The term "Win-Win Situation" is often used in business to
imply an arrangement that helps both parties involved. However, in many
business arrangements today there is also a 3rd member that needs to be
accounted for. I'm speaking about the Independent Consultant/Contractor
("Lone Eagle") and the Micro-Business (a small business with less
than 10 employees) who are the often the ones delivering the services to the
Client through the Prime Vendor. The interests of the Lone Eagle and
Micro-Business in such arrangements are at best low priority and at worst
outright ignored. When it takes "3 to Tango", then a
"Win-Win Situation" is not enough.
Lets consider a very common arrangement where the Lone Eagle or
Micro-Business is providing a service to a client through a Prime Vendor
serving as a pass-through. What we see in such arrangements is the
classical "Win-Win Situation" where the Client is obtaining the
services it requires and the Prime Vendor makes out nicely with a sizable
markup (often in the range of 25% to 50%) to the Lone Eagle's or
Micro-Business' hourly rate. The Prime Vendor's sizable markup is in
effect solely for the purposed of serving as the bridge between the Service
Requester (Client) and the actual Service Provider.
I would argue that such a markup is excessive for serving as a mere
bridge. In these cases, the Lone Eagle and Micro-Businesses don't really
obtain much if any tangible value from these pass through vendors. These
Prime Vendors are not carrying any of their sub-contractor's liabilities or
providing any benefits such as Health/Dental Insurance, Vacation/PTO, Holidays,
FICO, State or Local related taxes or insurance. The Lone Eagles and
Micro-Businesses have to either provide for themselves or forego these benefits
all together.
No one is saying the Prime Vendor shouldn't be rewarded or undeserving
of a fair compensation for serving as a bridge. But does it have to be so
high? These marked-up pass-through dollars collected are mostly profit
and for doing what?
No one doubts that in these arrangements, the big winner is the Prime
Vendor. And it is also a nominal "Win" for the Client, who
obtains the service it requires at a fee they have agreed to pay. Truth
is that the fee could be lower if the Prime Vendor wasn't adding such a large
markup. Regardless, we can consider the Client a winner for getting their
work done by a well-qualified Lone Eagle or Micro-Business.
So who is left out? In good conscience you can't consider
this "Win-Win" arrangement as sufficient when the 3rd member of the
tango is an essential component. In essence, the power rests with the
Client and the Lone Eagle / Micro-Business and they must insist on a
"Win-Win-Win Situation". The Prime Vendor markup should be
rational and allow the Lone Eagle / Micro-Business to obtain a better hourly
rate. If the Lone Eagle or Micro-Business is in fact obtaining the rate it
desires from a Prime-Vendor for passing through services, then the Prime Vendor
needs to resist the temptation to markup its hourly rate at a level that is
disproportionate to the value and services it is rendering to the Client in
such an arrangement. This allows the Client to pay less for services and
/ or reap the benefits of added quality and service received from a better
compensated and motivated Lone Eagle / Micro-Business.
As the number of Lone Eagles and Micro-Businesses have dramatically
increased in the business sector, their interests are paramount to ensuring
that the Client obtains maximum output for its investment. I'm proud that
my company PMOrchestrator has recently introduced a new service called
Conduuit that addresses and delivers Win-Win-Win Situations. I would urge
Clients in need of expertise, as well as the Lone Eagles and
Micro-Businesses ready to engage interested Clients to contact us and find out
more about this service. It's not just a matter of better quality,
service and savings for the Client, or better compensation for those who
actually perform the work, but a matter of fairness.
