For an organisation to work efficiently and effectively and so achieve its potential all of the departments and sections that make up the organisation must work together seamlessly. This demands that each department understand what other departments require from it so that those other departments can perform their functions properly. The purpose of an expectations exchange is to allow two departments to discuss, negotiate and agree specific details of the services they will provide to each other. The end product of the discussion is a documented service level agreement that facilitates improved performance and allows the departments to monitor and develop ongoing performance.

There are some behavioural standards that must be in place for the process to work. These include negotiating in a cool calm collected manner, keeping negotiations focussed on the facts and assumptions and away from opinions, being open minded and patient, and putting business needs before personal and departmental agendas. An expectation exchange is an orderly structured process and works because of this. Therefore it is very important that participants observe the structurethat is explained in this document. The expectations exchange meeting takes place between only two departments because if more were involved the process would lack focus.

Preparation. Each of the two participants will come to the expectations exchange meeting with a succinct listing of the services they need (as opposed to want) the other department to provide. An expectations exchange is not a forum for requesting whimsical or nice-to-have services, as the provision of the services requested must lead to a material improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of the department and organisation as a whole. The cost of providing the services must be significantly less than the benefit obtained if making the change is going to be worthwhile. Occasionally, an expectations exchange may be a difficult meeting, perhaps because the requests will have a significant impact, perhaps because the two departments are at loggerheads, or perhaps because political agendas will interfere. If this is the case it may be worth asking an impartial facilitator to chair and manage the meeting to help it proceed toward a satisfactory conclusion.

Step 1. The expectations exchange meeting will commence with the department that called the meeting (in this text we’ll assume this is the Finance Department) explaining what services it needs the other department (the Sales Department) to provide. For each requested service the Finance Department must explain the benefit(s) provision of the service will bring to them and to the organisation as a whole. During this phase the Sales Department can ask questions to clarify the nature of request but make no statements about the validity of the request. Judgement must be reserved until the explanations are complete. At the end of this step the Sales Department should summarise the requests that have been made of it. This will allow the Finance Department to clarify any misunderstandings and ensure that the requests have been properly understood.

Step 2. Roles will then be reversed and step1 repeated with the Sales Department explaining their needs.

Step 3. Now that both departments fully understand what services they should provide to each other the process of agreeing expectations can commence. The Sales Department will respond to the Finance Department’s requests first. Only once all of the issues regarding the Finance Department’s requests been resolved will the discussion move on to the Sales Department’s requests. Each department can respond to the requests in one of three ways:

• Yes, I will provide the service you have requested. Now all that needs to be done is agree the implementation timescale and document the agreement.
• I will not provide the service you have requested, but I am prepared to offer an alternative. Now the two departments should discuss the merits of the counter-proposal and seek to move toward an agreement. If an agreement is reached then it should be documented along with an agreed start date. If the two participants are unable to reach an agreement then the escalation procedure should be used.
• No, I will not provide the service you have requested. If this is the answer given then the responding department must explain why they will not provide the service. Typically this will be because the perceived cost of proving the service is less than the value of the perceived benefit, or because the resources required to provide the service are not available. In any event a “no” answer must be justified. The requesting department may chose to challenge the reasons given for refusal, in which case a sensible negotiation should commence. If a “no” answer remains then the requesting department should ask what service the other department is prepared to offer and then discuss this offer. If no reasonable alternative is offered or agreed upon the escalation procedure described below should be used.

Escalation Procedure.
In the event of the two departments being unable to agree upon implementation of the services requested then an impasse should be avoided by escalating resolution of the differences to an unbiased arbiter. This unbiased arbiter might be another manager or a more senior member of staff whose authority and opinion is respected by the participants. If both the participants share the same boss then escalation to their boss may be worthwhile, even though their boss is unlikely to be impressed by their failure to sort it out themselves. In any event both participants should agree to be bound by the decision of the arbiter. The arbiter should whenever possible seek to avoid making a decision for the participants. It is better that the arbiter adopts a more facilitative or coaching role and helps the two participants to resolve their differences themselves. This will lead to a greater degree of commitment to the outcome as it will not have been imposed.