Talking rubbish

I've just returned from a great holiday but whether for good or bad had no internet, therefore no news and no blogs. Hopefully I will be able to share with you some of my holiday observations though over the coming weeks.

Today's news in The Times that 'Councils waste £200m on rubbish bins of all colours' naturally caught my eye. The headline was supposedly based on a report 'Wasted Opportunities' by the Circular Economy Task Force. Too bad the report doesn't provide the evidence to back such a claim up.

But The Times write-up also quotes one of the Report authors, Dustin Benton, who said that "analysis of 40 councils' policies on procuring wheelie bins showed that only two had co-operated on purchasing".  Surely the assumption that councils waste £200m is not based on such a small sample, or was it based on muliplying a potential saving in one council by the number of councils in the UK - sadly we aren't told.

It is also surprising that Dustin (Bin) expected find the answers as to how councils procure wheelie bins through a review of policies on wheelie bin procurement - I have never seen such a policy but have seen the evidence of many councils making use of consortium buying for bins. Why didn't the author ask the question of the local government consortia: "how many councils buy their wheelie bins through your arrangements?"

So yet again council procurement is presented as incompetent - shame that more reliable evidence or a defence wasn't presented.

One more time: get the procurement processes right and stick to them.

You may well be familiar with the old hymn 'Tell me the old, old story' - it strikes me there is a procurement version: 'Get the procurement processes right and then stick to them'. Time and again we find those basics just aren't adhered to, yet we hear grandiose ideas of procurement being really strategic - are there parallel universes?

Perhaps operational procurement is forgotten and the cry is that the processes must be wrong - if the processes are wrong, fix them, don't avoid them. Broken processes and worse, unadhered to processes have no place in either efficiency, value for money or competitiveness. They also create the environment for procurement fraud, bribery and corruption.

So let's think about some of the basics which Larne Borough Council, like some many, have got wrong and no doubt will be echoed elsewhere shortly:

1. If you enter into an agreement - get it signed asap;
2. If you have awarded a franchise, particularly in times when firms are going bust, invoice and get payments regularly;
3. If you are using corporate credit cards or pCards make sure you manage them responsibly;
4. Understand what good processes are, adapt appropriately and adopt them, then consistency stick to them.

In this age of 'transparency' it would be nice to see the full report on Larne Borough Council which is said to also express concerns on the award of contracts. 

Those unaware of the Northern Ireland local government may not realise that there is a restructuring of councils taking place, while there are currently 26 councils, there will soon only be 11. The restructuring provides a wonderful opportunity for procurement transformation, not only strategically but in terms of processes - it provides an opportunity for NI to become an exemplar. But if you want to get the processes right, it makes sense to understand the lessons from past failures - that can't happen when reports for investigations remain hidden. Let's hope that the Larne 'hidden' report is the last we hear of inferior local government procurement performance - what are the odds? 

CLG Committee report on Local Government Procurement: Almost deja vu but more ce la vie

Given the Crimea crisis and mystery of flight MH370 it would be understandable if the release of the CLG Committee's report into local government procurement failed to catch your attention. 70 written submissions, 7 oral evidence sessions and a 70 page report - consipracy theorists could have a field day. But sadly, there is little for find within the mysteries of the Committee interpretation of the evidence and their recommendations. To me this was a missed opportunity but hardly surprising if you have read my posts on the CLG inquiry and the Committee failed to heed my initial suggestions of where to look. 

There are some thing worth holding on to:

We conclude that local authorities' focus on meeting the needs of local communities requires councils to retain control over their procurement operations. Local freedom and flexibility would be lost if they were compelled to adopt a centralised model of procurement such as that adopted by central government in its Crown Commercial Service.

That is unlikely to be welcomed by CCS who then have the problem of addressing the following recommendation with little in return:

 We recommend that the Cabinet Office dedicate resources for building procurement capacity in local government and for ensuring that lessons learnt in central government are translated into effective council action where appropriate. 

I do not recall how many times I have heard that councils do not need any more guidance on procurement - it was a regular area of consensus on conference platforms. So I'm sure many will be delighted that the main recommendations appear to congregate around the production of more guidance. The Committee may feel satisfied that guidance will be drafted, consulted upon, endorsed, published and then training will be delivered on it. That should get us past the next election and just in time for the next round.

But the Committee really need to ask why a comprehensive catalogue wasn't provided of the guidance produced since the original National Procurement Strategy - there's a very long list. If they had studied the catalogue they would then realise that it is not the absence of guidance which is to blame but conflicting political priorities sending out mixed messages, and a lack of embedding change.

I think local government can rest easy, the bogey of compulsion has been laid to rest, the report smacks of deja vu and normal service can be resumed. Ce la vie.

When the Ministers met the CLG procurement inquiry

At last, I hear you say, we've reached the seventh, and final, oral evidence session of the CLG Committee Inquiry into procurement. The witnesses being Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Parliamentary Under-Secretary at DCLG with responsibility for procurement) and Nick Hurd (Minister at the Cabinet Office). When you recall the central government's CPO reports to the Cabinet Office these witnesses should be in a very strong position to speak with authority on the political objectives of procurement.

The Baroness took an early opportunity to volunteer her view of procurement effectiveness:

They should understand that it is not just about buying the relevant services at the best price possible but that this is also an opportunity to make sure that procurement is a way of getting the best service you can and that it is possible to improve the services that are provided locally. If we start putting a [savings] target on things, the focus then is on that rather than what I would see as the more important outcome, which is a better local service for local people.

It is important to note that this was stated in response to a question on what could be potential savings from procurement as opposed to "what would good look like". The Minister responsible for local government procurement, therefore, sees procurement as not about lowest price but better local services. It is really disappointing that the Committee didn't take the opportunity to compare that view with the Cabinet Office Minister's, as you may recall his boss, Francis Maude, told the Public Administration Select Committee in May of this year: that the "primary objective through procurement is getting the goods and services needed by the citizens at the best price". Is it just me, or are the Cabinet Office and DCLG at odds on what epitomises good procurement?

Then compare, former Local Government Minister Michael Heseltine's view, which has the implied endorsement of the Chancellor:

CLG Committee procurement inquiry: What are the 10 characteristics of good local government procurement?

Regular readers will recognise that I have been following the CLG Inquiry into local government procurement and have not found the approach to taking evidence robust. Nevertheless, we live in hope, while, the Committee persist in asking witnesses, who probably have really good evidence to give, questions which are beyond their ken and fail to ask 'How could this witness possibly know?'.

And so arrive at the sixth oral evidence session when the Committee should have been able to ask a senior manager from the Audit Commission Information and Analysis Group, the Head of Counter-Fraud at the Audit Commission, and the Director of Cabinet Office and Cross Government Studies at the National Audit, 'What they knew?'.

Now, I think these three witnesses should have been in a position to talk about research method, so it was reassuring to hear, buried within the Chair's opening airing of opinion, the following:

How do we get a real feel about whether local authorities in general are using best practice in the area of procurement?   

Neither of the three witnesses recommended a research approach to the Committee but instead said they were not in a position to answer whether or not local government is adopting best practice. I'm sure you have recognised the difference: the witnesses were being asked about method, which should have been their area of expertise, but answered an entirely different question. We know the Audit Commission's role has changed (previous witnesses have reminded the Committee of that too, and we know NAO has a focus on central government, but that's not what the Committee asked about! Sadly the Committee allowed themselves to be distracted and didn't return to the witnesses specialism, evidence gathering.

CLG Procurement Inquiry could ask 'why bother?'

I have been discussing the oral evidence sessions at the CLG Committee Procurement Inquiry. I assume those of you following my observations can sense my frustration that this excellent opportunity appears to be slipping away. I'm sorry to say the second panel session of the fifth evidence saw some of the same methodological flaws being repeated.

The opening question of this session asked witnesses from the Federation of Small Businesses, Market Dojo, and Bangor University:

Could I just begin with a subject where we have perhaps had slightly different points of view expressed by yourselves and your organisations? It is about trying to achieve greater opportunities for SMEs and micro-businesses to obtain contracts, and the extent to which there is a potential conflict between that and the council getting the best value for money from its contracts.  

So, ask yourself, if that was the exam question, what would the correct answer look like? Set aside that 'best value for money' is frequently 'in the eye of the beholder'. Were the Committee asking: 'Is the objective of achieving greater opportunities for SMEs and micro-businesses incompatible with the objective of achieving best value for money?'

If that was what the Committee were trying to establish, quite simply, they didn't hear. They heard about a new term for me, 'stickability' (that's the amount of contract value which stays in the local community). They heard that local sourcing can lead to better social cohesion. They heard that local businesses employ a range of employees. They heard that there could be growth in the local economy. They heard that local government procurement processes can act as a barrier to SMEs. They heard that "SMEs are the reason why a lot of large companies fail and yet local government procurement does not take account of this very well in the process" (What on earth is that about?). They heard that councils could not take account of innovation in the award process. But did they hear if the objective of achieving greater opportunities for SMEs and micro-businesses is incompatible with the objective of achieving best value for money?' - in a word, 'No'!

To me this is a serious weakness of the oral evidence sessions - poorly focused questions are being asked and the Committee just aren't extracting what they need to know. There are also opinions being expressed which appear to lack any foundation yet are not tested and lack of clarity of definitions which  mean answers are given but there is no shared understanding.

A tale of two sides of the same coin for the CLG procurement inquiry

On Tuesday I discussed the first of the two CLG local government procurement inquiry evidence sessions at Sheffield held on 18 November. I have been following the oral evidence sessions but the Committee will also take into consideration the written evidence submitted.

The earlier session on the 18 November appeared, to me, to be riddled with anecdotal evidence and unreliable answers to poorly framed questions. Nevertheless, it did suggest that there is an issue with stakeholders perception of what happens in local government procurement. It also suggested that the 8 Principles of Good Commissioning and the Compact are Whitehall theory as opposed to what the market appears to experience in Yorkshire and Humberside. Surprisingly the Committee don't probe these areas.

The second session provided an opportunity to hear from the other side of the coin, two councillors from Sheffield, Sheffield's Director of Commercial Services (also the regional lead on procurement) and  two representatives from YPO.

This session was unusual in that the evidence of councillors was taken. However, we only heard from two cabinet members and there weren't even any questions on how Overview & Scrutiny members might be engaged in strategic procurement.

We learnt that Sheffield, thankfully have moved from a position of building cost inflators into contracts. I have to say I have never before come across a system where contractors are guaranteed annual price increases.

What will CLG Committee recommend on tackling fraud and corruption?

Last month we discussed the perceived rise in procurement fraud and corruption. On 11 November the Communities and Local Government Procurement Inquiry took evidence on tackling fraud and corruption. This was the third of oral evidence sessions, two of which I have already discussed. I expected the evidence to go some way to answering the following questions:

1. Is fraud in local government procurement increasing or decreasing?
2. Is corruption in local government procurement increasing or decreasing?
3. How does UK local government procurement compare with the world best in tacking fraud and corruption? 
4. What would an effective strategy for tackling fraud and corruption strategy in local government procurement look like?
5. In what ways are councillors part of the problem and the solution?

Unfortunately those questions weren't asked. Why?

Constructive comments when CLG Inquiry focus on construction procurement

After three sessions which left me quite despondent, the CLG Inquiry then focused on Construction. I have to say that the witnesses from Civil Engineering Contractors Association, KeepMoat, and Federation of Master Builders were quite impressive, constructive and, to me unbiased.

Sadly, there was a view that while there is some best practice, there is also some practice which is 20 years out of date. Now that should give both LGA and CIPS something to think about!

I also found it disappointing that the witnesses weren't probed on the lessons which could be learnt from the former Local Government Taskforce and Constructing Excellence initiatives - is it a sign of my age that I can recall the investment which was made in those improvement programmes? Anyway, unless we can learn from what worked and what didn't in the past, we are not only doing the previous investments a disservice but also at risk of trying to reinvent the wheel - the Committee really need to start probing these lessons.

So what did I think was helpful in their evidence?

1. There needs to be an improvement in the writing of Briefs - that's a foundation for success;
2. If councils provide better visibility and certainty of what is required then councils can expect better prices;
3. The skills deficit could overcome if a  peripetic 'flying squad' were set up which travelled from project to project - I think this was envisaged as a more 'hands on' service than the type formerly provided by the 4Ps;
4. PQQs were not seen as a 'bad thing' but there could be standardisation.

Then we had what has become a common question (so a warning for all those yet to give evidence): "Do you favor central government mandating greater centralistion of procurement in local authorities?" , my view was that the witnesses were not in favor, however, constructively, they felt there could be:

• a mandate to provide a procurement pipeline;
• a standardised PQQ;
• a consistency in approach and standard models.

As I say I felt this was the best session so far.

Collaboration just doesn't sit well with strategic procurement functions in local government?

On the Monday the CLG Committee Inquiry into procurement shifted its focus to collaboration. Yet again the Committee struggled to prise information from the witnesses, for example, a simple and predictable question kicked it off "What proportion of councils are up to speed with best practice and, if not [up to speed], what are the barriers?" Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Messrs Taylor, Walsh or Robinson actually provided an answer!

However, we did learn from one of the witnesses a useful nugget "... the last national procurement strategy gave rise to a proliferation of a number of strategic procurement functions, so most councils have got a strategic function". Now that struck me as quite a good thing until Ed Walsh continued: "as a consequence they don't think with any form of collective mentality very easily, so looking at efficiencies and the benefits of economies of scale isn't something that comes easy to local authorities". Sorry, I just don't get that. I don't get it because councils have been collaborating on purchasing for over 50 years; I don't get it because organisations like NEPO and YPO and ESPO and Pro5 all exist. I don't get it because that same national procurement strategy which is praised, or was it criticised, for leading to the introduction of strategic procurement functions in councils, also had a complete section on collaboration!

Then we heard there's the potential for billions of pounds worth of savings in councils - I wonder what the LGA will make of that and what will be the strategy for achieving those savings if, on the strength of that evidence, the Committee advocated further cuts of billions of pounds to council budgets? But then again the Committee were told of evidence that suggests SCAPE in 1,200 local government procurement projects have delivered average savings of 14%.

Now that last savings claim gave Ian Taylor some cause for concern and he cited his own viewed, based on spend analysis, of the potential scope for collaboration, namely, 10-15% of spend was suitable for national buying, +/- 25% suitable for regional buying, and +/- 50% required local buying. I don't know how accurate those figures are but they do strike me as quite reasonable.

So what's the solution? Well the Committee could take on board one of the witnesses suggestions and put in place a centralised national buying organisation, or perhaps a regional structure - hold on though wasn't that what the RIEPs tried to do in partnership with Pro5? Or, as another of the witnesses suggested, the Committee could sort out the fear of failure which is pervasive in local government as a result of potential EU challenges.

My own suggestion is that the Committee will have enough on its plate trying to reconcile the first two days of oral evidence and how to stop local government procurement witnesses undermining anymore the good work of the sector.

I suspect I may return with more comments on the oral evidence but that seems like enough to think on for the time being.

The UNISON v NOA bout at CLG Committee Inquiry on procurement

On Friday I discussed the evidence of the local government panel witnesses to the Communities and Local Government Committee Inquiry into procurement. My main issue was the reliance was the absence historical evidence which should have been easy for LGA to access. My second criticism was the danger of hubris, ripping up the rule book and believing you alone have discovered the Holy Grail - passion in your work is great but it will not count for much when hindsight is what judges you, if not the legal profession.

So that was the first witness panel's evidence, the second panel gave evidence from UNISON and the National Outsourcing Association - as you would expect these two opponents traded unhelpful blows with each other on outsourcing.  It did strike me as strange though that the earlier session hadn't sought answers from the local government witnesses on outsourcing. Equally, why didn't the Committee follow through with UNISON and NOA on the local government witnesses evidence on social value - absolutely no triangulation of the evidence!

I cringed when the UNISON spokesperson referred to the DeAnne Julius report as "outdated and largely based on CCT" - now let me think, wasn't CCT led to rest nearly ten years prior to the report?

What drives local government procurement improvement?

I'm sure many of you have been eagerly awaiting the evidence sessions on local government procurement to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee. On Monday the Committee  had its first session of oral evidence which is now published.

I had previously highlighted what I felt may be worth exploring, but it doesn't really look as if either the  Committee or LGA have spent anytime learning from history and would rather listen to some suspect assertions.

A good starting point was the Committee trying to establish what drives procurement improvement? Sadly, the LGA spokesperson had to have that question broken down into bite-sized chunks before the Committee came to his rescue. Then we heard, what I consider to be absolute nonsense, that the electorate are driving change through the ballot box. Thankfully the Committee had enough sense to question that assertion too. Having interviewed hundreds of local government procurement stakeholders this was the first time I have ever heard anyone suggest there is something in a manifesto about local government procurement. It's all about campaigns and the X factor in one council it seems.

We heard that the LGA have been working on a national procurement strategy since 2006 - why so little progress? Well perhaps, and I quote, "I am not sure a national framework is terribly helpful". We may be in a better position to judge whether a national procurement strategy would be helpful if they considered the evidence of the impact of the first NPS - there were annual impact assessments completed, why weren't they drawn upon? There were also some academic papers and from memory a ODPM financed impact assessment.

Is 78% non-compliance with procurement procedures the tip of the iceberg?

Waterford City Council, reported to have 78% of a sample of procurements audited to be non-compliant with procurement procedures and, 40% of contracts awarded without a procurement process must be up there with a claim for the Guinness Book of Records - it certainly places them on the procurement map. Almost €219k had to be returned to funders as it was not spent in accordance of the rules (mind you this is not the first time we've encountered this risk of claw back of money previously spent).

 The Council's defence is also potentially worthy of an award in itself:

"Whilst acknowledging that the full rigours of the procurement rules were not adhered to, the adhered to principle of obtaining value for money was of upmost importance" 

It is inconceivable that the Council can believe their own rhetoric in the absence of a more comprehensive review. Unfortunately, I can visualise that flawed defence being echoed many times in the future by CCGs given their poor foundation.

Insofar as I can base my views on the Internal Auditors Report, I agree the need to professionalise their procurement and embark on a skills development programme but I personally don't think that will be suffice.

I suspect that what we are seeing is only the tip of the iceberg. The administrative processes for the receipt and opening of bids, and a sample review of tender evaluations were not included in the review. I suspect the inclusion of those areas within the audit could have revealed a minefield open to corruption and awards not made to the most economically advantageous tender. Nor did the review consider the effectiveness of contract management - can the constituents of Waterford really be confident that their Council are getting what they have paid for?

Why not give the Internal Auditor's Report a read and use it as a test of your own organisation - it would be great to hear from you if you can beat the benchmark of 78% non-compliance.

Local government needs a marketing campaign to dispel 'lowest price wins' myth

In an instant tell me what Malcolm Walker, Chief Executive of Iceland and the National Pensioners Convention General Secretary agree on? Well, if you are a regular reader of this blog you are likely to recognise the connection is that both believe a culture of  'lowest price wins' dominates local government procurement.

Malcolm Walker has seized the horse meat initiative and successfully differentiated the Iceland brand from a perception of 'cheap' to one of a good value for money, good quality procurer - a remarkable achievement. Meanwhile local government is lambasted and respond by narrowly discussing the horse meat issues.

Let's face it, it is hardly surprising that local government is being perceived as 'we buy lowest', as that is completely in keeping with the message that the coalition government have presented - incompetent buying, massive spending cuts, etc.. Now that has come back to bite the hand of politicians who will radically need to reposition 'their stewardship of the public purse'.

But there is also a fundamental flaw in the perception, namely, that a culture of 'lowest price wins', in my experience, does not prevail in local government. Local government needs to get on the soapbox very quickly, just as Iceland have, and provide clear case study evidence of professional procurement as  not doing so will further reduce morale, confidence in political stewardship and credibility.

You know I just suspect I can see what will follow. We've had the nonsense talked by Sir Philip Green about public procurement commissioned by the government - what are the odds that within the next few weeks we have an inquiry into public sector food procurement led by Malcolm Walker?

What's the truth about the state of English local government procurement?

I'm afraid I missed this year's SOPO Conference but I picked up some of the key messages via Twitter postings.  Now I find it fascinating that two entirely different messages were presented to delegates.  Jon Hughes, Chairman of Future Purchasing, and co-author with Professor Mark Day of a recent high profile report on public procurement (which can be downloaded at www.deficit-reduction.com), was tweeted by @AngelineAlbert, to have told the local government buyers that demonstrable procurement competence is thin on the ground. Then this morning @Steve_bagshaw, editor of Supply Management tweeted that John Connell, Head of local assets and procurement at DCLG said words to the effect "Whitehall's view of local government buyers must change, because it is local and not central government purchasers who 'lead the way in best practice".

Can these two commentators versions be reconciled?  If not which is true?  If Jon Hughes' version is incorrect does it compromise the weight which should be given to his earlier assertion that public procurement has hugh potential but is under-utilised.  

Personally I have always held Jon Hughes in high regard and one of the most articulate thinkers on procurement.  But having spent many years looking at local government procurement myself I think I can safely say some of local government practice is truly exemplary, but some is lacklustre.

The real challenge to SOPO is to engage with Future Purchasing and the wider research community and provide the demonstrable evidence of exemplary practice which Connell champions.  This needs a change of culture and willingness of SOPO members to engage with researchers, something they have not been that enthusiastic about.  That engagement could help correctly position local government procurement, for better or for worse.

A central, sector led, procurement body for English local government?

It has been reported that the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) have floated the idea of a local government, central, but sector led, procurement body for English local government. If an appetite exists for such a body, then local government should develop a proposal and set out how it would work (Jameson, 2011, p.1).  Central government rarely just float such ideas as a conversation topic but must think, from their perspective, it is a desirable outcome.  The irony of the situation is amazing: central government, which believes in localisation, ‘floating’ an idea of a sector led approach!  Perhaps it is semaphore for DCLG saying they would be willing to provide some funding for such a service?   This paper aims to stimulate debate by providing a suggestion how that might work.

Let’s recall that collaborative purchasing was the child of local government in 1957.  It was central government who learnt from local government the benefits.  Local government consortia are well-organised, business focussed organisations who work together to deliver vast savings and efficiencies to English councils they are also experts in letting contracts although not necessarily of the type required. Equally, local government had the Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnerships and their forerunners since the early 2000s.  Yet with access to these various ‘central’ contracts there has always remained the problem that uptake of such good deals has never been quite as good as one would have expected.  How would a new central body add value and gain the confidence of the late adopters and laggards?  To me what is required is a switch from incremental improvement to a major disruption in thinking and development of new ways.

A new model is called for, not replicating the traditional model of small cohort of experts letting contracts on behalf of the needy many.  Instead a model which represents a paradigm shift and takes the ‘central procurement body’ to a new level while embracing the existing assets of consortia.

The key requirements, to me, are strategic leadership and commitment, closing an acknowledged gap, innovative thinking, utilising excellent information and harnessing the sector know how through collaborative problem solving cross-functional teams.

Strategic leadership has to come from local government itself, unless they see the need and establish the required governance structure, the initiative will be short-lived. The leadership needs to recognise the value of the consortia and that consortia are key stakeholders and providers – consortia could provide the operational purchasing expertise that will be required.  That leadership should also agree the gap to be closed.  A mapping exercise which compares the key areas of expenditure and then agrees which areas should be targeted will be requirement as will rigorous adherence to scope to avoid mission creep.

The mapping exercise needs to be evidenced based.  While there is a requirement to publish expenditure over £500 that information is insufficient for the required strategic sourcing.  A comprehensive information system iwill be required which makes it easy for the information to be gathered and extracted yet protecting commercial sensitivity.  Despite years of investment in core financials and e-procurement there is still some way to go here nevertheless the lessons learnt from the recent transparency regime should be useful in making rapid progress.

Innovative thinking will be critical. Innovative thinking is likely to be best achieved through harnessing the sector knowledge in collaborative problem solving cross-functional teams. The central body should aim to be masters of unleashing the sectors creativity. Social media now makes this possible by utilising communities of practice.  This is not something particularly new but merely taking the existing local government resource to a higher level.

Cross-functional local government problem-solving teams should be quickly established for each of the targeted areas.  The teams should be truly cross-functional including main users and those dissatisfied with old ways – maverick thinking should be encouraged.  The teams should be considered should be task and finish with intensive short-term involvement.  They should be briefed that their remit is not to focus on introducing bigger contracts with the aspiration that all councils will use them but instead to develop a range of approaches which can be prototyped and refined. These teams should be set ambitious targets and trained in category management.  They should then be charged with developing prototypes which can be tested prior to subsequent refinement and rollout.  Rather than ‘one size fits all’ arrangements, the teams should develop a portfolio approach which reflects the diversity of council priorities. For example, when councils have a priority for cost reduction, they should be able to select that option, whereas when councils have a environmental priority they would have an alternative option.  When councils do not wish to make use of central contracts they should have access to the knowledge assets created so that they can let their own local contracts if they so chose.  Contract ‘lots’ can accommodate the diversity aspired to.

For many areas it would be advantageous to have supplier involvement on the teams, but at the very least proposed approaches should be subjected to soft market testing through web-based consultation. For major services, cognisant of strategic commissioning needs, the priorities for contracts should be set by local communities.  Communities of practice provide a channel for that too. 

So, how could the proposed sector led, central, procurement body work?  Governance structure would represent the sector. It will be critical to invest in integrated information systems.  The focus should be on innovative collaborative problem solving to develop a significantly better approaches to addressing targeted expenditure areas.  The problem solving should be facilitated by the central body making use of social media hosted cross functional teams which develop better ways and a portfolio of approaches which cater for the varying priorities of councils and their communities.  Existing consortia could handle the contracting and contract management. Marketing would be the responsibility of the strategic leadership.

References

Jameson, H. (2011) ‘’Mini Commission’ mooted’, Municipal Journal, 10 November 2011, p1.