IACCM Survey seeks to understand what the future holds for public sector professionals

When IACCM CEO Tim Cummins dropped me a line asking if I would be willing to extend to our audience base the organization’s latest survey seeking to understand how the shifting public sector landscape is likely going to affect government procurement professionals, I was more than pleased to accommodate the request based on my respect for Tim’s views and expertise.

Tim as you know has been a frequent guest on the PI Window on Business, usually as part of an esteemed guest panel that is charged with tackling some of the most interesting and controversial issues of the day. The survey certainly falls within this category, especially in the US where for the first time since the Great Depression countless States and Municipalities are on the verge of bankruptcy. I covered one such example of this fiscal meltdown in my January 27th, 2011 post “The State takes over Nassau County’s Finances . . . is this the first domino in what is going to become a chain reaction across the country?.”

With this in mind, I am pleased to provide you my loyal readers with the following information on this latest IACCM Survey, inviting you to take the estimated 5 minutes to weigh in with your thoughts on a very interesting question.

Public Sector Procurement: agent of change, or victim of change?

With all branches of Government facing radical shifts in public spending priorities over coming years, a key question is what impact this will have on public sector procurement professionals. There can be little question that spend management will become far more critical, yet many Procurement groups may not be equipped to handle this increased visibility and importance.

How do you see the future for public sector Procurement? Do today’s changes represent a major opportunity? How will they affect headcount and skills? These are among the questions we seek to answer through a brief survey being undertaken by the non-profit International Association for Contract & Commercial Management (IACCM). Your input will remain confidential and all participants in this survey will receive a copy of the consolidated results, which will also be presented and discussed at a forthcoming webinar.

To participate, please visit https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TheroleofProcurementinthePS

The survey should take no more than 5 minutes to complete.

30

Is Fragmentation Undermining the Purchasing Profession: IACCM’s Tim Cummins Believes It Is

For groups like contract management and procurement, there are no universal standards of practice. Unlike fields such as medicine, engineering and the law, there is no firmly established professional ethic or body of knowledge. And without this, they can never achieve sustainable professional status. Fragmentation clearly works against establishing such standards and ultimately proves inefficient and confusing for the practitioner community.

from Commitment Matters post Fragmentation Threatens Long-Term Status by Tim Cummins, January 12th, 2011

What I love most about radio and in particular being the host of the PI Window on Business is that it provides a venue through which one can easily expand upon the ideas or concepts presented within the confines of a blog. In essence, and as was the case on the April 9th, 2009 segment “Is The Traditional Association Model Dead,” you can actually engage multiple people simultaneously to tackle a particularly tough issue.

The question raised then as well as in today’s Commitment Matters post illustrates this point perfectly, as the very same concerns that were discussed almost 2 years ago by IACCM’s Tim McCarthy, who joined David Clevenger, Cindy Allen-Murphy and Charles Dominick on the PI Window on Business segment, still persist in some form today.

Have a listen to the 30 minute panel discussion and weigh in with your opinion regarding the question “Is The Traditional Association Model Dead?”

30

IACCM’s Cummins drives home the importance of relationships and why Bradt’s and Amtower’s new books are needed and timely

In today’s Commitment Matters post (The Purpose Of Negotiation) Tim Cummins opens with the statement that “Many of us use the term ‘negotiating’ in a generic form, giving little thought to the variations in approach that are demanded by different circumstances.”

In this succinct and seemingly simple statement Tim sums up the basis for the monumental shift that is taking place within the procurement world, and in particular public sector purchasing. It also emphasizes the inherent importance and value of the two books about which I wrote here in this blog yesterday by Judy Bradt and Mark Amtower.

Bradt, whose book is titled Government Contracts Made Easier, and who over her 20 year career has helped more than 6,000 clients win government contracts in excess of $300 million US, has frequently discussed the importance of legitimately and transparently winning government buyer preference. To do this however, one has to build the pre-requisite relationships commensurate with the “know, like and trust” edict that truly does influence purchasing decisions – especially when said acquisitions are both costly and complex.

Following a different yet complimentary track, Mark Amtower’s Selling To The Government book offers further evidence of the importance of the relationship aspect of selling to the government and how utilizing new resources such as social media can help to facilitate quicker penetration.

Of course, and following the know, like and trust line of thinking I have always adhered to the Cummins perspective relative to degrees in which relationships play an important role in public (and yes even private) sector procurement.

Using everyday life analogies, if I am simply buying a carton of milk from the corner store, beyond wanting to make certain that the milk is fresh I do not have to like or for that matter even know the person behind the counter.

Conversely, if your taxes are being audited by the government are you more inclined to deal with an accountant you know well, or are you going to randomly scan through the yellow pages?

Think about it logically for a moment . . . the larger the expenditure, the greater the perceived risk and desire to succeed (or avoid failure). In a situation like this with whom are you more likely to do business? A known and proven entity by way of the relationships you have established over your lengthy career or, the new supplier with whom by comparison, there has been little if any meaningful contact beyond the RFP exercise itself?

Understanding and developing a solid strategy based on the above reality is where the Bradt and Amtower books come into play, especially given the fact that it takes 18 to 24 months (and in some cases longer) for the average supplier to win their first contract.

Based upon recent announcements along the lines of the UK government’s Francis Maude, in which the public sector is moving away from the big vendor consolidated contract mindset towards actively engaging and utilizing SME vendors, the message is becoming abundantly clear . . . the relationship factor has become even more critical.

The only questions that need to be answered are simply this . . . from a public sector procurement standpoint (an area upon which this post is primarily focused), are governments equipped to effectively reach out and engage SME suppliers and, is the supplier community as a whole in a position to properly respond?

Washington Keynote on Transparency in Government Procurement (April 2010)

Check out our new SlideCast Feature which synchronizes the audio from my Washington Keynote address at the 2010 Government Summit, with the corresponding PowerPoint Slides.

Note: also be sure to continue listening after the presentation for a bonus excerpt of my interview with the then Canadian Trade Minister Stockwell Day regarding the Canada-U.S. Buy American exemption negotiations.

Your feedback regarding our new SlideCast service would of course be appreciated.

View more webinars from Jon Hansen.

NOTE: If you cannot access the audio from this page, use the following link: Washington Summit 2010 Keynote

30

Is Google’s recent suit against DOI based more on an entitlement mindset or a misguided understanding of transparency?

“The process for winning government contracts is truly based on the ability of a supplier to legitimately and transparently win preference with government buyers.”

Judy Bradt, Washington-based expert author whose new book discusses her more than 20 years helping 6,000 clients to win in excess of $300 million in U.S. Government contracts

It never ceases to amaze me when a supplier cries foul in terms of the government bid process claiming unfair, or in the case of Google relative to the DOI awarding a contract to Microsoft, “unduly restrictive of competition.” One cannot help but wonder if such outcries are rooted in a false entitlement mindset or, a misguided understanding of transparency.

Let’s face it, and in line with Bradt’s winning preference with government buyers statement referenced above, whether in the public or private sectors people ultimately buy from someone they know, like and trust . . . period!

Anyone who has competed for and won large contracts understand this underlying principal, and the corresponding realization that “Transparency is not the holding fast to the illusion of a level playing field, but is achieved through a clear understanding of the layout of the field itself.”

On many occasions, including during my presentations on transparency in the government procurement process in which I include the above quote, I try to drive the know, like and trust concept home as early in the talk as possible.

In conjunction with another point of sage advice from Bradt who stresses that “waiting until an RFP/RFQ is issued is like showing up at the starting line of a long race without training and expecting to win,” relationships in which there is a well established, confident rapport shape the decision-making process long before an RFQ is actually released for bidding. This is especially true as the cost and complexity of the goods or services being acquired exponentially increase. Or as I like to put it, when I go to the corner store to buy a carton of milk, I do not really care if I know or like the person behind the counter, I just want to make sure that the milk is fresh. However, if I am purchasing a house or looking for a new dentist, you can be darn sure that I am going to want to not only have a rapport with the person in whose abilities I will be relying, but also like and trust them.

The time to start building this level of relationship is not during the response to bid process. Unfortunately, this is the mistake that most vendors make, as they consider the issuance of an RFQ as the starting point in terms of pursuing government contracts, thereby ignoring what Bradt calls “the five critical pre-RFQ tasks that enable bidders to win true preference status.”

Within this reality framework, the real issue with the Google complaint has little to do with an exclusionary practice on the part of the government, and more to do with the company’s inability to effectively build the necessary know, like and trust rapport that creates the confidence in their ability to deliver a solution that meets the buyer’s requirements.

This is a linchpin issue as illustrated in a comment by Karen Evans during a Roundtable discussion on government transparency. Evans, who was the U.S. Federal Government’s CIO under the Bush Administration overseeing in excess of $70 billion in IT spend during her tenure, highlighted the fact that one of the key differences between how transparency is viewed in the private sector versus the public sector originates in the reporting hierarchy.

The fact is that within the private sector Evans stressed, “your board is a known quantity that share common interests such as market share, profitability and stock value.” Even though “opinion regarding the best route to achieve the desired results may differ, the goals are ultimately much clearer and less convoluted by partisan or regional interests.”

“This of course is a factor in the public sector” the CIO continued, as the public sector board is the “535 people in the House of Representatives in the Senate, where jurisdictional interests and competing priorities contribute, at least in part, to the risk averse lens through which transparency is viewed.”

“This aversion to risk, in essence exposing oneself to open criticism in the pages of say the Washington Post” according to Evans, “prevents people from the taking the kind of necessary risks that are required to improve services.”

In other words, it is not the features, functions and benefits overview of a particular product or service that counts but, the relationship building process that establishes the necessary trust in said benefits so as to substantially reduce and even eliminate the risk to which Evans has referred.

Or to put it more succinctly, Google should spend less time with their head in the product cloud, and more time on the ground building meaningful relationships that replace fear, uncertainty and doubt “FUD,” with a know, like and trust value proposition.

In the meantime, here is the link to my Keynote audio/PowerPoint keynote address in Washington, as well as the resulting white paper from the Roundtable discussion on Transparency in the Government Procurement Process. (NOTE: you can also listen to the on-demand broadcast “LIVE EVENT FEED: 3rd Annual Business of Government Summit (Day 1, Roundtable)” in which the guest panel included Evans, IACCM CEO Tim Cummins, Judy Bradt and 30 plus year public sector veteran and author of the Towards Tesco – improving public sector procurement paper Colin Cram.)

Also check out our 7-Part Jump Start Government Contract series with Judy Bradt, which aired earlier this year on the PI Window on Business Show on Blog Talk Radio.

30

Shared Services & Outsourcing Network Roundtable Examines Prime Minister’s Speech on Government Waste

As the only North American procurement expert invited to participate in the UK-based roundtable discussion regarding the just released Sir Philip Green Review of UK Government procurement policy and process, I found the perspectives presented during the course of the hour to be both interesting and often insightful.

When you have a moment, be sure to listen to the on-demand version of the original broadcast which aired on Monday, October 18th, 2010.

Jon Hansen, Procurement Insights

–Previous Administration’s Services EPpenditures Questioned, Ample Room for Contract Management Improvements-

LONDON (25 October 2010) – Produced by The Shared Services & Outsourcing Network (SSON), the largest and most established community of shared services and outsourcing professionals, a recent roundtable of industry experts analyzed inefficiencies in public spending. Citing government waste as a direct result of the lack of defined practices for managing supply contracts and relationships, the roundtable experts included Mo Ali (Previously Head of Procurement & Project Procurement Specialist at the E-Delivery Team, The Cabinet Office); Jon Hansen (Procurement Insights Founder); Tim Cummins (President and Chief Executive Officer, IACCM); Lynda Atherton-Miles (Shared Services Professional); Lee Parry (Programme Manager at Fife Council, Previously Procurement Scotland Project Lead, The Scottish Government); Guy Stafford (Client Director, buyingTeam) – the session was chaired by Mark Kobayashi-Hillary (Author, Blogger).

Earlier in October, British Prime Minister David Cameron gave a speech attacking the previous administration’s “crazy services expenditures. “ A recent review by Sir Philip Green highlighted some of the decisions on IT spending and other procurement by the Labour government of which the present administration has been critical. In the Prime Minister’s words, the previous government made crazy decisions about property, about IT, about shared services. Sir Philip’s recommendation is that there should be a mandate for central procurement that is the centralization of the entire procurement function.

Roundtable participants echoed this sentiment, underscoring their positions with evidence of effective shared services models from the private sector. Mo Ali stated that the supply community is just as much at fault in the procurement process as they have resisted change. Tim Cummins commented that where collaboration has occurred, it tended to lead to greater overall successes and that adversarial attitudes lead to failure. Lynda Atherton-Miles observed that for government, there’s such a lack of collaboration between different public bodies, different government departments, different local authorities, etc. and that they’re all looking for their own solutions in response to budget cuts.

Atherton-Miles continued, “In my view, the government should be looking at best practices, mandating systems, mandating process within a public sector and really setting out a strategy and a vision for sharing services.”

The lively debate also touched upon how the government is not taking the lead in setting forth a clear direction. In fact, roundtable participants bemoaned how the government is allowing major suppliers to tell them how to save money rather than to establish the best practices and shared services models that will improve service delivery while reducing costs.

Download the full transcript of the roundtable discussion here or listen to the roundtable session here. SSON experts are available for further commentary on this important topic.

About the Shared Services & Outsourcing Network (SSON)

SSON is the largest and most established community of shared services and outsourcing professionals, with over 35,000 members.

SSON provides the roof under which key industry experts and organizations share their experience, knowledge and tools, and practitioner peers connect with other all over the world, both face to face and online.

SSON focuses on developing its members through providing training, tools, and networking opportunities. Its staff works from international offices in New York, London, Singapore, Sydney, Berlin and Dubai to research current trends and developments in shared services.

More information about the Shared Services & Outsourcing Network (SSON) can be found at www.ssonetwork.com. Stay up to date with SSON’s latest twitter posts at twitter.com/ssonetwork, connect with global practitioners, providers and advisors on the Shared Services & Outsourcing Network (SSON) LinkedIn group and Sign up to receive SSON’s weekly updates today

30

IACCM’s Cummins Hits One Out of the Park Regarding Dishonesty at the Top!

Tim Cummins’ blog offers one of the industry’s most “cerebrally balanced” and even refreshing views of the procurement world. And I don’t say that with whimsical alacrity.

In fact Cummins is one of the few who will take a stand on difficult issues, even if it attracts consternation from the quickly fading, old mindset establishment.

His post in Commitment Matters today regarding my Procurement Insight article on negotiation is a case in point. Here is an excerpt from his post:

‘You don’t get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate’ is the title of a blog by Jon Hansen, in which he challenges the ‘adversarial state of mind … that for so many years has hindered the buyer and supplier relationship …. negatively impacting an organization’s ability to sustain positive results”.

Jon castigates much of the negotiation training delivered by Karrass and others who encourage the ‘win-lose’ mentality. I agree with his comments. There are still many who see the negotiation itself, rather than the outcome it inspires, as the objective. This transactional, commodity-based thinking certainly does not fit well with many of the relationships required by business today.

Within the article, Jon also addresses the question of ‘lying’ and the sense among many that this is not only acceptable, but normal. He suggests such attitudes destroy trust and maintain the cynicism associated with many negotiators, especially those in Procurement.

While broadly agreeing with the point that unprincipled negotiation will lead to disappointing results, I regret that I do not entirely share Jon’s perspectives on the question of lying. Sadly, this is not so much to do with the negotiators in sales or procurement – it comes from the top.

Tim Cummins

Of course that is all I am going to share with you within the confines of this blog, encouraging you to visit, and yes subscribe to Commitment Matters to read Tim’s post as well as my subsequent comment in its entirety.

By the way, I think I just got a great idea for a topic for an upcoming PI Window on Business segment on Blog Talk Radio?!

30

Oustourcing . . . a return to a position of normalcy

This past Monday’s PI Window on Business segment “Outsourcing Revisited: Is It A Viable Strategy?” with IACCM CEO Tim Cummins and public sector expert Colin Cram delivered many great insights, so I would strongly suggest that you tune in to the on-demand version of the broadcast. In short, you will not be disappointed.

Besides talking briefly about the general effectiveness of outsourcing as a viable vehicle to enable companies to compete in the ever emerging global marketplace, overall economic impact, as well as the numerous challenges of maintaining an adequate level of security in the cloud, for me one particular point stood out. I am of course talking about Tim Cummins’ statement that outsourcing is in reality and in the context of history, a “return to a position of normalcy.”

Referencing Ronald Coase the British Economist, whose seminal works include “The Nature of the Firm” (1937) and “The Problem of Social Cost” (1960), Cummins indicated that other than a relatively brief period in history, the concept of long-term or cradle to grave employment is or at least was by and large a short-lived concept. A blip on the proverbial radar screen if you will.

Ronald Coase

Why is this important? One of the main issues towards which the detractors of outsourcing will point is the likelihood of job displacement. Depending on your age, and in particular those over 50 . . . I myself have been in a steady holding pattern at 39 for more than a decade, you will undoubtedly recall a time when changing one’s job more than once or twice was a rarity.

In today’s world, being in the same position with the same company for more than 3 years is considered an oddity and to some a sign of a clear lack of motivation. This was certainly true during my days on the speaking circuit (an activity that I will once again resume this September), when I can remember countless young procurement professionals approaching me after a session telling me that their strategy for both career and income advancement was tied directly to a nomadic mindset in which they would move on to the highest bidder every 2 to 3 years.

Given this monumental shift in workforce expectation, Cummins’ observation raises a number of very interesting questions including;

• to what degree will outsourcing benefit from a workforce that no longer maintains an expectation that a job with a particular company is for life?
• what impact will this shift have on the quality of work and output?
• what impact will this have on countries whose economic engine is slow to make the transition from primary and secondary industry sectors to both the tertiary and quaternary sectors?

Once again, there were so much more ground to cover with Cummins and Cram, and obviously an hour did not afford us with the needed time.

For this reason, we will be airing a special follow-up broadcast on outsourcing sometime in September, so stay tuned to the PI Window on Business Blog for dates and times.

Segment Sponsor:

"Building Bridges"

30

Washington Dispatch No. 7: Roundtable Discussion on Transparency and Technology

Ironically, given the huge investments made in procurement technologies during the past decade, usage of these systems remains markedly poor. Only 1 4% of the companies surveyed expressed confidence that 60% of spend was being channeled through eProcurement, the typical benchmark for applications of this nature; more than 60% placed eProcurement usage at less than 20%.

from Chances and Challenges for Buyers by Leon Smith, Supply Chain Europe (November 2009)

One of the most interesting aspects of what was already a thought-provoking discussion was introduced when I had made the suggestion to our expert panel that perhaps government had abdicated the relationship side of the procurement process in favor of technological compliance and scalability. In essence, focusing more on what IACCM’s Tim Cummins called “contractual rules” through technologically driven compliance versus actual “commercial acumen” leading to best value decision-making.

Tim Cummins, CEO IACCM

Through this broadening lens of informed understanding the abysmal usage statistics referenced above make a great deal of sense. This is due to the fact that the emphasis has traditionally and almost exclusively been placed on the end-user adapting to the technology as if following a pied-piper, with the same result of being led over a cliff of increasing costs and declining returns.

In this regard, Karen Evans hit the proverbial nail on the head when she made the statement that “products” (re technology), does “not replace skill sets.” According to the former CIO of the U.S. Federal Government “vendors have to change their business models” focusing the critical areas of “quality of service and reliability of data.”

Karen S. Evans, Partner at KE&T Partners, LLC

This Evans continued is “different from selling an Oracle data base,” even if it is within the realms of a virtualized or “cloud computing” architecture. Her reasoning is that computing in the clouds is really just “optimizing the use of infrastructure” and is therefore a commodity versus being an actual service.

This is an incredibly important observation by Evans in that it goes to the heart of the paradigm shift that has created the chasm between the traditional ERP-based applications offered by the Oracles, SAP’s and until recently Ariba’s, and the emergence of the original SaaS-based solution providers.

The inherent problems faced by traditional ERP vendors such as Oracle and SAP is that they view SaaS as a pricing model within the framework of their existing architectures versus being an organically originating, radically different adaptive platform.

In both my May 18th (SaaS Sprawl, One-Stop Shopping and Free 8-Tracks To Boot: A Sad Day in the World of SAP) and May 26th (Traditional ERP vendors such as SAP and Oracle overlook the Disruptive Innovation question when they discuss their move to a SaaS model) posts, I make reference to a comment by Ariba’s CMO Tim Minahan. Minahan, who is the former CSO and Senior Vice President, Global Supply Research at Aberdeen Group, expressed his opinion that “Oracle’s on-demand sourcing is not really on-demand at all,” and “if he were an Oracle or SAP customer,” he’d be confused, and that he thinks that “that’s their intention.” (Once again, I strongly recommend that you check out the on-demand version of the Minahan interview.)

Obviously risking a “one who lives in a glass house should not throw stones” response from either Oracle or SAP, and of course without calculating the ultimate result of Ariba’s DNA transformation to a on-demand provider, Minahan nonetheless echos a similar sentiment to those expressed by Evans.

Evans further stressed her point by emphasizing her belief that “government needs to make hard decisions about best solutions,” and in the process “reduce operating costs” through leveraging or “maximizing what is already out there.” This shift in mindset in which government can no longer “buy products,” but should instead focus on acquiring “services and relationships” presents the greatest challenge and perhaps threat to the traditional vendor models under which the Oracle’s and SAP’s have conducted business (re technology-centric collaboration).

Based on recent comments by SAP’s John Wookey regarding the vendor’s “orchestration” of on-demand functionality within the current SAP architecture, it would appear that this is a point that continues to elude his organization despite the minimal utilization statistics referenced in the Smith article. That being said Wookey’s own acknowledgment that “customers that already have gone with SaaS in addition to an on-premise suite may not swap out for on-demand orchestration,” might indicate a recognition that a change is afoot.

The bottom line reality is that these traditional technology vendors are simply too sufficiently top heavy in terms of head count and associated operating costs which, when combined with Wall Street influences, preclude them from moving aggressively towards the kind of “DNA cultural transformation upon which Ariba embarked last year.” It should be noted that Ariba’s decision to make the move to an on-demand model was to a certain degree influenced by their losing $3 billion on $1 billion in sales between 2001 and 2005. This is a motivating factor that neither SAP or Oracle presently faces . . . at least for the time being.

While the shifting sensibilities of end user decision-making gravitates towards a more service/relationship oriented outcome, and therefore provides original and emerging SaaS vendors with a marked advantage over their ERP-based counterparts, these new titans of the eProcurement world would be well-advised to avoid the same trappings of leading with their technology alone, including an overemphasis on their lower costs and reduced implementation time lines. The temptation to do so is usually strong given the algorithm driven, agent based solutions they provide on a pay-per-transaction basis. In short, real-time, real-world dashboard technology is pretty cool stuff. However, technology no matter how advanced, has to be a behind the scenes facilitator of efficient and relational process versus being a front and center initiative-based player. This of course leads us right back to IACCM’s Cummins’ remarks about buyer skill sets now being more focused on commercial acumen versus rules compliance, and the need to build collaborative relationships and solutions.

As a result, all vendors need to understand that merely providing centralized guidelines electronically and then automating the purchasing process (no matter how advanced technologically) is not sufficient. This is because the challenges that end users face, as Cummins pointed out, is not one of technology, but is directly related to the aforementioned limited skill sets (which again is beginning to change), and and inability to effectively “outsource relationships.” An issue Cummins noted that is not indigenous to the the public sector domain alone. However, it is especially problematic for government entities given that many are either contemplating or already pursuing a Shared Services or Outsourcing strategy. Both of which are heavily dependent on personnel aptitude and effective stakeholder interaction.

The question of disconnected relationships is also according to Cummins, not confined to external interactions with suppliers, but is also reflective of a general “failure” on the part of “public procurement agencies to look beyond their own internal borders.” This “fascinating lack of real substantive discussion,” is perhaps a contributing factor in what Colin Cram cited as one reason behind the “huge amount of added cost” which is based on procurement people being more interested in “protecting themselves versus delivering real value.”

Colin Cram, Towards Tesco

Perhaps in what was one of the most critical highlights of the serious flaws associated with a traditional technology-driven approach to procurement according to Cram, is how it enables government to “hide within” or behind costly “procedures.”

Referencing his “Towards Tesco – improving public sector procurement” paper, which indicates that the UK government could save £25 billion per year through improvements in key areas, Cram expressed the opinion that besides the problems with “procurement fragmentation when engaging the private sector,” government has “excessive procedures” that unnecessarily complicate and hinder supplier participation.

It is therefore not an unreasonable conclusion that similar to the old “garbage in – garbage out” analogy, automating procedure-laden processes will not make up for the absence of the required skill sets or collaborative platforms. This is yet another indicator as to why adoption rates of eProcurement technologies are as low as they are.

Consistent with the opinions expressed by both Evans and Cummins, Cram also believes that government has to begin “contracting out for relationships.” Unfortunately, according to the 30 year UK public sector veteran, while “many authorities are getting the picture” regarding the need to focus on relationships, few have actually addressed the onerous procedures associated with establishing and building the necessary rapport through the current RFP process, which according to Cram are unnecessarily arduous.

This ultimately leads back to the steady erosion of the very supplier relationships that are needed to ensure that government is achieving maximum value for money. Simply put, suppliers continue to believe that the government procurement process through which technology is a dominant presence, is geared toward a belt and suspenders approach to justifying a decision that has already been made.

With fewer suppliers coming to the table, pricing inconsistencies from one agency to the next and, low bids with declining service levels is the usual outcome lamented Evans.

So what is the answer to effectively utilizing technology to build the collaborative business relationships that leverage improving skill sets and maximize service delivery?

According to Washington-based expert author Judy Bradt, the foundations for addressing the above challenges are already in place and especially strong in the United States.

Judy Bradt, Summit Insight

Sharing a similar level of enthusiasm to that expressed by Dr. Betsy McCaughey, who during a recent interview regarding an equally daunting and somewhat pervasive problem indicated that the “good news” is that “you don’t often come across such a big problem that you can solve,” Bradt cited a recent announcement by the DoD that they were “formally encouraging the use of social media” as one of the key reasons for her optimistic outlook. (Note: refer to “Defense Department to Announce Balanced Social Media Policy“article of September 23rd, 2009.)

The DoD decision is without a doubt, very interesting given past tendencies on the part of both public and private sector enterprises to either limit or restrict outright employee access to social media during business hours. This change of heart according to Bradt, will further enhance what she referred to as an already “rich business culture” that “based on the power of existing associations to bring stakeholders together” will further strengthen the needed relationships and open the required channels of collaboration within the public sector procurement world.

Bradt’s views certainly have a great deal of merit as web-based “technologies” such as LinkedIn and Facebook, and services such as Twitter are platforms within which a growing number of buyers and vendors are beginning to interact. What is telling is that some of these vendors are actually looking beyond the communicative advantages of the group development and blogging venues associated with social media, and are extending the functional capabilities of their core solutions through a direct social media interface.

In an ironic twist, free or low-cost social media collaboration platforms may very well become the transformational bridge between the costly ERP-centric type applications of the past, and the steadily emerging on-demand SaaS solutions which, through their dramatically reduced cost and shortened implementation period, fall in line with Evans’ assessment that government can no longer “buy products,” but should instead focus on acquiring “services and relationships.”

Next White Paper Excerpt: Supplier Navigation of a Non-Linear Process

About the Summit:

The PI Window on Business took its show on the road on April 27th and 28th thanks to sponsor Elcom and the tremendous work of the 2010 Business of Government Summit’s organizer, Shared Services and Outsourcing Network (SSON).

"Building Bridges"

It was a first rate venue that saw us broadcast “live” 5 incredibly informative sessions centered on “Building a Transparent, Collaborative and High-Performance Government Capable of Addressing the Challenges of the 21st Century.”

Uniting Practioners, Providers & Advisors

The attendees of mostly senior officials and executives from the public sector world were exposed to an incredible array of thought leaders, whose shared insights and experiences provided much needed (and welcomed) perspectives on both the challenges and potential strategies for effective government practices in the 21st century.

PI Window on Business Show . . . Radio Has Never Sounded Better!

30

Guest Author Series: Collaboration Is Everywhere – Except In Contracts

Note: The following is a post by Tim Cummins that was originally posted to his blog Commitment Matters on Tuesday, May 25th.

Tim is the Founder and CEO of the International Association for Contract & Commercial Management (IACCM), a non-profit organization that has become the global forum for innovation in trading relationships and practices.

It doesn’t matter where I go, it seems that principles of more collaboration, more cooperation are sweeping through business and society.

Last week I was at a lunch with Dr. Vince Cable, the new Secretary of State for Business in the UK’s coalition government. I guess it may not be surprising that those forming a coalition might sing the praises of collaboration, but he was far from alone. Today, at the IACCM Europe, Middle East & Africa conference, his message was echoed by the Scottish Minister for Industry, who declared that ‘results can only be optimised through collaboration’. Politicians, trade association leaders, business executives, scientists and leaders in supply chain are all suddenly espousing the idea that innovation, value and risk management are improved if we work together to generate ideas and solutions. I could recite a long list of recent news articles and presentations to illustrate my point.

The cynics might suggst that this is simply a passing phase – that Western politicians and businesses are reeling from the impacts of the recession and are suddenly awakening to their loss of power and influence, so are calling on the new power-elite to be ‘collaborative’. Under this theory, the alpha-male is merely in abeyance – and will re-surface when the good times return.

Such a concept would of course depend on the fact that ‘the good times’ will return, at least in the forseeable future. Also, there are many who would point to the fact that we have created an increasingly borderless world with far greater inter-dependency between companies, organizations, political entities and individuals. This will force us to challenge some of our former beliefs and behaviors.

Among these, of course, are the ways we have gone about contracting and negotiation. We all know that these vary to some extent by culture and business practice. However, as the recent IACCM ‘Most Negotiated Terms Survey’ revealed, the international differences in contracting have continued to decline, driven by a broad adoption of the common law framework and habits (at least for international trade). These habits include a transactionally driven, adversarial approach to many negotiations: an approch that is, quite simply, out of step with public and political sentiment. Negotiators know this (they tell us what the focus should be, and it is very different), but feel powerless to change.

Such a defeatist attitude is disappointing. But more than that, it is potentially self-destructive. Contract drafters and negotiators are not immune from global trends; if they fail to adjust, they will simply be swept aside. Change is not an option. The option we have is whether to be among the leaders or among the victims. It is time to re-think the focus of contract content and negotiation planning. The change can be made. There are already collaborative models in place; there are examples we can draw from. There is no good excuse for continuing to fight battles that others can see are undermining value, increasing risk of failure and inhibiting new ideas and innovation.

Copies of the latest IACCM study into the Most Negotiated Terms are available from info@iaccm.com

3rd Annual Business of Government Summit Day 1 Broadcast Links Now Up

The following are the Live and On-Demand show links for the Day 1 Sessions being broadcast live from the 2010 Business of Government Summit in Washington, DC on April 27th starting at 9:00 AM EST

“Building a Transparent, Collaborative and High-Performance Government Capable of Addressing the Challenges of the 21st Century”

Broadcasting Live from Washington, DC April 27th & 28th
The PI Window on Business Show will be on the road covering the 3rd Annual Business of Government Summit at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, DC on the 27th and 28th of April.

PI Window on Business (on Blog Talk Radio)

Tuesday, April 27th (Session 1, 9:00 to 10:30 Noon EST)
Session 1 (Keynote) Segment Title: Contracting To Win: Buyer and Seller Responsibilities in 21st Century Government Procurement (Click to Access)

Jon Hansen
Author and Host, PI Window on Business Show

Tuesday, April 27th (Session 2, 11:00 to 12:00 Noon EST)
Session 2 (Panel Discussion) Segment Title: Change Management: The Cornerstone Of Effective Transformation (Click to Access)

Moderator: Dave Mader, VP (Booz Allen Hamilton)
Panelists: Admiral James M. Loy, Steve Kelman, Ron Sanders, Max Stier

Tuesday, April 27th (Session 3, 12:30 to 2:00 PM EST)
Session 3 Title: Start-Up Success Stories: From Organizational Models To Rollout Strategies (Click to Access)

Sam Poston
SVP-Shared Services and Federal Government Lead
ScottMadden

Tuesday, April 27th (Session 4, 3:00 to 4:00 PM EST)
Session 4 (Roundtable) Segment Title: What is Transparency in Government? (Click to Access)

Moderator: Jon Hansen (The PI Social Media Network)
Panelists: Tim Cummins (CEO, IACCM), Judy Bradt (Summit Insights), Colin Cram (Marc1 Ltd, Towards Tesco author) and Karen Evans (former CIO, United States Government)

Session Spotlight

What Is Transparency In Government Roundtable Session

In His keynote address “Contracting To Win: Buyer and Seller Responsibilities in 21st Century Government Procurement” this morning today’s moderator and host Jon Hansen made the statement that “transparency is not holding fast to the illusion of a level playing field, but to a clear understanding of the layout of the field itself.”

To expand on this concept of transparency further, he refered to a comment that was made by Washington-based expert author Judy Bradt who, as he will mention in her introductory bio has helped more than 6,000 clients win in excess of $300 million US in government contracts, during Part 3 of the Elcom sponsored 7-Part “Seven Steps to Success: Jump Start Government Contracts” Series on Blog Talk Radio. Specifically, Judy’s point that “the process for winning government contracts is truly based on the ability of a supplier to legitimately and transparently win preference with government buyers.”

Also joining Jon in this probing 60-minute segment on what transparency really means in the realms of public sector or government procurement is a guest panel of experts whose experience, expertise and insights will shed some much needed light on a subject that has often eluded a practical, real-world definition.

Guest Panelists:

Tim Cummins, CEO IACCM

Tim Cummins is CEO of The International Association for Contract & Commercial Management (Link to Tim)

Judy Bradt, Summit Insight

Judy Bradt is an expert author an is the Principal of Summit Insight in Washington DC who has helped more than 6,000 clients to win in excess of $300 million US in government contracts. (Link to Judy)

Colin Cram, Towards Tesco

Colin Cram is a Senior Adviser to the Office of Government Commerce, a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply and held senior positions for over 30 years in central government, higher education and local government. (Link to Colin)

Karen S. Evans, Partner at KE&T Partners, LLC

Karen Evans is a Partner at KE&T Partners, LLC and the former Administrator, E-Government and Information Technology at Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. (Link to Karen)

Jon Hansen, PI Social Media Network

Broadcasting live from the venue itself, the PI Window on Business Broadcast Booth which this year is sponsored by Elcom International, will cover key sessions of the conference as well as on the spot interviews with conference attendees and participants.

"Building Bridges"

30