The customer wants an explanation. The implementation partner wants a decision. Both have a record of what went wrong. Neither has a credible way forward.
That is where a delayed SAP project can become something more serious than a scheduling problem. Meetings turn defensive. Unresolved delivery questions become arguments about responsibility. The possibility of litigation starts to shape conversations that used to be about getting the business live.
In my interview with Kim Sorrelle, I described the projects I am drawn to: radically over budget, far behind schedule, and on the verge of a lawsuit. These situations need more than reassurance. They need a way to restore communication and turn the actual delivery issues into decisions.
A strained relationship is a delivery condition.
When trust deteriorates, the consequences are practical. A process question may go unanswered. A concern may be interpreted as an accusation. A decision may wait because nobody wants to accept responsibility for its implications.
That does not make the customer unreasonable or the partner incapable. Sustained delay puts both parties under pressure. Recovery has to recognize that pressure without allowing it to become the only structure around the work.
Separate the delivery facts from the dispute.
My formula’s Diagnose pillar distinguishes legitimate project risk from customer pressure and internal politics. In a partner escalation, that distinction helps create a common starting point: what is unresolved, what it blocks, and who can act.
It is possible to disagree about past responsibility while still identifying the next dependency. The recovery conversation needs that level of precision. “The partner has not delivered” and “the customer keeps changing direction” are positions. A named requirement, decision, or readiness gap is something the project can work on.
Contract interpretation, potential breaches, and threatened litigation belong with the company’s legal counsel. Independent recovery support does not replace legal advice or determine liability.
Put authority back into the conversation.
A project team cannot settle an executive trade-off simply by holding more meetings. Sponsor conversations need the people who can confirm priorities, authorize decisions, and agree what the business must protect.
The Design pillar builds the communication and accountability structure around those decisions. It connects the recovery plan to the organization that will carry it out, rather than assuming a new document will change the relationship on its own.
Give the next difficult issue a different path.
De-escalation is fragile if it depends on one productive meeting. The Deploy pillar puts escalation protocols and peer accountability into use so the next disagreement does not send the project straight back into the same standoff.
A practical recovery structure makes the following explicit:
- The unresolved issue and its effect on the agreed work.
- The decision owner and the evidence needed to decide.
- The route for escalating an issue the working team cannot resolve.
- How both parties will confirm that the decision was acted on.
Protect the working relationship—not an appearance of harmony.
The aim is not to ask either side to ignore legitimate concerns. It is to restore a working relationship in which concerns can be addressed without immobilizing delivery.
The Deliver pillar closes the loop against agreed outcomes and looks beyond the immediate crisis. A calmer relationship matters when it allows the business and partner to make credible recovery decisions and sustain them through the next phase.
If the relationship has become a barrier to progress, a confidential private briefing is a place to discuss the delivery situation and the role independent recovery support could play alongside your existing team and advisers.
Adapted from Anita Anello’s conversation with Kim Sorrelle and her De-Escalation Breakthrough Formula™ partner overview.