Tag Archives: risk and compliance

Improve Contract Compliance by Thinking Like Sales…Not Procurement

Call us crazy but we reckon Procurement would be better off looking at the Contract Management process the same way sales does…

Forest Foxy/Shutterstock.com

If you’re anything like me as a procurement practitioner, you think of our end-to-end process in a linear fashion. It usually starts with spend analysis or some other source of information (budget, ERP, BI system output, etc.) and ends with Contract Management and/or Supplier Performance Management. For us, this is completely logical because the sub-processes that we view as the most “active” portions of procurement – strategic sourcing and negotiation – have been dealt with at this point.

In Contract Management and Supplier Performance there is something of a phased handoff back to the budget owners. After all, the spend we bring under management is rarely associated with a procurement need; we are often just temporary custodians of someone else’s spend.

Unfortunately, the procurement phase that covers implementation and ongoing Contract Management includes the following two milestones:

  • The majority of the supplier’s value is created for the business.
  • Weaknesses and disturbances come to light, threatening to diminish total value and reduce contract compliance.

Procurement may see the contract phase as the end of the project, but our internal stakeholders (and in many cases, our suppliers) see this as the beginning of the effort. Everything up to this point has been theoretical, now it is real.

Contract compliance: think like sales

As crazy as it sounds, procurement would be better off looking at the Contract Management process the same way sales does. The day after you sign a contract is the first day of a new sales cycle. Your contract win is a prospect once again, maybe not for the same product or service they just bought, but for expanded coverage, increased volume, a longer commitment, or an alternate type of offering. This is the worst possible time to go hands-off, especially if you think there is the potential for more business.

Procurement may be guaranteed “more business” from their captive clients (a.k.a., internal stakeholders), but if those clients aren’t satisfied with the services and support they receive, they have no incentive to be loyal; to procurement or to the contract. In the alternate scenario, procurement stays involved to ensure a smooth transition to the new contract and serves as an advocate for the business as well as the supplier during the agreement lifespan. In this case, spend is far more likely to stay on contract where it lowers risk, increases savings, and delivers the desired value.

Here are a few examples of how procurement’s proactive investment in contract compliance can build loyalty for the future:

If the shirt fits…

In a sourcing project for driver uniforms at a freight company, several business divisions were combining their demand for the very first time. Each division brought their supplier and their current service levels to the table. Although being an incumbent was an advantage, the mandate was to select one provider for the whole company. This would inevitably lead to someone losing their incumbent so another division could keep theirs. After the selection was made, procurement redirected the team members who had been responsible for the sourcing effort to manage the rollout at the division transitioning to the new supplier. This not only minimized disruption to the business, it prevented the rise of resentment – something that could easily have lowered compliance and become a barrier for future sourcing efforts.

Have your supplier’s back

Sometimes you can tell that compliance is going to be an issue before the ink on the contract is dry. During a reverse auction for “35% water-added ham” at a wholesale grocer, procurement discovered that the category owner was secretly telling their incumbent supplier what they needed to do in order to win. After much drama, the supplier was excluded from the business because of their willingness to undermine the negotiation process. That left us with a guarantee of a new supplier and an ANGRY category owner. No supplier selected at that point was going to have an easy time with implementation. Knowing that contract compliance would be an issue, procurement took extra time to include metrics and SLAs in the agreement and worked with the new supplier to ensure that they would be able to report their performance back in detail. This effectively created a framework where they could quantitatively prove their performance. The wholesaler got the product they needed and the supplier was protected from unfair, costly complaints about their performance. Orders for “35% water-added ham” were placed and fulfilled with no disruption to local grocery chains. Yum.

Compliance credit where it’s due.

If procurement goes hands-off during Contract Management, we get no credit for value creation, but full credit for having created the circumstances leading to buyer inconvenience and frustration. The amazing thing is, that effective Contract Management is borne out when projected savings become realized savings – or not. And actual purchases become managed spend – or not. Without active Contract Management, there is a good chance that procurement’s efforts will be undermined and we’ll inadvertently create a tense relationship with internal stakeholders who we will, no doubt, need to work with again in the future.

In a Determine webinar featuring Spend Matters’ Jason Busch, Contract Compliance: Why It Matters to Procurement, he stated that contract compliance is more important than procurement performance. Strong words, but there are many components to that truth — and it’s a must-watch on-demand video.

Contract compliance and procurement’s role in ensuring it are a big and growing topic. You’ll find information on the subject in Determine’s extensive library of resources, or contact them to schedule a personalized demonstration of the Determine Cloud Platform.

This blog was orginally written for Determine by Kelly Barner .

Cladding Purchase in the Spotlight After Grenfell Tower Fire

After the tragic death of at least 58 people in the Grenfell Tower fire, confusion remains over whether the decision to use combustible panels in its construction was in accordance with British building regulations.

 

The Guardian and the BBC have both reported that Reynobond panels with a combustible polyethylene (PE) core were used in a refurbishment of the 24-storey Grenfell Tower, completed last year. This has yet to be independently confirmed by investigators, although it would explain the frighteningly rapid spread of the fire. The thermoplastic material is known to melt and drip as it burns, which spreads the fire downwards as well as upwards.

Manufacturer’s own warning ignored

A Reynobond brochure from 2016 shows that PE cores are only suitable for buildings up to 10 metres in height, while panels with a fire-retardant (FR) core should be used up to 30 metres. Grenfell Tower is 60 metres tall, for which Reynobond recommends their A2 model, with a non-combustible core.

The Guardian’s report states that the Reynobond PE cladding supplied to the companies refurbishing Grenfell Tower was £2 cheaper per square metre than the alternative Reynobond FR.

Confusion over legality of PE panels

While media outlets have pointed out the PE panels are banned in the U.S. and Europe, there remains some confusion as to whether they are legal in the U.K. or not.

Two Government ministers have said that “in their understanding”, the use of the cladding is against British building regulations.

Treasury chief Philip Hammond told BBC News: “My understanding is that the cladding in question, which is banned in Europe and the US, is also banned here. So there are two separate questions: one, are our regulations correct; do they permit the right kind of materials and ban the wrong kind of materials; and the second is were they correctly complied with, and that will be a subject the inquiry will look at and will also be a subject the separate criminal investigation will look at.”

Trade Minister Greg Hands told Sky news: “My understanding is that the cladding that was reported wasn’t in accordance with UK building regulations. We need to find out precisely what cladding was used and how it was attached.”

Vague building codes

A Reuters report found that British building regulations documents did not specifically say PE-core panels should not be used, yet that doesn’t mean builders are clearly permitted to use them: “British safety regulations across many industries are usually principles rather than rules-based.”

This means the law often requires companies to act safely without giving a specific definition of what this would involve. Firms are instead expected to be able to prove in court that they “behaved in a way that their industry would consider safe, given current knowledge and technology”.

The Fire Protection Association (FPA), an industry body, has reportedly lobbied for years for the government to make it a statutory requirement for local authorities and companies to use only fire-retardant material. 

Paper trail

Lawmakers have urged the Government and the police to immediately seize all documents relating to the building’s renovation to prevent the destruction of evidence that could show criminal wrongdoing.

“The Prime Minister needs to act immediately to ensure that all evidence is protected so that everyone culpable for what happened at Grenfell Tower is held to account and feels the full force of the law,” said Labour lawmaker David Lammy. This means that all emails, minutes of meetings, correspondence with contractors, safety assessments, specifications and reports, must be kept intact.

The Government is reportedly carrying out an urgent inspection of other tower blocks in Britain to assess their safety. There are roughly 2,500 similar apartment towers throughout Britain.

Don’t Risk It – Why Your Organisation Needs Supplier Pre-Qualification

Workplace accidents have other costs apart from the tragic loss of human life. They can damage your brand, cost your company millions and, if you’ve failed to mitigate a known risk, could put you behind bars.

It’s difficult to write about the business consequences of a workplace fatality. It can be hard to see beyond the immediate human tragedy – from shattered families to a saddening waste of life when someone is killed on the job.

But the business consequences do need to be talked about, not only due to the financial impacts, but also because it’s up to big businesses to drive the safety improvements that could one day make workplace fatalities a thing of the past.

Risk Management Expertise

Insurance companies understand this, as do the risk management experts who take a holistic view of the impacts of accidents and fatalities. Angelique Navarro, of supply chain risk management firm Avetta, gives the example of a major telecommunications organisation that suffered eleven fatalities amongst its cell tower climber contractors before it acted to pre-qualify suppliers.

“The human cost was horrific, but the business costs were high as well. There is always significant public anger when preventable deaths occur, and people generally vent their frustration at the provider at the top of the chain – even though the safety lapse may have occurred two or three tiers down the supply chain.

“Cell tower climbers potentially have the deadliest job in the United States, so it’s a prime example of an area where you need to be 100 per cent confident that your suppliers, and their suppliers, are doing the right thing. Since the telecommunications organisation has partnered with us to bring in rigorous pre-qualification, there have been zero fatalities to date.”

Highly Visible Organisations

Navarro’s point about the most visible corporation taking the blame for its suppliers’ errors is borne out by the example of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Public anger – from placard-waving protesters to President Obama himself – was directed almost entirely at the highly-visible oil giant, BP.

We didn’t hear anywhere near as much about the operators actually responsible for the spill, namely oil-field service company Halliburton and offshore drilling contractor Transocean. Almost seven years on, BP is still suffering from the enormous brand damage that this environmental disaster incurred.

“Consumers lose trust and confidence in what your organisation can do for them”, says Navarro. “But brand and reputation damage aren’t the only negative effects. There are huge insurance payouts involved, and of course lost production time and revenue. Knowing that you work with suppliers who are completely qualified mitigates that risk.”

Avetta’s 300+ major clients, such as Coca-Cola, Shell, Verizon and John Deere, tend to come from some of the riskiest industries – oil and gas, chemicals, construction, utilities and energy, telecommunications, transport and manufacturing. This core group of more than 300 clients has approximately 50,000 suppliers over 100 countries – every one of which carriers a degree of risk.

“We vet suppliers and partner them with clients and industries across the globe”, says Navarro. “And the results speak for themselves. We’ve saved a global leader in oil and gas $6 million in one year by managing its health and safety program.

“We’ve reduced the incident rate at a chemical company by 74 per cent, saved lives at a major telecommunications company, conducted 14,000 performance reviews for a well-known construction company, and Avetta is an integral part of a major airline’s recognition as the safest airline in the world.”

Six Steps to Pre-Qualification

While every industry and business model is different, there are six key steps that can be taken to pre-qualify suppliers and reduce your risk profile. Ensure your suppliers have:

  • risk as a top agenda item for their board or senior team
  • the right employees: conduct background checks, ensure rules and regulations are being followed
  • the correct level of insurance protection with up-to-date insurance certificates
  • safety manuals in-hand and accredited training programs in place
  • prequalification for anyone coming on site
  • a consistent level of auditing multiple levels down the supply chain
  • rigorous tracking and data collection.

Navarro comments that risk-savvy procurement professionals work very closely with their organisation’s environmental health and safety teams, who have been in the risk-management space for a long time and can give some valuable advice. It’s important that we share safety learnings across industries as well. “You need to ensure your organisation is competitive”, she says, “but when it comes to safety we’re seeing major organisations come together to share best practice”.

Personal responsibility

There are executives behind bars for not acting to mitigate risks, with members of the C-level now being held personally responsible for fatalities and other accidents. “There’s little defence if you knew about a risk and didn’t act on it, or if you’ve been warned before yet let it happen again”, says Navarro. “When someone goes to work for a company, they have a reasonable expectation that they will come home safely to their family at the end of the day.”

To learn more about Avetta, visit their website. Avetta Founder John Moreland is President of Operation Underground Railroad, a non-profit organisation dedicated to rescuing children around the world who are victims of sex slavery. Click here to learn more.

Risk Mitigation – Hope Like Hell It Doesn’t Happen to You

Organisations can plan and strategise for risk mitigation in their supply chain, but ultimately a lot of it comes down to luck.

Risk mitigation

In the words of one member of The Faculty’s Melbourne Roundtable, “There’s a lot of risk out there – you can mitigate all you like but in the end, you just hope like hell it doesn’t happen to you.”

Risk-experts Aaron Cleavely-Millwood (Market Development Manager – Regulatory, Market and Operational Risk) and Nathan Lynch (Head Regulatory Analyst) of Thomson Reuters, visited the Melbourne and Perth Roundtables to take members through their organisation’s global research findings on risk and disruption.

While the Thomson Reuters research focused on disruption to financial services, Roundtable CPOs drew some key learnings from shared challenges around governance, risk, compliance and regulatory drivers.

The Faculty ran its own snapshot survey among its Roundtable members, providing some interesting comparisons between Thomson Reuters’ global, cross-industry study and our local, procurement-focused findings.

Supply Chain Risks

Thomson Reuters’ top four disruption risks revolved predominantly around price:

  1. Raw material price fluctuation
  2. Currency fluctuation
  3. Market changes
  4. Energy fuel price volatility

The Faculty’s findings revealed that CPOs have a slightly different set of concerns:

  1. Supplier monopolies
  2. Market changes
  3. Climatic or natural disasters
  4. Emerging technologies

Risks and Impacts

Price risk is an obvious and ever-present danger and a key part of strategic planning. Cleavely-Millwood gave the example of the 2015 drought in Russia, which saw the price of wheat rise by 41 per cent, and create a huge impact throughout Europe. Spikes such as this (and of course the drop in oil price) cannot necessarily be forecast, but it is possible to plan for and hedge against these events.

Interestingly, social activism was placed at the bottom of both lists. This is surprising given some of the recent disruptions driven by environmental activism in the Australian coal and coal seam gas industries.

The Thomson Reuters presentation focused on fraud risk. This has been identified as a high area of concern for Australian organisations despite increasing regulation. CPOs have to be continually aware of the risks around supplier, contractor and employee fraud, and have plans in place to minimise the damage when fraud takes place.

Increased regulation is a double-edged sword. It will effectively lower the chance of fraud risk and other potentially damaging issues, but will mean CPOs need to spend more time and resources ensuring compliance.

Roundtable delegates were taken through various major pieces of regulation including the UK Bribery Act, the Australian Senate Review of Bribery Laws, the Dodd-Frank Act, and the upcoming Unfair Contracts Act.

The key takeaway – communicate regularly with your internal legal counsel to ensure you keep track of regulatory change.

Effective Risk Mitigation

Our snapshot survey asked members to nominate the most effective risk mitigation measures, with the following results (1 being the most effective):

  1. Building strong supplier relationships
  2. Creating a risk-aware culture
  3. Improving market intelligence
  4. Improving IT and data analytics
  5. Increased sharing of information

The Faculty’s advice for managing risk:

Due diligence can take place through three levels of risk assessment:

  • Ensure you thoroughly investigate new vendors.
  • Regularly perform risk assessments of existing vendors to check if anything has changed.
  • Ensure you have visibility of your suppliers’ suppliers, and their suppliers, and so on, until you’re confident that there are no major risks several layers down the supply chain.