This is definitely something that should have greater consideration in my organisation, I have been quite vocal in pushing it. I have worked in teams where particular members have found the lack of bounds extremely stressful as they feel they are crowded out or put upon by the more vocal members, who are equally frustrated it takes so long to get things done. Clarity in defining the roles and responsibilities can often be an enabler.

Agreed, this is a great article and really gets you thinking about the behaviours instilled within your own immediate team. If we cannot get the behaviours and roles clearly specified for our own team members first we are setting ourselves up to fail in the wider team and externally.

Agree - this was quite an insightful article. I've always believed that it should work in reverse - that you should set the objective and then leave it up to individuals to work out how to get there, which is what the article says except for specifying that their roles need to be clear. I believed that if roles were less clearly defined then it gave people scope to expand their remit, however I can see why this can cause confusion.

Hi,
Ive had a lot of experience of very dominant Clients who are never willing to negotiate any give on their side, only improvements for them. I have found you need to identify this type of individual very early on in the process and realise that this behaviour will not change through the lifecycle. Decisions need to be made as to whether the deal that you are being faced with is worth it or not - is it good business for you or are they asking for too much. Id love to hear any specific approaches of how to deal with this type of client as its not easy.

You are correct, but don't you think that is implied under the 'ultimate objective'? Perhaps you have only experienced part of the statement so far.

Hi - at my workplace we are mainly dealing with FX related claims that are being submitted as force majeure. In these cases, they are (b) - in that did the party have an opportunity prior to the FM event occurring to reasonably speaking, manage and treat the risk.

Hi
! disclaimer - I don't know anything about Australian law !

but I don't see how option a) can be reasonable.

Risks can appear as time goes by due to changing circumstances and something that is not reasonably foreseeable at one point in time could well be later on.

My apologies for the delayed reply to your question.

In general, the clause is referring to an issue that you could reasonably have anticipated and therefore could have prepared for it in some way. That means not only before inception of the contract, but also during its performance.

Even in a case where Force Majeure applies, there is a duty to take reasonable measures to mitigate its effects.

In the case of the pandemic, there are many debates over whether and in what circumstances it represents a Force Majeure event. However, even when disallowed, there may be grounds for claiming frustration of contract or impossibility of performance due to related events.

In the US, Texas or New York are largely considered "neutral territory" whereas in Europe, until very recently UK law was considered neutral. I think that may change with the recent political upheaval.

Or try international trade law?

www.jus.uio.no/lm/index.html

In the case of one party proposing Indian law and the other proposing Singapore law, the parties may well choose the law of England and Wales as both Indian law and Singapore law are based upon English and Welsh common law. (Note that there is no such concept as "UK law" as one commentator has suggested below).

However, a party should consider a wide range of factors before proposing a particular governing law and should weigh up the legal and commercial advantages and disadvantages of all the options.

One factor may be the degree of certainty that a contract will be interpreted in a particular way. English law adheres to the doctrine of binding precedence. Some legal systems do not. This could lead to significant uncertainty as to how the law will be applied.

In English law, it may be perceived that the courts allow a greater degree of freedom of contract. Subject to certain exceptions, freedom of contract in English law means that commercial parties are completely free to make disastrous bargains. This illustrates the comparative reluctance of the English courts to interfere on policy or other grounds to rewrite the parties' contracts for them.

For example, in English law it is possible, provided very clear wording is used, to include an exclusion clause that excludes any and all liability whatsoever, even for a deliberate breach of contract. And there is still no recognition of a duty of good faith being applied generally to commercial agreements (but watch this space!). This may or may not be an advantage to you but it remains the case that the courts are likely to give effect to the wording of the contract without imposing their opinions as to what does or does not amount to good faith.


And you may wish to consider the approach of a particular legal system to particular clauses.

For example, in English law, a liquidated damages clause will be subject to the clarification set out recently by the Supreme Court with a subsequent judgment, applying that test, indicating that a freely-negotiated LD clause is likely to be upheld subject to the requirements set out by the Supreme Court. Under UAE law, such a provision would be subject to Article 390(2) of the Civil Code and either party may apply to the court to adjust the agreed amount of compensation so it is equal to the loss. If Indian law were to apply, we would have to consider the effect of section 74 of the Indian Contracts Act 1872.

English law will also recognise an asymmetric jurisdiction clause.

And it may be that the choice of law clause will be reflected in the choice of jurisdiction. So, English law and the English courts. If the choice of courts is to reflect the choice of law, it may well be the consideration should be given to the efficacy of the court system and the technical expertise and other qualities of the judges.

Lots to consider.

Dear Anonymous,
we are as well facing smth similar within our company, especially what concerns the Contract management tools and systems. Being a contract manager myself I have been a part of the team that is quarterly checking that deals selected by some criteria are properly stored in the tool. Almost all the time they were not. But since we have implemented the now tool it turned out that a sales team can not proceed further with delivery/execution process unless the contract is properly stored in CLM. So this tool is kind of a trigger - if a contract is there, then assignment can be created. And... for such upload - the responsible person is exactly the contract manager/contract administrator, i.e. the person who owns the contract and knows what to upload. Since that time all contracts are there. Sometimes such methods works as well and need to be applied.

I suggest you:
a) define and write up the purpose or importance of timely inputs (for all inputs being overlooked), and
b) measure and summarise the error rates and input times
c) prepare risk assessment and cost benefit analysis/ estimate (hard$ savings unachievable/ consequential time lost/ risk "contingency cost" vs input time) based on a and b.
d) survey all users to identify their excuses/ issues with the system/ lack of awareness/skills
e) summarise above in a report to exec management. Seek system fixes, user training, compliance enforcement and resources to implement these things.
f) If you don't get support from exec, then focus only on the worst problems that you are capable of fixing.

We also experienced the similar situation and I believe this is somehow natural and common when the control, involvement of higher management and objectives of the people involved are not aligned. Sometime the pressure and the load of the work are also the reasons contributing to such a behavior. What we did was the following:
Conducted training sessions highlighting the importance of the issue and tis consequences for the organization
Top down message highlighting the importance and adherence of the process
regular check up of data and accountability

the outcome was good however it took some time and efforts are still on going

i had an over view about all the replies and they are all valid points - if we have a fresh beginning lets say its an advantage so you able to implement the rules rather than change rules - there many points to be addressed as below :
a. Contract administration.
b. relationship and process between different parties during pre and post tender award.
c. risk management and mitigation process.
d. periodical meeting for tender and project review.
e. contract management process and implementing it into a way to be effective and part of both tendering and project process.
... after all i would like to add its very important that top management within your organization to support that - and does not consider it as only consultancy or optional process.

Have you considered an e-learning module that would increase internal skills and awareness of what improved contract management can achieve? E-learning tends to be very low cost and learners can complete it at times that suit them.

You must list the gaps between your existing processes and what you want to be. These gaps needs to be controlled thru authorisation / automation if you are switching to a software support system else these need to be manually controlled by matrix. The next person in line will not sign till matrix is completed and checklist signed for compliance. this mau slow down but better than what's happening right now.

This is nothing new, rather very frequent in most organizations small or large. Systems are provided as tools to help managing our daily work; if not used and maintained properly to input and process data, no degree of sophistication would help. Having worked with a number of major corporations, using and investing in well developed contracts/procurement management systems I can only say that it happens a lot, but not difficult to overcome.
Like with all matters 'human' in the workplace, it requires continuous and diligent focus and efforts to train, motivate and monitor the users, frequent audits to check performance and usage for corrective actions, sometimes, unfortunately, 'constructive reprimands' are needed to bring everyone on track. It is important to have and allocate an adequate level or resources, systems and personnel combined and identified a budget needed for that to get support of your stakeholders. If you have a well developed contracts department with sufficient personnel, you could train and benefit of database technicians to handle such admin tasks regularly. I had the privilege to work in places where complex systems were designed and in place for contracts / procurement management. Every processing step would have key fields designed in such a way so if these were not filled as required, the user would be stopped from advancing to the next step and completing the task. And finally, such system would be directly linked with the AR/AP so that when getting to payments (this really matters for everyone) these would not be validated until the predecessors required activities/steps were adequately completed. That would be the show stopper. If a complex processing system is not in place, there is still good work to be done using well designed spreadsheets combined with your email messaging board to prompt actions due.
All in all, patience and interest in working with, and helping people to raise the bar and become professional in everything they do, small or big.
Lucia Galdian

We had similar situation. It is always same, nobody wants extra work, or deviate from their routine what they have been doing for years. We organized lot of information sessions, lunch and learn for key people to sell the idea to them. Once they were convinced that it is good for them and for the organization (or they realized there is no escape..), it was easy to implement our procedure and protocol with the key stakeholders.

I'm bringing in a contract management process from scratch, as previously I would receive instructions in a different form depending on the Sales person - and it was often a brain dump over the phone.

The approach I've taken so far is to approach the Head of Sales & the Sales Manager to get their support, but to also allign the information I want to capture with the information that they are looking for from the team.

It's useful to get backing from their team leads and try to demonstrate how the information your capturing will benefit them in regards to their targets. If they can see value, you'll find that they'll be having the battle for you.

I had the same issue with implementing a new tool nationwide. Agree with all of the answers - my solution was itemizing the ways that the tool would "benefit" the staff who were reluctant to learn the new application/system. ie legal ramifications, Good luck.

We experienced something similar. We were able to run and produce reports which clearly showed at a very high level the number of gaps in the system info. We also put a sharp focus on the associated risks and missed opportunities that resulted from this. These reports were shared with senior management which put it firmly on the radar of those who needed to know. Important for us (and i imagine anyone) was to clearly link the risks with our organisational objectives so that it was very evident (even if some people thought it unimportant) how gaps in system info could and would limit our ability to achieve company objectives.

I think you'll find consistency across stakeholders is an issue across more than contracts. Each function sees only the value in what is important to their process. We have been able to reduce (not eliminate) the issues you talk about thru establishing a centralized contract area. Only individuals in this area have delegation of authority to sign contracts. Additionally, I will say we do work very well with our stakeholders.

Good luck.

This is a problem I've encountered as well at a previous employer. It's hard to overcome when the "stakeholders" don't want to cooperate because it's a burden. Perhaps a training session where you emphasize the importance of the system (and keeping accurate records) and answer questions about how to map the documents would be helpful. Good luck.

Education, education, and more education. When we revamped our contracting process, it was a major shift in our organization. You will need to effectively communicate the value of contract management and the importance of accurate records. I have gone as far as using examples of contracting scenarios that placed our organization at risk because of failure to follow policies and procedures. Also equally important is senior leadership buy in. Because this is a major shift, you will need the support of your senior leaders so the message is coming from the top. I found that we were making very little progress in changing the culture until we engaged the support of our senior leaders. Good luck!

Unfortunately this is a problem with the tediousness of the task and the fact that legacy CM systems require manually uploading the contract. Our CEO is a 20 procurement professional that got frustrated with the old way of doing things and figured out how to upload contracts automatically to address this issue. He's been using it on an M&A project where thousands of contracts have to be renegotiated and reassigned. It would take years to input those process those contracts manually and he's been able to do it in weeks with accuracy.

Yes I agree, please share with me, I would like to see the legislation and I have recently observed the change in contractor's attitude in negotiation from UK.

The most recent change is the implementation of the European Directives into UK Law, through the issue of the 2015 Public Contracts Regulations. This dictates Government procurement rather than standard commercial arrangements. Section 83 indicates a minimum contract record retention of the contract duration where they are over a certain value: As most contracts have an extended liability life of at least 6 years and as we have a wider obligation to maintain public records, then policy in my government Department is to err on the side of caution and retain for 6-7 years. The legislation is found HERE www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/102/pdfs/uksi_20150102_en.pdf

I'm not sure what the change of law mentioned could relate to - other than what Shaun is referencing.

I would look to follow i) your organisations own information management policy (if it exists - as they should have taken account of relevant law/regulations for your company); or ii) if there is no records policy - then as Shaun says, capturing information and storing information based on the potential risk of claims which would be capped based on the Limitations Act 1980.

The only thing I'd add to point below (for England and Wales jurisdiction) is anything executed as a deed has a limitation period of twelve years rather than six.

Hi Cate - look, I'll rise to the challenge of the discussion here. Here's the link to this on the IACCM website, and it's also on the commitment matters blog. www.iaccm.com/resources/

In defence of the Western world, I'll say two things :
1. I think that the relationships of many organisations and their teams are certainly being put to the test right now. Personally, I'm seeing a lot of good outcomes in these challenging times across a number of organisations, especially in the emergency sector which I think is an indication that the relationships, albeit perhaps not as deep as those in Asian culture are seeing good outcomes.
2. I'd turn this question around and, perhaps take the heat off the negotiators, ask if it's the organisations who are stupid, or perhaps better put naive. Again, I see a lot of good stuff in this area. IACCM ave challenged the thinking of people and asked why in times of performance, do we go straight to the penalty clauses after courting a supplier through the RFx process. I see many organisations, my own included, using the Significant Services Contract Framework put out by MBIE in New Zealand to make these relationships stronger. For instance, for every such contract, our CE meets with their CE annually which is evidence that perhaps it's not all lost. But I think many negotiators and those in procurement often have budgetary constraints or drivers set by the business. That is, either they can't invest time and money doing this, or their focus set by their leaders is more focussed on cost reduction as a measure of success.

Hopefully others in the Western world reading this will step up and agree or contribute, or perhaps those from the Asian culture might want to post and share their views and experiences as well.