Building the architecture of compromise
A service for new projects with many shareholders. We design rules of communication and dispute resolution before they actually occur. This is prevention that avoids decision-making paralysis in the future. We create escalation paths and voting procedures tailored to the specifics of a given industry.
Rules of the game for many players
In projects where at least 3 different entities have interests, disputes are a matter of time, not chance. Our team from Poznań has been analyzing since 2016 why consortiums stop talking to each other. Often the problem is not a lack of will, but a lack of clear rules. We design the architecture of compromise, i.e., written rules that define what we do when a difference of opinion arises. We don't wait for the first lawsuit, because then it's already too late for rational talks.
We focus on specifics. We introduce a 4-level escalation path that has been tested in 12 large infrastructure investments. If project managers do not reach an agreement within 48 hours, the matter automatically goes to the boards. Thanks to this, we avoid paralysis, which in the construction industry can cost up to 14,200 PLN a day for equipment or team downtime on the site alone.
Voting procedures and decision-making
Most consortium agreements are too general, which comes to light at the first crisis. We create technical appendices that determine the voting power of each shareholder depending on the stage of work. If partner A contributes 60% of the capital, but partner B is responsible for 88.4% of the technology in the implementation phase, their influence on decisions must change. We applied this approach to the last 8 projects implemented in Greater Poland. We look for touchpoints where others see only a conflict of interest.
During 3 working sessions, we determine who has the right of veto at key moments. These are not theoretical considerations. We choose specific situations, such as changing the main subcontractor or shifting the budget by more than 11.5%. We record it in the form of an action algorithm. Facts win over emotions because each participant knows what they agreed to in the planning phase, before real money and delays appeared on the table.
Avoiding courts through internal mediation
Our 8 years of experience in mediation shows that 73% of conflicts in consortiums result from faulty information flow between partners' offices. That is why we build the architecture of compromise based on a common progress reporting system. Each partner has insight into the same financial data every second Tuesday of the month. This eliminates suspicions of hiding costs or favoring own subsidiaries.
If, despite everything, a decision-making bottleneck appears, we step in as external mediators with a ready key of solutions. Our office at Roosevelta 22 St. in Poznań has already hosted 47 such crisis meetings in the last year alone. Usually 2 days of intensive talks are enough to unlock the investment, instead of spending 4 years in a district court. We build the architecture of compromise because we know that in the long run it pays off for every shareholder.