Piano lessons for procurement

I have often been surprised at how some struggle with stating exactly what they want to buy, and whether or not they can move from inputs and outputs to outcomes in specifying. I frequently meet people, who knowing I am a strong advocate of stating outcomes, somehow believe that specifying outcomes means forgetting about the need to state inputs and outputs too - it is not just outcomes which are specified.

However, let me illustrate by way of procuring piano lessons - I am not being frivolous, part of this saga actually resulted in a court case, where I live, in Lisburn.

When the decision is made to send a child to piano lessons, is it to learn to play the piano or something else?  First, let's consider piano lessons for the completely unmusical child - the piano lessons will be inputs and paid for, let's say for each one hour lesson. The best piano teacher in the world may never be able to help someone who completely lacks an aptitude, has no sense of rhythm and is tone deaf. Paying by the inputs of lessons given is probably quite a reasonable approach. Indeed there is probably an implied contract of paying for 10 lessons in advance.

But can only those who have had formal training teach someone how to play a piano? Are the teacher's personal musical qualifications (Grade certificates) an input to the specification or a part of the selection criteria of the teacher (supplier). Before you rush to a conclusion, what about all those who teach kids how to play the guitar -  few will be qualified 'on paper' but they may be actually very good at teaching someone else how to play.

Then let's think about the outputs of the piano lessons.

Celebrity advice, BMJ and lessons for procurement scrutiny

The latest issue of the British Medical Journal includes an interesting paper on the why the public follow celebrities' medical advice. To me, this paper is particularly relevant to the current CLG Committee Inquiry into local government procurement but is also relevant to procurement decision making, in general, when perceived 'experts' (celebrities) provide advice.

The BMJ paper discusses the positive influence which celebrities can have in highlighting health issues, but cautions against celebrity 'quacks' whose advice is listened to, even when it is dangerous, if adhered to. The question is 'Why do celebrities utterances and endorsements carry so much weight even though they lack any evidence, qualifications and specific experience?' The paper draws on economics, marketing, and psychology literature to provide an answer.

One of the reasons is that the public are bombarded with competing information and in order to make sense of that information:

people naturally look for signals that indicate one source as being more credible and effective than another. Owing to the vaulted status of celebrities in society, their endorsements act as signals of superiority that distinguish the endorsed item from competitors, encouraging people to change their health behaviors accordingly. 

[Celebrity] credibility may stem from the halo effect of celebrities' success, which biases people's judgments of celebrities' other traits and gives them a cloak of generalised trustworthiness that extends well beyond their industry or expertise. Celebrities are in turn perceived to have greater credibility than their non-celebrity counterparts, such as doctors, despite having less medical knowledge and experience.  

I don't see the problem of celebrity advice being isolated to the medical world. I also feel that 'celebrity status' can be more widely defined - isn't it something about putting someone on a pedestal. I have frequently observed the advice of procurement specialists being swallowed up in the aura of 'celebrity' status.

MCIPS or MFibs

I have discussed 'fakes' before and the need to be cautious on taking 'experts' at face value, but what about this wonderful list of achievements on a CV - none of which were true:

• LLB (Hons)(First Class) University of East Anglia;
• Bachelor of Arts (First Class) Balliol College, Oxford University;
• Bachelor of Civil Laws (First Class) Balliol, Oxford University;
• Doctor of Philosophy, Balliol College, Oxford University;
• Master's degree, Faculty of Law, Harvard University.

It also appears even more bizarre that some of this celebrity's colleagues wondered why his lies hadn't been uncovered sooner. Yet, were his former colleagues not in the business of exposing liars and fakes?  Given the dominance of Oxford Uni in this fake's CV do you really need a Morse or Lewis to expose the truth?   

I had originally thought of blogging on this just for completeness of my previous discussions on 'fakes'. Then I thought about our own profession and wondered how easy it would be to verify whether or not someone was either FCIPS or MCIPS when either selecting a new member of staff, an interim, or indeed a consultant. Given that many of us have invested a reasonable amount of effort and money, I'm sure you'll be pleased to learn that there's a free online public search facility of CIPS membership - so hat's off to CIPS for that one, I guess I should keep paying my membership fee! 

Scepticism is a procurement virtue

We all hold up Harvard, home of the HBR, as having a reliable voice worth listening to. That's where Michael Porter's 5 Forces, value chain and so much of procurement's basic academic theory derives from.  Yet we have now discovered that two of its esteemed professors, who influenced UK austerity strategy, got it wrong in their research. Fortunatelty one of student, Thomas Herndon, a PhD candidate (pictured), had the sense to question their data.

There is a not insignificant problem though in that the Chancellor may relied on Reinhart and Rogoff's flawed evidence which told him what he wanted to hear about austerity strategy, even though it has now been proved wrong.  But Osborne is not alone in being gullible.

We have also learnt that a key influencer in childcare policy was feted yet without much testing of his credentials.

Then we have the health nightmare unfolding in Wales as a result of the nonsense propagated by the now discredited Dr Andrew Wakefield over the dangers of MMR vaccinations. Many of the population, including the Lancet proved gullible.

That's not to mention the £50m spent on fake bomb detectors.

Is there not something which suggests that when you get someone who is coming up with a 'flat earth theory' you maybe should test a bit more, after all is that not what the scientific method is all about. The   student who have the bravery and tenacity to challenge the findings of the two Harvard professors was not welcomed with open arms but has been proved right.

As procurement professionals perhaps we also need to be bravery, more tenacious and sceptical.

Two examples of what I mean in terms of procurement: I recently critiqued a bid and found 25 assumptions stated by the bidder - when the buying organisation were challenged on the assumptions I found that raised a hare in terms of readiness to accept the bid without being contractually open to additional costs and risks. Secondly, some 20 years ago, I was asked to review a recommendation for a tender award a few hours before it was to be recommended to councillors for acceptance. I received many cynical looks when I strayed beyond my 'look at the process' remit and revealed that the 'numbers just didn't add up'. Of course the "specialist consultants couldn't be wrong" - well actually, sorry, they were wrong.

We should use the low risk option of questioning validity in procurement more often - all we need is to be more sceptical and recognise that scepticism can really add value.

So, why is it so difficult to be a sceptic? Isn't scepticism a procurement virtue?  

Snake oil procurement

Tonight the so called 'Devils Advocate starts a 14 year jail sentence. His sentence is poetic justice for a lawyer with no legal qualifications not registered to practice,  yet gained notoriety and £1m from representing those who could never win within a justice system. Isn't there something quite remarkable about this modern day snake oil salesman who received good money on a 'no expectation of win basis'. Added to his real CV are now fraud, deception, money laundering and forgery. Would you buy advice from such a person?

Of course we have already discussed fake lawyers, this is not a one-off, and ironically we have even come across a coroner who turned out to be unqualified to practice.

Although it was before I stared this blog, there was also a wonderful example of an unqualified surgeon. You are also no doubt familiar with the great fraudster, Frank Abagnale Jnr, portrayed in 'Catch me if you can', who now works for the FBI. and perhaps that other compulsive fraudster Steven Jay Russell made famous in 'I love you Phillip Morris'.

Interestingly, it can also be implied from this week's evidence to the Public Administration Select Committee, that those leading procurement reform in the UK have no way of knowing who in central government procurement is actually a 'fraudster' unqualified to practice!

But today's message is simple, how can you meet the challenge and avoid the risk of being gullible enough to be taken in by a procurement snake oil consultant selling aspirations which cannot be delivered and is more qualified in non-delivery than the profession?  This is all the more relevant given that many of those who make such appointments just wouldn't recognise 'the real thing' and are buying the promise.

Procurement due diligence

We have discussed the problem of 'fake experts' before. We have also questioned the value of professional qualifications when non-procurement staff are appointed to CPO positions. Indeed, only yesterday we raised concerns as to whether we can rely on the robust checking of qualifications and experience by headhunters and interim placement organisations. So readers of this blog should recognise the need for healthy scepticism.

You may therefore be astounded that, yet again, professional credibility has raised its head. Unbelievably, we have just learnt that the inquest into the death of singer Amy Winehouse has now had to be set aside and started from scratch again - you've probably guessed what's coming - yes, because the Coroner was not appropriately qualified. The coroner did not match the criteria of either five years as a qualified medical practitioner, or five years experience with the Law Society. To add to the bizarreness of the situation, the unqualified Coroner was appointed by her husband, who has now resigned as a result of not 'thoroughly checking' that his wife met the basic criteria. Those words 'thoroughly checking' straddle the procurement world too.

I will not revisit my earlier blogs. However, I will share some of my experiences of procurement 'thoroughly checking' credentials.

I once completed a supplier evaluation which included the rejection of one supplier. My report went to a meeting of the Board but at that meeting, which I wasn't attending, one of the Directors stepped in and said he had now received additional information which justified over-turning my recommendation and reinstating the supplier on the Shortlist. A subsequent costly challenge, inquiry which ruled against us, and allegations of corruption taught us a clear lesson - make sure you thoroughly check the claimed facts, even if they appear to come from a reputable source!

I have also completed third party Due Diligence on a number of proposed contract awards - surprise, surprise, when thoroughly checked there were flaws, with those included on shortlists who should not have been, and those not included, who should have been.

I have also seen, time and again, taking answers on PQQs at face value, including amazingly the acceptance of cited reference sites without even bothering to check (NB not 'thoroughly') with the referee!

It would be possible for me to also highlight the need for due diligence of the process itself. However, I do not think that is necessary as Peter Smith has provided the useful lessons of the West Coast Rail Franchise which I would encourage you to read.

Is there an aversion to due diligence in procurement? How good is the profession at 'thoroughly checking'.

Sometimes procurement has a lot more in common with unqualified appointments and Coroners than we would have expected!

Fake protection

I have been intrigued for some time on how someone can present themselves as something other than they are; a fake.  We recently had the entertaining case of the person who suggested they were a barrister but the judge recognised the contradiction of a barrister's wig with a solicitor's gown.  The culprit, unable to adequately defend themselves, is now serving a custodial sentence for impersonating a barrister. The strange thing is that case was almost a replica of a previous sham in 2010.

If you were going to pretend to be anyone, surely the daftest option would have been pretending to be a barrister and effectively trying to con your peers in the same courtroom.  Then we have the fake GP - would you trust your health to someone who had faked their qualifications? Clearly some have. Although what should have been a greater cause for alarm was how that particular fake actually ended up working on clinical guidance, without appropriate qualifications, and had successfully navigated his way through the NHS system by impersonation.

The role of expert witnesses, their calibre, validly and the relevance of qualifications in courts has also been called into question. To me, the key problem isn't the fake expert but the deference given to them. The expert is frequently held as beyond challenge, critique or questioning; why?

I don't recall the case of the fake 'procurement expert' but I have been surprised at some of those promoted by conference organisers as 'experts' and I'm sure it will only be a matter of time before we have some scandal associated with unquestioning deference to the expert. So in anticipation I have given some thought to the facades of the fake: