• Looking For A New Opportunity
Hi Julie. Even if it is a proprietary tool, it is still an electronic platform and should be bundled with the IT set up and other licensing fees. However, if the "workflow tool" is not theirs, and it is a product developed by another third party software company, that might explain why they want separate Ts&Cs. Make sure they are an authorized dealer for the workflow tool. I dont know what industry you are in, but have you checked out SAP Commercial Project Management ? It is a great one-stop-shop with great workflow and email push notification capabilities.
• GAMA ENERJI A.S.
Thank you Jeff. Does anyone have best practices for contracting as-a-service? Especially, what is different vs. traditional software contracting?
At IACCM, we have developed a comprehensive questionnaire to gather requirements that take account of the new technologies that are driving CLM innovation. This would support your assessment and subsequent market outreach. As you may know, we are also assessing the many products currently available to help our members with their selection process. If you would like a copy of the questionnaire, please email me - email@example.com
• Robert Half International
Happy to discuss this with you as we have had our solution in place for some time. The "do's" and "don'ts".
With GDPR and other compliance issues that exist, selecting a vendor is important.
Good point has been brought to the forum discussion today, and I hope that we can get more responses.
It has been said that Software-as-a-Service and Cloud Computing are the new generation of business computing and that these new ways of delivering networked applications will have the same world-changing effect on business that Windows and browsers did. We are really on this scenario.
An interesting article has recently been posted, under the question 'What are bots?' and this overview of the bot landscape tries to describe the situation (botnerds.com/what-are-bots/), You said that you work for a social media management company so you must be aware that most of the industry focus is on bots in messaging apps / social networks.
As it is said in this publication, there are lots of possible business models, but no product-market fit has been reached yet.
As far as the point whether the MSA and/or order forms should be evaluated, I will raise this question in your name in the Technology IACCM community of interest, so that we can listen to some inputs from experts in this field.
The recent IACCM Research Report on Automation, which is in the IACCM Library, contains analysis and outsights on this topic. Once you have reviewed that document, please let us know whether you have additional questions.
Sharon, the sort of functionality you mention would commonly be available through contract or project management software. It may be that you could use existing tools within your business - for example Sharepoint or Office365. Otherwise, your choices rather depend on the volume of agreements, their complexity and the budget you have available.
I will have a member of the IACCM team follow up with you to better understand your needs.
• BCS Global Networks Ltd.
Hello Sharon, I had fairly good experiences with Sharepoint a few years back. My current employer uses Salesforce, but other than the time within which we are processing orders, I don't believe other performance indicators are measurable. Haven't looked at Office365 but look forward to further input from the IACCM team.
I am looking at salesforce as I used this in my last job. At present its all manual work to pull a performance report together.
• BCS Global Networks Ltd.
the last company I worked for began using Salesforce as their contract repository tool; however, everything is manual labour and contracts admin personnel needs to manually enter very basic data such as Effective Data, Expiration Date, whether the contract auto-renews, and whether a termination fee applies in the event. All this is very rudimentary information and barely sufficient for effective contract management. A lot of other information in the contract cannot be managed via Salesforce unless the tool undergoes significant reconfiguration efforts. This is a costly undertaking a company which is already using Salesforce is less likely wanting to invest in.
Leaving aside that I would also have concerns around Confidentiality if a company begins uploading the entire agreement into Salesforce.
• Seal Contract Discovery & Analytics
Hi Anon, have you heard of Seal Software? Seal can find all your contracts, centrilize them into one repository, then extract all necessary information and key phrases for you. If you're from a company with a large amount of contracts and are struggling to get the bandwidth to analyse them all, tools like this can really help. See the link for some more info. www.seal-software.com/
This is indeed an important issue. It reflects ignorance of the role and purpose of contracts and their impact on successful outcomes. I am raising this with SAP and will advise on progress. If there is none, we will rapidly assemble a pressure group to ensure a satisfactory response.
Thanks for highlighting this important topic
• New Zealand Defence Industry Association (NZDIA)
Will be following this discussion with interest. There have been some recent evolutions in awarding tenders to companies on the basis of innovation and relationship, with contract drafting to follow. System functionality needs to be able to address multiple approaches with flexibility.
• SAP AG
I reached out to the Product Owner of the Ariba Product and here is his response:
"Although there are many aspects of a contract, the two in reference here are the actual clauses within the contract and the quoted pricing. Thus, you have to look at the two processes: Collecting Quotes during Sourcing and Contract Creation/Authoring. In the case of collecting quotes, today companies are able to include the terms of the contract within the quoting process. It is up to the company to decide what is negotiable during the quoting process and what isn't. So the bidders do actually know what they are bidding on based on what is included in the sourcing event.
There is a secondary issue though. Companies need to sometimes start the contract creation/authoring/negotiation prior to the quoting process finishing. Although this is allowed within the SAP Ariba tool, it doesn't allow you to pass the information from the sourcing event to the Contract in this specific instance. One must create the contract separate from the sourcing event. As a result the quoted information must be manually copied from the sourcing event once the sourcing quoting process has completed. There are multiple ways to do this within the tool such as using Excel Export/Import and copying from the library.
The good news is that we have further enhancements planned in our roadmap for 2017. A user will be able to create the contract prior to the quoting process ending and, more importantly, we will automatically copy the negotiated terms to the contract workspace once the sourcing quote has completed. These enhancements should speed up the process such that one doesn't need to manually copy the information from the sourcing event to the contract.
We would be happy to work with you further if this doesn't answer your question."
Just reply and I will forward to him!
Thanks, Kai. Unfortunately, I think we're still missing the key point.
Contract drafting - things like selecting the appropriate base template, adding/changing terms and conditions, and integrating the scope of work and proposed compensation mechanism - this all needs to happen BEFORE the start of the sourcing event. In other words, the buying organization needs to assemble all of their requirements in the draft contract that will be included in the RFP sent to bidders. This allows the bidders to have the full picture when submitting their proposals.
Then, contract negotiation may start with multiple bidders before the completion of the sourcing event. This happens because the buyer may not be in a position to select one or more suppliers until they know how the negotiations will shape the final contract terms.
As part of the negotiation and governance process, the approval workflow and tracking of clause changes will be very useful - but this can't wait for the close of the sourcing event.
Yes, the pricing information needs to be transferable from the sourcing event to the contract, but this does not happen in a vacuum - separate from the remainder of the contract.
Thanks for looking into this - and I hope that this discussion is helpful for others. I'd love to also get additional feedback from other members.
• SAP AG
Hi, will forward your thoughts below to the Productowner... or link you two directly (just approach my via firstname.lastname@example.org)
I have had to deal with this as well as a few other issues with SAP/Ariba. I have deployed the sourcing and contracts module throughout my company. From my experience, they do not seem to understand what their customers' needs are.
On the positive side, the tool does provide great reporting and has been key in having all contracts in one place that multiple people can access at the same time.
A late response to this post, but worth adding some thoughts. In this day and age, you shouldn't have to change the way you work to accommodate a contract management solution. You should always find a solution that either meets your needs out of the box, or one that's easily configurable to meet them. The fact that you are thinking/planning to deploy a solution that will force a huge workaround to your current process should raise some red flags.
Since you are still 3 - 5 years out from deployment, use the time wisely to shop and compare point solutions vs. suites vs. platforms. There is no shortage of choices, depending on your specific company size, geographies, industry, etc. Bear in mind, whatever you choose you're going to have to live with it a long time. If it's difficult to use or doesn't conform to your needs, you will have serious problems gaining user adoption. And even the best solution is useless if nobody uses it. As a suggestion, here is a 'shopping list' of best practice features you may want to use to compare what's available in the market.
• Technology that is affordable, and easy to implement, maintain and grow.
• A user experience intuitive enough to be used by everyone across business units and devices.
• Modular solutions that let you start with one or two and add on as needed without reimplementing.
• A single source of data truth that's visible, accessible and spans the enterprise.
• Business process management that links solutions and departmental workflows together.
• Depth of capabilities that solve for immediate challenges, and when your needs grow.
• Built-in self-service tools that really empower users across organization.
There are solutions that solve the contract management problem you are describing in a far better and more cost-effective way. If you're not happy before deployment, imagine how you're going to feel once you're stuck with a poor choice.
I have heard of a few instances in the Middle East, Australia and SE Asia where multi-entrprise teams have used Box, or have contemplated using Box (or other similar platforms), to share contracts, SOW's, SLA's, KPI performance reports, and other post-award compliance/governance documentation between the customer and contractor/supplier. In those discussions, the parties were simply using Box as a simple repository without much taxonomy nor structure. The main reason cited for using Box was that it allowed sharing without having to deal with either party's firewall and security protections.
IACCM Networks are collaborative, community driven professional networking sites. Our contributors publish their
own content as well as links to third-party articles and websites, and IACCM cannot be held responsible for content posted here.
View Content Policy
IACCM cannot guarantee or warrant the accuracy, reliability, currency, completeness or legality of such content, third-party articles, or
linked websites, and disclaim all responsibility for the use of any inaccurate, incomplete or illegal content contained in or linked from IACCM
and disclaim any and all liability to the user for any damages, including without limitation, direct or indirect, special incidental, moral or
consequential damages, loss of profits, opportunities or information or for expenses arising in connection with your use of IACCM, its services,
forums or the site content, even if they (individually or as a group) have been advised of the possibility of such damages, losses or expenses;
do not warrant that IACCM operates error-free, nor that defects, errors or omissions will be corrected, or that IACCM is completely secure;
disclaim any and all warranties of any kind, including but not limited to implied, express or statutory warranties as to non-infringement of
intellectual property rights, or third party rights, title, latent defects, uninterrupted service, merchantability, fitness for a particular
purpose, and freedom from computer viruses; and
do not warrant or guarantee that files available for downloading through IACCM will be free of infections or viruses, worms, Trojan horses or
other code that contains contaminating or destructive properties.
IACCM, including any and all aspects of IACCM, is not a substitute for independent professional advice and users should obtain
any appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances. Users must exercise their own skill and care with respect to
their use of IACCM and must carefully evaluate the accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance of the material on the site for their
purposes. The user should carefully assess any and all information obtained through IACCM before applying it to the user's situation. Never
disregard, avoid or delay in obtaining professional advice about handling engineered or other nanomaterials or nanoparticles because of
something you have read on this site. The advice the user finds in IACCM is freely offered in good faith, but no legal liability can be
accepted by IACCM, members on IACCM's Implementation Committee, IACCM's operators, content partners, content contributors or providers, or
IACCM contains links to other Internet sites that are external to IACCM. IACCM takes reasonable care in linking Internet
sites but has no direct control over the content of the linked sites, or the changes that may occur to the content on those sites. It is the
responsibility of the users to make their own decisions about the accuracy, currency, reliability and correctness of information contained in
linked external Internet sites. Links to external Internet sites, or links to documents, do not constitute an endorsement or a recommendation
of any material on those sites, or in those documents, or of any third party products or services offered by, from or through those sites or
those documents. Users of links provided by this Internet site are responsible for being aware of which organization hosting the Internet site
To report any innappropriate content, please