptions that are completely clear to the supplier can be interpreted differently by the customer.

The opposite happens just as often, by the way.

Customers sometimes assume that certain work, adjustments or provisions are naturally part of the delivery. For the supplier, however, these are additional works that were never explicitly included.

What is standard, actually?

I regularly hear the question: "What is actually standard?" It seems a logical question, but within customised solutions a true standard often does not exist. Of course there are configurations, options and versions that occur more often than others. But even of those, there are often several variants that depend on the specific situation, processes and wishes of the user.

What is a standard solution for one organisation can be a deviating version for another. That is exactly why it is important to discuss not only what seems standard, but above all what is actually part of the agreed delivery.

These differences only come to light during the execution of the project.

When the price absorbs all the attention

Another cause I regularly encounter is that attention during negotiations often shifts to the price. That is understandable. Investments are considerable and everyone wants to strike a good deal.

Yet I regularly see situations in which the discussion about a few per cent discount gets more attention than the content of the quotation itself.

That is exactly where surprises arise later.

Not because the price was wrong, but because what falls inside and outside the scope of the delivery was not discussed sufficiently.

On top of that, logistics operations are often more complex than they appear on paper.

During the preparation phase everything seems clear. Then, during implementation, it turns out that processes run differently than expected, that a software interface is missing, that existing infrastructure needs to be adapted or that operational conditions deviate from the original assumptions.

At that moment, the question often arises of who is responsible for the extra work or costs.

What strikes me is that these discussions usually do not arise because someone is deliberately doing something wrong. They arise because the translation between the quotation and the daily operation has not been made sufficiently.

Everyone understands their own part of the project.

But not always the full picture.

Start with shared understanding

That is exactly why a good quotation does not start with the price or the technical specifications.

A good quotation starts with a shared understanding of the problem to be solved and of the situation in which the solution will have to function. The same principle applies to drawing up a good tender.

The better the operational need is defined in advance, the easier it becomes to genuinely compare quotations. When it is clear to all parties involved which performance, functionalities and preconditions are necessary, there is less room for differing interpretations during execution.

Strikingly, that is often when more room emerges for healthy negotiation. Not because the price is scrutinised less critically, but because there is more certainty in advance about what will actually be delivered. The discussion then shifts from assumptions and ambiguities to the content and the commercial terms of the offer.

The better both parties understand the expectations, the smaller the chance of surprises during execution.

That does not mean every change or extra cost item can be prevented. In complex projects, situations will always arise that were not fully visible in advance.

It does mean that many discussions can be prevented by paying more attention in advance to the content and less to the assumptions.

Because in the end, a signature is not proof that everything is clear.

It is merely the moment at which both parties confirm that they think everything is clear.

And that is sometimes exactly where the difference lies.