When I was a very young child, I remember my father used to drive me crazy by asking me “How long is a piece of string?” I was sure that I would eventually guess the right answer.
I was reminded of this by a note from an IACCM member who asked me ‘How much do contract managers in Europe get paid?’ While the answers are not as variable or indeterminate as the question about string, they are certainly very broad.
The question was prompted because this manager is having to participate in a company-wide review of salaries and benefits. He is headquartered in the United States, though his staff are worldwide – and his company uses Towers Watson for data gathering. That proves a real problem, because Towers Watson have still not acknowledged the existence of contract and commercial management. The only similar category they offer is that of Contract Administrator, which they designate as a form of legal support. The role and its contribution are defined accordingly. Not surprisingly, this designation yields the type of salary and benefit levels that would attract very few contract or commercial managers.
Earlier this week, I wrote about the relative dominance of the legal profession in the US and the dangers this has for good contracting. This incident reflects the same problem – a perception that anything with the word ‘contract’ must somehow be subservient to lawyers. A review of the many job roles covered by Towers Watson places contracts personnel in the category ‘Legal Support’ and defines them in the following way: “Provides support for a variety of law-related activities that do not require a law degree, including legal or factual research, contract administration, document preparation and analysis, citation checking, and trial preparation”. The role is sandwiched between ‘Paralegal’ and ‘Legal Secretary’.
Managers of contract management groups face an increasing problem in determining appropriate compensation for their teams. The dominance of firms such as Towers Watson means that many HR departments will not accept data from any other source, yet when the data they receive is inaccurate and fails to reflect the job being benchmarked, it results in massive internal battles. Because companies only accept this ‘impartial’ data, it becomes increasingly difficult for organizations like IACCM to collect data of its own – because there is little perceived benefit for companies to participate in surveys.
It seems to me that we need a concerted push by the contracts and commercial community to demand better recognition and understanding of the job role, its contribution and the associated salary levels. Through this blog, we have already done much to define typical job roles and to motivate practitioners to think hard about their potential contribution. This work continues – indeed, we have another webinar on the topic running this week. But if we truly wish to challenge the Towers Watson data, it seems to me that functional heads need to contribute current salary information to a worldwide survey that would once and for all establish the point that Contract and Commercial Managers exist and that they are not fairly or accurately represented by a role of ‘Contract Administration’.
Only then will we be able to answer the question ‘How much is a Contract Manager worth?’
In the past, it was assumed that the Marketing department was responsible for gathering market requirements, which they would then pass to product or service development for inclusion in ‘go-to-market’ strategies.
That approach never worked well when it came to contracting. In part, that was because there was frequently a disconnect between product management and contract development (so requirements rarely got considered). But more fundamentally, Marketing never considered terms and conditions as part of their remit. If you asked a marketer whether the approach on, say, Liabilities was material to customer buying decisions, they would give you a very strange look and most likely ask ‘What are Liabilities?’
While some organizations have developed a more sophisticated and holistic approach to their contracting, many have not. And in general, I think it is true to say that Marketing still have no greater grasp of terms and conditions than they did twenty years ago. This means that there is little understanding of the impact of contract terms and we are mostly reactive to market experience.
Does it have to be that way? Clearly the answer is no. Indeed, an interesting blog in Logistics Viewpoints illustrates the value of market research. It cites a study by UPS that found the value customers place on things like the right of return, the options for shipping speed and the value of ‘free’ shipping (each of these being, in my view, a term and condition). Much of this research results in value options being provided to customers – giving them the ability to select trade-offs, typically related to price but sometimes to term alternatives.
I see no reason why similar research and ‘optioneering’ cannot be applied to most – perhaps all – terms and conditions. IACCM analysis already offers some insights to the value that organizations place on specific terms; it also confirms that we pay too little attention to some of those that really represent value and should be influencing selection decisions. But part of the problem is that term alternates are not actually presented that way. For example, if data security is important, why can’t I decide just how important it is (and how much I want to pay for it) based on several alternate positions? And the same applies to liabilities, or to payment terms, or to rights of termination.
I doubt that those in Marketing or Product Management are ever going to spend much time understanding the impact and value of terms and conditions. But surely those who are charged with their development and management should be interested in that understanding – and would have far more business influence if they did so.
Last week, I was contacted by an IACCM member who was struggling with questions about internal authorities related to contracts and negotiations. Their company – a large multi-national – had sought external recommendations on the role of lawyers in providing contract drafting, negotiation and advisory services. They wanted to determine the right balance between the use of the in-house legal team and granting authorities to their trained contract managers.
As brief background, this company has historically tended to use lawyers for front-end sales support and contract managers in the post-award environment. However, experience has led them to appreciate that contract managers bring a broader perspective, enriched by the practical experiences of implementation. Therefore, they are often better equipped to provide advice and avoid business pitfalls than their colleagues in Legal.
Based on this realization, they went to a top international law firm to obtain a risk assessment. They asked for advice in each major jurisdiction regarding the extent to which the role of the contract managers could safely be expanded. As the answers came in, they broadly supported a re-balancing of authorities – until it came to the US. There, they were told, it was extremely risky for anyone but trained counsel to make any decisions related to contract terms, negotiation or advice. In fact, the implication was that far from expanding authorities, they should even be cutting back on those that already exist and ensuring that every deal was subject to ‘active supervision by a qualified attorney’.
The reasoning appeared to be based on fear of the potentially disproportionate penalties generated by the US legal system and an argument that its relative unpredictability is something that can be managed only by the cognoscenti – in this case, the practising attorney. If true, it suggests that we have reached a point of major imbalance, where ‘the rule of law’ is becoming somewhat tyrannical in its application. Certainly that is a growing concern for businesses outside the US, for whom the fear of litigation within the United States has become an increasing concern. That fear is driven by the sense of unpredictability and shifting standards which make litigation a lottery.
Of course, an alternative (perhaps cynical) view is that the US has far too many lawyers and they need work. They would also prefer this work to remain highly paid. Therefore it is in the economic interests of any law firm to portray levels of risk and complexity that demand the expert intervention of counsel, whether external or internal. Grasping control over contract management disciplines is therefore just a further extension of already broadening control and influence.
My simplistic view of this is that lawyers are an important stakeholder in the contracting process, but as a specialist function they are not the natural owners of that process. Good contracting, rather like any other form of complex integration, demands a consolidation of specialist views and wider stakeholder interests. Maintaining balance is key to good decision-making and to successful business outcomes. Dominance by any specific group undermines that balance.
What are your thoughts regarding the role of lawyers in business contracts and, in particular, the allocation of roles in drafting, negotiation and contract advice?
It isn’t often that contract management hits the headlines on national news bulletins, but it was the main item on last night’s UK news.
The contract causing the furore is between the UK Government (Ministry of Justice) and outsourcing provider G4S. There are allegations of massive over-charging for services and even suggestions of possible fraud. One of the issues being highlighted is the lack of contract management skills within Government.
While welcoming the debate, I hope that it will result in meaningful analysis and not just knee-jerk reactions. It is true that Government (and most other trading entities) needs to improve the quality of its post-award contract management capabilities. But at heart, I believe the issue is not to throw money at the symptoms of the problem, but rather to address some of the front-end causes. The real challenge is to raise the standards of contracting competence and this depends on first realizing the need to think about contracting as a distinctive discipline, not simply a formulaic sub-element of Sales or Procurement.
It is early days, but the problems with the G4S contract sound to me relatively typical. In order to achieve ‘savings’, a commodity-based approach was adopted. This treated services as ‘units’ and payment was tied to the number of units handled in any given period. The problem was that no one had the capability to accurately measure the units. A competent commercial process should have addressed this as part of the negotiation, and designed the charging model accordingly, but either the deal-architects were ignorant of the problem or chose to ignore it (a frequent occurrence and one that I will return to in a future blog).
Good contracting is about aligning commitments with capabilities. It starts with proper assessment of requirements and continues with undertaking the right analysis of supplier capabilities and motivations. Current procurement practices are weak in both of these areas, in part because they remain predicated on a product-based, commodity mentality. Sales processes are equally weak because they generally lack the motivation to ensure that capabilities are in place. That means neither side asks or answers key questions up-front and contracts are signed with the wrong partners or using the wrong principles for gauging payment and performance.
When it comes to the suggestions of fraud, we will have to wait for further investigation. But we all know that incentive systems drive behaviour and if sales and business management are motivated to maximize revenue, that is what they will do. If a customer wants a supplier to operate with integrity, why don’t they select suppliers which offer balanced incentive schemes? Why don’t buyers ask their suppliers to explain the incentive systems they use and to demonstrate how these ensure integrity and honesty?
In the end, here is just one more example of a front-end contracting process that is not fit for purpose. For whatever reason, this one has hit the headlines. But as IACCM’s work on the ‘Return on Investment from Improved Contracting’ has shown, the problem is not unique to this contract. It is endemic to the way that organizations operate and will be fixed only when they put some focus on raising the quality of their contracting competence.
IACCM recently undertook a study to compare the attitudes to contracting between the private (commercial) sector and the public (government) sector. It sought input on some of the key values that drive and motivate contracting personnel. It also gathered information on how contracts are viewed – for example, are they just an administrative necessity, or do they assist in generating value?
The research revealed that many core attitudes are the same, not just between public and private, but also between major geographies. However, there are substantial differences in key areas, especially those that closely relate to the generation of value and the quality of relationships.
For example, while public and private sector are pretty much neck-to-neck in their attitudes towards integrity, fairness, social responsibility and the desire to achieve value, they diverge significantly in some of the areas that actually make these policy objectives achievable. Some of these differences most likely relate to caution regarding the interpretation of public procurement rules or policy; but ironically, this caution also appears to reduce the level of public sector insight to wider risk issues.
Among the major differences were:
Private sector personnel are almost 80% more likely to be influenced by the need to promote competition and minimize operating costs
Private sector personnel are almost 70% more likely to be influenced by a drive to fully exploit market opportunities
Private sector personnel are 34% more likely to take a holistic view to minimizing operating risk (financial, legal and contractual)
Private sector personnel are 25% more likely to place value on building customer or supplier loyalty and showing respect for trading partners
For a copy of the full report, contact info@iaccm.com
“And another thing”, said the executive search consultant. “Where are all the youngsters? Why can’t I find people with a year or two of business experience who want to become contract and commercial managers?’
My blog yesterday on the topic “From job to profession” generated considerable interest and a number of lively conversations. Among them was the comment above. In spite of current unemployment levels and the number of graduates seeking jobs, it seems there is great difficulty in finding aspiring contract and commercial managers in the UK market. Vacancies sit unfilled. There is no obvious answer as to why this might be. Clearly, there is a degree of ignorance about the role. Maybe this generates a sense of insecurity. Certainly it creates questions over whether there is a career path linked to the job. But ultimately, if you were in your early 20’s, with limited business experience, and saw a job opening with leading companies, wouldn’t you at least show interest?
“Commercial Directors should be on the Board” was another comment that I received. Well, maybe. But why? Who is sure exactly what a Commercial Director is and does. Look at the make up of the average Board and in general it is a body of professionals – people with qualifications in Finance, the Law, Engineering, Marketing. They are linked to respected disciplines and have wide-ranging professional connections. That simply is not the case with Commercial experts. They depend on personal status, not professional respect – and that makes for a much harder route to the top.
To change this situation, those in Contracts and Commercial Management need to develop the hunger to be a respected professional body. They need to open their minds to recruiting and growing young talent. They have to push for more university and business school education. David Lowe, one of the few academics who has had the courage to push down this path, commented on yesterday’s blog, naming some of the companies which are investing in their commercial staff and sending them to the programs at Manchester Business School. “Our experience is that, although the process can be challenging (in terms of time commitment and the way it places participants outside their comfort zone), most acknowledge that the results have been transformational. Some participants, however, are not prepared to take ownership, believing that their organisation should be responsible for meeting any development needs and, moreover, that this should occur within work’s time, not their own – and highlighting the schism between those that see their role as a professional contribution and those who consider it to be a job.”
Of course there are optimistic signs. We are seeing record numbers applying for IACCM certification and training. We are witnessing a real growth in academic interest. Rene Henschel, appointed professor at a top law school in order to promote the study of contract management. Pace Law School, with innovative programs in International Contracting. A range of other universities and business schools turning to IACCM for support in program content or delivery, or to partner in research, or to seek mentorship for PhD students or executive education programs. The interest is there; but the community has to create the buzz that turns interest into reality.
So where are all the youngsters?
There are many people with a Contract or Commercial Manager job title. IACCM research shows that a large majority enjoy their work. They find it fulfilling due to its variation and their sense that it is making a real contribution to the bottom line. Most believe that what they do is special and somewhat unique – for example, a large number think it is not a skill that is readily transferable between industries or from buy-side to sell-side support. Indeed, a significant proportion (especially in the more senior ranks) perceive their underlying knowledge as something that can be gained only through experience, not through education. There is strong resistance to the idea that there could be meaningful university qualifications and graduate entry to the world of contracts and commercial remains very much the exception.
Given this summary, it is not surprising that few can quickly describe their role. Even less can clarify its precise business value (except perhaps in a context of the bad things that might have happened if they were not there). And most are surprised when senior management questions whether the expense of contract and commercial management can be justified.
Dipesh Taylor, an IACCM member based in the UK, was fascinated about the attitudes of practitioners to their job and the extent to which they understood or welcomed moves towards professionalism. He worked with IACCM staff to develop a survey exploring contract and commercial management as a career. The results will be the subject of a webinar on July 18th (visit http://www.iaccm.com/events/register/?id=1687 to register). Once more, they confirm the enthusiasm that practitioners have for their role, yet also the weaknesses – and the threats – that come from a continuing lack of professionalism. It is far from clear how people develop in this role, or where staff of the future would come from. Perhaps most important, there is no evident commitment to research and continuous improvement.
As society develops, jobs tend to disappear. Professions have continuity. It is important for contract and commercial practitioners to decide – are you performing a job, or are you part of a profession? Join the discussion on July 18th – or share your comments below.
In recent weeks I have had a number of confidential discussions with senior Supply Management staff in which they have expressed concern over executive influence in the bid and selection process.
Although the details differ, each of them has been describing an environment in which selection decisions are often not made in accordance with objective criteria, but are driven by favored relationships between senior executives. “There are some situations where you know it is not worth others bidding; and there are also some companies that are simply not in favor – they just cannot win, even if there is no good business reason for their exclusion,” commented one Director of IT Procurement.
Executive involvement in significant procurements is important and desirable. A senior sponsor is critical to generating appropriate review, prioritization of funding and speed of decision-making. On-going engagement assists in performance management, handling change and timely escalation. But there is a big difference between executive sponsorship and executive influence. The latter can be – and often is – unhealthy. It not only undermines competition, it also tends to undermine successful outcomes.
While the evidence is anecdotal, there are many who perceive a close connection between executive influence and failed projects. ICCPM highlighted this in a paper entitled ‘The Culture of Optimism’, in which they observed the tendency for customer and provider executives to mutually agree on unrealistic goals and objectives. I think the problem goes deeper. Executives simply do not have the time to allocate to detail and in my experience, they are frequently impatient with those who want to be sure that everyone knows what they are doing. Executive-led procurements often lead to a lack of clarity regarding what is to be done; they often lead to a disconnect between the high-level vision and the on-the-ground reality.
Personal relationships are important, but they are also temporary. Executives move on, they change job, they retire. And this means that supply relationships are frequently disrupted. Overall, it is of great importance that executives understand the difference between objective sponsorship and biased influence in the supply management process.
Standing in the corridor near reception, I was at first a little surprised when a girl passed me on a scooter – or was it a skateboard? After all, most Legal offices are impressive, but in a traditional way. That is not the experience when you visit Fondia, just voted the best legal services company to work for in Europe – and a company from which many of us can learn.
As i walked around their offices in Helsinki, it was certainly a place I would enjoy working. Every room is different. The one where I met Maire Laitinen, a Senior Advisor with the company, felt like the den in an up-market New England mansion. Others reflected many different styles and moods, perhaps aligning with the diverse client base. For example, in keeping with Finland’s world ranking for innovation, Fondia has targeted many of the young start-ups, especially in the field of apps and software. These young entrepreneurs need legal support, but it must be practical, low-cost and on-demand, offering a place and people with whom they connect and want to visit.
The support model is proving successful. Unlike many law firms, Fondia is growing – and is determined to be at the forefront of change. For example, on August 28th they will host a ‘Rewriting the Legal Industry Summit’, capturing many of the trends and ideas that are set to revolutionize the world of the lawyer (a topic on which co-incidentally I wrote earlier this week).
Browsing the Fondia website, I was interested to read a blog, ‘What’s The Recipe Of A Great Company?’, by Managing director Jorma Vartia. The ‘recipe’ Jorma proposes is one that many functional groups should also adopt if they want to achieve high levels of enthusiasm, innovation, staff and customer retention. So here it is:
___ grams of trust
___ cups of openness and transparency
___ grams of caring and empathy
___ tablespoons of sharing
___ grams of thanks
___ cups of listening
___ tablespoons of reinforcement and feedback
___ grams of smiles
___ tablespoons of fairness
___ grams of respect
___ grams of inspiration
___ cups of responsibility
___ grams of fun
___ grams of focus, planning, targets, follow up and measurement
Jorma suggests that the precise mix of ingredients varies over time and in accordance with priorities. But he advocates that one thing you make sure you avoid is bureaucracy. I suspect the scooters and skateboards are also optional extras!
Cloud computing and Software as a Service (SaaS) have dramatically reduced the entry costs for IT and applications. They simplify purchasing decisions and allow rapid adoption and use.
However, this ‘commoditization’ comes at a price. It has made central control of IT buying a nightmare. Employees are finding their own solutions; business units are signing up for applications that meet their specific needs. The CIO is running in constant catch-up mode.
Over time, such uncontrolled activity will undermine the cost benefits that the Cloud should deliver. But more importantly, it poses a massive challenge to the ability of the business to integrate systems and data.
A number of recent articles have highlighted this dilemma that now confronts the CIO and the costs associated with integrating the diverse applications now in use. Businesses must find a new balance between the flexibility, the rapid response to user needs and the potential for innovation that Cloud and SaaS offer, versus the potential inefficiencies and anarchy that they represent.
In many ways, the situation reminds me of the challenge faced by other central control functions such as Legal, Procurement and Contract Management. They too are wrestling with the dilemma of a business that expects greater speed, flexibility and innovation, yet at the same time is concerned about compliance, cost reduction and safeguarding brand value. This is also a conflict between local empowerment and overall integration and it is clear that a new balance is needed. Mandated compliance and rigid review and approval systems simply are not sustainable.
My view is that this shift can best be achieved by the emergence of centers of expertise, or knowledge centers, that see their job not in terms of control, but instead focus on enablement. They need to use their in-depth understanding to develop and communicate policies and practices that make sense for the business. They must take responsibility for updating and flexing these rules to maintain alignment with market needs. They have a responsibility to ensure the tools and systems are in place to offer on-demand user access to templates, guidance and expert resources. Those same systems will enable oversight and support compliance monitoring and data analysis.
We have to accept that networked technologies are transforming our world and the way it operates. We are at the beginning of this journey, so continuous change is inevitable. But the priority right now is to open our eyes and realize that everything around us is moving – and we must join the migration.
Commitment Matters 