Executive Concerns: Change, Commitment, Compliance
Published: 13 Feb 2014
Average Rating: 3.4 / 5
Print
Share
Managing growth in an environment of uncertainty is the overall concern that emerges from a recent survey of business executives. They fear regulation, the potential for market volatility, the possibility of disruptive innovation and the inability of their organization to adapt sufficiently fast.
The top risks all have impact upon contracting and commercial practices. For example, the fear of regulatory changes and increased regulatory scrutiny clearly drives the need to ensure oversight of commitments, market practices and supplier integrity. On the other hand, risks such as economic uncertainty restricting growth, difficulty acquiring new customers and volatility in global financial markets call for new or adaptive commercial offerings and contract terms that enhance competitiveness and improve controls. Specific terms and conditions are also likely to face renewed attention – for example, those related to data security / privacy and managing exposure to cyber threats.
Overall, this should represent a busy time for anyone working on contract strategy and policy, with the evident need to balance creativity and control. Businesses need new commercial models and offerings in order to compete, yet at the same time must improve oversight of compliance and enable greater agility in their contract relationships. Approaches to financing, to currency hedging, to systems for contract and performance management appear critical in the environment executives describe. At the same time, research into the contract terms that will support winning in the market, enabling new business models, may prove critical. Regulatory and reputational concerns are likely to translate into growing interest in the development of industry standard terms and practices, to raise confidence in levels of compliance and as a defense against charges of failure.
Comment or read more Tim's blog
Related Discussions
Please sign in or
register to post on this forum
NXB AB
2019-12-17 11:22:11
Agenda 2030 and public procurement driving it
Lately, I have come across strong initiatives in the Nordic countries that intend to drive Agenda 2030 and all it´s goals by embedding the content within the public pr...
Lately, I have come across strong initiatives in the Nordic countries that intend to drive Agenda 2030 and all it´s goals by embedding the content within the public procurement activities. As you know, the public sector is very large in my Country, Sweden, and I expect this move to have a fundamental effect on trade in general. For obvious reasons they (state, regional and local governments) are looking for insights and inspiration from us at IACCM.
I do not know if I am an early observer (I am not first) or "the last one to figure it out". Regardless, I am interested in understanding if, and if so how, such initiatives are launched elsewhere in the world and a bit more "meat on the bones" if available. It would be very beneficial to me.
Very best regards,
Erik Nordling, IACCM Fellow
• Fire and Emergency NZ
•
2019-12-18 09:30:18
Hi Erik - personally I don't think that you are the last one to figure it out, and if I might observe, I believe that there are many others around the world trying to work out what it means for them.
There's two things I'd contribute to your thinking, which are caveated in the usual way (i.e. my views and not necessarily those of my employer) :
1. I think that there is a financial cost to the organisation in seeking to embed these. It's a discussion that I've found has meant that it's hard to get real traction - as whilst the requests for these initiatives come in, there has not been the additional funding provided to many Government organisations to get his going. Sure, it's argued that there are other benefits - often more widely outside of the organisation - but many organisations aren't winning the battle with their finance teams that could see this progress.
2. I have been impressed with the approach of the IRD team in New Zealand. From the presentations that I've seen from Karen Whitehouse and the team, they picked one of the UN goals that was most relevant to them, and looked to focus on that. I think this will be more effective than those who try to achieve too much by looking to incorporate too many of these goals into their procurement activities.
We've looked to take that thinking on board into our operations. Given our contracts are split into portfolios, the challenge for my team in 2020 is to get the business agreeing to an area of focus and measurements for each of these portfolios. These might be the same, or they might be different, but we're using that approach to get the business owners, as well as the leadership team to buy into it, so it's not us going it alone.
Like you, I would love to hear how others are approaching it - it's brave of you to start a topic by making yourself vulnerable, but I think that you're in good company.
• NXB AB
•
2019-12-18 10:22:27
Hi Darren, thanks for your contribution. I will add, in terms of motivation, that the Swedish government yesterday announced their long-term strategy towards a sustainable society in general and climate activities in particular. As always, there were many (130) activities, more or less concrete, but a very firm statement by the minister was that they will demand from all public procurement to embed the Agenda and thereby drive the change process.
Obviously, there are a zillion question marks on how to do it (sounds a bit like "how to eat an elephant") and I believe that selecting the goal(-s) that are most relevant would be a decent strategy with a good chance to succeed. I looked at the IRD homepage but could not see a whole lot. Is there a write-up of some kind that I could get access to.
Btw, I am glad to see NZ being active, Tim mentioned it to me and I really believe that us smaller countries are quicker to decide and get going rather than just talking. Denmark is also, as I understand it, acting in the same direction and I honestly believe that we together could put together an IACCM statement of some kind, given that we find more material.
Replies: 2
• Air Liquide
•
2019-09-19 05:18:40
I never saw such clauses
• Advokatfirmaet Negota AS
•
2019-11-29 09:30:06
Dear Carrie, I have experience from pricing changes both during the negotiation process and during the contract lifecycle. Our clients have especially found this as an effective tool during negotiations to demonstrate risk/work-impact if the other party is requesting terms transferring an extensive part of the risk/work to them. By showing the cost-impact, the incentive for price increase becomes rather obvious which strengthens your negotiation position. Kind regards, Madeleine Willyams - Advokatfirmaet Negota AS, Norway.
Replies: 2
• Pretorius Consulting
•
2019-09-18 18:15:04
I believe I found it. www.iaccm.com/resources/
•
2020-01-08 10:54:41
Personally, I would say the 10 are still applicable today (Jan 2020). I also think the point about how fast the world is moving - particularly technology wise - is true and it has only sped up even more in the past 5 years.
Replies: 2
• Gemserv
•
2019-07-03 15:11:45
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.
• Airbus Defence and Space Limited
•
2019-08-18 12:37:30
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.
• Experian
•
2019-02-03 22:03:09
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.
Replies: 3
• IACCM
•
2018-02-27 14:17:31
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.
Replies: 1
• Contract Manager Canada Inc.
•
2017-02-04 02:36:22
If the project is delayed by the Employer... first make sure that there were no delay causes by the Contractor on the previous agreed milestones, for you to be fully eligible for a compensation. Now the tricky part to kick in, is the delay resulting to only warranty extension, which means that all construction, installation and pre-commissioning done? Just ensure that you've all signed-off documents that it's pre-commissioned. if so, your service team will provide an additional cost for extra-warranty coverage and you can lever it as a scope-creep. This is not an issue, if all of your works are completed and no more to come back to do additional works, then you need to add remob to commissioning cost plus the extended warranty cost and get a CO prior to agreement of extension. Don't forget to have your insurance company informed on this extension, as they were notified of previous warranty commitment, not the new one. Hope this serves.
• Seiersen Enterprises
•
2016-12-03 22:23:43
It strikes me that the actual costs of extending the warrantee might be considered.
These may be nil if the delay in the project delays the in service date, and thus the risk of fault.
The onus might be put on the supplier to prove the materiality of additional warrantee costs whatever they might be.
• Capgemini India
•
2016-12-05 04:44:19
As warranty effort is provisioned to fix bugs of contractor's defects, since the delay is caused by the Employer, the Contractor is entitiled to claim additional cost. Not only is this instance 'due to failure of the employer (customer)', which is not due to cause by the contractor, there could also be a delay in the service start date, which means the plans for service could be impacted. Therefore, I believe the additional cost is justified.
• Whirlpool
•
2016-12-14 13:17:49
Our service department has actually been able to provide a number for us by unit of what an additional year of warranty costs us. Do you know how much the first year costs you? You could always just submit that as an estimate for year two.
Replies: 4
• Ternium Brasil
•
2017-01-15 04:37:47
Hi Zarah,
It´s a pleasure to share the information with you and the colleagues of the forum.
So, in Brazil many companies has been implanting CM in their structures but still have many doubts about this area. Sometimes managers asking me about the difference about contract management and project management.
Nowaday I work for a steel company in Brazil and has been implanting with a team a contract management area to help the company to reach their strategic results.
Regards,
Gustavo Procópio
Contract Engineer
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
• New Zealand Defence Industry Association (NZDIA)
•
2016-06-21 22:50:31
Public sector all over the globe. IT and Infrastructure. When mining and Oil and gas pick up would expect more there.
In Australia there is a lot of interest in CM to assist with commercial excellence endeavours.
Replies: 2
• MacTaggart Scott
•
2016-04-25 05:15:31
With the limited text it is difficult to provide a concise response, however based on your text my response would be:
Defined spend is customer focus based on financial spend limitation over the duration.
Work Order will define the deliverable and as such recognise when a deliverable criteria is complete / met and will trigger payment.
Change request will recognise change within the Work Order and will be important as to reciognise completion and hence trigger further payments.
Control and visibility of spend and growth within work orders will be important to the customer and the supplier.
• New Zealand Defence Industry Association (NZDIA)
•
2015-03-27 02:00:28
A bit of a guess but it may be due to the accounting package they use which requires the raising of specific orders to trigger the right to get payment.
Some of the big packages are dogmatic in their requirements and which are hard to get around.
• VPM Consulting Services - BCHydro
•
2017-09-07 05:55:06
I am not familiar with the exact terms of your contract. But a work order and change request are not the same thing, one does not replace the other. The change request comes from your contractor and specifies what is requested as a change, this can be approved or not after evaluation. The work order is an order to start work that normally contains, scope, work methods, safety requirements, etc, but it is not a commercial document, it does not have commercial value, so if the contract will be amended you still need a change request and then a change order to seal the deal. Hope it helps,
• Hyland Software, Inc.
•
2015-03-31 07:35:26
We enter into a SOW with our Customers that covers the basic terms and conditions and address the scope and pricing in the Work Order. This provides us the protection needed while giving the professional services department the ability to manage projects without involvement from contracts/legal.
• Australian Taxation Office
•
2015-03-31 19:13:19
I am also guessing to fill some of the gaps in the information you've provided, but I suspect you have a services agreement of some sort. If you have a contract to complete a specific, once-off project, then you can pretty much define everything to be done in the SoW. With a services agreement on the other hand, you tend to define the services you want and agree a price, but you can't necessarily define in advance how many of those services you want or where or when you want them. We also have a spend over the whole term shown in our contracts - but it is only our 'best guess' based on what we know today and can change at any time.
For example, WAN services are listed in one of our contracts, with various different bandwidths and performance levels, and agreed pricing. At any time we can ask the provider to decommission a site (so that WAN link drops out of the equation and the total price) or connect a new building (in which case they start billing us for that new service, at the price already agreed in advance). We use something like a work order to do that (it's actually a non-standard service request in our case). So, the contract defines all the services we are buying or might want to buy in the future, and we use work orders to say "OK, now we want you to actually do that"...
• Phillips 66
•
2015-04-14 08:54:33
We typcially describe everything in the Scope (SOW) and that document is the call off from the main master contract. But having said that we use SAP so a "paper" Sow has to be input into SAP in the form of a Service or Work Order for the SAP payables process to be enabled. So like one of your other comments that's probably the reason.
• AVEVA
•
2015-04-22 00:37:23
I would hazard a guess it could be for:
1) Paying invoices against an activity as there may be multiple work breakdown structures covered by the SOW
2) Financial approval when invoices come in. Ensuring that the contract owner is happy with the goods and/or services have met the requirements of your business
3) Allows you to track commitment and expenditure vs your budget (SOW work value)
Older entries »
Replies: 7
MENU
