In addition to particular responses from other members who may have noticed such a potential decline in remuneration, if any, I would encourage the poster of this forum entry to regularly check IACCM annual salary review. Please refer to our IACCM library, by clicking on www.iaccm.com/resources/contract-management-resources/
Please contact the Netherlands office of Leaders Trust - member firm of AltoPartners. www.leaderstrust.nl Ask for Albert Froom. T: +31 (0) 30 6930900
AltoPartners is the global provider of executive search services to corporate members of the IACCM.
Yes, we have relevant data and will send this to you. It will help if you can offer brief context in terms of role (buy side / sell side; national versus international / global responsibilities; types of agreement typically handled; scope of activity - preaward/post-award/ both). Please send any background direct to me - email@example.com
Under Common Law principles, liability for personal injury or death cannot be excluded. So it most likely makes no difference whether or not the provision is struck because the customer could not deny their legal liability in the event of negligence leading to this form of loss.
What if there is an industry practise/custom to allow a party to exclude its liability even for its own negligence and it is being upheld by the court of law. What happens then?
I think that the second question goes to the difference between an indemnity and ordinary liability. Under general Common Law principles, the lack of an indemnity for a particular thing does not necessarily mean that a party won't be liable for that thing. The specific issue here is a legal question. It's probably worth a call to counsel so that you can be certain you will be covered in this circumstance. I see this as a different question than "excluding" liability for one's own negligence. Such clauses typically require clearing a higher legal hurdle.
All this said, I really do not understand why the customer would be so unwilling to indemnify for harm they caused. It's generally considered a reasonable commitment.
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