The cost of special arrangements nobody has recorded

An order carries a note: “Call this client before dispatch.” The person who knows the arrangement is on holiday. Whoever prepares the shipment does not know whether to hold it, notify someone else or follow the usual procedure.

This is a hypothetical scenario, but it locates a specific problem: the special condition exists, yet the work record does not explain how to fulfil it. The client need not ask for anything unreasonable. It is enough for the arrangement to be scattered across messages, notes and memory.

I would keep special conditions that have a clear reason. An out-of-hours delivery can be part of an agreed service; a custom format can make an order possible that would otherwise not come in. I would review how those conditions are authorised, how much work they add and who takes over when the person who knows them changes.

Record the difference, not a label for the client

“Difficult client” does not help prepare an order. “Confirm receipt with purchasing before dispatch” does describe an action. In the record, I would include the exact arrangement, who approved it, when it applies and when it will be reviewed.

I would add an owner and a fallback if they do not respond: wait, escalate or meet the standard deadline, as agreed. Without that fallback, automating a notification can leave the order blocked indefinitely.

The record can be a card in the tool you already use. For a small trial, it can also be a shared table accessible only to those who need to carry out the arrangement. What matters is that the information appears where the work happens and has someone responsible for updating it.

Calculate the work it adds

In another hypothetical example, a special delivery-note format takes twelve additional minutes and is used eight times a month. That is 96 minutes, or 1.6 hours a month. At an assumed labour cost of 25 €/hour, its value is 40 €/month. This expresses capacity consumed, not a demonstrated cash loss.

Clarification calls, corrections and the effect on other orders are still missing. I would record them for a few weeks without attributing every delay to that condition. It may coincide with unavailable goods or a heavy workload that also affects the normal procedure.

Those data let you decide whether to keep the arrangement, change its price, simplify the format or renegotiate the deadline. You do not know in advance how the client will respond: explain it and discuss it with them.

An arrangement needs a limit

In Shape Up, Basecamp distinguishes estimating how long a project will take from deciding how much time you want to devote to it. That is the idea of appetite in its glossary. Set Boundaries. I would apply that distinction to this decision: before configuring a permanent condition, decide how much additional work you are willing to take on. This is an application proposed here, not a Basecamp rule about clients.

If the difference recurs and adds value, it may deserve a variant of the procedure. If it is temporary, give it an end date. If it needs judgement each time, retain human approval instead of pretending a rule resolves every case.

To begin, review three special arrangements and find the latest orders where they applied. Check whether someone else could carry them out by reading the record. Then measure the added work. That review gives you a concrete conversation about conditions and capacity, without blaming the client for the disorder.