SpendMatters has featured an interesting commentary on the acquisition by Emptoris of Click Commerce and their stated aim of improving support to the services market.
I am not a great judge of software functionality, and therefore I will not comment specifically about the merits or otherwise of Emptoris’ products and this acquisition, but it does seem to me that the move has business logic. Our world continues to move more and more towards a services-based economy. This trend shows no sign of lessening. It is being driven by the view that we no longer want to buy ‘things’, but instead want to buy ‘outcomes’.
Everything about our society is pointing to a world where there will be greater accountability. We are demanding more honesty. And this means that companies (as well as politicians, business leaders and professionals everywhere) will be expected to make responsible commitments and to honor them.
If we are going to be held more to account, the implication is also that the relationship needs to last for the lifetime of the offering. Hence not only is structuring of the deal important, but oversight of performance moves up several notches (hence the concerns of the Obama administration and many other central governments over procurement and contract management capability).
Since no one can afford a massive increase in headcount, and robust skills in the area of services contracting are in short supply, Emptoris’ move is both logical and in tune with market needs. Having the right software to manage a portfolio of services contracts and relationships will become of growing concern to businesses worldwide. And I tend to agree with Emptoris VP of Marketing Kevin Potts when he suggests that no one has yet filled this space with a flexible and scaleable product (or perhaps service!).
Who knows, we may one day even see the light come on in more Procurement groups and they will break down this false barrier between ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ so that acquisition decisions truly do start to focus on value.
Procurement Leaders offers an interesting commentary on the way that Procurement is being driven to destructive behavior by executive management (see The Big Debate: Short-Term Myopia hHas Taken Over From Long-Term Strategic Thinking).
The core hypothesis is that the current economic environment has caused Procurement efforts to be diverted from delivery of value to delivery of lowest price. The article suggests that short-term, bottom line savings are the imperative that has undermined the noble mission of the typical Procurement group.
I find two fundamental flaws with this commentary. First, where is the evidence that most Procurement groups ever bought in to value versus price; and second, where is the evidence that those who understood this difference have in fact changed their behavior?
At IACCM, we have the benefit of bringing together buy-side and sell-side practitioners – so we see and hear both sides of the argument and we continually explore the best methods to secure value for both sides.
For all the talk about how Procurement reached the top table, had become strategic deliverers of business value etc., we have known that this is the exception, not the rule. It is of course in the interests of the procurement press to highlight the strategic and business skills of their members; It makes them feel good, it suggests status – but you have only to talk with our sales contracting members or to observe the realities of Procurement contracts to recognize that the truth is rather different. So when the call comes from management ‘Deliver more savings’, most Procurement groups respond with relish.
But there is another side to this story. The real leaders from procurement who grasped the principles of value-add have been able to resist the pressures from executive management because they have the information and knowledge to demonstrate why this would be counter-strategic. So our experience at IACCM has been quite different from that of Procurement Leaders. In recent months, we have had numerous calls from members asking for insights and data that would assist in showing executive management why an aggressive approach to suppliers would be wrong. We have featured leading members on podcasts and in interviews who have explained why and how they ensured that renegotiation was a positive relationship builder, not a destroyer. We have had a growing participation in our Ethical Contracting community of interest, as professionals understand their role in protecting corporate reputation.
So perhaps Procurement Leaders is right to highlight myopia. But maybe the myopia has more to do with the failure of their audience to broaden its horizons and become part of a community that commits to collaborative, value-driven relationships. Strategic significance demands courage; those who wish to rise the top table must be ready to confront executive demands and demonstrate why short-term fixes will create unacceptable risks to the business.
It had to come. Most of the traditional professions are facing radical change; recent press confirms that the legal profession is not immune.
Lawyers have become critical to so many aspects of human and corporate interaction. They have been able to exploit that position through a steady growth in their number, as well as in their fees and salaries. In some respects, the global networked economy sustained their role and status – international business is complex and risky and demands legal advice. But perhaps those costs became too much and drove many to ask questions. Why do legal bills need to be so high?
Attacked On Two Fronts: The Law Firm
The onslaught on traditional law firms began a few years ago, with push-back on hourly rates and billing methods. It resulted in some innovation in service delivery and the recognition by top law firms that they must manage knowledge more efficiently. They also became more creative in marketing. Some started to use low-cost sources of supply, such as India, for a range of core services.
Wharton Business School featured this topic in a recent article, which has been summarized by IACCM analyst Ram Paravasthu:
“With most organizations under financial pressure, a Wharton research article finds several enterprises beginning to pay more attention to the value they receive from their lawyers. According to Susan Hackett from the Association of Corporate Counsels, a new approach to value is necessary because law firms had become so expensive that their fees often outstripped the value of the problem they were brought in to resolve. She observes “You can have many lawyers and paralegals all billing on a matter worth $50,000 of exposure adding up to a grand total of $250,000. That’s crazy.”
In the United States, the Association of Corporate Counsels (ACC), which represents in-house lawyers who typically hire outside law firms for specialty work, has introduced a new set of guidelines for law firms and corporate counsels. The guidelines are designed to make both sides work to keep costs in line with the value of the legal services provided, while assuring a fair return to law firms. The arrangement is similar to the types of agreements made famous by Japanese automakers and their suppliers that create value throughout the supply chain. The suppliers, in this case law firms, agree to provide their services at a fair cost, though perhaps not necessarily the lowest cost, and client companies agree to provide a steady stream of business.
The ACC also has drafted a sample covenant for companies to share with their legal providers that outlines specific steps the two sides could agree to take. For example, the covenant calls for clients to define objectives in the engagement, pay bills promptly and understand that budgets may need to be revised for unforeseen events. Law firms would agree to learn the client’s business and strategic objectives, give honest feedback on whether the client’s objectives in a matter are realistic and attainable, and use appropriate staffing to pursue a case.”
(Read the full Wharton article here: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2231)
Attacked On Two Fronts: The In-House Lawyer
A Conference Board article suggests that in-house counsel are also vulnerable. With other corporate staffs facing cut-backs in numbers, costs or both, lawyers cannot be immune. Yet lawyers face increased workload because of governance issues, heightened business risks, extensive contract renegotiation etc. So they have to become more efficient; working practices must change. However, according to the Conference Board, cut-backs are counter-productive – they do not lead to efficiency, they lead instead to greater use of external law firms!
I turned to David Perla at Pangea3 (a leader in outsourced legal services) to ask his opinion:
“The article has a degree of accuracy, but misses the point. The point really is that in-house departments, at whatever size, continue to be over-reliant on law firms. As a result, those departments find it difficult to cut law firm spend and therefore end up cutting head count. In-house departments should focus on doing more sophisticated work in-house (much of which even today is still sent to law firms), and using alternative providers for all of the day-to-day operationalized work, such as repeat, high-volume contracts, contract management and CM software implementation and data migration, legal and business research, corporate secretarial work and the like. Pangea3 provides these services, as do many of the alternative providers mentioned in the article. But in-house legal departments need to look at alternatives when times are good, and wean themselves off going to law firms for the tricky/complex work – which should be handled in-house. We did just this at Monster.com, hiring non-lawyers for day-to-day contracts (such as sales agreements, co-branding agreements, nda’s, etc.) and for things like cease & desist letters. We even used those people for due diligence on pending acquisitions. That free up the lawyers (including me) to do work that previously went to our law firms, such as M & A drafting and negotiation, complex contract negotiation, litigation strategy and securities work. Our law firms got less of not only the day-to-day stuff, but also of the complex stuff. So it is not a question of whether in-house lawyers are cheaper than contractors (of course they are), it’s a question of law firm use. Most interestingly, Counsel on Call and Kelly are simply contractors, and part of the problem, not the solution. LRN and Axiom are alternatives, using a totally different (read – alternative) model to free up in-house resources to handle more sophisticated work.”
Conclusion
The continuing pressure for change will drive radical change in the profession. Efficiencies will come, especially through the use of automation and improved knowledge management. But impatience may grow, partly due to the innate nature of the law, but also due to the complexity created by the lack of international standards. Many leawyers understand and respect the need for change; but can they respond with sufficient speed and creativity to satisfy the corporate budget owners?
It is less than a year since I wrote a role description for a contract manager (and within this term I include commercial management). The article attracted a high level of interest and is still frequently referenced. So in view of the dramatic shift in economic conditions, I thought I should revisit this topic and answer two questions:
- Has the importance of the role changed?
- Have the tasks or contribution of a typical contract manager been impacted by the dramatic shift in economic and business conditions?
The Importance Of The Role
The original article highlighted the extent to which a global networked economy had elevated the role of contract management within high-performance organizations. It emphasized the extent to which increasing complexity was demanding greater discipline in the formation and management of trading relationships – and how the contracting process is a key mechanism for ensuring such discipline.
Some businesses have developed their contracting competence without investing in dedicated contract managers, but for many others (especially those in high value / high risk business-to-business markets) there has been steady growth in the numbers and quality of the contracts staff.
A key aspect of the role of a contract manager (as opposed to a contract administrator) should be to ensure that commitments sought or given are ethical, achievable and in compliance with organizational policy. Therefore recent economic events – and the collapse of trust in standards of corporate governance – implicitly make the role more important.
In addition, contract skills have been much in demand as a result of the need to renegotiate many existing relationships and improve the standards of governance over others. The US administration has not been alone in highlighting the challenge of building sufficient contract management skills to 0versee the barrage of new capital projects being funded by the public purse, as well as ensuring the success of those already underway.
And as I argued in the original article, high value contract management is about more than just compliance and transactional oversight. It is also about ethics, integrity, the management of reputational and regulatory risk, and ensuring on-going competitiveness. So the role of a contract manager has been made substantially more important – and more strategic – as a result of the economic crisis. In particular, there is a need to ensure that business opportunities are not stifled by risk-aversion; and that contracts achieve positive economic outcomes.
Changing Tasks & Contribution
Investment in contract management is increasing – and this seems likely to continue, both in terms of automation and people. As mentioned above, the expectations of executive management are lkely to increase. They need contract managers who can deliver results and keep the business out of trouble. Hence the need for balance between compliance and innovation.
To the extent that new regulation occurs, contract managers will be expected to understand it and ensure that it is respected. But many business leaders will be hoping that they can run with a system of self-regulation – and this places even more emphasis on the role of the contract manager. In order to remain competitive, businesses must remain flexible; the rules, practices and procedures must make both ethical and economic sense.
The original article highlighted that high-performance contracts groups undertake both a strategic and operational role. They are involved in setting, managing and changing the policies, practices and procedures that determine contract terms. Today’s environment is accelerating that need and also making the job far more attractive – and visible. With that visibility come increased demands and expectations for performance and value – which in turn means measurements.
The recent G20 meeting offered us a sense of the importance of the contract management role and some of the parameters that will surround its performance. In their final communique, they set out future principles of governance for the financial services sector, including the following:
“Staff engaged in financial and risk control must be independent, have appropriate authority, and be compensated in a manner that is independent of the business areas they oversee and commensurate with their key role in the firm. Effective independence and appropriate authority of such staff are necessary to preserve the integrity of financial and risk management ….”
So in answer to the question on changing tasks and contribution, it is my belief that we will see some shift in the emphasis of tasks performed (and in particular earlier and more selective involvement) and considerable changes in the contribution and its measurement. Contract Management will be targetted with the tasks of protecting reputation risks through ethical contracting and relationship practices; yet at the same time with the need to ensure competitiveness through innovative terms and adaptive processes. It will increasingly be a life-cycle role, which means establishing the right contractual framework and then overseeing its successful management and delivery of expected results.
The G20 emphasis on ‘separation of duties’ is also likely to be reflected in many organizational debates, with stronger pressure for contracts and commercial staff to be immunized from the pressures of business unit performance and deal-based bonus schemes. It will be essential to ensure they have strong market awareness, without succumbing to the short-term demands of individual transactions. Modern technologies should enable this balance, especially with the creation of ‘centers of excellence’ equipped with the right applications, analytical skills, authority and accountability.
I have highlighted the types of measurement that should apply to contract management in previous articles, but they include things like cycle time reduction, the percentage of deals enabled through e-commerce; the economic value of term alternatives and innovations, the reduction in claims and disputes. Good contracting is fundamental to any healthy 21st century business – and it requires a new breed of contract managers who are commited to professionalism.
So perhaps the biggest change (and arguably a dependency for success) is the need for Contract Managers to recognize that they can no longer flourish as talented individuals, but must adopt the behaviors of a profession – a consistent body of knowledge, shared tools and methods, a commitment to continuous improvement through research, benchmarking and pooled experiences and development of learning sources that enable a career path.
The demand is there and it is growing; the challenge right now is to increase the quantity and quality of supply and to establish leaders who welcome accountability for results.
The G20 meeting took steps to address the regulatory environment for financial services. Will these new standards remain limited to the finance industry, or will they influence broader standards?
Whether or not there will be increased regulation affecting the entire corporate sector remains to be seen. Industry groups, such as the UK’s Institute of Directors, are already mobilizing to push back against possible regulatory initiatives.
One way that companies may seek to reduce legislation is to take proactive steps in self-regulation. And an obvious area is the separation of ‘poachers and gamekeepers’ within their staff. The G20 communique set up a Financial Standards Board and among the principles it will oversee is:
“Staff engaged in financial and risk control must be independent, have appropriate authority, and be compensated in a manner that is independent of the business areas they oversee and commensurate with their key role in the firm. Effective independence and appropriate authority of such staff are necessary to preserve the integrity of financial and risk management’s influence on incentive compensation.”
It can certainly be argued that those within Legal, Procurement and Commercial / Contract Management are ‘engaged in financial and risk control’ – so we should start thinking about the ways this will change our role, our organizational alignment, our measurements, our standards of practice and our reward systems. We must also ensure that increased responsibility for good governance does not result in damaging or destroying the business.
An exclusive focus on compliance and monitoring would potentially inflict such damage because it would often crush innovation and change (and therefore we would be driving compliance with uncompetitive practices). So to protect our organization’s health, we must first initiate and / or approve the policies and practices that will ensure healthy and ethical competition; and then we can be confident that we are monitoring compliance with the right goals and objectives.
This is a critical shift for our community. It is one that several groups already exhibit – but they are the exception. That is why IACCM is so strongly focused on helping organizations understand and make the transformation to a world where risk management is a balance between opportunity and consequence. Those who attend the IACCM Americas conference in Orlando (April 23rd – 24th) will return well equipped to start their journey.
On the Supply Excellence blog, Mike Petro has written an excellent article regarding the evolving ‘Buy American’ policy.
Petro describes much of the confusion such policies create and the nightmare that they represent for those charged with either writing or performing contracts. He highlights the threat to project costs, as well as the many areas of unanswered questions (e.g. when is a company or its goods deemed ‘foreign’?)
There are two particular areas that should concern IACCM members:
- As with all Government -initiated clauses, it can be extremely hard to obtain clarity over the steps needed to be in compliance. Therefore we are entering into uncertain commitments – always a practise to be avoided. Companies face the very real risk that accusations of non-compliance will be driven by political interests, rather than any sense of equity or justice. For example, NGOs or publicity-seeking politicians will start campaigns that cause severe reputation damage, even though it may eventually be decided that there was no infringement.
- This clause sets an unfortunate example to the rest of the world. If copied elsewhere (almost certainly the case), it will create tremendous uncertainty for companies everywhere. It potentially implies the need to monitor whole supply chains for compliance with a hodge-podge of hastily passed laws. Recent US research into monitoring of the supply chain for food products (a legislative requirement) showed that more than 70% of outlets do not comply; most companies have no clue about the origin of goods or the hands they have been through. It is therefore clear that this clause will increase risk, increase workload and delay contracts (including slowing down the very public works projects that are supposed to kick-start the economy).
Whether or not one agrees with protectionism, no contracts expert should support laws that drive uncertainty and risk. Many argue that this uncertainty is inevitable because global markets no longer allow such discrimination. IACCM’s view is that, unless the law can be improved to create contractual predictability and certainty, it should be scrapped.
Channel Insider carried an interesting story about eBay, How eBay Is Alienating Selling Allies.
What this article illustrates to me is the challenge organizations face in establishing ‘fair’ trading terms. It highlights that fairness ultimately depends on the fact that both sides will can trust that the other will behave ethically and honestly – either because they want to or because they have to.
What does this story tell us about some core contracting and negotiation principles?
In the case of large b2b transactions, there are intrinsic safeguards that should allow the parties to moderate their need for onerous contract terms and aggressive negotiation style. For example, there is reasonable probability (at least in normal times) that both companies will remain in business and therefore offer a target for redress and recovery. Second, as corporate entities, there is a reasonable probability of fundamentally ethical behavior, if only because of concerns over reputation.
So part of a risk assessment is to establish whether principles such as these apply in all circumstances. And of course they do not. Smaller business or those that appear financially unstable may not operate to such high codes of practice – and hence they tend to face more onerous terms. Similarly, some markets function with a very different business culture, where the values and principles of one side may not be held or understood by the other (Intellectual Property or Health and Safety would be good examples). Again, this imposes a need not only for more detailed discussion but also for added safeguards in establishing any relationship.
Consumers – as the story in question shows – are yet another breed. It is unattractive for businesses to have to chase consumers. Courts are not intrinsically sympathetic; tracking them down can be difficult; it is costly to pursue them. That is why damage to the consumer’s reputation is one of the few realistic areas of recourse – hitting their credit rating or otherwise limiting their ability to trade.
And that is ultimately the interesting point in this story about eBay. By removing the primary opportunity for business to have recourse, they are making their marketplace an unattractive place to sell. The scales must be balanced in order for trading relationships to flourish.
There is a second interesting aspect to this story and it relates to the mechanism that eBay has at its disposal to enable opnness and transparency. In principle, this is a contract governance dream – the ability to develop consolidated and real-time performance data and feedback to help steer buying and selling decisions. It is the type of data that offers transparent risk assessments which could then be reflected in the nature of the terms and conditions offered. But sadly, if that data becomes one-sided, much of its value is destroyed. It is like gamblers playing in an environment where one side always sees the cards and the other plays blind.
It is a story worth remembering as we consider our approaches to trading relationships and as we seek to develop more sophisticated approaches to contract and relationship management.
I have found there is a great divide within the legal, procurement and contract management communities. It is between those who feel that they are fully accepted and respected by their internal customers (executives, business unit personnel, sales); and those who consider that their role is undervalued.
This latter group generally observe that they ‘are involved too late’, that the extent of their contribution is limited by a failure to consult them earlier in the process. In general, the members of this group significantly outnumber the members of the ‘accepted and respected’ group – I would guess by a ratio of 4:1.
Support groups are right to feel concerned about perceptions of this type, especially at times of economic uncertainty and cut-back. Being undervalued can rapidly translate to being seen as dispensable. So what can be done to address the problem?
There are of course a number of steps that need to be taken, especially if an entire organization needs to shift its image. I have written extensively about these elsewhere in Commitment Matters. But individuals are not powerless to act and I recently discovered some useful advice in a book entitled “The Art of Woo: Using Strategic Persuasion to Sell Your Ideas.”
The authors highlight the need for each of us to remember that we are selling our competence – and that we must persuade our audience that it is a competence that will help them achieve their goals. They set out 9 questions that any of us should ask ourselves before we go into meetings or conversations with our customers:
- How does this individual perceive the problem I intend to solve?
- What is the pithy summary of my idea that will appeal to this person?
- What roles does this person play in the decision-making process?
- What is my goal for this encounter?
- What is the basis for my credibility with this person?
- Will my idea conflict with any of this person’s beliefs?
- How might my idea conflict with this person’s interests?
- Can I leave the relationship better than I found it?
- What kind of public commitment from this person would best build momentum?
Many times, the groups that feel undervalued turn out to be those that rely upon some perceived executive mandate – for example, related to compliance. While this may indeed be an executive desire, they also want to close business or to ensure speed of execution. What they expect from internal staff groups is not just that we will recite rules, but that we will find solutions, ways to reconcile conflicting priorities.
And that ‘can do’ attitide is what our other internal customers also look for. So if we want to be among those who feel that they are accepted as a part of the core team. remember that we must all be sales people – we must explain how our expertise or processes are going to assist in achieving the goals of our audience better, faster and with less pain or aggravation along the way.
Our customers don’t use our services because of their inherent virtues; they come to us because they see it as necessaary if they are to reach some desired outcome or result. Therefore, if you want them to come early, willingly and often, you must make them see how your involvement gets them the results they want to achieve.
Unbridled greed, selfish behavior, a failure to consider the needs or interests of others … these are the tendencies that have unleashed social and political anger against the world of business and its leaders.
Latest in a long line of complainants is the UK’s Royal College of Physicians, demanding an end to the ‘culture of gifts’ that permeates the world of pharmaceutical sales. Arguably, they are a bit late – the days of profligate gift-giving to doctors mostly dried up some years ago.
But there is no doubt that businesses face a backlash because of the failure by some to make sound moral and ethical judgments. This includes the vast majority of CEOs and the Boards that awarded excessive personal remuneration. Society reluctantly accepted the argument that multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses were merited because of the exceptional growth these individuals were driving (and from which so many benefitted). What dismays everyone is the lack of accountability and the failure to reverse these rewards now that things have gone wrong.
In the end it became a collective behavior, because so few spoke out on the excesses, even if they privately disagreed with them. Now, if it is to avoid extensive interference from regulators, auditors or NGOs, the corporate sector must work to rebuild social trust. That work must address the new realities of networked communications and technologies that support not only speed of communication, but also greater transparency. Executives who believed that decisions could be hidden from the public view, or that business complexity somehow absolved them from personal responsibility, need to think again.
The assumption that corporations – and those who lead them – are innately evil is wrong. While the governance scandals of recent times have certainly revealed some characters who are fraudsters and criminals, much of what has gone wrong is due more to incompetence than dishonesty. In the excitement of a globally expanding economy, the fear of being left behind transcended good judgment in making business decisions. What the collapse has demonstrated is the failure of today’s organizational structures and management information systems.
Whenever I write about risk management, I recall a very simple principle that we adopted during my time at IBM. The method we used was called ‘Balanced Business Decisions’ and it forced people through several discrete yet simple phases. It also made clear that EVERYONE owned risk and was responsible for its management – unlike the world of today, where ‘experts’ are hired to relieve management of the need to take personal ownership.
First, they had to describe what they were trying to do and what outcomes they wanted to achieve.
Second, they faced a long checklist of stakeholders – internal and external – and had to describe the impact on these stakeholders and what their reaction would be.
Third, they had to develop and document a risk mitigation strategy for any identified issues or dependencies, with particular focus on the steps needed to reduce probability. (Keeping things secret was not an acceptable risk strategy).
Finally, they had to write an imagined press article that resulted from their initiative, remembering that the job of the press is to expose and ridicule, rarely to praise.
I have tried to use that simple system for the last 20 years. I am sure it is not foolproof, but it is easy to understand and to follow, unlike many of the horrifically complex enterprise risk systems imposed by ‘experts’. I suspect many corporate executives would have done well to adopt such a simple yet rigorous approach to their business decision-making.
To restore the credibility of business, three steps are needed:
- Executive management must de-mystify risk and ensure that all employees and trading partners understand their responsibility for its assessment and management. Ignorance is not an excuse.
- Businesses must introduce risk management techniques that do not depend on experts and outsiders, but which every employee can understand and use.
- Responsibility and accountability for making good decisions – and learning from bad ones – applies equally to everyone in the company and its selected trading partners. And that accountability starts at the top.
The philosophy of ‘Balanced Business Decisions’ was based on concepts of trust, teamwork and collaboration. It demanded thought and consideration of viewpoints and perspectives that went beyond your own narrow interests. What business needs today is not socialism, but social responsibility.
In his blog on Spend Matters, Jason Busch comments on Boeing’s recent win of a major defense contract in India.
Jason observes that “other defense contractors have lost billions of dollars in Indian defense contracts not because they weren’t selected as a preferred supplier, but because they failed to meet offset requirements to source a certain percentage of the total award from local suppliers.” While I find this claim rather surprising (such off-sets have been typical in the industry for decades), it is indicative of a real and growing issue. As the worldwide economy faces a period of no growth, it is inevitable that political – and social – instincts will turn to protecting domestic industry.
Indeed, we are already seeing the emergence of unrest in Europe, with UK protests over the use of foreign workers and mass strikes in France over economic policy. The pressure on government to ‘buy local’ will inevitably increase.
With credit in short supply, government policy has taken on added importance. As one of the few reliable buyers, having government customers will do wonders for a company’s credit rating. So not only will public procurement save jobs, it will also influence competitiveness. It beccomes very tempting to favor domestic champions or to insist on extensive local content – even if sometimes that may result in degraded quality or higher prices.
In the old days, there was skepticism about local content providers, especially in emerging economies. But is that concern still valid? Of course, at times the answer is yes. Sadly, there are still cases where the ‘local content’ is a favored firm with ties to the government, or where there really are not local companies with the required skills or technologies. Yet this is no longer universally the case, as highlighted recently by IACCM Board Member Dave Connor. Dave ‘s interview (available as a podcast in the IACCM Library) indicated the maturity of today’s local content programs – and in fact, that many local and regional providers are now surpassing the quality standards of their global rivals.
So Jason is right to focus on the importance of this sensitive issue and it is without doubt an area where leading companies – and those aspiring to remain leaders – must raise their capabilities in managing local content programs and use this as a source of competitive advantage in bidding for international government business.
Commitment Matters 