According to the Procurement Leaders’ 2014 talent survey, the number one skill gap for procurement professionals is commercial awareness.
Procurement Leaders is just one of the organizations that is jumping onto the ‘commercial skills’ bandwagon. Suddenly – it seems – Procurement professionals need to broaden their knowledge and perspectives in order to deliver sustained value and to be seen as core to business activity.
For the 12,000 Procurement professionals who have chosen to be members of IACCM (and especially the 5,000 who are engaged in obtaining formal certification), this may not come as a great surprise. In fact, what probably does surprise them is how long it has taken the various analysts, consultants and associations to wake up to the reality of current business conditions.
Business models have changed; social expectations and regulatory environments are transforming; executives have grasped their fundamental reliance on sustainable relationships. Many of the Procurement mantras of recent years are seen as narrow, constraining, inflexible. And that is because they were developed to meet the needs of the moment – cost-cutting, compliance, controls – and were not designed to adapt to the fast-changing conditions that had made them necessary in the first place.
Smart leaders in the Procurement community grasped this dilemma and saw the need to create a new generation of commercially aware professionals, strong on analysis, communication, relationship skills. These professionals also understand the need to take responsibility for outcomes and to ensure that suppliers assist the business to achieve its wider goals.
The slight irony in this sudden awakening is that those who have commercial awareness are in a position to lead, precisely because they are aware of wider trends and developments. Commercial awareness lies at the core of any professions continued relevance, its ability to adjust and adapt. It must therefore be a fundamental component of the skills in any leadership body or team.
IACCM offers a range of programs for those seeking to raise their commercial capabilities and knowledge. These range from a Foundations program, through a range of formal certification offerings, to a Commercial Skills for Leaders class.
Recent research into leading providers of outsourcing services found a significant contrast between companies that do what customers want, versus those that do what customers need. The differences were especially marked in levels of customer satisfaction and supplier profitability, with those who address ‘needs’ taking a very clear lead.
Many times we are asked at IACCM what we think of the contract management software market, what growth we anticipate, who are the leading suppliers. And a common question is “Why hasn’t the size of this market developed in accordance with analyst forecasts?”
The answer, I think, is that almost all the suppliers are catering to wants, not needs. They are being driven by a lack of imagination and understanding from both clients and industry consultants, who have failed to grasp the true business impact that automation could have on the contracting process and its business value.
“Wants” generally reflect the way that a customer’s internal stakeholders see the process. It tends to result in a narrow and non-threatening view of requirements which assumes what those stakeholders are doing today is valuable and necessary. Hence the focus for contract management has been on repositories, transactional review and compliance, auto-reminders and database search. The return on investment for this functionality is hard to define and is certainly not exciting; many implementations grind to a halt part way through because they are not seen as strategic.
“Needs” reflect what a customer really could be achieving as a result of more fundamental change, bringing innovation to their existing process and practices. In the case of contract management software, that would include realization of the fundamental insights that automation might bring to the business through more holistic data analysis – for example, consolidated data on risk probabilities and consequence, systems support that generates automatic alerts of potential problems, tools that enable shared data access and integrated supplier / customer risk registers.
Suppliers who address needs are thought-leaders, taking their customers to places they did not even realize they could go. I simply do not see many instances of this happening in the contract management software market.
In defense of the suppliers, the challenge they face has been especially significant because contracting is generally such a fragmented activity with no clear internal owner or champion. Therefore it has been very difficult to gain attention or establish a senior sponsor for anything that is truly innovative. But now, with the sort of data that IACCM is generating related to the potential return on investment, there is no longer a good excuse. It is time for customers to wake up to this potential and for those suppliers who want to lead this market to re-think their offerings and their marketing and to become purveyors of needs, not wants.
Yesterday someone sent me Rule #2466 of Relationship Management. It seemed a perfectly good rule – but it made me wonder what the 2465 before it had to say and just how many more come after it?
The Christian religion was founded on ten core rules, or commandments. Whether or not we believe in the religion, i am sure everyone would acknowledge its influence. Much of the early appeal was its simplicity – and this is true of all great movements. Once ‘the regulators’ or rule-makers (the priesthood) move in and make it a full-time profession, many adherents are alienated.
We face this dilemma in the creation and management of trade and trading relationships. The underlying principles are actually very simple. The relationship must offer sustainable benefit to both parties; they must not operate to the unfair disadvantage or detriment of others; they must have some equitable basis for termination.
When the rules multiply, they represent a growth of complexity that ultimately makes the model unsustainable. The cost burden of administrative overhead becomes untenable and we lose the ability to comply, simply because there are too many rules to understand and follow.
At the macro level, the continued growth of regulation should cause all of us to question whether current approaches to trade will soon be subject to revolutionary change. But more immediately, at the micro level, we must focus on how we can issue simple, easily understood operating rules and principles in our internal and external business relationships. Specifically, are the rules through which your contracts are designed, drafted, approved, negotiated and implemented readily intelligible to others? Are they designed to facilitate use and compliance, or are they designed to ensure continued employment for an ever-growing priesthood?
Expectations of business integrity are increasing. Society is becoming more aware of the costs associated with dishonest or immoral behavior. This goes beyond overt corruption; it relates to the much broader issues of honesty and sustainability in the commitments we make.
We all understand how bribery can distort the public interest. It affects quality, value and the underlying fabric of trust. But business integrity is about much more than this. It recognizes the very real cost that accompanies deliberate over-statements of capability, or failure to properly validate supplier competence. It translates into goods or services that simply are not fit for purpose; it results in cost overruns, or major delays. The social cost of these ‘over-optimistic commitments’ (or misrepresentations, some might say) is enormous.
Increased transparency is making this endemic behavior more and more evident. The media is highlighting many of these ‘contract failures’, especially those in the public sector. Senates, Parliaments and audit bodies are demanding improved controls, better skills.
Most of those in the world of contract negotiation or procurement view this with a certain amount of cynicism. We all know that senior management tends to be over-optimistic. We all know that business decisions frequently lack rigor. We all know that business measurements and incentive systems (especially sales commissions) encourage corner-cutting, exaggeration, poor judgment. And we do our best to mitigate the risks through traditional contracts that apply ‘penalties’ in the event of extreme failure.
Is this any longer enough? As social expectations change, as regulation tightens and as reputation risk continues to grow, how will the role of the contracts, procurement and legal communities alter? Already we see some signs of fundamental change. One may be a shift in internal measurement and reward systems. Another is in the executive interest in raising commercial and contract awareness across their organization. A third is the extent to which demonstrable contract management competence is becoming a source of competitive edge – indeed, in some cases it is an absolute requirement for winning business.
As we enter a new year, I believe this is an area of fundamental importance for the contracting community to consider and it is an area of focus for IACCM. How will your business adapt to the shifting business environment and to what extent will you facilitate and influence that debate?
Yesterday I challenged the contracts and legal community to ask whether they are truly doing a good job. From the responses I received, I know that some are quick to recognize that we need to do more, that we are performing a good tactical job. but we are not using the overall process to develop strategic insights.
There are many questions that I could pose to illustrate this point, but I assembled several as examples. If we are really able to claim we are providing a high value service to the business, then these are the sorts of questions to which we must have answers. And of course, it is not just having answers that matters, it is interpreting those answers to advocate change and improvement. Ultimately, contracts drive business value. Are you confident that you are extracting all possible value from them?
Here are a few questions. I’d love to hear whether your business can answer them:
What percentage of your contracts deliver the expected financial results? What percentage over-perform and what percentage under-perform?
What are the reasons for over or under-performance and in what ways were these results impacted by contracting policies, processes or skills?
What are the most frequent causes of claims and disputes related to your contracts and what steps should be taken to reduce them?
What criteria would you use to determine whether a specific contract should focus more on dealing with risk consequence or with reducing risk probability?
How do your contract terms and contracting processes compare with those of your competitors? What have you done / could you do that would represent a source of competitive advantage?
How do your contracts and contracting processes contribute to the strategic goals and priorities of the business? As those goals or priorities change, what is the process through which contracts and their terms are updated?
From a contracting / commercial perspective, what is the relative riskiness of different customers / suppliers? What is the contract risk profile for different segments of the business (for example, industries, product or service divisions, countries)?
How frequently is contract data analysis used to inform business management about the potential benefits of changes to commercial policies or contracting capabilities? Or do you only meet with senior management when there is an escalation or something has gone badly wrong?
On the Successful Workplace blog, Chris Taylor has asked ‘Why are marketers still awful at what they do?’
I could almost replicate Chris’s blog word for word, to ask the same about contract managers and lawyers. The point Chris is making is that, in spite of all the data and analytical tools now at our disposal, many marketers continue to operate blindly, firing out campaigns and offerings with no real idea of their impact or suitability to the target audience.
How true this is of most contracts, and the terms and practices that underpin them. How many contract managers or lawyers can actually explain the effect of specific terms or commercial policies on the market? Do they know how a particular approach to liabilities, liquidated damages, termination or price reduction will impact the behavior of their customers or suppliers – and consequently affect performance? Have they a sense of approaches that encourage and support loyalty, or those that destroy it?
Questions like this are just the tip of the iceberg, yet such information and insight is fundamental to competing in today’s environment. Trust and loyalty are valuable, yet they are eroding. Contract and relationship terms are fundamental ingredients in the mix of elements that generate trust and loyalty. Drawing from Chris Taylor’s blog: “Why isn’t Big Data changing our world in more visible ways? Why aren’t analytics being used to target the right messages to the right people?”
And adapting a little another of his comments, is this not true of the contracts and legal community? “Most contract managers and lawyers still haven’t figured out how to take advantage of data, technology and techniques that are readily available. For a variety of reasons, including investment in obsolete contracting models and platforms, poor understanding of analytics and Big Data, and overall inertia, contract managers and lawyers are struggling to catch up to the needs of the business or to understand what drives or motivates their customers or suppliers.”
A process and approach that is dominated by the narrow interests of several functional stakeholders will never grasp the wider needs of the market and will therefore not contribute to value, indeed may even undermine it. I will return to this theme with more specific ideas for improvement, but If Big Data is not on your strategic agenda, it really should be – unless you are happy to wait until senior managements starts to ask ‘Why are our contract managers and lawyers so awful at what they do?’
IACCM research shows the issue that most often results in claims or disputes is disagreement over scope and goals.
In many ways it seems remarkable that something so basic to a contract and relationship could so often be a cause of disagreement. But in reality it is difficult to accurately capture and communicate a detailed vision and requirements and there is extensive room for misunderstanding.
At a recent workshop, one participant challenged how much this really matters. “What is the financial loss associated with these disagreements?” he wanted to know.
The answer is ‘extensive’. Among the findings from IACCM research, losses caused by disagreements over scope and goals include:
•For the buyer
– delays in commissioning or production
– ‘panic actions’ to remediate that often result in a price or cost premium (overtime rates, substitute contractor)
– costs associated with retro-fit or rework
•For the supplier
– delayed acceptance and withheld payments
– liquidated damages, extra discounts, application of ‘goodwill’
– additional work for no payment
Interestingly, many scope issues become apparent only at the time of acceptance, suggesting the need for greater rigor throughout the contract lifecycle. Operational staff are often aware of potential shortcomings but are reluctant to report them.
Having recognized that this is a regular problem, what steps can be taken to avoid such issues? Well, that is the subject for another blog because we have identified ‘good practices’ I that regard. Meantime, feel free to share your ideas and experiences.
A New Year causes many of us to take stock of our lives, to consider the year ahead and what we would like to make different or to change.
That certainly applies to our work and our career, as much as to our personal life. For some, the new year marks a resolution to move on, find another job, perhaps even embark on a fresh career path. In that case, we drag out the resume and indulge in a flurry of job applications. For those following this path, the good news is that the market for experienced contract and commercial staff is quite strong, especially those that have proven qualifications.
Others may not despair of their current employer. They may decide that their investment will be in raising their personal profile, seeking added responsibilities or promotion. The big question is how best to achieve this. One possibility is to invest in their skills through formal training and perhaps an IACCM certification. Others may seek to be involved in a high profile project, or even to suggest improvement initiatives that would get them noticed and appreciated.
A third category is those who recognize a need for leadership, who want to achieve goals for their function or their business. This minority of people tend to be far more externally focused. They understand executive goals, they can put them into the context of the market, they appreciate characteristics that have real value and generate competitive advantage. To do this, they must have some awareness of industry norms, of customer or supplier preferences, of ways that the executive agenda could be met. These individuals will have a sense of mission; they are ready to do the research needed to develop a brief but compelling business case.
For those who truly want to make a difference, there are certainly sources for ideas and also for support. An example is the webinar IACCM will run today on 2013 Trends in Contract and Commercial Management. That program will also outline the exciting projects that IACCM has been undertaking, or plans to complete in the year ahead. Fresh approaches to risk management; implementing programs that deliver high return in investment; re-thinking the integration between contract management and relationship management; obtaining competitive benchmarks to drive internal improvements. These are just a few examples of the types of activities that can elevate our profile, our career and – most importantly – our job satisfaction.
So what is your resolution for 2014? For many, it will be to remain firmly irresolute; but for a few, there will be genuine change.
The IACCM webinar ‘A Year In Review’ will be recorded and available in the IACCM Library. Details of IACCM’s benchmarking, capability assessment and certification services for individuals and organizations can be found on the IACCM website at www.iaccm.com
Negotiation can be a frustrating process, a game of discovery. Many suppliers feel that gathering true customer requirements is a bit like playing hide and seek. But what is it that suppliers could do better?
Earlier this year, IACCM ran a survey exploring the experiences of buyers of IT services and outsourcing. These are the types of deals where negotiation is often extensive and prolonged, so an excellent place to explore both how suppliers behave and how customers would like them to behave. The study looked at generic values, but also investigated the specific performance of nine major suppliers.
The major IT service and outsourcing providers are sophisticated in their approach to negotiation. Most of them have well defined processes which ensure good response times. They are generally mature in their industry knowledge and expertise. Where they mostly fail – and frustrate their customers – is in the extent of flexibility and the levels of authority provided to their negotiators. This is exacerbated by challenges in understanding their contract terms or positions and the apparent inability of many supplier negotiation teams to provide adequate or speedy clarification on key issues.
The IACCM study gathered not only generic industry input, but also client experiences with individual suppliers. It revealed significant variations in the quality of their negotiation process and also that many of them struggle to offer a consistent customer experience – in other words, the quality of the negotiation depends on the specific team or, in many cases, the status or geographic region of the customer.
So what is it that customers really, really want? To gain advantage in negotiations, suppliers should focus on the characteristics that customers most value. These are:
- Responsiveness
- Treating the client like a business partner
- Efficiency in quickly closing out issues
- Providing interfaces with the power to make final decisions
- Ensuring a fair and equitable process
Many of the positive – and adverse – comments made by clients relate to the extent of openness, transparency and the sense of honesty. So while responding to customer issues in a timely manner is important, it is the credibility and thoroughness of those responses that really matters. And when it comes to terms and conditions, many account teams are lacking in both the knowledge to explain or the power to amend. Rectifying this situation would be a worthwhile objective for many major suppliers. Even if there are good reasons to restrict power to negotiate, we might at least increase the knowledge and understanding of client interfaces to explain why we take the position we do.
[1] The companies covered are Accenture, CSC, CapGemini, Fujitsu, Genpact, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Infosys and Wipro
As a new year begins, many organizations have plans to update or re-design their standard contracts or term templates. Such projects usually aim to consolidate changes that have occurred since the last revision; perhaps to reduce the length of the agreement; maybe even to simplify language. But most do not ask fundamental questions regarding the overall efficiency or effectiveness of their terms or agreements.
What do I mean by efficiency and effectiveness? As an example, few (I hope) would disagree that contracts are vehicles for communication, ensuring that the parties understand their obligations and commitments. So a valid question might be to ask how easy is it for people – the actual users of these agreements – to understand your contracts? Can they quickly find relevant content and will they correctly interpret it?
It has been some years since organizations started to recognize the need to improve the quality of their external communications. There was a revolution in the design of forms and documents, ranging from product specifications or installation instructions, through to Annual Reports. Yet in many cases, contracts and their related documents remain untouched, or have been impacted in only superficial ways. The fact that contracts are in general not ‘easy to use’ has a variety of negative consequences and some organizations are grasping this point and looking for more fundamental ways to re-work their existing portfolio.
IACCM is involved with this in two ways. One is the Contract Design Award, introduced in 2013 and providing expert advisory services on ‘best practice design’, together with the potential for successful applicants to display the IACCM Award logo on their contract documents. The criteria against which IACCM evaluates contract quality are:
- Language Criteria: How understandable are the words in your contract?
- Design Criteria: Does the design make the contract structure clear and easy to read?
- Relationship Criteria: How far does your document go to help cultivate a positive relationship among the contracting parties?
- Content Criteria: What is your content and is it organized to deliver your document’s purpose?
- Balance: Do the terms of your contract generate a sense of collaboration and trust?
Another, more fundamental, shift is when groups of companies band together to promote ‘industry standards’. While such an effort is certainly not new, I am seeing it take new forms and wider scope. For example, these efforts are global and their goal is to reduce the amount of low value negotiation by establishing mutually agreed (buy-side and sell-side|) model terms or contracting principles. The aim is not to eliminate negotiation, but rather to ensure it is focused on issues of value – the areas where misunderstanding might arise or where improvements can increase the chances of success.
I believe we are nearing an end to the days when contract re-work was a purely internal affair, informed only by the wishes and desires of functional stakeholders. We have all been through that painful exercise where efforts to streamline or simplify are frustrated by the laundry list of items that interest groups push to include; or where we beat our hands against resistance to change; or where, through lack of external data, we really cannot answer management questions about competitive impact. So if contract re-work is on your agenda for 2014, are you clear about what you want to achieve and might IACCM help you to do it?
Commitment Matters 