A recent article in the Financial Times has highlighted one of my favorite topics – the fact that ‘few managers take risk into account in creating new offerings’. An Ernst & Young report has highlighted that risk is frequently ignored during product development (I would add to that the fact that it is also mostly ignored throughout the product lifecyle managment process as well).
Of course not all risks are overlooked. But as I speak and work with companies worldwide, I continue to be struck by the absence of structured commercial discipline in bringing products or services to market. In particular, there are very few organizations which ensure careful integration of the product or service with the contract or ‘market promise’. As a result, the terms and conditions sought from suppliers also frequently fail to meet on-going needs, leading either to the inability to make customer commitments, or forcing renegotiation of agreements (often having lost negotiation power).
As we teach in the IACCM ‘body of knowledge’, top performing companies seek to build quality into all their activities – whether manufacturing a product or delivering against a commitment. To win in the market, products and services need to be clothed with terms and conditions that are distinctive (or at least competitive), that reflect policies and practices that are deemed fair and that it consistently honors. Yet remarkably few companies really research what terms and conditions are offered by their competition or would be of value to their customers. Many times products or services are brought to market and retro-fitted with a set of company standards, regardless of whether they make good business sense in the target market.
As a result, market requirements are often either ignored (with what financial consequences, no one really knows), or they are addressed through situational negotiation (again, at what cost in both physical terms and in terms of the risk of non-compliance, no one knows).
The contract and commercial evaluation process should involve a rigorous examination of competitive terms and conditions. It should also be accompanied by market research that would identify customer values. Some of this is usually done – for instance, the nature of warranties (duration, level of coverage, service delivery). But many things are not considered in depth. For example, what value might different market segments place on right of return or trial offerings – and how risky would that be? What value might they place on differential payment terms and how would those be managed? What differences might there be in the strategic importance of the product or service to their business and what might this mean in terms of performance guarantees and their relative value? How might such factors affect the need for maintenance services, or perhaps even spawn an alternative offering? How might product or service updates be handled? What flexibility could be offered over the ability to upgrade or downgrade service levels or volume requirements? How sensitive is delivery and are there ways it could be made more flexible?
All these factors and many more represent items of possible value to customers. But those values are not equal. They represent a source of market segmentation that is rarely used – with the resuylt that we find ourselves either excluded from particular opportunities, or forced into high levels of negotiation. By failing to understand and price these risks and opportunities, we have no idea what revenue is being lost (through missed opportunity or sub-optimal pricing) – or what losses are being incurred (through commitments that are costly to perform).
In my experience, many companies view product development and their commercial market offering as two distinct activities. Their failure to use contracts as a pre-formed and readily available checklist to ensure alignment with selected markets forces them instead to manage risk of product or service failure through terms and conditions that are by their nature inappropriate and risk averse.
As a result, opportunities for market share and revenue are missed; business efficiency is undermined; and companies simply make themselves far too complex to do business with. Building in quality through market alignment is by far the best way to manage risk – and it can be done with less resources and far less pain than today’s fragmented approach to the management of market risk. Simply stop viewing contracts as an operational fall-back for poorly managed risks and start using them instead as a strategic quality control instrument that reduces the probability of the risk occuring.
Following on from my last post regarding public sector contracting, the Obama administration initiative creates an opportunity for change. While welcoming the recognition this brings to the importance of contract management, I am concerned that the proposals miss some of the key factors that must underpin improvement.
Major goals of reform should be to address demonstrated weaknesses and develop procedures and practices that meet the needs of today and the future. It is questionable whether these proposals satisfy either of these criteria. IACCM is preparing its comments and welcomes input from all interested parties. The Association is uniquely positioned to offer global, cross-industry and multi-functional perspectives, which are especially important not only for the sake of the US economy, but also due to the effect that reform may have elsewhere.
By Elizabeth Newell enewell@govexec.com June 18, 2009
Industry groups said on Thursday that they generally agree with the principles outlined in President Obama’s March 4 memorandum on contracting reform, but have some concerns about related guidance to be issued by the Office of Management and Budget in September.
During a public meeting hosted by OMB in Washington, contractor associations and other interested parties offered input on increasing competition in procurement, the most beneficial contract types, strengthening the acquisition workforce and determining when it is appropriate to outsource federal jobs. Speakers applauded the Obama administration for making contracting a priority, but urged that change stem from facts rather than perception.
Chris Braddock, senior director of procurement policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said industry fully supports expanding competition where appropriate, but asked OMB to recognize that sole-source contracting is necessary and helpful in some circumstances. He noted, for instance, that sole-source awards can increase the government’s flexibility and responsiveness in times of crisis.
Alan Chvotkin, senior vice president and counsel for the Professional Services Council, noted the Federal Acquisition Regulation already establishes a preference for fixed-price contracts. Chvotkin suggested that agencies be required to document and share their reasons for choosing any contract type so officials would not feel overburdened if they deemed a cost-type arrangement best for a project.
A number of speakers cited the diminished acquisition workforce as the thread tying together all these issues. Without a strong, well-trained cadre of contracting officers and program managers, agencies are more likely to mismanage any contract type or to cut corners by making sole-source awards, industry leaders said. They unanimously supported the administration’s attempts to strengthen the procurement staff governmentwide.
“We don’t have a single uniform definition of inherently governmental functions and since we don’t know what an inherently governmental function is, I’ve always been amused by how Congress can expect agencies to understand what functions are closely associated with an inherently governmental function,” Chvotkin said.
Discussion moderator Jeff Liebman, executive associate director of OMB, thanked the speakers for coming to the town hall-style meeting and offering their opinions. He urged interested parties to continue to engage with OMB by submitting written comments on Regulations.gov by July 17.
So far as I know, the memorandum issued by President Obama on March 16th calling for improved contract management was a first. I am not aware that any other head of state ever highlighted the importance of contract management discipline in the effective and proper application of public sector funds.
Recent incidents demonstrate the urgency of this need. For example, Sherry Gordon reported yet more problems for the UK’s National Health Service when she wrote recently on Spend Matters. And the US press has been full of the contention in Virginia, where Northrop Grumman won a major IT outsourcing contract that is now riddled with questions. A further variant arose earlier this month, once again affecting the UK health service, when the press questioned the competence of procurement in its use of reverse auctions to select and deliver outsourced care services – and its failure to oversee the results (see Reverse Auctions).
It can be tempting to blame the suppliers. For example, it is suggested that Northrop Grumman lacked the skills and experience to undertake the outsourced work in Virginia and the media in the UK is pointing at BT as the culprit for missed deadlines and service level failures. But in the end, projects like these depend upon a high degree of collaboration and honesty between the parties. They also require robust governance and rigorous performance management. And that has to be a mutual commitment and capability. Blame is rarely all on one side; and certainly not when, as these incidents suggest, the problems and issues go back over a number of years.
Today’s complex, service-based deals demand selection and post-award management procedures that are far more robust than most public sector agencies are equipped to provide. Traditional procurement training is inadequate – and in many cases makes the problem worse. The tendency for public procurement policy to focus on price alone is reinforced by training programs that treat suppliers as untrustworthy and to be held at arm’s length (see for example my recent blog on A Simple Way To Undermine Procurement Success). In many cases, delivery personnel have little training in supplier relationship and performance management, there is little or no continuity of staff and fragmented responsibility for outcomes.
President Obama’s concern was echoed in a recent report by the UK’s National Audit Office, which focused on the challenges in post-award contract management and highlighted deficiencies in current practice. Last year, a Rand Corporation report on EU Public Procurement Policy (based on research by IACCM) was scathing in its observations of contracting policy and practice. The report highlighted the distorting effects of risk-averse terms and conditions, often compounded by the use of external consultants and law firms. Overall, it found that the lack of robust and transparent contracting principles not only sets the seeds for potential failure of many projects, but also leads to higher pricing due to the levels of risk that suppliers must bear.
All the evidence suggests that the need for improved contracting competence is urgent. It is refreshing that President Obama’s advisers have understood the need; and there are similar steps afoot in the UK and Australia. However, given the scale of today’s public sector expenditure, combined with the need to ensure greater efficiency and (shortly) savings, the pace of change must be faster.
There is so much talk right now about supplier risk, but disappointingly little about how customer behavior itself is often at the root of unsuccessful projects and relationships. If we truly want to reduce the risk of things going wrong (and also change the agenda for future negotiations), then both parties must be willing to undertake honest self-examination and to listen to the viewpoints and perspectives of the other.
An excellent example of the problems we face was highlighted by John Yates, partner at Beachcrofts, a top UK law firm. John was speaking at a lively and very well attended IACCM member meeting in London. His topic was “Are Buyers & Sellers Focusing On The Wrong Things?” and his broad conclusion was ‘yes, they are’. (IACCM will have John cover this material on an upcoming Ask The Expert call).
John started by telling us he was angry. He had spent the previous day looking at UK public procurement guidelines and model contracts. And that had led him to think about the typical behaviors he has encountered when he is working with clients (both buy side and sell side) on major negotiations. I am going to save his wider thoughts for our future conversation. Today I want to write about his observations regarding the quality of information.
Almost every negotiator claims that they are seeking win-win relationships. Almost every bid manager and negotiator expects the other side to provide full and honest disclosure – and if they do not, then trust is undermined. What had struck John was the frequency with which modern procurement and sourcing strategy seems to result in buyers who deliberately withhold information and see this as a valid way to reduce their risk (and allocate it all to the seller).
Behind this thinking (which John observes as endemic to much public procurement) is the idea that if you remain silent on key aspects of your requirements or current business conditions, the seller cannot subsequently point to any inaccuracy in these statements as contributing to possible failure or reasons for price increase. So by remaining silent you place the onus on the seller to undertake ‘due diligence’ – and hey presto, when they discover the truth, it is their fault for inadequate checking!
John’s comment was “Buyers see no connection between quality of information provided, and price, quality and risk”. Withholding information (or failing to take responsibility for its discovery) creates extra risk and then of course forces the seller to push for defensive clauses and to build a defensive organizational posture and behavior.
It was an excellent point and one to which many sales organizations will subscribe. As part of the development of a more formal and disciplined procurement process, far too many sourcing organizations were trained to treat suppliers as the enemy. Far too many were trained to prevent sellers having direct contact with users and to ration the information that is provided. This became integrated into the thinking behind ‘commoditization’ and attempts to standardize and simplify the value of supplier offerings. All these steps are understandable, but they do not work.
Procurement must become more sophisticated in the way that it evaluates business needs and supplier capabilities. One key step is to ensure far better exchange of information across all the key stakeholders. This will not only improve the frequency of successful acquisitions, but will also place Procurement into a far more valuable and strategic role within the business.
SpendMatters raises an interesting debate about the validity of questions in an RFP. It highlights an RFP for legal services which apparently contained the following questions:
– Whom do you regard as your major competitors?
– How do you compare your firm or company against your major competitors?
– What are your key strengths relative to theirs?
– What is the contact information for one client that has ceased to do business with you within the last two years?
– What are the attrition rates over the past two years among your employees who would be working on our matters?
In his article, Rees Morrison describes these questions as “blatantly intrusive and unfair”. I do not agree.
First, I do not think such questions are new – I have come across similar requests in many RFPs. Second, I think such questions are not only right, but in fact are probably welcomed by many suppliers.
The steady move to a services-based economy has made the task of validating quality of supply significantly harder. Suppliers make claims about outcomes that are very hard to test or prove and it can be tough to evaluate relative performance of providers. So wanting to know what you really think are your distinctive features and benefits against the companies that you view as yoru competitors is entirely valid. Indeed, the question regarding who you see as your competitors is in itself very revealing. As a supplier, do I cite the poor performers in my market (risking guilt by association), or do I highlight those who relay scare me?
Service providers depend entirely on the quality and motivation of their staff. Generally they make much of the strength and depth of those staff, the investment in training, the specific knowledge or skills they bring. So asking about attrition is a smart thing to do. It is no more offensive than asking about typical product lifecycles or withdrawal policies.
As someone who often replied to RFPs, I welcomed questions like these. They gave an opportunity to describe strengths and make points about differentiation that was otherwise often lacking. The only time I would not want to give answers would be if I had no source of differentiation, or if my attrition rates were awful – and in that case, I guess the customer was pretty smart to ask.
What do you think about these questions? And are there other examples out there of really good – or really bad – RFP questions?
The Economist reveals interesting insights to the world of derivatives and their use in corporate risk management (Corporate Hedging Gets Harder, June 18th 2009). It also highlights that this important mechansim may be under threat, a victim of the credit crunch and the readiness of banks to carry risk. This could have significant impact on the riskiness of doing business with key suppliers and customers.
The article explains how many firms use derivatives to protect themselves against the swings in commodity prices. For example, as many as 55% of the world’s large companies last year hedged their exposure to fuel prices – and in many cases they now face large paper losses because the price fell so far and so fast. According to the article, “Among the hardest hit have been airlines, many of which paid to protect themselves from higher fuel prices last year when the oil price peaked at $147 a barrel. Because oil now costs much less, many have had to write down the value of those contracts, even if they are not due to be settled for years. The losers included Cathay Pacific Airways, which made paper losses of close to $1 billion, Ryanair, Air France-KLM and Southwest.”
38% of large companies also use derivatives to protect themselves against currency movements and interest rate hikes. The volume and value of such contracts has grown steadily in recent years, up by about a third last year alone.
So it is through this world of finance that many companies are protecting their ability to trade profitably and to manage the uncertainties of global markets. And apparently their bankers smile on those who hedge their risks in this way – it has a direct effect on the banks willingness to lend and thereby provide working or investment capital.
However, the credit crunch has reduced the appetite of banks for carrying risk, so only companies with the highest credit ratings can now obtain derivative contracts. And according to the Association of Corporate Treasurers, “some perfectly solvent banks have wriggled out of derivative contracts by invoking obscure break clauses that they had previously promised their customers they would never use”.
Even for those who can obtain bank support, the associated bank fees have risen dramatically – from a typical rate of 0.1% of the contracts to levels as high as 2%. Those whose credit rating has dropped face a different problem. Fearing that some of their cash-strapped customers may default, banks “are asking firms to post collateral for the money they owe on derivative contracts”.
This specialist area of risk management has been of major importance in supporting the growth of world trade and the management of key aspects of supply chain risk. The additional costs and limited availability of such instruments has created a new set of risks about which most business-to-business negotiators are only dimly aware. As we look at selection criteria for suppliers or customers, we may increasingly need to understand the extent of their exposure to commodity price or currency fluctuations – and seek assurances over the quality of their hedging of such risks.
IACCM has released its latest insights to the Most Frequently Negotiated Terms. This annual study is eagerly awaited by many negotiators and contract policy strategists for the insights it offers to business trends and issues.
This year’s survey differed from those of previous years because IACCM asked participants (who came from Legal, Procurement and Contracts / Commercial groups around the world) to describe not only what they spend most time negotiating today, but also whether they feel that today’s focus is best for their business. 75% of them said no – that at least to some extent, the agenda should change.
In their report, IACCM reveals for the first time the topics that seasoned members of the negotiating and contracts community believe should represent the priorities for a negotiations agenda. And they set out some thoughts on why this change should occur, plus the reasons it is proving hard to achieve.
Developing the report took longer this year, mostly because a record participation has allowed far greater detail. For example, it has allowed the results to be sorted in many different ways – by function, by jurisdiction, by industry. The initial report will be followed by the more detailed break-outs with commentary on why differences exist and what they tell us about the quality and effectiveness of negotiations.
Perhaps the biggest question to be answered as a result of this study is how we can make the transition to the new negotiating agenda. It is clear from the answers that many contract and negotiation experts feel frustrated and constrained in achieving change. They see internal and external barriers, they know that they could achieve more with the right management support and the right timing and level of involvement.
IACCM will be working on how to advance this agenda and will welcome thoughts and input. In the end, progress will depend on some inspired leadership and teamwork across the community – bringing together lawyers, contract, commercial and procurement managers to define and promote the way ahead.
Two specific ways that IACCM is already approaching this change agenda are:
- IACCM is currently running a survey on the Most Admired Companies For Negotiation. Based on the results, it will conduct a series of in-depth interviews with the top companies and publish a report detailing the practices and approaches that have gained them this respect. Please take a couple of minutes to record your view at https://www.etouches.com/negotiation1
- IACCM has a Negotiations ‘Community of Interest’. This highly active group of more than 2,500 contract negotiators has been making real strides in developing ideas around best practice, undertaking research and forming an active networked community on a worldwide basis. Simply log-in to the IACCM site at www.iaccm.com and visit the Communities of Interest page, or drop an e-mail to info@iaccm.com and they will register you as part of this group.
If you would like a copy of the report, which details the Top 30 negotiated terms of today and for the future, simply e-mail info@iaccm.com. And in case you want to know the current Top Ten, they are:
| Limitation of Liability |
| Indemnification |
| Price / Charge / Price Changes |
| Intellectual Property |
| Confidential Information / Data Protection |
| Service Levels and Warranties |
| Delivery / Acceptance |
| Payment |
| Liquidated Damages |
| Applicable law / Jurisdiction |
At last week’s Shared Services & Outsourcing Conference in Budapest, IACCM led a ‘blue sky’ discussion group on the subject “How can you genuinely create organisational integration between client and provider at a global and local level?”
The hypothesis behind this session, delivered to about 40 BPO leaders and executives, was as follows: “It has become widely acknowledged that “smart contracting” is the key to a successful BPO relationship. However, traditional legally-driven negotiations often create ‘structured adversarial relationships’, designed to punish failure, rather than encourage the growth of a strategic relationship. This tendency is aggravated by the efforts of procurement experts to view BPO as a commoditised service rather than an incentivised business partnership.”
This statement – interestingly – came from SSON’s research of market trends and discussions with its executive audience, not from IACCM (although we tend to agree with the sentiments expressed). The session provided a rare opportunity to meet with senior users of legal and contract services, to establish how they really feel about contracts, negotiations and those who control large elements of the contracting process.
A Shared Concern
We approached the session by admitting that many of our members – professionals in negotiation and contracts – are similarly dismayed by the way that many relationships become bogged down in lengthy and adversarial discussions of risk. This is epitomized by the recurrent focus on indemnities, liabilities, liquidated damages and other mechanisms that protect or defend against failure. We then discussed the areas of contract that IACCM members believe should be the focus for negotiation – the areas that make the contract into a framework for relationship governance.
Our audience was nodding violently as they viewed the ‘new’ negotiations agenda that this shift implies. So then we posed the question: “In your opinion, what is preventing the shift in the focus of negotiations?” And the answer was unanimous – “Lawyers”.
The Problem Lies With Lawyers: Or Does It?
While many recognized the talents and contribution of individual attorneys (especially, it seems, those from outside the company – the view of in-house was rather mixed), there was a feeling that lawyers generally seek to dominate areas of the negotiation and that their instinct is to protect against unquantified fears. “They are simply too negative and the negotiation lacks balance,” was one comment.
The audience recognized that there are dependencies for escaping this negative battle over risk allocation. In particular, they accepted that there must be greater diligence in producing a mutually agreed scope of work and that the process for doing this must be more inclusive. If lawyers and contracts professionals are not adequately engaged during this phase, not only is precision likely to be lost, but also they will feel greater need to insert protective clauses ‘in case things go wrong’.
There was extensive discussion of the need to better understand the needs of end-users of the BPO service. They are typically not at the table, yet must be the focus. Successful deals tend to concentrate on how to build good communications and establish a strong on-going relationship, rather than using the available time and resources on traditional contract terms. A number in the group also acknowledged their accountability for failing to drive the right negotiations agenda. They commented that “We often allow third party advisers to skew the discussion” and “We allow some of the tougher stuff to slip down the list, not to be properly discussed”. For example, Change Management comes high in the ‘new’ top ten terms, yet is an area of complexity that is frequently ignored or put on one side ‘for later’.
An Action Plan
The discussion led to a number of agreed success criteria and some suggestions for how contracted outcomes might be improved:
- Make BPO teams more inclusive from the outset and ensure roles are clearly defined
- Ensure evaluation criteria (at both buyer and provider) focus more strongly on evidence of cultural alignment between the organizations and that the other side can provide evidence of its success at partnering
- Build a negotiation strategy that aligns contract needs with partnership relationship needs
- Do not abdicate responsibility to third parties, or have them act as a buffer that stifles communication, especially to user groups
- Consider ways to create shared incentives for proper scope definition
- Keep performance indicators simple – be clear about goals and ensure the measurements align
- Spend time on establishing change management and communication disciplines and methods – prepare for the future
- Move towards arbitration / mediation as the basis for resolving disputes
At a more general level, the group felt that work to develop standard terms would be helpful, even if these operated more as guiding principles for negotiators. The need for an impartial Association, such as IACCM, to sponsor such work would be welcome. “It is time for a non-profit to enter this market,” observed one senior executive.
This audience overwhelmingly sees today’s contracts and contracting practices as ‘a problem’. However, the discussion revealed a readiness by executives to contribute to a new agenda and to offer a more inclusive role for those charged with contract development. While many would like to simplify the way that BPO relationships are formed, they understand that there must be discipline and there must be instruments to manage the risk of failure. In the words of one participant: “Alignment must have limits; we do need contracts”.
A prosecution has begun in the UK as a result of a wife murdered by her husband. The husband was found guilty some time ago, with the facts uncontested. This prosecution is by the wife’s family and is alleging negligence by the Crown Prosecution Service and the local police because of their failure to prevent the death.
The story is sad and the facts certainly suggest a failure of judgment and a failure to act by the relevant authorities. But the thing that interests me is the reaction of the local police chief to the threat of being sued. He suggested that such cases are against the public interest because they create a defensive and secretive culture and, as a result, mistakes are not acknowledged and improvements will not be made.
In other words, our reaction to the allocation of blame and the threat of penalties is to deny responsibility and sweep the facts under the rug.
Although on one level the family understandably want their issues addressed, I also sympathize with the perspective of the police chief (even though his attitude may lead some to question the entire purpose of policing and the courts). Evidence from the United States shows exactly what can happen when trial lawyers get their hands on similar issues. The stories that Ed Dauer tells us regarding the health sector and bloodbanks are a case in point. A culture of blame and retribution creates a response of secrecy and hidden information; the result is often that improvements do not occur and performance problems persist.
Another example of the weakness of control and compliance cultures is of course in the area of financial services. As I commented several months ago, it is interesting that the industry that collapsed is arguably the one with the greatest global regulation. Philip Booth of the Institute of Economic Affairs made this observation in The Sunday Times on May 18th. “Regulation and government intervention distorted behaviour,” he asserts. “Market participants cannot be perfected by regulators. They therefore must not be cosseted by regulation ….. but face the financial consequences of their own actions”.
Similar distortions of behavior result from many of today’s contract practices, as regularly revealed and discussed in IACCM’s studies of the Top Ten Negotiated Terms. Terms and conditions drive specific focus – for example, through performance indicators or service levels. They also generate open or hidden actions and information flows, based on the way that reviews are conducted or risks allocated. Companies that impose unbalanced risk terms may think they have won the negotiation and somehow protected themselves. But in truth they have simply encouraged self-protection and an environment where everyone seeks to avoid blame. So rather than discuss and address performance issues, they are instead hidden from view and turned into continuing areas of dispute.
How effectively is your organization attracting and retaining talent? What are some of the critical success factors, especially with regard to staff in shared service centers or outsourced service providers?
Last week I attended the Shared Services & Outsourcing Network Conference in Budapest and this was a topic addressed by one of the presenters. He tackled the subject by asking : “What makes people tick? And what makes them sick?”
I found the presentation interesting not only because of the areas he highlighted, but more specifically because I wanted to test their alignment with our thinking at IACCM as we work with corporate members to assist in their talent development and retention.
What Makes Them Sick?
When you look at the average hires for shared services and outsourced service centers, approximately 80% are college graduates and a majority are tri-lingual. So they are the type of people who need to be stretched. Things that ‘make them sick’ are:
- Boring and repetitive job content.
- Lack of career development opportunities.
- Frustrated aspirations to raise their skills.
- Gaps between brand image and reality.
These highly qualified individuals have aspirations and want to be connected to an organization in which they feel pride. Work / life balance is important – in part because free time is time to invest in further training and skill development. Companies must also meet their promises – to employees, customers, suppliers and society at large, to generate a sense of pride and ownership.
What Makes Them Tick?
- An inclusive and stretching culture that makes each individual feel that they have the chance to influence their environment and the company.
- A distinctive working environment.
- Visible commitment to the attraction and development of talent.
At a more specific level, the following were identified as ‘must-haves’ for talent attraction and retention:
- Documented capability framework
- Robust method for gap analysis
- Clear methods and indicators to spot talent
- Differentiated approaches that appeal to talent
- Multiple career path options that allow individual growth
- A commonly used ‘retention toolkit’ that supports Reward, Recognize, Engage
One of the key areas is to ensure that job role requirements are visible so that people can plan to develop their career by understanding and filling identified gaps.
IACCM’s Contribution
So where does IACCM fit in all of this? Of course, as a professional association, there are limits to what we can provide. But there are some important contributions that we make, allowing management to focus on the more internal elements of their program. This doubtless explains the Association’s continued growth and the positive feedback to our training and development programs:
- We are global. Our membership spans 106 countries and our programs are accessible anywhere in the world. They are also designed for a multi-national audience and respect cultural and business variations. They are based on the principle that good practices and good ideas have no boundaries.
- Our credentials are also global. Individuals can see value in what we offer because it is transportable. They are benchmarked against a worldwide professional community and with that comes confidence and respect for them and their qualifications.
- We offer on-line capability frameworks which enable comprehensive gap analysis. Our framework builds from globally recognized skill requirements and then benchmarks individuals against their team and against an external peer group. They receive personal development plans that are objective and which highlight both positive and negative gaps.
- We provide inclusive training materials that generate an inter-active learning community. Training has always been best when it is collaborative. It is even better when it is multi-faceted. Students in the IACCM Managed Learning program are not only receiving, but they are also giving. By working as part of a multi-talented, variable experience group, everyone has something to contribute – ideas, questions, know-how. It allows students to feel they are indeed contributing to their environment and their company.
- Our comprehensive, points-based assessments look holistically at individuals and their achievements. By creating a rounded picture of academic achievement, on the job performance and social / professional contribution, we support the identification and recognition of talent.
IACCM programs appear to be far ahead of competition. They are effective and they are low-cost. We are fortunate because we came of age at the same time as the new generation of workers and we use the technologies that excite them. We understand their world because we were created by it. And we are committed to making them tick!
Commitment Matters 