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 !
Interesting question. I commend you on your efforts to assess CCM performance. As you say, to take your analysis further forward, you need to be able to compare against some form of industry or sector-wide benchmark. Within the IACCM, we have a deep set of benchmark data - collected over many years across multiple sectors. There are two major sources: 1) the IACCM Capability Maturity Assessment (which looks at organizational efficiency with objective insights into today's performance, comparisons to the outside world and a realistic assessment of the business impact); and 2) the Skills and Competency Assessment (which considers unique benchmarks that support organizational development.) IACCM offers a confidential and objective analysis of current performance and compares your results against industry norms and world-class standards.
Key to making use of these benchmarks is the consistent application of a robust question set. This is what allows the application of an apples-to-apples comparison. I'm not saying that you would need to repeat the survey you have conducted, but I think you may find that some repeat work is necessary though.
Please message me at email@example.com if you are interested in progressing this further. Paul
• PRS for Music
Thank you for responding and yes I would like to talk to you to understand what the IACCM can offer.
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.
Lots to consider.
Kainga Ora-Homes and Communities
Kia ora Hanelie. I'm surprised that you haven't received a response yet. Many of the contract automation software tools in the IACCM/Cap Gemini register on our website have dashboards which report operational contract management i.e. status of contract changes, service level performance, financials, risks etc. So to your Oracle tool? For example, the GovernX tool from ISG is now integrating into 360 degree surveys to also include 'the voice of the supplier', which would also be part of a balanced scorecard. I will reach out to you directly to discuss. Our member meeting in Wellington NZ on 18 July will also discuss this topic. Bruce
Hello Brian. Your question is an interesting one as margin and value can be very different things, and will depend very much on the context of the SOW as Bruce Everett says. However as a supplier, i would say that you must be clear what you want to call success. For example, if you only what cost control, and that a supplier simply performs what you ask, then margin wording about delivering on time and budget are what you should focus on. If on the other hand you have a degree of execution uncertainty and/or want to encourage innovation, you should aim towards a relational contract framework, where you ring-fence and control additional costs, and build a mechanism to evaluate scope changes as a function of meeting your value targets. These could be risk mitigation, safety, or simply achieving a technically challenge project.
All too often we see people trying to get the best of both worlds..ie innovation at low or no scope change cost, and then ultimately failing to get either...hope this helps, Merrick
Hi Brian. Liability, indemnity etc are common terms which reflect the inherent deal risk or at least the desire for risk allocation. However, the rubber hits the road when you look at the Statement of Work (SOW) and Service Level Agreements (SLAs). The SOW is where the buyer/supplier either is fully informed about the requirements, roles/ accountabilities, and risks, hence, whether they have to factor in a contingency for risk (which is defined in ISO31000 at 'the effect of uncertainty on outcomes'). The more uncertainty then the more risk and the more contingency the supplier will typically build into the price. Then the SLAs typically attract 10-15% of contract value'service credits' for non-performance (the intent is to reflect the value of the margin). Depending upon how tough or unrealistic these are negotiated will also impact how much contingency the supplier will try to add in to the price. Trust this helps you Brian
National Australia Bank (NAB) Ltd
• National Australia Bank (NAB) Ltd
To clarify, NPS in this case is an initialism for Net Promotor Score. This Wikipedia article explains how it is used: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Promoter
Instead I would recommend to use customer satisfaction survey to measure satisfaction score of your employees with technology suppliers.
You may ask your technology suppliers to roll out customer satisfaction survey as part of vendor governance framework to measure business stakeholders satisfaction with respect to service performance / competency / value addition / innovation / flexibility / value for money