All successes in materials handling systems projects are dependent upon the quality of the partnership between the customer and supplier, and, sometimes, a consultant. Within the past month, I have been party to the beginning of a new partnership and the demise of an existing one. There are lessons as well as unresolved questions in both.

A failed partnership, of course, is the typical result of a failing project. Sadly for this particular project, there were probably alternatives for saving it and the relationship. But too much water had passed under the bridge by the time that failure became imminent. Hard lines were drawn, and contracts, rather than compromise, ruled the day.

In hindsight, an objective, creative party might have identified ways to make a few key enhancements that might have cost some money but would have salvaged most of the project's value. Because the customer always pays, it is better to step back, re-evaluate and spend a little more to get 80% of the solution rather than hold the line (and budget) to get only 20%. Calculated separately, the return on investment (ROI) on the fix is much higher than the expected ROI of the original project.

Here's how to avoid failure in project partnerships:

• Maintain a high-level focus on the results, but don't ignore the details.
• Keep the designers involved in the project.
• Resolve critical problems early, even if it is painful. Don't hide trouble, or assume that miracles will happen.
• Call for outside help. Success is more important than pride.

At the other end of the spectrum is the beginning of a new partnership. This is generally an optimistic and upbeat phase of a project. Competitive bidding seems to be the most conventional approach for choosing a partner. But having had experience as a customer, a design consultant and a systems integrator, I find a few troubling aspects here as well.

The bidding process extends the project schedule and requires expensive and redundant efforts by competing suppliers. Choosing the low bidder does not ensure selection of the best partner. Competing bids are too often solicited only to provide a price check.

Unfortunately, a specification that is focused only on performance leads to a wide range of solution approaches that are difficult to compare.

A rigid design requirement takes time to prepare and creates a price war, in which suppliers may be inclined to skimp on capacity or quality to keep the price low. The potential impact on reliability and performance is not usually visible to the customer.

So, is there a better alternative to the traditional competitive bidding process? Perhaps.

An interesting approach that I witnessed recently provided basic design data to several prospective suppliers. They were then given only a couple of weeks to develop preliminary systems concepts with broad budgeted costs as part of their proposal for an engineering contract to determine the solution and price. This did minimize the redundant costs incurred by the suppliers, but does leave open the issue of lowest price.

One might certainly argue that a fair price from the "best partner" is more likely to yield a successful project than one based on the lowest bid.