The complex is simple, yet the simple is complex.
That's the basis of Moravec's Paradox around AI.
A robot can solve the trickiest of calculations far beyond our brains. Yet cannot master the most natural of our movements.
The difficult is easy, yet the easy is difficult.
A concept hitting the mainstream courtesy of billionaire robotic dabbling.
We have similar solution sell conundrums.
The entry task of getting 'listened to' may be easy, yet the meatier one of 'listening' so much harder.
People buy from people. Except when they buy on price.
Along with the classic, 'everyone likes to buy, no-one likes to be sold'.
I do though wonder if it isn't worth evoking this principle from the 80s when faced with a particular buyer?
Whether they be inscrutable or openly support our side.
There may well be difficult things they do well. Take pride in, renowned in such regard, cornerstone of their ongoing DNA.
With other seemingly straightforward things they feel ought be less difficult than they are proving to get a handle on.
If the issues at hand which we can uniquely square are in the latter camp, then perhaps knowing the wherefores of the former can contribute?
It could well be we can use organisational learning elsewhere as a springboard for our own proposed endeavours. Not to mention the ego of those outside our project scope and extra visibility it might bring to those within it keen to rise from the silo they may be hidden in at present.
As a footnote, I feel compelled to suggest a 2x2 as your visual engagement tool.
Both axes going from simple to complex. One marked Task, the other Implementation. Just one example. Plot a few key initiatives of the prospect on it. Always good to be strategically and tactically aligned. And see where and how you alone can help switch around the one on which you touch to a more favourable ratio. Or should that be Moravec favourable?