You will find a range of articles related to this in the International Journal of Logistics Research & Applications (www.tandfonline.com/toc/cjol20/current). Though some of the papers are dated, many of the examples remain valid.
You may find this article useful www.nl.dsv.com/en-gb/expert-insights/logistic-contract-management-pitfalls.
The following quote reflects the message we typically hear from the industry:
"Going forward, the industry as a whole needs to change the way contracts are perceived. Instead of the blood sport it has become, we need to move toward collaborative, results-oriented negotiations. Contracts need to be about creating value between partners rather than extracting value from one partner. They need to be based on outcomes and desired results and shared risks―and both parties need to share risk in a way that is proportional to the commercial benefit of the agreement. If we can get to a more collaborative environment, we will have healthier, more long-term contracts that breed innovation and create long-term value. That will improve the industry as a whole.'
COVID-19 clearly proved highly disruptive to the logistics sector and often resulted in new levels of communication and flexibility in buyer/supplier relationships - and sometimes even between suppliers. We have yet to see whether any of these more collaborative practices survive, but this seems to be a sector where the buyer could set a different tone, perhaps orchestrating increased focus on outcomes and developing a more 'integrated ecosystem' approach to its sourcing and contracting model.
Thanks for the question. In principle, a purchase order should be executed in accordance with the underlying agreement (in the US and elsewhere). Typically, the underlying agreement will also identify the individual/group that is authorized to commit the entity to engage with the supplier.
There are several ways to reduce the amount of effort in execution though. Perhaps by using technology to capture the requirement and authorize the transaction. At a minimum, you should be able to use electronic signatures to automate the execution process. There are several excellent service offerings out there .. please check out our software evaluation tool software.iaccm.com/ for more information.
Adding to Paul's comment, the question is mostly whether the elements of a contract are present. In most countries (but not all) a signature in itself isn't needed. The key tests will be:
One party must make an offer to the other;
The other party must then accept the offer;
There must be some form of consideration i.e., payment;
The parties must intend to be legally bound by the contract; and
There must be sufficient certainty within the terms of the contract.
I suppose that a little more around the type of printers, and what maintenance means, that would be helpful. Because if they are all simple desk printers that cost $75 new, then the cost of maintaining them is twice the cost of replacing them all.
Does the maintenance contract include ink? That will change the value as well.
• Rock Central, LLC
its a mix of 500 MFDs, 1000 high volume table top printers, and about 300 desktop printer. This does not include what we pay for mono and color clicks.
You are right that Cloud contracting is still in an emergent state. For anyone who is either offering or considering buying such services, you will find IACCM's research report on 'as-a-Service' contracting is helpful; it includes a set of principles to support negotiation or assessment of the more contentious / complicated terms. See www.iaccm.com/resources/
Not sure if this helps, but the below is what we would include in an Exit Plan:
Objective and Purpose
Exit / Transition Scope
Continuity of Service Requirements
Knowledge and Documentation Transfer
Risks and Contractual Dependencies.
Hi Nicole - I'll give it a go, as it's not good to sometimes wee posts like this without replies.
For mine, it's great that you're working with finance and legal - too often legitimate partners like this seem to be ignored when thinking about procurement, and what it can do.
I guess my question for you is what do you see the procurement function in your organisation doing ? I ask because I think this thinking should dictate then your processes, systems and structures. You might see it simply as a person or team supporting finance processes and decisions made by the business. Alternatively, you might see them in the more strategic role that is often spoken discussed - leading the business along, being significant inputs into business strategy and driving partnerships with suppliers.
If you'd perhaps be able to make that a bit more explicit, then hopefully others will have made it a New Year's resolution to help out others and pass on anything relevant that they might have.
• Fire and Emergency NZ
oops - not good to sometimes see not wee....although I am sure that I do have some Scottish blood in me somewhere...
• Isle of Man Government
First thing good luck, what an exciting time and opportunity, enjoy every brain racking moment !
Based upon experience I strongly suggest you spend your greatest time obtaining buy in from the major business stakeholders, by demonstrating the added value your function will bring and setting out the policy/ies with their involvement. You can have the sweetest processes and procedures in the world, but if business stakeholders haven't bought into what you're doing things will go nowhere and failure isn't an option. Equally I've found that if stakeholders have helped develop the policy, they're pretty relaxed about how you go about delivering the benefits.
One last thing; make sure you have all stakeholders engaged and in agreement, discord is your enemy.
Product replacement or discontinuation is obviously quite usual - but that doesn't alter warranty obligations. The manufacturer should have stocked sufficient to meet likely needs. Without knowing the value. It is hard to know whether it is worth pursuing them; right now it sounds like they are ignoring you in the hope you just give up.
Thanks for your viewpoint and I couldn't agree more with you on this.
However, they have actually discontinued the product and their revised e-catalogue confirms this. I am sure they understand that a Purchase Order from us would just add on to their revenue in multiples at best, to risk such ignorance. Of the 28 product categories they have supplied, the issue affects only 1 of the 28.
The query deals around with
(a) non availability of spare parts of the product and
(b) non availability of the product itself.
• Isle of Man Government
Experience suggests this will boil down to the terminology used within your warranty document. It may be unreasonable to expect a supplier to maintain full stocks for all warranty potential on discontinued products (Tim already mentioned value...). More commonly, suppliers offer repair or replacement with the direct alternative product. If the 'standard' warranty were considered unacceptable at the outset it would be appropriate to develop the warranty model to include a recommended spares holding based upon MTBF, or more onerously full replacement of the product range used including mobilisation costs. Either way both parties are fully aware of expectations and obligations from the outset.
Contractually speaking if the warranty document is deficient you are really only left with negotiation. An option being to approach the supplier for access to the original product production drawings and look to have bespoke replacements made.
As a compromise and considering the actual failure rate seems quite low (5# out of 1500#) - though in no way trying to belittle the frustration you must feel - are there visual aspects where use of the replacement product may be viable and use the original products from those locations for the more visible locations ?