A recent interview by McKinsey with Wikipedia’s founder offers valuable insights to a question challenging many commercial teams and business negotiators: how do we build trust in an age where technology increasingly mediates our relationships?
Jimmy Wales observed that trust is declining almost everywhere, whether in politics, journalism, or institutions. This erosion of confidence makes it harder to agree on even the simplest facts – yet the Wikipedia model continues to function. It’s grounded in two simple principles: assume good faith and make integrity easy to verify. These principles have deep relevance for today’s commercial and contracting professionals.
Deliberate Vulnerability
Wales once wrote on his user page, “Yes, you can edit this page. I trust you.”
That willingness to extend trust as a core principle became part of Wikipedia’s culture. The community allows anyone to edit, but with the safety net of instant reversion and transparent oversight.
Commercial teams could learn from that mindset. Too often, contracts are written as if every counterpart is an adversary waiting to exploit a loophole. We legislate against bad faith instead of designing for good faith. Yet successful partnerships typically begin with an act of measured vulnerability -sharing data, explaining assumptions, or exposing real cost structures. When it is paired with sensible guardrails, acts of trust invite reciprocity.
Trust by Design
Wikipedia assumes good faith, but not blindly. As Wales puts it, “Assume good faith is not a suicide pact.” Trust is supported by a well-structured system: transparent edits, public records, clear rules, and the ability to revert or block bad actors.
In business relationships, trust must likewise be designed, not declared. Governance frameworks, data accuracy, and digital records serve the same purpose as Wikipedia’s edit history. They allow for correction without accusation. In the era of AI and digital contracting, this means traceable data flows, version control, and transparent performance dashboards. Technology becomes the architecture that sustains integrity.
Reputation as the New Currency
Wikipedia relies on “pseudo-anonymity” – consistent identity and behavior over time. Reputation counts – and builds over time.
That lesson translates directly into contracting. Buyers and suppliers alike build credibility through consistency of conduct: fairness in negotiation, honesty in communication, reliability in delivery. As digital ecosystems expand, formal and informal reputation systems will increasingly determine who is trusted, who gets opportunities, and who is left out.
Shared Understanding of the Facts
Wales warns that democracy fails when people no longer share a common reality. The same is true of commerce. Negotiations and contract management collapse when each party operates on different data or conflicting interpretations of performance.
AI and analytics can help, but only if they reinforce a shared factual baseline. Joint dashboards, open data repositories, and agreed definitions of success turn technology into a trust amplifier. Without that alignment, technology simply speeds up misunderstanding.
The Simplicity of Integrity
“Tell the truth. Give the facts. Don’t be biased.” Wales calls it the “kindergarten test.” These values have never been more relevant. As algorithms begin to draft contracts, monitor delivery, and even recommend negotiation tactics, we must embed these ethical principles into the systems we build and use. Transparency, explainability, and fairness should be the cornerstones of any AI-enabled contracting environment.
Scaling Trust
Wikipedia’s community thrives because it combines individual integrity with systemic accountability. That’s precisely what modern commercial ecosystems require. Trust grows through one relationship at a time, but it scales only when systems reinforce the same values.
Adaptive contracts, shared data, and relational governance are the business equivalents of Wikipedia’s edit logs and community norms. They make trust not an act of faith but a design feature.
Technology Cannot Replace Trust: It Can Encode It
Wikipedia’s success is not about technology; it’s about the values the technology supports.
The same choice confronts commercial and contracting professionals. As AI enters the negotiation room and digital platforms manage our obligations, we face a defining question: Will we use technology to control people or interactions, or to empower trust between them?
Trust remains the invisible capital of commerce. It is what turns data into decisions, contracts into relationships, and promises into performance. The tools may be new, but the lessons remain the same.
Tell the truth. Give the facts. Don’t be biased.
Eighty-seven percent of organizations report that they are operating in conditions of heightened uncertainty. Market volatility, geopolitical tension, regulatory shifts and digital disruption now define the global business environment. Yet, as the Commerce & Contract Management Institute’s new global benchmark reveals, most organizations remain ill-equipped to adapt to these challenging conditions.
Across industries and geographies, perceptions of uncertainty vary – manufacturers worry about supply chain fragility, financial institutions about regulatory complexity, and technology firms about talent and IP risk. But the pattern is universal: today’s uncertainty is persistent, systemic, and accelerating.
If volatility is the new normal, adaptability must become the new core competency. And that is where most organizations are falling short. Contracts and contract management represent critical tools in handling uncertainty, yet our data shows that around 70–80% still lack clear ownership of the contracting process. Roles are fragmented, accountability for outcomes is blurred, and contract design and performance remain trapped between functions rather than managed as an integrated business discipline.
This fragmentation erodes contract intelligence. Instead of learning from experience, organizations tighten controls, multiply approval gates, and become more risk-averse – exactly the opposite of what resilience requires.
When we looked at “quality of contracting,” the contrast was striking. Those with clear governance, shared data visibility, and adaptive terms achieve faster cycle times, more consistent value-based metrics, and greater success in meeting strategic goals. They react to uncertainty with curiosity and creativity, not fear. They treat contracts not as preventative shields, but as instruments of alignment and opportunity. A key element of the solution became available in June of this year – the ANSI-approved Contract Management Standard – a globally developed framework which assists organizations in identifying and fixing the process defects and misalignments that underlie many of the performance issues.
That shift in mindset and discipline is critical. A risk-focused organization views contracts as protection from loss. An opportunity-focused organization does not lose sight of risk, but also sees them as tools to enable change – to enter new markets, forge stronger relationships, and share data in pursuit of common outcomes.
Achieving that quality depends on three interdependent elements: people, process, and systems. The skills profile is evolving fast. Traditional legal, financial and negotiation expertise remain essential, but they must now be combined with data literacy, digital fluency, and the ability to interpret insights generated by AI and analytics.
The performance gap is widening between the best and the rest. Leading organizations are redesigning performance metrics to measure value creation and adaptability. Their progress is powered by intelligent systems that transform contract data into foresight and foresight into faster, better decisions.
System adoption and aspiration point to the same conclusion: the future of contracting lies in human–machine collaboration. AI is already reshaping the landscape – from automated clause analysis to predictive risk alerts and scenario planning. But AI alone is not the answer. It is the combination of capable people, connected processes, and intelligent systems that will determine success.
The message of this benchmark is clear. Elevating commercial and contract management is not a back-office improvement, it is the catalyst for organizational resilience. Those who invest in capability now will be the ones turning uncertainty into advantage.
Join us on Monday 3rd November for the official release of the report and a webinar where we discuss the findings.
As a child, every summer, my garden was full of butterflies. Today, sighting one is so rare that it’s a special event. Is this indicative of the future for commercial and contract managers?
There’s no question that just as environmental changes have altered butterfly populations, the digital revolution is fundamentally reshaping the CCM landscape. But unlike the butterflies in my garden, the CCM practitioner isn’t facing extinction – they’re undergoing a remarkable metamorphosis.
The Traditional CCM Garden
In the traditional CCM world, practitioners fluttered across every phase of the contracting lifecycle – from initial design through to closure. Like butterflies pollinating flowers, CCM professionals moved between departments, facilitating relationships, negotiating terms, and ensuring compliance through manual processes and personal expertise. The garden was full of activity, with practitioners handling routine tasks, document reviews, and relationship management across the each phase of the contracting lifecycle, often interrupted by troublesome moths which intervened to create chaos and confusion.
The Changing Environment
Today’s digital transformation represents the environmental shift that’s changing our CCM ecosystem. Artificial Intelligence, automation, and intelligent systems are reshaping how contracting work gets done. The transactional elements of contracting – the routine, repeatable tasks that once required human intervention – are increasingly being handled by digital systems that can process information faster and more consistently than their human counterparts.
The Evolution, Not Extinction
And here’s where our butterfly metaphor takes an optimistic turn. The CCM practitioner isn’t becoming extinct; they’re evolving into a more specialized, strategic species. Just as some butterfly species have adapted to urban environments by changing their behavior and habitat preferences, CCM professionals are adapting by focusing on higher-value activities that require uniquely human capabilities.
The future CCM practitioner – our evolved butterfly – will be characterized by:
Strategic Navigation: Moving beyond transactional processing to focus on strategy development and commercial model design. These practitioners will define the frameworks within which automated systems operate, ensuring that technology serves broader business objectives.
Relationship Orchestration: While systems can process data and execute routine tasks, the complex art of relationship management, stakeholder alignment, and collaborative problem-solving remains distinctly human. The future CCM butterfly will specialize in these high-touch, high-value interactions.
Analytics and Insight Generation: The data generated through automated contracting processes creates new opportunities for strategic insight. Future practitioners will focus on interpreting this data to drive continuous improvement and strategic decision-making, feeding back into the strategy component of the contracting lifecycle.
Exception Management: When automated systems encounter situations outside their parameters, human expertise becomes crucial. The evolved CCM practitioner will specialize in handling complex, non-standard situations that require judgment, creativity, and strategic thinking.
The New Ecosystem
Rather than a garden with fewer butterflies, we’re seeing the emergence of a more sophisticated ecosystem. The routine work that once occupied much of a practitioner’s time is being handled by intelligent systems, freeing them to focus on work that creates greater value. This mirrors how some butterfly species have found new niches in urban environments – different from their traditional habitats, but vital to the ecosystem’s health.
The contracting lifecycle itself becomes more dynamic, with strategy and analytics playing increasingly important roles in driving continuous improvement and adaptation. The future CCM practitioner operates at this strategic level, ensuring that automated systems align with business objectives and that insights from data analytics inform strategic decisions.
A Garden Transformed, Not Diminished
My childhood garden may have fewer butterflies today, but the CCM profession is experiencing something different – a transformation that elevates the role rather than diminishing it. The future CCM butterfly may look different from its predecessors, but it will be more specialized, more strategic, and more valuable to the business ecosystem it serves.
The key to thriving in this new environment is embracing the metamorphosis – developing the strategic, analytical, and relationship management capabilities that complement rather than compete with intelligent systems. The CCM practitioners who make this transition successfully will find themselves in a garden that’s not emptier, but richer with opportunity. And that is why NCMA, WorldCC and the CCM Institute have come together, providing the global standards, research and training that turn that metamorphosis from a possibility to a reality.
When ERP systems became the backbone of many organizations in the 1990s – 2000s, one of the frequent criticisms (and I was among those critics) was the extent to which it caused the embedding of rigid, siloed standards which added to the push for commoditization and drove tensions in the customer – supplier relationship.
In the eyes of those objecting, ERP standardizes and hard-wires business processes (including procurement and contracts) to the point where it constrains flexibility, makes it harder to accommodate exceptions, and limits the ability to adapt to diverse or changing market conditions.
So: were those concerns valid? Are they still correct today?
Then: The Nature of the Concern
ERPs were designed to impose discipline and standardization, which was a huge benefit for compliance, data integrity, and efficiency. But for contracts, which are inherently situational, market-responsive, and nuanced, ERP often presented a barrier. Templates and workflows embedded in ERP systems often reflected the policy at the time of implementation, and became very hard to change.
Negotiators and commercial managers complained of too-rigid clause libraries, overly standardized approval paths that didn’t recognize different risk–reward trade-offs and lack of ability to reflect business realities between different products or services, industry partners, market segments or geographic regions.
Now: Facing Market Volatility, Are Those Issues Evident?
The answer is yes – more so than ever.
Markets today are far more volatile, diverse, and uncertain than when most ERP systems were architected. Organizations are being asked to:
- Enter into new types of agreements (e.g., outcome-based, ESG-driven, multi-party ecosystems).
- Adjust terms more dynamically to reflect supply disruptions, inflation, new regulations, or competitive pressures.
- Recognize local market variations (cultural, legal, and commercial).
But the rigidity of many legacy ERP systems makes it slow and costly to adapt contracting practices. In fact, this rigidity has caused serious problems in building and managing trading relationships. Key examples of this are:
- Manual workarounds — people operating “off system” to enable exceptions.
- Data fragmentation, because contracts negotiated outside the ERP aren’t integrated back cleanly.
- Value erosion, because organizations can’t easily adjust to market signals or customer/supplier needs.
Is this changing?
ERP vendors have started responding. Many now offer more modular, API-friendly architectures that allow best-of-breed CLM or CPQ (Configure-Price-Quote) tools to integrate. Cloud-based ERP is more configurable than older on-premise versions, though still more rigid than a true CLM platform.
High-performing organizations now deliberately keep their contract intelligence and flexibility in a CLM or adjacent platform, while letting ERP handle transactions, compliance, and reporting. There is growing adoption of governance models which accept some decentralization to allow local or deal-specific adaptations. And the experience with ERP has taught us that adaptability and resilience must be designed into both processes and technology, not treated as afterthoughts.
So the challenge now is not to throw out ERP, but to augment it with more flexible, intelligent tools and governance frameworks that reflect the reality of modern contracting.
I started writing ‘Commitment Matters’ blogs almost 20 years ago. In that time, our world has changed and I started questioning how our concepts of ‘commitment’ have altered in the context of modern contracting.
20 years ago, I had to think long and hard, then document my thoughts. Today, indicative of the changes that have occurred, I was able to simply ask my AI-self, WorldCC’s ‘AskTim’. It took a few sdeconds to generate this reply. What do you think of it?
The Meaning of ‘Commitment’ in Modern Contracts
In the context of modern contracts, the concept of ‘commitment’ extends far beyond the traditional legal understanding of a binding promise. Based on the available sources, we can explore what commitment truly means in today’s contracting environment.
The Evolving Nature of Commitment
The meaning of commitment in modern contracts reflects the changing business landscape characterized by volatility and uncertainty. True commitment in this context involves:
- Decision-making under uncertainty: Commitment means being ready to make decisions and be held accountable even when facing ambiguity, incomplete facts, and limited data. This represents a form of leadership that both contract and commercial managers must embrace in today’s volatile global markets. [1]
- Accountability: A core aspect of commitment is the willingness to be held accountable for decisions and outcomes. This accountability represents leadership in contract and commercial management roles. [1][2]
- Adaptability: Modern commitment requires the ability to handle conditions of uncertainty that are increasingly common in today’s business environment. This means being flexible and responsive to changing circumstances while maintaining core obligations. [1]
Beyond Legal Obligations
The sources suggest that commitment in modern contracts transcends mere legal obligation. It represents a professional mindset that embraces:
- The ability to navigate ambiguity
- The courage to make decisions without perfect information
- The willingness to be accountable for outcomes
- The adaptability to respond to volatile market conditions [1][2]
This perspective aligns with the evolving nature of contract and commercial management, where professionals must increasingly deal with complex, uncertain business environments rather than simply enforcing static contractual terms.
While the traditional legal view might define commitment as simply “a binding promise or agreement,” the modern business context demands a more nuanced understanding that incorporates leadership, decision-making capacity, and adaptability to changing circumstances.
Prompt Coach
Further Thoughts for Exploration:
How might the concept of commitment differ between relational contracts (focused on long-term partnerships) versus transactional contracts (focused on discrete exchanges)?
Suggestion for Refining the Question:
Next time, consider refining your question to include specific parameters like industry context (e.g., technology, construction, services), or whether you’re interested in buy-side vs. sell-side perspectives on commitment. Additionally, specifying whether you’re looking at commitment from a legal, operational, or relationship management perspective would help provide more targeted insights from WorldCC’s research.
MORE RELATED QUESTIONS
What are some common challenges organizations face when interpreting ‘commitment’ in contracts, and what strategies might be implemented to address these obstacles effectively?
How does the concept of ‘commitment’ in modern contracts differ when viewed from a buy-side versus sell-side perspective (for sectors such as technology or construction)?
In what ways can the definition of ‘commitment’ evolve in response to the increasing complexity and ambiguity in global markets, as highlighted in your source?
How can organizations (large vs. small; multi-national vs. local) effectively foster a culture of accountability and commitment among contract managers?
Considering emerging trends in contractual relationships, what future implications might arise regarding the meaning of ‘commitment’ in international contracts?
Contract redlining – the activity of marking up a contract to show proposed changes – is a go-to technique for contract negotiation and review enthusiasts, now further enabled by automation and AI. But before we get carried away by the ease with which it can be undertaken, let’s reflect on the point that how and when we wield that trusty red pen can make or break business outcomes.
Traditional Redlining
It’s interesting to reflect on the origins of the term. ‘Redlining’ was a discriminatory practice introduced in the US financial sector to limit risk. Hence it often remains associated with risk allocation and protection of self-interest – an approach which tends to be reactive rather than creative, especially when:
- Changes are made without considering the underlying business objectives
- Edits focus solely on shifting risk to the other party
- Modifications are based on templates or standard positions without consideration of the specific relationship
Creative Contracting Approaches
More imaginative approaches to contract review and negotiation include a check to ensure we are even reviewing the right commercial model. Too often, the parties become so engrossed in the battle over redlines that they forget to ask ‘Is this the right form of agreement and the appropriate set of terms?’ A value-add process includes a quick review, asking whether before we rush into redlines, we should be:
- Focusing on mutual value creation rather than just risk allocation
- Designing innovative solutions to address both parties’ concerns
- Using visual elements, plain language, and creative formats to enhance understanding
- Developing relationship-focused provisions that encourage collaboration
Before you act …
- Ask “why” questions to understand underlying needs before proposing changes
- Consider multiple alternative solutions to address concerns
- Focus on outcomes rather than specific contract language
- Use design thinking principles to reimagine contract structures
- Incorporate relational elements that support long-term collaboration
Conclusion
Redlining is a necessary tool in contract review. However, an approach to redlining that is purely reactive and fails to consider creative alternatives is inevitably confrontational in nature. We must be wary of stifling creativity and imagination by jumping straight to redlines. The most effective contract professionals use redlining as just one tool within a broader, more creative approach to contracting that focuses on relationship-building, mutual value creation, and innovative problem-solving.
Inconsistency in the way that organizations manage their contracts creates delays, disputes and financial loss. We must do better – and now we can.
Today’s trading environment demands more from organizations than ever before. Volatility, uncertainty, and speed of change are redefining how we do business and placing new pressures on the way we manage our external relationships.
This demands an adaptive and consistent contracting process, enabling greater speed and quality of decision-making across both internal and external boundaries.
Achieving adaptability depends on alignment and contract management today remains one of the most inconsistently defined processes in business. It is not only that different functions understand it in different ways, but more critically there is no consistency of approach between buyers and suppliers. The absence of a shared framework leads to delay, contention and underperformance.
This is why the new global standard for contract management — approved by ANSI and developed across 20+ jurisdictions — marks a vital step forward.
For the first time, contract management has a common definition: a lifecycle view that sets out the key activities and competencies required for effective performance. It does not prescribe how organizations must act, but it clarifies what contract management is, providing a shared foundation for alignment, training, systems, and continuous improvement.
The benefits from wide adoption include:
- Fewer misunderstandings between buyers and suppliers
- A framework to develop clearer internal roles and responsibilities
- Faster, more coordinated response to change and risk
- Improved readiness for digital tools and scalable processes
This is about enabling better outcomes, at scale, across every sector and every kind of relationship.
A statement of adoption is simple and it matters. It signals an organization’s commitment to the shared language and core structure that enable better performance in today’s contracting environment.
CAPS Research tells us that “Procurement/SCM leaders report top obstacles that impact their ability to effectively execute their roles are access to data that can drive decision-making (37%), a shortage of talent, skills, and/or frequent turnover (37%), and outdated technology/software (31%). Removing these obstacles improves operational efficiency, enhance competitiveness, and sustains long-term growth.”
Wow! Has it really taken so long to discover that? For observers outside the traditional Procurement associations, it’s been obvious for years that they have been on the wrong trajectory. A narrow focus based on the wrong metrics; a poorly trained workforce; systems that commoditise relationships and focus on inputs.
Yes, I’m frustrated, because the research from IACCM / WorldCC has for so many years pointed to the fact that Procurement has been heading in the wrong direction. We aren’t consultants. As a true non-profit, our message is not self-serving. But Procurement – you are still heading in the wrong direction. What’s needed is a function that is:
Externally literate – fluent in customer needs, competitor offerings, supplier capabilities
Commercially creative – able to structure deals and models that reflect market dynamics
Integrative by design – bridging sales, product, delivery, and suppliers into one value chain
Adaptive – ready to reconfigure based on shifts in demand, regulation, or disruption.
isn’t it time to think differently, become champions of change rather than wedded to the past?
Procurement and supply chain leaders are rethinking what drives real value. Research by the Center for Advanced Procurement Studies (CAPS) confirms that supplier collaboration, refreshed category strategies, and cross-functional alignment now top the list of strategic priorities. These are seen as the route to better cost outcomes, stronger performance, and more adaptable operations. But to many, this is not new news: the challenge remains, how do we alter the mindset of today’s practitioners?
The truth is that value isn’t won or lost at the point of contract award. It’s won or lost during performance. That’s where supply relationships either deliver, or become a source of problems. It’s where the level of internal alignment creates harmony, or generates friction and contention. This is why the aspiration reflected by CAPS requires a major shift in role and image, overcoming a legacy framed by cost control, rigid terms, and limited trust in both colleagues and suppliers.
This is where WorldCC makes a real difference. It’s the only organization that combines buyer and supplier perspectives to generate the shared understanding that underpins collaboration. By providing a true lifecycle view, its research and training help teams step into a broader role, from need identification through to performance and value realisation. We don’t just offer technical annd procedural insights – we provide a way to rethink stakeholder needs, to understand where risk really lies, and to build the commercial and contracting practices that support shared outcomes.
The future depends on collaboration because the problems we’re solving can’t be solved in silos. Our contracts and relationships must provide frameworks for transparency and teamwork, supporting adaptability rather than conflict. To achieve this, Procurement must become a connector, trusted by the business, trusted by suppliers, and equipped to lead change.
That’s the role WorldCC exists to support. And it’s why more organizations are turning to us as they look to strengthen their commercial capability and impact.
Most supply relationships are not enduring partnerships built on shared values and mutual goals. They are conditional, to varying degrees transactional, and shaped by shifting power dynamics. This is not necessarily a flaw: it’s a rational response to uncertainty, competition, and the need for optionality in the market structure we’ve created.
Rather than fostering long-term alignment, businesses often seek to balance two competing imperatives:
- A desire for commitment, where it supports cost efficiency, security of supply, or innovation investment: against a need for freedom of action, to move to alternative suppliers, redesign products or services, shift to new markets, or discontinue unprofitable operations.
This makes even the most committed supply relationships to a large extent a marriage of convenience: cooperation when incentives align, defensiveness when they don’t. Trust is inherently limited, which is why transparency is offered selectively and with limits. And commitments are hedged wherever possible.
Contracting Is the Negotiation of Boundaries – Not a Platform for Collaboration
It’s not accurate to say that contracting is designed simply to protect freedom or limit collaboration, but contracts are the result of negotiated battles over where and how much freedom each party is willing to cede in exchange for certainty, control, or reward.
Commercial contracts routinely wrestle with questions such as:
- Should the buyer commit to volumes, or reserve the right to adjust orders?
- Can the supplier change products or substitute components without approval?
- Who controls termination and under what conditions?
- How are exclusivity, competition, and IP treated?
- What are the remedies if supply is disrupted or if the buyer walks away?
Thus contracts often end up as defensive (preventist) documents, focused more on limiting the other party’s freedom than enabling joint outcomes. Even where collaboration is discussed, it is usually framed as a risk mitigation tactic, not a core operating principle.
This is why many contracts struggle to support the kind of agile, coordinated behavior the McKinsey nerve center model envisions. They are not built and negotiated for shared responsiveness, but ultimately with a strong focus on unilateral protection.
To achieve value we must be transparent, but transparency exposes us to risk. So we can get comfortable with this in a short term engagement where fundamental change is unlikely, but not when we have to divulge longer term intent (eg potential I may change my mind, select a new partner, discontinue a product line, exit a market, drop my prices etc). Even my own negotiators probably won’t know about plans like this: they are closely guarded secrets – which condemns us to a continual compromise on the value we can achieve.
Commitment Matters 