Skip to content

Payment terms

Payment always feature high in the list of most negotiated terms. The last ten years have seen a steady lengthening of the time it takes to get paid. Recent data showed an average of 57 days, but it is often much longer. Big corporations are creative in the way they measure their compliance with payment terms, with many only starting to count after the invoice has been ‘approved’ – an activity that can add weeks to the cycle.

IACCM research has identified that prompt payment is the number one factor in achieving ‘preferred customer’ status. Paul Humbert recently wrote an excellent article suggesting that this should be a key performance metric, commenting: “There is however at least one purely objective and important metric which is rarely measured; namely, PROMPT PAYMENT of accounts payable. Many organizations routinely fail to pay vendors on time in accordance with the terms of the contract. Why? A lack of priority? An attempt to capture “float”, essentially getting an interest free loan from the vendor? Aside from breaching the contract, failing to pay vendors on time causes serious damage to the relationship. Imagine if someone’s paycheck was delayed by days or even months?”

Business practices cause regulation

Delays in payment are especially damaging for small businesses, which are typically highly reliant on cash flow. Many large organizations remain wedded to a view that ‘might is right’, seeing no problem in using their power to exercise unreasonable – indeed in this case unethical – behavior. It is that inability to make moral judgments that drives the need for regulation.

But morality aside, is it really in a company’s best economic interests to punish its suppliers? What is the cost associated with delayed payment – the administrative cost, the supplier performance cost, the reputation cost? Over time, these costs certainly outweigh any benefit.

Digital reinvention of contract management: does it matter?

There is a lot of buzz about digital reinvention (a term popularized by McKinsey consultants), digital transformation and digital disruption. By whichever name you call it, it’s importance cannot be understated.

According to Mckinsey,  only 8% of companies that they surveyed believe their current business models will remain viable through digitization. That’s significant because digitization no longer means simply revamping your e-commerce site or improving the digital customer service experience and calling it a day. Digital reinvention must run deeper. The companies that win will be those that digitally reinvent processes end-to-end.

Digital reinvention should be every bit as important to your contract management process as it is to the rest of your sales or acquisition process. It is, after all, a critical business activity and the quality of the process remains just as important in a digital world as it is today, perhaps more so.

We live in a time when customers’ expectations have never been higher. Research suggests that 58% of a customer’s loyalty is based on their buying experience—not on your product or service. The customer experience starts at discovery and runs all the way through contracting and beyond. A great deal of the customer experience has been digitized, so much so that customers can in many cases complete over half of their buying journey without even talking to a sales person.

The contract process, on the other hand, is behind. The overwhelming majority of companies — 85% in fact– are using manual processes to manage sell-side contracts. Contracting remains analog. It’s yet to be digitized. Not only is this slower, it also translates to lost revenue. It is estimated that a typical business with 1,000 employees wastes $2.5-$3.5 million each year searching for and re-creating lost documents. Recent IACCM research highlighted the average cost associated with creating and agreeing a contract – and even for relatively low risk agreements, that came to $6,900.

Does digitization of contract processes really matter? The short answer is, yes. As other pieces of the business digitize, the lack of digitization in contracting becomes that much more evident. Already we know of CEOs demanding ‘no-touch’ contracting – a fully automated, end-to-end process. While the rest of the journey speeds up, contracting will be the bottleneck unless we make some pointed changes. That means all eyes will be on you when a seemingly fast sales deal stalls at contracting.

We need to evolve beyond basic contract management and legacy systems. By digitally transforming the sales experience and refocusing our resources to deliver high value contract management, businesses can improve profitability by up to 9%.

It’s time to act. That’s why IACCM is so focused on helping the contracts and commercial community to understand the exciting technologies that are fast becoming available. Join us this Thursday for one of those sessions and see how contract lifecycle management technology can streamline your contract process in the webinar: Digitally Reinvent Quote to Contract to Maximize Revenue.

Commercial Round-Up: Highlights of the Week

EU regulation: the European Commission is proposing action in two areas that would have major impact on business. One is the threat of introducing a universal code that would allow consumer class action lawsuits. The other is specific to the retail sector and would be legislation related to unfair terms imposed on suppliers, in particular in areas such as payment terms and unilateral rights to change contracts.

Procurement as a partner: according to a survey released by the Buying Legal Council group, collaboration between in-house legal and procurement yields average savings on legal spend of 21% a year. This drops to just 7% in organizations where collaboration is absent or weak. Of those surveyed, just 25% say that there is a good partnering relationship between legal and procurement.

‘Big Law’ under threat: Corporate Counsel magazine reports a shift away from the largest law firms. A survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit found that concerns over fees and increasing need for deep local knowledge is pushing more business to smaller and more specialized providers – 40% of large corporations surveyed expect this trend to increase over the next 5 years. At the same time, the Financial Times pointed to the continued consolidation of major law firms, predicting that we will soon see the emergence of the ‘$5 billion law firm’ – itself a response to those growing pressures on traditional fee structures.

NOTE: IACCM is currently conducting a survey on law firm fee structures and the success of negotiators in achieving alternative pricing models. To participate (and receive a copy of the report) visit

Cloud security: a report by HelpSystems highlighted the dangers of assuming that cloud infrastructure and applications are secure. It emphasizes that “IT teams, cloud providers and trusted vendors need to work together to establish and implement well thought-out policies to keep data secure”. IACCM’s conversations with leading corporations suggests they are giving thought to these ‘relational’ mechanisms in their selection of provider and within their contracts.

Machines v. Humans: in the continuing debate over whether machines can be trusted to exercize judgment, I was reminded of an article in the Economist from 2011. Researchers monitored over 1,000 applications by prisoners to parole boards. They discovered a direct correlation between the number of applications granted and the timing of lunch and snacks. A full stomach had a major impact on the level of clemency. Bring on the machines!

Sign up to to have this weekly update delivered direct to your in-box.

Legal costs under pressure: what is the solution?

There is extensive discussion about the cost of hiring a lawyer. At the Codex event last week, hosted by Stanford law school, a number of presentations focused on ways that new technology will tackle the issues of cost and accessibility to the law. Several speakers spoke of the inevitable pressure on hourly rates and alternative charging arrangements.

Broad issues of social access to the law are not the only questions affecting the legal community. In-house groups are also facing increased pressure to control their spend – and this is at a time when workload demands are increasing.

While some are looking at opportunities to cut workload through delegation (and new technology will increase potential for this), there are a variety of other mechanisms available. These include:

  • Greater discipline in reducing spend with external counsel (i.e. fixed fee arrangements, detailed billing reviews, panel discounts)
  • Greater in-sourcing of legal work formerly done by external counsel
  • Delegation of legal department tasks to others in the business
  • Introduction of new technology to simplify / automate legal workload
  • Use of lower cost resources through ‘captive’ legal centers
  • Use of lower-cost resources through outsourced third party legal services providers
While there are a variety of cost reduction mechanisms available, a key question is what impact these have on departmental efficiency and effectiveness. For example, outsourcing to low-cost locations and efforts to develop alternative fee arrangements have generated mixed results. So what are the best steps to take?
IACCM is conducting a survey to test which mechanisms are being used by in-house legal groups most often and how effective they are proving. The challenge of matching resources and workload will not go away, so finding the best answers is of growing importance. This confidential survey will provide participants with valuable insights and benchmarks.


Making compliance easy

Non-compliance is risky. It leads to fines, job losses, reputational damage, lost sales. Since it is so important, businesses make substantial investments to reduce the chance of breaches – and of course a major element of those investments is people: reviewers, approvers, auditors, compliance experts.

The problem with those resources is that their jobs depend on complexity and, to a degree, their belief that the natural tendency of others is to be non-compliant. Compliance experts are not generally innate optimists who assume that human nature is inclined to ‘doing the right thing’.

As the volume of regulation grows, traditional control methods are too slow, inefficient and erratic – not to mention the issue of affordability. They have to be simplified – and that demands new thinking and new measurements of success for compliance experts.

Two of the emerging approaches are:

  1. Outsourcing the basic checking process and collection of data. An example is in the area of supplier validation and monitoring, where there are now a variety of external providers offering a service that eliminates the need for individual companies to run checks. This single point of collection obviously reduces workload and cost for both customers and suppliers.
  2. Use of technology. A number of exciting solutions are emerging. Recent trials of blockchain have included automation of data collection from a range of internal and external sources, automating supplier validation and contract award, then monitoring continued compliance through feeds from public or fee databases. Another method is through the use of apps or bots provided to users so that they better understand compliance requirements and input data that supports self-monitoring or automates approvals. A third example is machine-based checking – for example, ensuring that proposed contract terms align with policy and highlighting any exceptions, which are then routed for review.

By improving data flows, compliance teams are also becoming far better equipped to identify the likelihood of specific risks, enabling them to focus (and be measured) on specific mitigation measures for those with the highest frequency. Managing compliance is a clear obligation; competitive advantage comes from expert teams that focus on how to do it better, faster and cheaper.

Mismatched objectives: the root of our problems

”To use machine learning responsibly, there is a need to ensure values are aligned.”

This comment by a representative of Google sums up a key dilemma with all relationships – no matter whether the intelligence being applied is human or machine-based. In the world of business, ‘mismatched objectives’ (or expectations) lie at the heart of many disputes.

Contracts exist in large part because of these mismatches. In theory, a good contracting process serves two purposes – one is to reduce the chances of misalignment, the other is to deal with its consequences. These are demanding concepts – and contracts are not always good at dealing with them. How could we make them better?

That is a question which goes to the heart of IACCM’s purpose and its research has consistently pointed to answers (and the underlying causes). Among the issues / solutions:

– organisational measurement and reward systems: these typically do not offer incentives that ensure ‘matched objectives’. They should be changed, especially for those involved in designing and negotiating contracts.

– attitudes to risk: for all the talk about risk, the focus of terms and conditions remains weighted towards areas such as liabilities, indemnities, intellectual property – not on safeguarding that objectives are – and remain – aligned. Again, this approach comes from custom and choice.

– coherent governance: change is ever-present and increasingly rapid, yet for many the approach to its management has not changed. Fears of ‘scope creep’ or challenges in budgeting result in failure to use the right form of contract (e.g. agile, relational) and to develop agreed change forums and methods.

Ironically, it may require the discipline of machine programming to overcome these deep-seated problems. One benefit from automation is that it is not subject to the ingrained habits of humans!

Commercial Round-Up: Highlights of the Week

Are you confused about the differences between ‘outcome-based’ and ‘performance-based’ contracts? Or perhaps simply want greater clarity on how to form or manage them? Andrew Jacopino, an expert in their use, recently updated his blog articles on these topics, plus some outstanding guidance on defining KPIs.


“Business contracts need to balance the rights of each party to ensure they aren’t unfair, as smaller firms may not always be in a strong negotiating position.” That statement came from the Australian ACCC in a finding against financial services firm, Cardtronics. It reflects growing pressure from governments around the world on abuse of power by large corporations – an abuse that often operates against both the public and business interest by limiting competition and pushing up costs. Perhaps it’s time to question the fairness (and effectiveness) of your business terms?


A recent IACCM survey on organization structure for supply chain found that most companies wish they had a different model. The study, which focused on the oil and gas sector, revealed that few people believe that centralization or decentralisation work well; they overwhelmingly prefer center-led or matrixed models, no matter which aspect of supply chain management they are considering. Some 30% of organizations have changed their structure in the last 12 months.


An initiative by is measuring law firms on their uptake of technology and the extent of legal innovation. The findings to date are generally not impressive, showing very limited adoption and use – though focus has been on large firms, rather than emerging ‘disruptors’. Analysis has supported the hypothesis that UK law firms are ahead of many others, especially in their use of artificial intelligence and project management technologies. But no sign yet of the major fee reductions that technology should be delivering.


Are contract and commercial skills adapting to changes in the business environment? An analysis by IACCM confirms that pressures for greater speed, agility and the introduction of new technologies are placing real strains on commercial staff. These are reflected in the skills assessments and benchmarks undertaken by IACCM, which reveal significant shifts in management expectations – but many practitioners are struggling to keep pace. Areas such as problem solving, change advocacy, technology use and financial awareness are among those where the largest gaps are emerging.

Sign up to Commitment Matters to have this weekly update delivered direct to your in-box.