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.

Mathieu,

While standardization may be a noble ambition, achieving it is usually quite difficult. You can improve your odds through the use of mutual NDAs that protect the confidential information of both parties and by having fair and balanced agreements, but expecting all suppliers to sign them as-is may be expecting too much.

Your role is to understand their requested changes and to determine the impact to your company and whether the changes are acceptable, and to advise your internal client accordingly.

Hope that helps. Sincere regards.

Consider whether you might be able to use a "standard" and have each negotiated difference stand out as a specific change. There are a number of ways to do this. The most systematic would be to use a master and generate each of the documents from the master, with a patch for the differences. That's possible in a number of technologies. A broad example is shown here: www.commonaccord.org/index.php

Hi Vladimir,

We have standard NDA template and additional clauses in the clause library if the vendor pushes for Mutual NDA. This helps build the agility in NDA execution. My experience says that we are able to push 80% cases on standard NDA template and the balance needs engagement.

If a NDA is well drafted, clear, fair and equitable then it should be signed without issue.

If the client has specific requirements that are reasonable and equitable they should be acceptable to all parties.

If there is an element of inequity or unreasonableness then expect suppliers to push back. The simplest test is "would I sign this on behalf of my organisation": if not, then why expect the other party to sign?

What could be up for discussion: whether the NDA is one-way or mutual? what law and jurisdiction apply? the length/duration of the NDA and of any surviving obligations? whether personal NDAs/statements are required?

I would have concerns if I have received unacceptable terms in an NDA - it wouldn't bode well for any subsequent contract discussions negotiations.

Mediocrity may apply at two levels - individual or process. In my experience, mediocre negotiators can still achieve good results if there is an excellent process, but the opposite may not be true. What do you think?

it is an interesting point ; in other words, how an individual can 'survive' a mediocre organization and tot only specifically on negotiations...or viceversa ; I have experienced both the cases: most probably an excellent process prevails, it has to, also because it would be difficult for an excellent individual alone to substantially modify a mediocre process ; but, again, that's very interesting from the point of view of dynamics

Thanks Jessica for posting this question. I appreciate all the inputs from everyone most especially Jason's reply. Like many others, suggesting to our vendors the use of our company templates for professional services is always a challenge. But as Jason suggested, explaining the benefits of using the company template (e.g. easy approval of subsequent statements of work once an MSA has been approved) makes the vendor think and eventually agree. Of course, there is negotiation in the process. It is not a straightforward demand of asking them to accept the template per se but making them aware of the benefits does help.

Since this discussion started almost 2 years ago, the world of technology has progressed and IACCM can today offer a service to validate 'contract norms'.

A challenge for buyers and suppliers is that their templates start from positions of self interest and naturally this creates contention and delay. It is now quick and relatively easy for us to provide members with insight to what is a normal position / term for any particular type of. Ontract. This allows internal discussion of the desirable business position and of course informs external discussion to accelerate agreement.

Hi Jessica
This is a common problem. Many of the relationships with indirect
suppliers are less formal and may have been in place for years, leading to resistance over use of standard templates.

It is of course important to establish whether the issue is just general resistance or whether the standards are not really appropriate to the range of indirect relationships required, or lack required flexibility.

We do have benchmark data at IACCM on cycle times and will be issuing reports on the latest information at the end of April. It should be possible to provide interim data if you need it sooner.

Tim

Internal Template application rather than the one of the supplier is usually a requirement nevertheless the real issue behind is do we protect ourself correctly. Legal usually is validating a template that he wants verybody contract manager to apply. As legal ressources are scarce and expensive ressources it is ovious that this is the first thing that should be pushed. Once you know that he does not work the more complex but more interesting solution for the company is to look at the mandatory clauses that are requested from the contract. So instead of pushing your template you should fight on the mandatory clauses. Fall back position should be created as a handbook of best practices.

Ms. Prendergast,

Templates, while easy to copy and work with, present a challenge to many companies in part because the template is usually written from one side or the other, providing all the advantages to the author's side and none to the recipient. This is frequently seen in EULAs, where the equivalent of "Not only do we have all the rights, but you are lucky we let you use our product at all, you horrible little vendor!" is common contract parlance.

So how do you overcome the natural inclination of a vendor to resist your templates? The same way you advertise anything else!

Make the option of using your product (the templates) both appealing and advantageous to the vendor. When sending internal templates to a vendor for use, do not present them as a "use or lose" option. Instead, deliver the items with the contracting equivalent of a box of chocolates: Provide vendors a summarized explanation of the benefits offered through using your templates. Bullet-oriented briefs are more effective here, as they provide not only a quick list for the vendor to read, but a point-summary for the vendor's contract manager to use in presenting the overwhelming benefits offered by your templates to their management.

Explain (again in short form) the potential realized cost savings of template use, including ease of follow-on contract development by way of utilizing your "easily-tailored, customer-specific templates." Make every effort to ensure using your templates is so much easier than having the vendor's contract department reinvent the procurement wheel that the vendor (who at this point you should view as your customer) would actually be acting against their own best interest to do anything other than to use your templates.

As M. Fouquier rightly points out, the usual greatest challenge is getting your templates past the legal department guardians. Providing a brief mandatory clause list may be a more advantageous initial step, as it tends to ease legal's protective instinct toward its client(s). Once you present not merely a palatable offering of clauses, but a tasty array of work-easing options to the vendor (and the vendor's legal counsel), your job is 90% done. Offering updates and non-critical individual tailoring options (which would not, of course, change the mandatory clauses) gives the vendor the personalized attention so critical to obtaining their final approval. It is the after-dinner apertif of contracting: "Not only do we offer all these options, but our true focus is on YOU."

Granting the vendor a choice of either (a) using your banquet of templates designed to ease their workload or (b) going through the tedious grind of negotiating back and forth on every item for months makes you and your templates the obvious and preferred choice every time.

Hi Adriana,

I work for a CLM platform with excellent contract administration and full lifecycle automation. I'd love to connect to see if we could be a good fit for your goals and use case.

You can check out our platform here: www.concordnow.com/

what you need to add to the master agreement are clauses derived from Art. 28. I am also doing the same for my Master Agreements. Here is an example,
Obligations of processors (supplier) in particular include:
- To comply with the GDPR data processing principles and to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects;
- To demonstrate compliance with the GDPR;
- To maintain records of processing activities and make them available upon request by supervisory authorities;
- To appoint data protection officers or representatives;
- To cooperate with supervisory authorities in the performance of their tasks;
- To ensure a level of security by taking appropriate technical and organisational measures;
- Specific obligations as regards transfer of data outside the EU.
In general, an auditor (DPA) should be able to trace data regarding customers. This also include emails, Excel spreadsheets with links to external systems such as financial and banking, etc.
It is not enough to have a supplier follow the GDPR. It is of most importance that your company/organisation is also GDPR compliant. To start with you need to have a DPO.

As mentioned by Amir there are a number of elements to include, and depending on your organisation and the data you are processing you may need to identify a DPO.

Other things you should identify include:

Is the relationship with the supplier a Controller-Processor, Processor-Sub Processor or Controller-Controller.
Is special data being transferred to the supplier?
Will the supplier be exporting data outside of he EU?

You may also want to include an indemnity clause in case the supplier causes you to breach the GDPR regulation.


If you go to the Information Commissionaire's Office website in the UK (ICO.org.uk) there are some excellent guides and information which may assist you (including links to Article 29 Working Party).

Regards

Carl

IACCM conducted a Ask The Expert webinar on this topic, featuring James Mullock of Bird and Bird. His session was highly rated. The recording and James's presentation are in the IACCM Library. Plus, there are a few other resources in the IACCM Library which are relevant. If you have trouble finding these resources, please let me know.

Best Regards,

Jim Bergman
IACCM

You can also have a look at the Article 29 Working Party webpage - there is a page setting out draft contract provisions that are in line with the GDPR as it is currently being interpreted. You may not want to use the clauses themselves but can use them as a measure for your own inclusions.

Stuart - I am not sure a UAT (assuming this is User Acceptance Test) would fully ensure the KPI's are ideal, as the UAT could potentially only assess whether there will be compliance to sub-optimal KPI's, leading to a sense of reasonableness but not necessarily effectiveness.

So, the ideal approach really needs to rely on a process. If you do not have an end-to-end contracting process the KPI's will usually prove problematic.

Early in the process, before ever approaching the contractor/supplier market, the customer entity needs to identify the overall objectives and goals from the project and related transaction - both from a relationship and contract document perspective. For example, one might identify risk mitigation, or cost leadership, or perhaps cyber-security as the key purpose and objective. Then the customer enterprise must identify the sub-objectives that enable the broader purpose. This all needs to be performed as a team, include those who will be leading the post-award phase. The KPI's need to then be included in the RFx/tender documents, as well as negotiated.

But, it sounds like you do not have the ability to take this steps now. The option that you suggest of a three-month trial period represents a potential solution. Plus, the three months might afford you time to undertake some of the above steps as well.

Hi Stuart, just a few of thoughts building on the below - They may not commit to any change of the KPIs as these are often standard for all customers - the below are just observations around the theme that may or may not be useful, and their strength will depend on what the software does, how much you've spent on it, how core to your business is etc.:

1) They'll be most open to discussions when annual maintenance renewal time comes around, as that's when there's normally money on the line - so if the user community can be corralled into speaking with one voice, they could be a powerful ally in helping review whether the KPI's are useful in the first place and then challenging those that aren't
2) Also consider whether there are other potential purchases or expansions into your business - the person who originally sold you the software will probably have some sort of target to sell you more (even if via an audit...), so if it turns out that you can use the opportunity of future sales to sharpen up their performance then that might help
3) My cynicism is that a number of vendors will deliberately sell software that hasn't been fully tested, and then their customers essentially complete the testing through raising support tickets and the supplier improving the software through trial and error. See if the supplier has a user support community where you can compare the number of tickets you're raising vs. others, and whether root causes of any issues that arise are training or software-based
4) Maybe compare the functional specification with performance in reality - given that vendors typically warrant that the software will perform with the documentation, the argument most likely to drive change is more likely to be whether the system isn't performing against spec rather than they're missing KPIs

Hope this is in some way helpful, let me know if there are aspects you'd like to follow up on.

Stephen

Stuart, Agree completely with other's comments/ideas posted. Really think the key will be in communicating and documenting your overal objective. It doesn't sound as if you are certain that a clear overall objective has been communicated to your software provider,. If that i truly the case, would get to work on detailing it as soon as possible (at the time of the RFP would be best). Be prepared to have a conversation with the software provider after you're comfortable that the overall objective is clear. It may be that an amendment to the agreement will be needed.
Would also consider creating a process for determining your overal objective prior to your next RFP going out. For example, create a cheat sheet of gemeral key topics to be covered; legal entities to the agreement, key contacts, pricing, payment terms, purpose of the agreement, etc. Find that when a process has been defined and I follow the process everytime, there are fewer of those UhOh moments.

Hi Stuart, All great comments to consider. having been in exactly the same position 1 year ago, these were some of the key lessons learnt.

1) Keep it simple - don't unnecessarily overcomplicate it.
2) Inputs or outputs based KPI's
3) What is your customer's / business key requirements - requires alignment
4) What's more important the KPI's or SLA's (there is a difference)
5) determine if the urgency to get the agreement signed outweighs the importance of fully developing the KPI's/SLAs.

While we don't have the full details, your proposed solution to this can be a way forward and can have teeth; provided you clearly articulate the review criteria in the agreement. But as mentioned before, vendors typically have standard SLA/KPI's and anything bespoke usually costs a premium especially after the fact. So I would urge you depending on the importance of this implementation and the impact on the business, to resolve this before you sign.

Hi Stuart,
Perhaps this has resolved itself already, but perhaps consider looking at the 10 Pitfalls in the IACCM resources and working WITH the Contractor to identify (perhaps 5) KPIs that relate to the work being undertaken in the first calendar year. Then evolve those based on experience/needed improvements.

It is essential that measurement criteria be established and agreed up-front (documented in a Guide signed by both parties) and that measurement timelines are adhered to. Have experience with payouts against a x% holdback on a periodic basis based on a sliding scale scoring of measurement criteria - (significantly below expectation = full retention of holdback by Owner, significantly above expectation = 1.5 x holdback paid out, on par with expectations = holdback paid out.)

At least agree that some form of Perf Measurement will be undertaken (jointly developed) at the time of signing the contract. Implementation can follow asap thereafter.

What about asking for some reference customers and reaching out to them?

Although I'm not aware of an existing case study on this topic, however, during my experience of contract negotiation, I have come across such situations and happy to share some tips that I usually apply. Typically, large MNCs or Government institutions like to push their contract templates and are averse to any changes.
During the beginning of the negotiation lay out on what I call the 'ground rules'. Meaning the aim of the negotiation is for both parties to explore solutions to the issues and not have an ego-tussle. The words "No" or "I don't agree" or "It cannot be done" will be used only after exploring all the available legal options. There is always something to bargain, never give away a demand for free, always ask for something in return. Try beginning with smaller issues first. In many common law jurisdictions, entering into a contract by using undue influence make the contract voidable.