Hi Peter - I think this is a useful survey to capture the views of people. From across the other side of the world, the two that resonate significantly with me are very similar to this list, with I think defining value right near the top.
I think the easiest thing for people to measure their success used to be cost reduction. But I think that mindset is a long way from the current movement of being strategic, and running perhaps even against the push towards social or environmental outcomes.
Without an easy measure, from my perspective, the best way to measure success is the feedback from your end users which includes suppliers. Did they understand the process, did it work for them, and post contracting, are they happy ? Sure, it gives people less ability to compare across organisations, but I think it's that competition, rather than co-operation, that sometimes stops us from achieving better outcomes.
• Simoons & Company
From a customer-supplier perspective I agree with your observation that cost reduction has most often been the measure of success. However cost reduction on that side often leads to rising hidden costs elsewhere in the organization. In strategic partnerships we not only look at value, but also at the full relationship to measure success. To do so we interview, and/or survey, stakeholders at both sides.
Most important element of measuring success however, is not the measurement itself, but the action plan connected to it to improve the elements that lag behind.
God day Sedef - well, again, I hate to see a good question like this sitting there all along unanswered, so here goes my contribution.
Firstly, if you get to create your own KPI's, I think that this is an awesome opportunity for you. It's a great opportunity for you to pick some criteria on which to have your performance judged by.
I think it's an opportunity though for you to think about whether or not you want these KPI's to relate to your performance alone, or contribute to or align directly with organisational performance. This could be a factor of where you feel you are as a team with procurement maturity, as well as your ability to influence the organisation's plans. Let me explain by way of example.
Four years ago, for our team, it was all about how quickly we could turn around tenders, time to contract, and the number of complaints (which thankfully were none) about the conduct of our tenders. So for us then, the KPI's were team focussed and didn't really track well into organisational plans.
Fast forward to the present day, the team has pushed back into the business to be engaging with them at a much earlier stage. The KPI's we are moving to are around developing category plans with the business and presenting them to the senior leadership team, monitoring and reporting on the significant contracts in their portfolio and working with the teams on meaningful social procurement outcomes that are relevant to their categories. As you can see, these are less about the team, and track really well into where we want to be as an organisation.
Oh, and like all KPI's, it perhaps goes without saying, but make sure that they're SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-Bound) or SMARTER (adding Explainable and Relative to the mix).
So Sedef, my advice would be to jump the opportunity to set your KPI's, and make them relevant to where you are and where you want to be. I think you are the best person to work that out, rather than me just telling you what you need based upon your one paragraph question.
Have fun with making them - and it would be great learning for others within the forum for you to tell everyone what you ended up with !
Thanks, Phyllis, I am glad that you found the webinar helpful; it was certainly a great session to moderate, with some really good questions at the end. I agree - we often don't pay enough attention to the learning style and the impact that has on how information is absorbed. Paul Branch
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.
Me too. I would be interested to hear what others have found in selection of a CLM.
I am not a buyer of CLM solution but a seller. I work for EY and have developed a easy plug-in and use SharePoint based CLM solution. Would be happy to participate in the RFP/RFI process. My email ID is: Kulbir.email@example.com.
As for my tool the below features are available at extremely reasonable pricing and very easy to use format.
Integration with Clients' system
Repository of Contracts
Templates uploading and downloading
OCR File Scanning
Dashboards and Reports
Alert and Notifications
Multiple Filtering options
Selecting form Templates
Download Reports/Export meta data to excel
Upload templates to a selected workspace
Create new user accounts
Reset user accounts
Edit access to users
create new workspace
upload templates to a master database
Easily Customizable App UI
Contract Clause Library
Intake form that can integrate with single sign on (SSO)
Compliance with other regulations
• Fire and Emergency NZ
Hi Geoff. We found a lot of the systems on the market, whilst all really good, focussed on workflow. Emails and notifications of moments and issues galore. I've always found that you don't need that if you have the right team, this isn't needed. They know what thy have to do, what stage in the process and when. So that for me was a major issue.
The second thing is a lot of them have lots of functionality around the back and forth and negotiation of clauses. I'd suggest again if you have really good templates and good early engagement, you reduce the back and forth required and can get the benefits of quicker turnaround and e-signatures without a bigger system.
I would flag that you should not underestimate the work required to get your current information into the new system. It's probably going to be more than the annual fees to set up. In the RFP / RFI - get them to tell you their plans and costs for getting the records in the system. It's not just the scanning of records, but also the information in the contracts (milestones, conditions) that need to come in.
Finally, I'd really recommend that you bring in as many people as possible into this process, especially in the procurement team. The users and the team are the ones that will have to use this solution going forward and keep your records in that format for all of those wonderful visuals and reports that the new system spits out. I've seen and heard of many instances where the new CLM has failed because the team and users haven't brought into the solution.
We've been lucky with our solution (it's a simple one that we developed in house) because :
(a) it wasn't an all at once deployment. People have had time to think about the system and what it could do
(b) the team have then been able to take the system to an even higher level than anything I had in mind. Templates for contracts, evaluation and issues registers - all really awesome stuff that went way beyond my initial ideas.
I hope this aids your thinking, and if you want to talk further, please message me.
• BDO USA LLP
I saw your post this morning and wanted to reach out about your question. I lead the consulting practice at BDO USA LLP that focuses on precisely the scenario you are asking about. We are solution/platform agnostic and seek to ensure the "right" solution - regardless of vendor - is selected so that something that is too big or too complex isn't inadvertently chosen from the many, many good solutions out there. Feel free to give me a call at 703-770-4453 or email at firstname.lastname@example.org. I'd be happy to share my thoughts with you. Thanks! Tom
• Nimblex by EBMS
Our experience is to stay away from the big overnight system implementation but to partner with a super flexible technology so that you can start small and then incrementally digitise the processes the way you want and your staff would like to work. This is a more incremental way and allow for the necessary change management to run parallel.
Flexibility is the key i.e. shape the software around your processes, framework, desired way of working and policies. Do not try to shape your work procedures to fit a certain software. A good example is getnimblex.com/case-studies/yvw-procurement-and-contract-management/
I understand your requirement. I am a CCMAP, IACCM certified Contract Management professional and I work for the most innovative CLM tool pioneer organization.
Challenges faced by most organisation during the RFI/RFP phase can be understood as per below:
The client wanting the lowest price, the highest quality, access to innovation and new ideas and products, extensive audit rights, and the flexibility to renegotiate to get a better deal. In this kind of environment, it can be challenging to form a close, business partner relationship.
Challenges faced by most organisation during the Implementation/post deployment phase can be understood as per below:
Change of specifications, change of scope, change of marketplace dynamics, change of personnel, minimal joint planning and joint problem solving
The above problems are faced when you do not have an effective CLM management process and an alliance manager.
The major problem is that organisations tend to follow a positioned approach instead of principled approach and do not come up the relationship continuum pyramid.
You may want to contact us to provide you with a best CLM solution that will help you build good Supplier relationship management process and likewise.
Organization - Sirion Labs - www.sirionlabs.com Most Innovative truly digital CLM tool that provides insight driven granular Contract Authoring, Managing Commercial and legal aspects of the obligations, Provides trends powered with BI, Assists in Change variations, Helps develop a Price Book, Provides Financial Management support, Assures Efficiency and never ends
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.
• Ministry of Defence
Or try international trade law?
• Legal and Commercial Training Limited
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.
In terms of the 8 different payment schemes I was specifically referring to what we call 'payment curves' (see attached graphic) as opposed to payment regimes such as cost+ (time and material), fixed price, cost + fixed fee, etc. In this light these are grouped into 5 main families with a couple of variations inside each. These are as follows:
- 'all or none' payment curves
- Linear payment curves
- Non-linear payment curves
- Alternative payment such as demerit point and visual payment curves
- Matrix payment curves
The intent of this discussion is to simply highlight that the choice of payment curve, similar to the choice of performance measure and level, can have a significant impact on the success (or otherwise) of the overall performance management framework. My blog (www.performancebasedcontracting.com) has 3 posts specifically on this topic including the graphics.
I hope this helps and answers your questions. However, please let me know if you have any further questions.
Whilst it's the way that a lot more suppliers seem to be going, if you think about this in with your procurement hat on - and that is what's going to happen at the end of 3-5 years - it's tough to see you doing anything but just rolling this over (and over and over again) as someone else has all of your data on their server.
At the risk of being awfully contentious, my own experience is that in a lot of circumstances, there's little consideration of whole of life costs - especially with that thinking about what's to happen in 3-5 years. Right now, many of these purchases done right now are flying under the radar of procurement teams because they're below procurement limits or just being called operational expenditure within business delegated authorities.
That said, one of the benefits that I've also seen is that upgrades happen automatically on the server of the host without the business having to create teams to do this, especially where there was a major upgrade - which were previously a big financial impact on many businesses.