All posts by Euan Granger

Delays and Overspend – Do Your Contracts Have Your Back?

If the pot of gold at a contract’s end is realised savings, why do so few contracts provide adequate cover for completion delays and overspend? It’s time for the public sector to get serious about damages.

By Everett Collection /Shutterstock

In procurement we are no strangers to contracts overrunning or budgets being exceeded. As hard as procurement professionals try, sometimes it’s just not possible to get a contract placed in time, have works completed to schedule, or stay within the original budget.

In the public sector, the negative outcomes associated with these contracts are magnified. After all, they are usually delivering public services or infrastructure, and spending public money. The root cause for delays and overspend this can frequently be tracked to poor contract or relationship management, scope creep or unrealistic cost or project estimates at the outset.

While many of the issues can be attributed to internal process, with the public sector very much its own worst enemy, sometimes external suppliers and contractors are at fault. However, in many cases, the contracts that have been agreed and signed lack the clauses that would help protect procurement and the wider organisations against the costs associated with the delays.

As the challenge of delivering projects on time and in budget increases, we have to asked the question – why is public sector procurement so bad at using liquidated damage or penalty clauses in contracts?

High Profile Failures

Before taking a closer look at the clauses that could assist the public sector in their contracts, let’s have a look at some of the most high profile examples of projects that have suffered colossal overruns or budgetary overspends.

It won’t take you very long to find some examples in the media of these projects. What these 4 have in common is that even though some of the fault lay or lies with contractors, the public sector (and therefore the taxpayer) was and are the one to shoulder the burden of additional costs.

In 1997, a plan was put in place to build a new home for the recently re-established Scottish Executive (to become the Scottish Government). Initial estimates for the project were a total budget of £10-40m and an opening date of January 2004. By the time the building opened in October 2004, the total cost had risen to £414.1m (a figure confirmed in 2007).

Despite an enquiry stating that the wrong type of construction contracts had been used at the outset, and claims of contractors overcharging, no legal action was taken against contractors to recoup any costs.

  • London Olympics and Paralympics

Although the Games frequently have Olympic-sized budgetary overruns, the London Olympics and Paralympics in 2012 took the gold medal for the most expensive summer games ever. When London won the right to host in 2005, the budget was estimated at £2.4 billion. By the time the games were completed, the total cost ran to over £8.7 billion.

The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (Locog), essentially a private company, were criticised for the contracts it put in place, particularly for security for the Games. However, in the end, the UK taxpayer ended up footing the bill for the new budget.

Another project that looked to re-introduce a service that had been lost to the City of Edinburgh, the trams were originally budgeted at £545 million and be completed by 2011. In the end, the network delivered was only a third of what was originally planned, cost £776 million and didn’t start operating until 2014.

Again the finger was pointed at the contracts being used and courts found against Transport Initiatives Edinburgh (TIE), the public company responsible for project delivery, on a number of dispute with the main contractor. However, there was never any money recovered from contractors, leaving the taxpayer out of pocket again.

  • Crossrail

The most recent and still incomplete example of the group. At the time of writing, the project is already 9 months delayed to start operating, received 3 bailouts in 2018 totalling over £2 billion, and is already £600 million over budget. Even these estimates may prove to be lower than the actual final cost, and currently there is no agreement on who will shoulder this burden.

It’s all very well saying that contracts were at fault for these delays and budget issues, but the specifics of this are rarely highlighted. For example, were clauses put in place in the contract to help return money to the Local Authority or Government where delays occurred? This brings us round to our focus – Liquidated Damages.

Your Contract Shield

Liquidated Damages – A fixed or determined sum agreed by the parties to a contract to be payable on breach by one of the parties.

Before we do anything else, let’s caveat that in the examples above, and in many other cases, the fault may lie with the contracting authority in part or wholly. In this case, Liquidated Damages would be as much use as a chocolate fireguard. But where it can be proven that the contractor is at fault, then we’re in business.

The important part of the definition above is that the damages are a fixed sum, agreed by both parties up front. Damages which aren’t agreed in advance and have no set value are classed as penalty clauses, and are unenforceable in most contracts.

The key is for work to be done up front on this between the contracting parties. This means that levels of damages are agreed and aren’t subject to challenge further down the line. The damages also have to be realistic in line with estimates of the costs of a breach of contract, including delays to completion or commissioning.

For example, if you have a construction project, you might look at the day rate being charged by the contractor and agreed that this will be the rate used for damages per day in the event of delays. For the most part, Liquidated Damages will likely be capped at a certain value (say 20 per cent of the total contract value), providing a level of fairness for both sides.

Setting Up Your Clauses

Clearly, given the intricacies of the laws surrounding contracts, this isn’t something that procurement should be approaching in isolation. If you do feel that your contract would benefit from a Liquidated Damages clause, then you should engage at the earliest opportunity with your Legal department.

Make sure the clauses are set up correctly and called out clearly in the contract. Once you have awarded your tender, you should take time to speak to the successful supplier. This will ensure that the clause is agreed to and everyone is aware of the full implications of it.

No-one wants to use these clauses in contracts – it suggests that something has gone wrong in the contract management, plus the damages aren’t going to cover the full extent of the costs too. But by having them in place to begin with, procurement can help to limit the possible damage to their organisation in the event that budgets or schedules go awry.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this article and the series of articles on the challenges facing public sector procurement in 2019. Leave your comments below, or get in touch directly, I’m always happy to chat!

Dynamic Purchasing Systems – The New Normal?

The framework is dead – long live the framework? As the public sector moves to make collaborative procurement easier, the Dynamic Purchasing System may be the key to long-term planning.

By Andrey Yurlov/ Shutterstock

So you know all about collaborative procurement frameworks in the public sector? Are you planning on using them in the short-term to kick start your year? You might want to hold on a second as there’s something that you might want to try out.

We have touched on collaborative frameworks that are available to public sector organisations in a previous article. Continuing the theme of the difficulties of collaboration, we come to a relatively new beast in the procurement jungle. This is the Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS).

Speaking from experience, it’s one of the hardest exercises I’ve done in my procurement career to date. Not only do you need to have all your stakeholders and requirements lined up before you even start (more on that shortly), but the complexity of the set-up has the ability to leave you scratching your head in utter confusion.

As hard a beast as it is to tame, once it’s in place it has the potential to solve a number of woes commonly associated with frameworks.

Let’s Get Dynamic

There are an increasing number of public sector organisations beginning to use a DPS as an alternative that still bears more than a passing resemblance to traditional frameworks. Buyers still have a list of pre-qualified suppliers who can compete in subsequent tenders, while suppliers can widen their chances by applying for as many Lots as they feel are relevant to their operations.

The key difference is that at the conclusion of the first stage, any suppliers who have been unsuccessful in their application for one or more Lots may reapply. They’ll then be re-evaluated and informed if they have been successful. A kind of ‘wash, rinse, repeat’ situation.

There are standard timelines involved both the first and second stages (see more here) and, unfortunately, it’s not a fast process. If you have never used a DPS, then you might wonder what actually makes it different from your standard frameworks. We’ll cover some Pros and Cons shortly, but in essence there are two key differences.

  1. The length of the DPS – Where a framework may be limited to 3-4 years, there is no upper time limit on a DPS. The buyer would make a decision on an appropriate length, taking into consideration the goods or services being procured, the market and any anticipated changes in scope or market conditions.
  • The ‘open’ application – The DPS is more dynamic than a framework (it’s in the name really!). Suppliers can apply to join at any time during the life of the DPS and are then on it for its duration. This is particularly good if there are new suppliers in the market, but also that unsuccessful suppliers don’t miss out on the chance of business for a number of years.

The Pros – Buyers and Suppliers

Beyond the longer length of the DPS and the fact that suppliers can be added at any time, there are a number of other benefits on both sides of the fence.

  • Reduced Timescales – see, I said we’d get back here! The length of time tenders are out in the market for can be as little as 10 days. This is a major reduction based on the minimum of 25 days for most Restricted procedures. And there’s more…
  • One Notice, No Standstill – Once the first Contract Notice has been sent out, there’s no requirement to do an individual one for each tender. And Award Notices can be grouped over a longer period to be issued in one go. AND there’s no requirement for a 10 day Standstill period on awards. All this means less time and valuable resources being spent on administration.
  • Access for SMEs – the DPS naturally sets up a greater number of smaller Lots and work packages, meaning that it’s much more attractive for SMEs to get involved. It maximises their involvement and means that they are competing on a level playing field with larger organisations.
  • Fully Electronic – further to this, all documentation has to be available in electronic format within the DPS, for its full duration. This means a level playing field again for any suppliers joining later in the process.

The Cons – Is it really for you?

Before we get carried away thinking a DPS is the panacea we’ve all been waiting for, there are a couple of caveats. Some are obvious, others come only with the painful experience of setting one up.

  • No Direct Awards, No Call Offs – unlike a traditional framework, there’s no scope of Direct Award or Call Offs from a DPS. Any procurement projects put through it need to have a full set of tender documents.
  • Set Up Isn’t Easy – as you might expect for something this size, scale and value, the early stages need some hard graft and infinite patience. You’re going to need to have outline specifications, tender documents and T&Cs, as well as a firm idea of what is going through each Lot. Set up alone could take a number of months.
  • No Guarantees – as we found, much to our chagrin, there are no guarantees that the suppliers you want will join. You can lead a horse (or supplier) to water with the notices, emails and follow ups, but they may choose not to drink. After all, from their point of view, they still have significant competition to go through to get any business.
  • It’s not for everything – there are categories and commodities for which a DPS will be brilliant. Markets where there is a fast pace of change or large number of new entrants are good. Commodities with a high volume of transactions, or less complex scope, can greatly benefit. But if you have a highly complex good or service and low number of contracts in your category or commodity, it may not be for you.

The New Normal?

It’s unlikely that Dynamic Purchasing Systems will completely replace traditional frameworks in the future. However, it does provide a powerful and useful tool for buyers both in getting tenders to market and ensuring a good level of on-going competition. Suppliers will benefit from reduced administration too, as they only need to pre-qualify once, but may be put off by the sheer size and scale of the DPS if you have a large number of Lots.

It’s definitely worth looking in more detail at the available information to see if a DPS is for you, and how you would set it up. Make sure you communicate with the market to see if it’s applicable (also good as a heads up that it’s coming) and how the Lots might be split down. Internally, gear everyone up and get everything in place. Once you explain the benefits, people are likely to get on board quickly!

Ultimately, don’t be put off by it. Yes, it’s something completely different that you may never have done before. But then, when’s that ever stopped procurement before?!

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this article and the series of articles on the challenges facing public sector procurement in 2019. Leave your comments below, or get in touch directly, I’m always happy to chat!

Teamwork Makes the Dream Work

Like the Breakfast Club banding together to overcome Assistant Principal Vernon, life is much easier when we collaborate. And procurement should be no different.

By Natalya Rozhkova/ Shutterstock

This year will be the year of collaboration in public sector procurement – you heard it here first! In the past, collaboration may have proved to be a step too far for some for various reasons. However, the challenge the public sector now faces is the need to use collaboration and collaborative procurement to share resources and find new, more efficient ways of working.

Procurement professionals are stretched thin. On one hand, we’re trying to keep a handle on all the transactional tasks required to facilitate procurement. On the other, we’re trying to influence and input to strategic decisions that could shape the professions future. So it’s critical that we are using our time wisely and using all the tools at our disposal.

Collaboration can take many forms, but one thing is for sure – the public sector could be much better at it! Go back and look at your projects, tenders and contracts from 2018. How many of them did you start from scratch? Did you have, and maybe reject, the opportunity to work with other procurement teams? Did you approach other authorities or public sector institutions to see if you could get a copy of their documents?

The Breakfast Club started out the same way. They all considered that they were too different to get along, that they had nothing in common. They all approached the detention task as something to be done in isolation (or not done at all). It wasn’t until they started talking (collaborating) that they realised that they could work better together. And in the end produced one assignment for all of them that did the same job.

Let’s Get Collaborating

Collaboration should be both an internal and external activity. From the outset of any project or procurement exercise, procurement should be involved and working closely with their internal stakeholders to define requirements. Once these requirements are known, it’s time to open up the field to the wider audience and see who has done this already.

Public sector procurement, as we have already said, spends a lot of valuable time and resources creating new documents that someone may, and probably has, created in the past. This is where the real benefit of a framework lies. Frameworks, Dynamic Purchasing Systems and other collaborative procurement opportunities can help reduce the time spent on administrative (read: non-strategic) tasks, saving money and freeing up resources.

This is the same even if you happen to be the Authority or public sector body setting up the framework itself. As with many of these things, putting the time and work in at the start can help to create savings and benefits further down the line.

Time vs. Inflexibility

A framework provides a list of pre-qualified suppliers, usually against a Lot with a specific scope of requirements, from which procurement can run mini competitions, create call off contracts or even direct award business.

From a buyer’s point of view, there’s no requirement to advertise opportunities under the framework, even if they are above OJEU values, on top of potential economies of scale and less time spent between identifying a need and fulfilling it. For suppliers it reduces the burden and costs of applying for tenders and potentially increases the possibility of winning business by focusing in on a smaller market.

However, this is not to say that frameworks aren’t without their drawbacks. For buyers, the main issue is that once the framework is in place, it’s not flexible in response to changes in the market. Neither new suppliers to the market nor previously unsuccessful supplier can access the framework and tender opportunities. This means buyers could be missing out on new solutions or have a framework whose scope is lagging behind new developments.

Suppliers face the possibility of spending significant time and money getting on the framework to not get any returns. Although they are on the framework, contracts may be awarded without competition, or not placed through the framework at all.

The Players

None of these drawbacks should put you off looking at using frameworks if your procurement needs can be met with them. There are a few big players in the public sector when it comes to collaborative frameworks all of whom are worth a look at.

  • Crown Commercial Service (CCS) – essentially the procurement arm of the Cabinet Office, helping UK-wide authorities and public sector bodies procure a huge range of requirements. With spend of £13 billion in FY2017-18, CCS states that its frameworks have delivered over £600 million worth of savings for its users.
  • Scotland Excel – owned and funding by the 32 Local Authorities in Scotland, Scotland Excel has the same aims as CCS, but works to focus on the requirements of Scottish members and public sector institutions. However, they work increasingly with CCS to ensure access for all public sector to the widest range of frameworks available.
  • Yorkshire Purchasing Organisation (YPO) – owned by 13 English Local Authorities, YPO has around 100 frameworks and 30,000 products, covering everything from Utilities to furniture.
  • Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation (ESPO) – jointly owned by 6 English Local Authorities, ESPO offers a range of UK and EU compliant frameworks (worth £1.7 billion spend in 2017-18), as well as an extensive product catalogue.

These are just a few of the names you will inevitably come across when looking for a public sector collaborative procurement framework. The beauty of these organisations is that, despite crossover in the types of frameworks, they collectively cover pretty much anything you might want to buy. All the frameworks are easily accessible and open up a corner of the supply market for whatever your requirement is.

Shop around, see which framework suits you and your organisation the best and go from there. And if all else fails, look and see if you can set up something yourself. You may even be able to help your fellow public sector professionals (or work with them) to collectively meet your requirements.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this article and the series of articles on the challenges facing public sector procurement in 2019. Leave your comments below, or get in touch directly, I’m always happy to chat!

Weaning Stakeholders off the Procurement Welfare Programme

Where does procurement’s remit start and end? As these lines get more and more blurred, it might be time for procurement to take charge and start the painful weaning process.

By RGallianos/ Shutterstock

Time and again the procurement profession has asked for a “seat at the table” and the opportunity to be seen as a strategic business partner. In some cases, requests have been accepted and change has been forthcoming. In other cases, change is proving more difficult to put in place.

However, in this ever-shifting landscape of change and, perhaps in its eagerness to be accepted, procurement may have stepped outside of its remit. That’s not to say that this is a bad thing, but there is strong argument to suggest that what procurement has done is create a rod for its own back.

Public procurement, and procurement as a whole, already has its hands full with the myriad tasks it takes to get a good tender out to the market. Research and analysis, supplier engagement and internal stakeholder management all take time. And that’s not to mention the contract management that should be carried out post-award too.

But there’s a sneaking feeling that the lines around procurement’s remit are becoming a little too blurred, and that stakeholders are getting a little too used to the procurement ‘welfare programme’. And it’s perhaps time to start the painful weaning process.

The Welfare Programme

It’s worth examining in a bit more detail what we mean when we call it a ‘welfare programme’. Traditionally, procurement has been viewed as a transactional function, responsible for the preparation, issue, evaluation and award of tenders. It was a process-driven role with little or no strategic responsibility.

More recently procurement has been moving to become more of a strategic business partner, with objectives aligned with organisational strategy. More importantly, the function also has a role in setting these overall strategic objectives. However, this is where the issue lies.

As procurement has stepped up and been involved in strategy, its remit and responsibility has spread in line with this. And unfortunately, this has led to situations where professionals are undertaking tasks that have never resided in the procurement sphere.

Procurement should absolutely be getting involved with the writing of specifications, ensuring they are fit for purpose and allow for openness and transparency in the process. But the role should be one of challenging specifications, not actively writing the whole document. The same goes for short-notice or last minute tenders. Why take on all the time pressure ourselves when we’re presented with a requirement that we know, from the start, cannot be completed in the appropriate timescales?

The Budget Burden

From a personal point of view, this issue has been keenly felt in the public sector. Budgetary issues should come as a surprise to no-one (have you been living in a cave?!) and have pretty much been talked to death. The issue doesn’t just lie within procurement, but across the whole organisation. With resources stretched, departments will look to manage their workloads and focus on the most important and strategic tasks.

This means, inevitably, that certain tasks get passed around like hot potatoes and other tasks get left until the last minute.

Procurement, keen to be involved and to remove the (most would say ridiculous) notion of being a roadblock, has become like the school kid desperately trying to get in with the ‘cool kids’. For assignments, lunch money and extra credit read short-notice tenders, reining in non-contract spend and writing specifications. In the willingness to be a partner, the profession has lost its ability to push back on these tasks.

The question is, how does public sector procurement start the difficult process of weaning its stakeholders off this support programme?

Weaning your Stakeholders

The answer isn’t an easy one, but it does actually have a positive outcome all round. It stems from being able to push back, but in a positive way. For example, for specifications, rather than an outright no, ask what help your stakeholders need, whilst making it clear that the responsibility is still on them to write the document.

To assist with resourcing, put monthly (or more regular if required) meetings in the diary to discuss upcoming requirements. Procurement will be able to bring information to the table in the shape of work coming up for retender, plus what procurement resources are likely to be available.

For the most part, it’s about helping strategically define the best route for the organisation to get what it needs. There are stakeholders who still aren’t fully au-fait with the available procurement routes and how they can potentially save time. Not every procurement exercise needs to go through a full tender, taking the 6-9 months it can do to deliver an outcome. The public sector has the ability to use things like Prior Information Notices (PIN), Contract Notices and frameworks to help reduce timelines AND still deliver a good procurement outcome.

It’s neither rocket science nor a quick fix, but it’s vital to get it right and strike the right balance between helpful and put upon. Procurement may have a seat at the table now, but it’s now up to us to earn the respect we deserve for sitting there.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this article and the upcoming series of articles on the challenges facing public sector procurement in 2019. Leave your comments below, or get in touch directly, I’m always happy to chat!

Best Of The Procurious Blog – Critical Factors When Selecting Your Suppliers

Procurement exists in a dynamic, fast-paced, constantly changing environment. So surely the reasons we use to select our suppliers and supply partners would change over time too? Wouldn’t they?

It’s been over three years since the Procurious network was canvassed on what critical factors they look for in their suppliers. The world has moved on a-pace in the intervening period and it’s interesting to take an inward look to see if procurement has developed at the same pace, particularly in its supplier selection processes.

Gone are the days of the cheapest price (or at least they should be!). Gone, and consigned to a very dark part of history, are the days where supply decisions were made over lunch or in private meetings, and related more to who you knew than what you knew, which golf course or members’ club you were part of. Or even (sharp intake of breath) what you might be offering the buyers in return.

Even the list below, the key factors highlighted last time out, may have been superseded. So what are the new criteria? Or, if they are still the same, why is this the case?

Cost and Quality vs. Social Value and #MeToo?

If we take a look back at the responses from the network in 2015, we find ourselves looking at a list with a number of the usual suspects on it:

  • Cultural Fit – including values
  • Cost – covering price, Total Cost of Opportunity/Ownership
  • Value – value for money and value generation opportunities
  • Experience in the market and current references
  • Flexibility
  • Response to change – in orders and products
  • Quality – covering products and service quality and quality history

In addition to this, some that didn’t make the top 7 as it was included trust and professionalism, strategic process alignment and technical ability. There’s nothing that looks out of place on the list. In fact, they’re all eminently sensible and fair criteria to be considering.

The problem is it that it reflects a very traditional view of procurement.

Given the changing environment that procurement operates in, wouldn’t we expect to see these criteria changing too? In the past couple of years, geo-political instability has dominated the landscape and shows no sign of disappearing soon with Brexit and a potential trade war between USA and the rest of the world just two examples.

But what about the other factors we need to be considering? Social value has jumped to the top of many organisations’ lists, increasing work with SMEs and Social Enterprises. And let’s not forget an increased focus on harassment, discrimination and equal opportunities following #MeToo and campaigns like Procurious’ own ‘Bravo’.

What Does the Network Say?

When asked their opinions on what the critical factors were, the Procurious network highlighted the following:

  • Previous Safety Performance
  • Service Delivery
  • Efficiencies
  • Cultural Fit
  • Price/Cost
  • Flexibility
  • Ethics
  • Quality and Consistency
  • Supply Chain
  • Financial Stability
  • Environmental Policies
  • Communication

I’ve highlighted in bold the criteria that appear in the previous list that also appear in the new one. As you might expect, they are the common criteria that procurement are known for, and may be expected to deliver as standard.

It doesn’t appear that other factors in line with Sustainability, Social Value and Equal Opportunities (to name but a few) are getting much of a look in. However, we’d need a much bigger sample to be sure. And that’s where the wider knowledge base comes in.

Procurement’s Response

Having a trawl through the latest articles on supplier selection and key criteria two things struck me. One, there were very few articles, blogs, thought leadership posts or even research papers from the past couple of years. The most recent one I found was from early 2017 and even using a broad range of search terms, it was difficult to find anything relevant.

The second, and perhaps most surprising/concerning, thing was how few mentioned any different criteria for suppliers. Only one article I could find mentioned Social Responsibility or Environmental Performance/Sustainability. The remainder still focused on the criteria commonly found in a Commercial or Technical/Quality evaluation. The most common criteria still were:

  • Years in business and financial stability
  • Price/Cost
  • Quality and Delivery
  • Reliability
  • Communication
  • Cultural Match

What does this say about procurement? Is the profession still falling back on the old favourites when it comes to supplier selection? Or could it be that traditional “thought leadership” is no longer leading the way, and organisations are working differently without shouting it from the rooftops?

For me, it’s a combination of all of the above. There’s no denying that it’s hard to separate procurement from cost and quality (after all, it’s what we’re there to do). And why wouldn’t professionals use criteria that are both reliable and easy to measure, particularly when time and resources are tight?

Getting our Message Across

Speaking from experience, however, there are areas in which overall value is much more prevalent. In the Scottish public sector, organisations are mandating Community Benefits for contracts above a certain value. These can cover everything from creating apprenticeships to financially supporting community projects.

In addition, Local Authorities have started to mandate evaluation of ‘Fair Work Practices’ in all procurement exercises. Again, this can cover a multitude of elements, such as paying the living wage, no zero-hour contracts, equal opportunities and good training and development. Suppliers are being forced to consider these criteria to the benefit of their employees and the wider society.

There is good work going on in procurement, but maybe we aren’t making the most of communicating our message to the wider market. And if communication is one of the key factors in supplier selection and subsequent relationship management, it’s high time the profession started telling suppliers what is important to us and seeing what they have to offer.

Best Of The Procurious Blog: The Key Procurement And Technology Trends for 2019

The times, they are a-changing, and so are the markets and environments that procurement operates in. What then are the key trends in procurement and technology you need to watch for in 2019?

View Apart/ Shutterstock

Iit’s time to start looking forward to what’s coming in the next 12 months.

2019 is set to be a seismic year around the world. Major changes, such as further geo-political upheaval, the looming spectre of global trade wars and tariffs aplenty, have the potential to disrupt supply chains and set metaphorical trip wires for procurement professionals everywhere. And, as we’ve already heard, it’s rarely been more important to get a solid grips on the key factors in the market and external environment.

So gather round as we gaze into the opaque mists of the future and make some educated insights into the key procurement and technology trends waiting around the corner.

  1. Supplier Management

Let’s start with an oldie, but a goodie. Wait, I hear you cry, supplier management isn’t a new trend! We’ve been talking about this for years. Well, if we’ve talking about it for years, why aren’t we any better at it? And why is it that it’s one of the key areas a large number of procurement teams fall down on?

Like it or not, your suppliers hold the key to all your wildest procurement dreams. Innovation, top and bottom line cost reduction, avoidance and savings, stress-free supply of services and goods and free cake for all! (Ok, maybe not that last one!)

In their Vision 2020 publications, pwc state that the top 25 per cent of procurement functions will have gone beyond incremental improvements and be implementing fundamental change to process and policy alike. This includes how they interact with suppliers and shifting focus from cost and value to Return on Investment (ROI).

These outcomes all hang on better supplier relationship management in order to tease out further innovation from suppliers (who are seen as partners, rather than sponges to wring cash out of) and closer collaboration to source solutions to problems we don’t even know we have yet.

At the heart of this is great communication. Select the right suppliers and talk to them more. You never know, you might just learn something!

  1. Blockchain and Digital Adoption

Unless you’ve been living in a cave on a remote hillside (or perhaps a Faraday cage in your basement), you should have heard by now about blockchain.

From blog articles to webinars, it’s one of the hottest topics in procurement right now, and is likely to still be throughout 2019. Blockchain is and will continue to be a key tool in shaping the transparency of a supply chain. Information is shared and transmitted easily and safely, while the technology allows an “immutable signed and time stamped record of identity, ownership of assets, transactions or contractual commitments”.

This transparency will have the added benefits, and some drawbacks, of making procurement and CPOs more visible in the public environment, say EY. Procurement will wield greater power and have greater opportunity to interact with external stakeholders. But, at the same time, organisational processes and procurement will play out in a public setting like never before.

In line with blockchain’s increasing influence, there is a predicted rise in digital adoption and use of the Cloud. An estimated $1 trillion of IT spend will be moved to the Cloud by 2020, according to Gartner, as organisations look to make their IT services more agile.

  1. Social Value

There is a prevailing opinion amongst the procurement professionals I speak to that 2019 will be the year for social value and sustainability to really take hold. Organisations have begun to realise that cost and quality are only a part of the overall package and not only do they need to be seen to be doing more in the community, but they need to follow through on it.

That goes for the wider supply chain too. Using work practices and value-adding benefits for communities into tenders will become the norm and procurement will no longer be able to award contracts on cost without taking the wider impact into consideration.

  1. Next-Gen Workforce and Automation

Disregard what you’ve heard very recently regarding automation, machine learning and AI as scaremongering. Yes AI will take on tasks and people may have to move to new roles, but it’s not a future that we should be burying our head in the sand about. It’s a natural human reaction to fear change, but procurement needs to muscle up and be brave in order to evolve and survive.

Infosys estimates that AI and procurement automation will eliminate human intervention in 15 per cent of digital spending by 2019. If that’s the case, then procurement needs to embrace the change and develop, train and retain its Next-Generation workforce to meet the demands of new roles where human interaction and input is still key.

  1. Risk

From Brexit to trade wars, risk is going to be possibly the biggest trends for businesses as a whole in 2019. The organisations who will thrive in this unstable environment will be the ones who are best prepared to deal with the unexpected.

Deloitte believe that procurement will become the forecasters of risk in an organisation, raising the profile of the function as it factors total cost of risk and risk mitigation in supply chains into contracts and tenders.

Risk runs throughout the other trends that have been suggested above. Brexit, protectionism and trade wars make supplier and supply chain management all the more important. The increasing need for cyber security as technology advances is something that cannot be ignored.

Procurement is ideally placed to deal with all of these risks, but it needs to put its hand up and be at the front of the queue, or face being left behind and marginalised at a time when the function has a crucial role to play.

Better Procurement – Learning from the Private Sector

Who does procurement better – the public or private sector? Is there any reason we all can’t do better together through sharing knowledge and experience? Much depends on the professionals involved.

You could argue that an uneasy relationship exists between procurement in the public and private sectors. On one side, there is full accountability and audit trails, scrutiny over every penny/cent spent and the need for what is, from the outside at least, an almost impenetrable set of regulations and documents that have to be completed.

On the other side, it’s just as accountable and auditable, but there’s more freedom in the process, things happen quicker and there’s more time for the good stuff like contract management. I think it’s fairly obvious which is which…

Accept What We Cannot Change

To stop this becoming a lengthy piece on which is ‘better’, public or private sector procurement, it’s important to separate what could be done better from what we cannot change.

  • Regulation and Legislation

Yes, the public sector is highly constrained by regulations, leaving it more inflexible and giving less freedom in the process to procurement professionals. But beyond getting better at working within the regulations, there’s not much to be done about it. Even post-Brexit, there will still be substantial regulation governing procurement and procurement process, even if it looks slightly different to what it is now.

  • Budgets

Yes, budgets in the public sector are being squeezed. Hard. But no, this is not going to change any time soon. What both the public and private sectors need to do is be savvier with how the available money is spent and how they can maximise what they get from a contract with less money to spend.

  • Transparency

Let’s knock this one on the head straight away. Public sector procurement receives the level of scrutiny it does as it is spending the general public’s money. To ensure everything is above board and audited this needs to continue. And the private sector will only face increased scrutiny in the coming years, so there’s no escaping on either side of the fence.

Lend a Helping Hand

However, there’s nothing to say that the public-private relationship can’t be better. Both sides could teach each other a thing or two about the procurement process and how to make it better or more efficient. After all, at a time of squeezed budgets and regulatory pressure (not to mention Brexit and trade wars), why wouldn’t we all want to work together to make our lives and jobs easier?!

In this article, we’ll be looking at three key areas in which the private sector can help the public sector and at some point in the near future, we’ll look at this from the other side.

Some of this is based on what has been written about both sectors in the press and in thought leadership papers. The rest of my advice, to paraphrase Mary Schmich and Baz Luhrmann, has no basis more reliable than my own meandering experience. I will dispense this advice now…

  • Negotiation

In the private sector, procurement professionals have the opportunity to negotiate at any stage in the process. Indeed, they may even choose to negotiate at multiple stages in order to get the best deal. Opportunities are more limited in the public sector, meaning more contracts are awarded without negotiation, or negotiation at a stage where the deal is almost done.

However, even these could be maximised to produce a better deal and this is where private sector professionals could help. Who better to assist with a negotiation than someone who is practised, skilled and used to carrying out the process? Swapping notes on good negotiation techniques and where savings have been found in contracts for similar goods or services could provide some much needed wins.

  • Longer Contracts and Relationship Management

You know the score – you spend months painstakingly putting a contract together and awarding it, only to come back to the same contract 18 months later to tender again. The limiting factor here is the length of public sector contracts in many cases, but could this be a valuable knowledge sharing opportunity?

Crafting long-term contracts, aimed at longer than 5 years (for the right goods, services or works), is a skill. Maintaining the right balance between getting a good deal on both sides, opening up avenues for innovation, while at the same time knowing that come year 5 any prices are still competitive, is something that the private sector has greater experience with. By putting heads together, this could also be passed into the public sector.

  • A Strategic, Value-Adding Profession

Are you in a senior management or executive level role in procurement? What do you think your organisation views procurement as – a tender machine for purchasing or a strategic partner for adding value? Some argue that in the public sector, the former is much more common. When there are savings to be made, procurement is the one tasked with delivering, but is left out of the loop when it comes to bringing the value to the top line.

Leaders can help drive a change in this view. If private sector procurement leaders have been able to make this leap already, then using a tried and tested approach may help gain the necessary traction in the public sector.

Share Your Thoughts

These are my thoughts on what the private sector has to offer the public sector in the overall procurement process. None of them represents a quick fix in terms of greater efficiency or costs savings, but done properly, could provide these benefits in the long run.

It would be interesting to hear from professionals on both sides of the fence on this too. Would you be willing to work closely with the public/private sector? How would you facilitate this? Are there other areas you think you could help with, or have greater priority? Let’s get the conversation started – you never know where it’s going to take you and the profession.

The Key Procurement And Technology Trends for 2019

The times, they are a-changing, and so are the markets and environments that procurement operates in. What then are the key trends in procurement and technology you need to watch for in 2019?

View Apart/ Shutterstock

As I am reliably informed by my Christmas-mad colleague, there are only 125 sleeps (as I write) left until Christmas. That means there’s a little over 18 weeks until the year ends, so it’s time to start looking forward to what’s coming in the next 12 months.

2019 is set to be a seismic year around the world. Major changes, such as further geo-political upheaval, the looming spectre of global trade wars and tariffs aplenty, have the potential to disrupt supply chains and set metaphorical trip wires for procurement professionals everywhere. And, as we’ve already heard, it’s rarely been more important to get a solid grips on the key factors in the market and external environment.

So gather round as we gaze into the opaque mists of the future and make some educated insights into the key procurement and technology trends waiting around the corner.

  1. Supplier Management

Let’s start with an oldie, but a goodie. Wait, I hear you cry, supplier management isn’t a new trend! We’ve been talking about this for years. Well, if we’ve talking about it for years, why aren’t we any better at it? And why is it that it’s one of the key areas a large number of procurement teams fall down on?

Like it or not, your suppliers hold the key to all your wildest procurement dreams. Innovation, top and bottom line cost reduction, avoidance and savings, stress-free supply of services and goods and free cake for all! (Ok, maybe not that last one!)

In their Vision 2020 publications, pwc state that the top 25 per cent of procurement functions will have gone beyond incremental improvements and be implementing fundamental change to process and policy alike. This includes how they interact with suppliers and shifting focus from cost and value to Return on Investment (ROI).

These outcomes all hang on better supplier relationship management in order to tease out further innovation from suppliers (who are seen as partners, rather than sponges to wring cash out of) and closer collaboration to source solutions to problems we don’t even know we have yet.

At the heart of this is great communication. Select the right suppliers and talk to them more. You never know, you might just learn something!

  1. Blockchain and Digital Adoption

Unless you’ve been living in a cave on a remote hillside (or perhaps a Faraday cage in your basement), you should have heard by now about blockchain.

From blog articles to webinars, it’s one of the hottest topics in procurement right now, and is likely to still be throughout 2019. Blockchain is and will continue to be a key tool in shaping the transparency of a supply chain. Information is shared and transmitted easily and safely, while the technology allows an “immutable signed and time stamped record of identity, ownership of assets, transactions or contractual commitments”.

This transparency will have the added benefits, and some drawbacks, of making procurement and CPOs more visible in the public environment, say EY. Procurement will wield greater power and have greater opportunity to interact with external stakeholders. But, at the same time, organisational processes and procurement will play out in a public setting like never before.

In line with blockchain’s increasing influence, there is a predicted rise in digital adoption and use of the Cloud. An estimated $1 trillion of IT spend will be moved to the Cloud by 2020, according to Gartner, as organisations look to make their IT services more agile.

  1. Social Value

There is a prevailing opinion amongst the procurement professionals I speak to that 2019 will be the year for social value and sustainability to really take hold. Organisations have begun to realise that cost and quality are only a part of the overall package and not only do they need to be seen to be doing more in the community, but they need to follow through on it.

That goes for the wider supply chain too. Using work practices and value-adding benefits for communities into tenders will become the norm and procurement will no longer be able to award contracts on cost without taking the wider impact into consideration.

  1. Next-Gen Workforce and Automation

Disregard what you’ve heard very recently regarding automation, machine learning and AI as scaremongering. Yes AI will take on tasks and people may have to move to new roles, but it’s not a future that we should be burying our head in the sand about. It’s a natural human reaction to fear change, but procurement needs to muscle up and be brave in order to evolve and survive.

Infosys estimates that AI and procurement automation will eliminate human intervention in 15 per cent of digital spending by 2019. If that’s the case, then procurement needs to embrace the change and develop, train and retain its Next-Generation workforce to meet the demands of new roles where human interaction and input is still key.

  1. Risk

From Brexit to trade wars, risk is going to be possibly the biggest trends for businesses as a whole in 2019. The organisations who will thrive in this unstable environment will be the ones who are best prepared to deal with the unexpected.

Deloitte believe that procurement will become the forecasters of risk in an organisation, raising the profile of the function as it factors total cost of risk and risk mitigation in supply chains into contracts and tenders.

Risk runs throughout the other trends that have been suggested above. Brexit, protectionism and trade wars make supplier and supply chain management all the more important. The increasing need for cyber security as technology advances is something that cannot be ignored.

Procurement is ideally placed to deal with all of these risks, but it needs to put its hand up and be at the front of the queue, or face being left behind and marginalised at a time when the function has a crucial role to play.

Outsourcing versus Insourcing – Where to Play When the Music Stops

In the fourth article in a series charting the key issues in public sector procurement, we examine the difficulties for organisations in deciding whether or not to outsource key strategic services and what this may mean for procurement.

I’ve been told in the past that procurement is a cyclical beast – the chances are high that a decision made today will be revisited in 5-7 years’ time and reversed, only for it to cycle round again at the next strategic business assessment.

One common example is centralised versus decentralised services and the level of autonomy business units are given. I’ve had the opportunity to witness this cyclical decision making first hand and have to say that, as much as it sounds fantastical, there’s a ring of truth to it.

I wasn’t long into my role with the organisation in question when the procurement department was pulled into a meeting with the Procurement Director. The purpose, ostensibly, of the meeting was to discuss the strategic direction of the department. However, the experienced members of the team knew exactly what was coming and they were proved to be correct.

The decision had already been made to centralise the procurement activities to one site (ours), with the Director justifying the move with talk of cost efficiencies, economies of scale and better governance over processes. This all sounded very sensible to me, a relatively green procurement professional. After all, the organisation as a whole had cost savings targets and to me it didn’t make sense to have everyone doing their own thing when it came to procurement.

It wasn’t until I sat down with my more experienced (and some might say cynical) colleagues that I fully understood what was going on. This was a strategic decision made by a new Director looking to put their stamp on the department. Not only this, but the department had only gone through an exercise of decentralisation 6 years before, with the move justified by talk of greater efficiency, more autonomy and procurement better able to service the individual site needs.

It became clear during my conversations with other department members that not only did they think this wouldn’t change the way the business worked (wasting time and money in the process), but that it would be reversed by the next Director in a few years’ time. I’d be lying if I said this whole thing didn’t confuse me, but I was to realise that this was more common that you might think as my time in procurement went on.

The Strategic Hokey Cokey

The example above is meant as an illustration of how strategic decisions can be made and justified no matter which side you fall on. It is neither complaint nor criticism, but an observation from someone who, at the time, had next to no experience in procurement. As time went on, I ended up procuring external services as part of a role, as well as managing an in-house manufacturing process for a procurement department.

The decision of whether to outsource strategic services, or keep the work and skills in house, is one that faces many organisations. Taken as part of the decision making cycle, it can begin to feel a bit like the hokey cokey. Insource this, outsource that, in-out, in-out, shake it all about and, frequently, hope for the best when someone comes asking about business costs and value.

But what is the best value approach when it comes to sourcing key strategic services? In the public sector, an argument could be made for outsourcing for budgetary or expertise reasons. However, the counter-argument relates to potential job losses and the erosion of workers’ skills, losing the option to bring them back in-house in the future.

The strategic services most commonly associated with outsourcing would include HR, Marketing, Finance and even Procurement. But in the public sector would there be an appetite for outsourcing procurement? And what could it mean for this and other services in the long run?

On the Way Out?

Fundamentally, it boils down to the question of whether or not the public sector could or should outsource their procurement function, and what the benefits would be were they to choose to do so.

We’ll come back to the first part of that question shortly. Ascertaining the benefits of outsourcing procurement is tricky, as any benefits tend to be subjective and wouldn’t necessarily apply to all organisations. There has been plenty written, too, on both sides of the debate, including a very interesting discussion on Procurious.

From a wealth of articles on the subject, the most commonly mentioned benefits to outsourcing a procurement function include cost reduction (relating to head count, training and access to resources); accessing expertise in a particular area in the market; a way of complementing existing resources; and the access to extensive networks of knowledge through highly-skilled procurement professionals.

However, on the flip side, there are also a number of negatives raised. Organisations can lose control over day-to-day procurement activities, and through this there is increased risk; there is a potential for the quality of the work to adversely effected; and although procurement has been outsourced, there will still be a requirement to purchase these services and manage the subsequent contract, which may not provide all the time-saving benefits first considered.

Instruct the Experts?

There are a number of organisations in the market that offer procurement as an external service – Capita, GEP and Capgemini to name but a few. The similarities between the services? All of these ‘consulting’ organisations highlight cost savings in their literature and focus on areas such as analytics, research and digital procurement (areas where many organisations lack both expertise and time to carry this out) as a core offering.

From this you would think that a consulting-led service would provide a very attractive option for the public sector. After all, it ticks all the right boxes – improved efficiency, reduced costs and expert-led services. Taken from that point of view, why wouldn’t the public sector choose to instruct the experts, use resources elsewhere and watch the savings roll in?

Apart from being a gross over-simplification of the issue, it doesn’t take into account the wider considerations of skills and training. A decision to outsource in the short-term could lead to a skills shortage in the long-term, and the loss of the opportunity to bring these services back in house without having to set up a new function from scratch (with all the associated costs).

For the public sector, there is an additional consideration – perception. Government, Local Government and Local Authorities have to be particularly careful, perhaps more so than private companies, with public perception and what may be printed in the local and national newspapers. A decision like outsourcing a service, which will be paid for with public money, and for which there may be associated job losses, may not meet the relevant criteria even taking cost savings into account.

The reality is that there isn’t really a right answer for this question and no one correct view in the debate. The right decision now may prove to be the wrong one in hindsight, or due to the cyclical nature of procurement and procurement strategy, may be turned a full 180 degrees a few years down the line.

That said, it’s no time for public procurement professionals to rest on their laurels. There’s plenty to learn and plenty to do – it’s just up to us to make ourselves so invaluable an outsourcing decision couldn’t possibly happen.

Critical Factors When Selecting Your Suppliers

Procurement exists in a dynamic, fast-paced, constantly changing environment. So surely the reasons we use to select our suppliers and supply partners would change over time too? Wouldn’t they?

It’s been over three years since the Procurious network was canvassed on what critical factors they look for in their suppliers. The world has moved on a-pace in the intervening period and it’s interesting to take an inward look to see if procurement has developed at the same pace, particularly in its supplier selection processes.

Gone are the days of the cheapest price (or at least they should be!). Gone, and consigned to a very dark part of history, are the days where supply decisions were made over lunch or in private meetings, and related more to who you knew than what you knew, which golf course or members’ club you were part of. Or even (sharp intake of breath) what you might be offering the buyers in return.

Even the list below, the key factors highlighted last time out, may have been superseded. So what are the new criteria? Or, if they are still the same, why is this the case?

Cost and Quality vs. Social Value and #MeToo?

If we take a look back at the responses from the network in 2015, we find ourselves looking at a list with a number of the usual suspects on it:

  • Cultural Fit – including values
  • Cost – covering price, Total Cost of Opportunity/Ownership
  • Value – value for money and value generation opportunities
  • Experience in the market and current references
  • Flexibility
  • Response to change – in orders and products
  • Quality – covering products and service quality and quality history

In addition to this, some that didn’t make the top 7 as it was included trust and professionalism, strategic process alignment and technical ability. There’s nothing that looks out of place on the list. In fact, they’re all eminently sensible and fair criteria to be considering.

The problem is it that it reflects a very traditional view of procurement.

Given the changing environment that procurement operates in, wouldn’t we expect to see these criteria changing too? In the past couple of years, geo-political instability has dominated the landscape and shows no sign of disappearing soon with Brexit and a potential trade war between USA and the rest of the world just two examples.

But what about the other factors we need to be considering? Social value has jumped to the top of many organisations’ lists, increasing work with SMEs and Social Enterprises. And let’s not forget an increased focus on harassment, discrimination and equal opportunities following #MeToo and campaigns like Procurious’ own ‘Bravo’.

What Does the Network Say?

When asked their opinions on what the critical factors were, the Procurious network highlighted the following:

  • Previous Safety Performance
  • Service Delivery
  • Efficiencies
  • Cultural Fit
  • Price/Cost
  • Flexibility
  • Ethics
  • Quality and Consistency
  • Supply Chain
  • Financial Stability
  • Environmental Policies
  • Communication

I’ve highlighted in bold the criteria that appear in the previous list that also appear in the new one. As you might expect, they are the common criteria that procurement are known for, and may be expected to deliver as standard.

It doesn’t appear that other factors in line with Sustainability, Social Value and Equal Opportunities (to name but a few) are getting much of a look in. However, we’d need a much bigger sample to be sure. And that’s where the wider knowledge base comes in.

Procurement’s Response

Having a trawl through the latest articles on supplier selection and key criteria two things struck me. One, there were very few articles, blogs, thought leadership posts or even research papers from the past couple of years. The most recent one I found was from early 2017 and even using a broad range of search terms, it was difficult to find anything relevant.

The second, and perhaps most surprising/concerning, thing was how few mentioned any different criteria for suppliers. Only one article I could find mentioned Social Responsibility or Environmental Performance/Sustainability. The remainder still focused on the criteria commonly found in a Commercial or Technical/Quality evaluation. The most common criteria still were:

  • Years in business and financial stability
  • Price/Cost
  • Quality and Delivery
  • Reliability
  • Communication
  • Cultural Match

What does this say about procurement? Is the profession still falling back on the old favourites when it comes to supplier selection? Or could it be that traditional “thought leadership” is no longer leading the way, and organisations are working differently without shouting it from the rooftops?

For me, it’s a combination of all of the above. There’s no denying that it’s hard to separate procurement from cost and quality (after all, it’s what we’re there to do). And why wouldn’t professionals use criteria that are both reliable and easy to measure, particularly when time and resources are tight?

Getting our Message Across

Speaking from experience, however, there are areas in which overall value is much more prevalent. In the Scottish public sector, organisations are mandating Community Benefits for contracts above a certain value. These can cover everything from creating apprenticeships to financially supporting community projects.

In addition, Local Authorities have started to mandate evaluation of ‘Fair Work Practices’ in all procurement exercises. Again, this can cover a multitude of elements, such as paying the living wage, no zero-hour contracts, equal opportunities and good training and development. Suppliers are being forced to consider these criteria to the benefit of their employees and the wider society.

There is good work going on in procurement, but maybe we aren’t making the most of communicating our message to the wider market. And if communication is one of the key factors in supplier selection and subsequent relationship management, it’s high time the profession started telling suppliers what is important to us and seeing what they have to offer.