Trump's Twitter procurement strategy?

Donald Trump has redefined how to use Twitter. Still President Elect, as opposed to President, he appears to have adopted a 'shoot from the hip' approach to policy and announcements. In the UK politicians were criticised from making announcements on TV as opposed to Parliament, but this is of a different order.

One of the stories which dominats the US news today is President Elect, Donald Trump's 'Cancel the order' Tweet.  The order being with Chicago-based Boeing for a new version of Air Force One.  The Tweet is effectively saying "I am going to block this contract as I believe it is no longer a good deal". Now, that will send tidal waves through contractors and those in procurement in US public procurement! What will become the new modus operandi?

Needless to say Trump's estimate of the $4bn is challenged by many. Boeing, it appears, haven't even secured the deal!  Then you've got the reality that the plane is unlikely to be delivered during Trump's residence of the Whitehouse anyway - it will be other Presidents' plane as opposed to his. Transition is taking on a new completion now and for his successor.

Anyway, is Trump ushering in a new style of Twitter usage, a new style of public procurement negotiations, or a new style of procurement strategy?  If other political and business leaders chose to follow his style this will create a very real and present danger for procurement professionals. Trump has built a reputation of saying "You're fired" what's that mean for procurement?

Gove turns his guns on procurement and programme management

One time thought to be a contender to become PM, former Secretary of State for Education, and Secretary of State for Justice has set his sights on public sector procurement and programme management professionals today, in a Comment piece in the Times. I will watch with interest the Letters section to see if CIPS reply.

Gove does a fine job of cataloguing procurement and programme management disasters. Indeed, many of the cases he cites are those I have blogged about in the past and/or used as case studies when training.  I will spare you an echoing of the cases; the average man or women on the street is familiar with many of them anyway.

While it is interesting that Gove has put pen to paper on a subject dear to many of us, what is particularly interesting is who he considers to blame - the 'Sir Humphrey's but not the Ministers.

Gove calls for a shift to weekly reporting on progress to Parliament of procurements and programmes. Would there be enough Parliamentary time and, if there was the time, would we see any interest from MPs?

Controversially he also wants to

see the names of civil servants responsible for these programmes to be published, their explanations for failure (or success) recorded and those who've failed be removed while those who can demonstrate clear, measurable, success get promoted. I know this concept- let's call it accountability - may be somewhat revolutionary for our civil service.

This is an interesting notion but isn't Gove missing the point about why we have Ministers in charge of government departments?  It is the democratically elected politicians who have to call those in their own departments to account.  It is the democratically elected politicians who have to rein in the pursuit of unrealistic political timescales.  It is the democratically elected politicians who have to develop the skills to scrutinise and manage professionals to ensure that they deliver on their objectives. Yes, perhaps civil servants need to use a louder voice in explaining to politicians the risks of pursuing some projects. But you can't just point the finger at the civil servants without recognising a failure of political performance management.

Also worrying is the implication that civil servants are being influenced by lobby groups. Can he really believe that, and if he does, why doesn't he blow the whistle on what really amounts to corruption.

This, one time, very influential political may well have lost a lot of his power, but should he ever regain it, CIPS will have a major problem if they don't educate the former Secretary of Education now.

  

Design & delivery of a compelling 'Stay In' public information leaflet without shooting client in the foot

Next week we are told every household in the UK will start to receive a copy of a public information leaflet setting out 'Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK'.  We are told the leaflet has cost £9m, including the cost of packaging and delivery (Production: £458,500; Print and delivery: £5.947m; Digital promotion and website: £2.894m).

The initiative is proving, unsurprisingly, to be politically toxic but there are interesting procurement issues too - so if I were the CPO asked to have handled this procurement exercise here's some of the questions I would have asked:

1. Have we processes in place to comply with the EU Regs?
2. I assume the business case has been agreed, risk assessed and approved?
3. Has the 'do nothing' option or leave to the 'Stay in' campaign been fully evaluated?
4. Do we let one contract for design, one for print, one for packaging, one for delivery, and one over-arching contract?
5. The budget is separate for 'production' and 'print and delivery', what do we mean by 'production' - is that 'design'?
6. The design appears to include every other page as a colour picture, given that this is primarily about 'facts' will the additional pages of print and costs directly associated with the pictures be justified?
7. Has an equality impact assessment been completed on the design?
8. Are those with special needs accommodated?
9. Is there any risk that the potential suppliers could subsequently prove to be an embarrassment to the initiative? 
10. Which elements of the work can be used to showcase UK businesses, SME's and the community sector?
11. Which elements of the work could be delivered by UK businesses, SME's and the community sector?
12. What quality of paper is required, would cheaper quality match our needs?
13. Given that this initiative is being led by the Environment Secretary, will the paper and inks used reflect our aspired environmental credentials?
14. What are the alternative avenues for distribution which can be subjected to an options appraisal, for example, do we use Royal Mail or its competitors, community sector, local government refuse collection operatives (some may say that would cut out the middle man for many householders and go straight to the bin)?;
15. Given the Government Digital Strategy, the target audiences, and the Environment Secretary leadership, would a 'soft copy' and making use of social media perhaps be worth exploring more before pursuing a print dominant route?
16. Will there be costs incurred if householders pursue a 'return to sender' protest and have they been factored in?
17. Are you sure this initiative is not something we may live to regret?

Almost echoing my suggestions for reducing the cost of organising the Queen's Birthday celebrations, a letter in today's Times must ring alarm bells for those concerned with stewardship of the public purse:

Sir, I doubt I am the only director of a creative agency who would be more than happy to design a 16-page glossy brochure, edit and proofread it, for less than one tenth of the £500,000 of taxpayers' money mentioned in your report.

EDEN PHILLIPS, CEO, Edenco Creative 

Strategic procurement programmes: Before and after

We're all familiar with the 'before and after' images which so often paint a picture that suggests 'after' is more attractive than 'before'. If only that were the case with strategic procurements.

After years of 'before' trumpeting the anticiapted aspirational success of the NHS National Programme for IT, a programme which appeared to be the offspring of political egotism, the first signs of faltering, and the cosmetics of a name change, now politicians want answers:

"There has to be a reckoning. We have to know how much money has been squandered and what could have been done instead."

"If the people letting the contract have made a catastrophic, gargantuan mistake then there is an opportunity cost. It is the taxpayer who has to fork out money for what should have been spent n services they need."

To me the NPfIT was clear who was leading and the governance structure to be used. But back in 2011 I asked what happened to the application of Gateway Reviews on the Programme. Of course MPs received NAO reports on the Programme's progress too - they were not ignorant of the risks.

So when the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration Select Committee sit down looking for answers, I hope they start by considering their own role in oversight - didn't they have a responsibility to the electorate? They could ask about political pressure that that was exerted and if civil servants 'pushed back'? They could then ask about who was getting paid for Programme leadership, where, when and why it went wrong? Then they could get the detailed findings of the Gateway Reviews? Then look at the risk register, how it was reviewed and when and what actions were taken? Then they could look at similar debacles, of which there are many, forget the political rhetoric and posturing? Finally they must ensure an environment exists which ensures there are very real penalties in place for those who should have blown the whistle on this and similar programmes yet didn't - did they lack the knowledge or the spine?

Unfortunately the 'after' looks fairly ugly for this Programme but perhaps the Beast could spawn some Beauty's for the future.

Another Groundhog Day for UK public prourement

Supply Management has covered a news item that the government will review public sector food procurement with a view to reducing leakage from UK agriculture sector. Isn't this yet another Groundhog Day for UK public procurement? Back in 2003 we had the Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative. I spent many hours at meetings and training days which were aimed at strategically using UK public procurement to deliver UK farming benefits.

I have previously discussed the Groundhog Day approach to UK political procurement (and here). The Groundhog Day approach to procurement policy is interesting. Imitation is said to be both the best and most sincere form of flattery - there must be some agreement that these policy through procurement initiatives, conceptually at least, have some merit. They also have the potential of being good political platform announcements - when a politician makes a conference speech the concept may well resonate with the audience and few appear to stand up and shout 'Groundhog Day'. The Groundhog Day Policy must also give the person who suggested the recycled initiative some kudos.

But do Groundhog Day procurement policies not also throw up other questions. For example, what lessons have been learnt from the previous attempt at addressing this, was there an outcome evaluation of the previous initiative, why was the previous initiative not embedded in practice, will those who adopted the former strategy now have problems reselling the new strategy, are those who resist change actually the winners in Groundhog Day procurement policy?

It does strike me as strange that opposition MPs, who may well previously have led on these Groundhog Day initiatives, aren't asking questions and attempting to break the cycle. Either way, as I say, the policies, generally appear to be good, pity about the implementation and performance management.

Any suggestions as to what the next Groundhog Day procurement policy will be?

Is putting on the Ritz compatible with centralised purchasing change management

Some of the greatest challenges which face procurement have been how to put in place collaborative purchasing arrangements, avoid maverick buying and ensuring adherence to  corporate framework agreements. We heard yesterday that the Crown Commercial Services are making use of outside support and one of the areas of help is centralised buying. We're also familiar the preciousness of identity, for example, the difficulties of getting England's 43 police forces to agree on a common specification for white shirts - a problem which the Gershon Review highlighted a decade ago, yet still persists.

Part of the problem is that individuals like to suggest they are in such a position of power and in that position they have the the freedom to exercise choice by opting to step outside what is okay for others - what is good for the goose isn't always perceived as good for the gander. The problem is also actually about change management - you need a compelling justification for the 'corporate deal', you need to have brought key stakeholders with you and won their heads, if not their hearts, and you need clear and consistent leadership by example. If you can get the Chairman and CEO to use the corporate deal, for example, for travel policy, you're well on the way - if you can't get them to adhere, then all sorts of excuses, justifications and exceptions start to materialise.

So given that CCS hope to get greater adherence for their bulk purchasing better buys, today's revelations in the Times that the Chancellor has opted out of lower cost (free) accommodation at 'The Ambassador's' and instead chosen to stay in private hotels (£289.97/night) is either a a threat or an opportunity for their strategy.

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:

Can procurement learn from the vote on Syria intervention

I'm not going to discuss whether or not I agree with the idea of military intervention in Syria, but yesterday's Commons vote was clearly a setback for some. It was also something of a triumph for what the UK believes is worth fighting for, namely, that democracy and the voice of the people.

We heard of lessons learnt from the past - which must be a good thing. We've heard commentators declare that the vote is also a vote on the PM's judgement and that confidence in that will be irreparably damaged. Sadly, there was also a 'bad loser' syndrome, obvious after the vote, with some of those who failed to win over hearts, minds and votes denying the value of our treasured democracy and instead railed about the international implications. While Cameron said he "got it" the post-debate debate may have made us wonder which particular part of the message our leaders actual did get. However, I think there are some lessons from last night which are relevant to CPOs, particularly when they want to sell a new procurement strategy:

1. Make every effort to learn from the lessons of the past - what's gone wrong is unlikely to have been forgotten and the legacy needs to be addressed before you can go forward;
2. Regardless of your academic and professional pedigree, you need humility and excellent communications to bring key stakeholders to a position of accepting your strategy if it is to be adopted and implemented;
3. You need to bring people with you and be seen to really, really, really listen to their fears and concerns - that means being seen to have taken those concerns on board and reducing, if not removing, their fears;
4. Remember that key stakeholders are influenced by their key stakeholders too, for example, the PM appeared to view winning MPs voted as critical, but the MPs may well have viewed their own constituents voices more precious and recognised the problems they would have selling the strategy on doorsteps; 
5. Recognise that losing credibility in your judgement will have long-term adverse impacts on virtually every piece of advice you subsequently give; 
6. It is far more important to be viewed as having the good judgement to rip up a proposed strategy which lacks stakeholder ownership than to be so precious about it that your credibility is lost;
7. Forcing through an unpalatable strategy is 'no win' as you can never predict with certainty the future and those you were against the strategy, with the benefit of hindsight, can always say, "but if only ...";
8. Don't create unnecessary deadlines for decision-making - if you try to force a deadline on people sometimes it's easier for them to just vote for 'no change';
9. If you can't sell a strategy it was unlikely you were ever going to successfully implement it;
10. If you were unsuccessful in selling a strategy there's little since in saying "but I still know best'.

Supply Wars

Are we on the edge of a return to the dark days of the 70s when the UK was held hostage by trade unions, and a determined Prime Minister decided they would not be coerced, but instead apply political might, with the result that UK car manufacturing collapsed and UK jobs were lost?

That was my first impression when I read news Unite have given notice that 1,800 staff, who work for DHL, plan to strike on Tuesday and, potentially, bring Jaguar Land Rover’s production line to a stop.

This isn’t the workers strike of the 70’s but instead supply chain disruption.

While I am a Tata Group employee, I work in an entirely different part of the organisation and have no engagement whatsoever with JLRs procurement.  However, it does appear to me that JLR are unlikely to be held hostage to Unite and the DHL threat,

The gamble of the 70s was whether or not Thatcher would give way to unions. The gamble of today is at least two-fold.  JLR could drop DHL from its supply chain and find an alternative source, either in the short or long-term.  Tata, JLR’s owners, could also take a more political and strategic option, threatening to completely relocate their manufacturing beyond UK shores – there are no shortage of countries which would welcome that investment. If a relocation threat were made, would we see David Cameron and the coalition decide it is essential they intervene in the negotiations? DHL employee 1,800 on the JLR logistics, while JLR employee 24,000 and had pre-tax profits of £1.7bn. Then again, from the UK Government’s point of view, Tata Group are a major UK employer as owners of Tata Steel, Tetley Tea, etc..

The stakes are high in this supply chain game – it will be interesting to see, with the benefit of hindsight, the lessons learnt.

When catching the wind meets strategic procurement

Last night I heard Michael Fallon trail on Newsnight that developers of large wind farms would have to provide the government with detailed supply plans under the new Offshore Wind Industrial Sector Strategy - the idea being that UK jobs would be delivered.

Today the strategy was announced and procurement features heavily (I quote from the press release):

£20 million from the Regional Growth Fund for GROW: Offshore Wind, a new Manufacturing Advisory Service programme to support the UK supply chain to become more competitive by offering tailored support from specialists

£46 million funding over five years for the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult Centre to join up innovation between industry, government and academia and help companies to bring new products to market

Industry-led initiatives to share information with the supply chain about their procurement timelines and contracting decision points

A proposal that would require developers of offshore wind farms above a certain size to produce a supply chain plan before they can apply for a Contract for Difference – long-term contracts to provide stable revenues for investors in low carbon energy projects – setting out how the project and procurement approaches will encourage a wider, more diverse supply chain and support innovation and skills.

This is great stuff and clearly using procurement strategically.

I really like the idea of using the Contracts for Difference as a way of incentivising the development of plans for sustainable supply chains. If it works it will be a real winner for the UK government but, as I have said so many times, there's a big difference between the rhetoric of a plan and implementation.

The action plan has procurement strategy written all over it and would be a useful template for other organisations to reflect on - give it a read if nothing else. Yet I have some big questions:

1. Who will review, critique and risk assess the proposed supply chain plans to make sure they are not just aspirational but have a high probability of achieving the desired outcomes? 
2. What happens if the market doesn't respond with supply chain plans?
3. Who will then have responsibility for performance managing the implementation of the supply chain plans - not just taking the praise for achievement but being personally accountable for failure to deliver?
4. There is a lovely summary of actions, yet when you look under the heading 'By When' you see a remarkable lack of clarity - what are the actual dates for completion of the actions? 
5. The proposals for measuring success appear to be far too woolly - what baselines will be used to demonstrate actual success?
6. The idea is that the strategy will deliver UK jobs and a sustainable industry, that's great, yet how can there be such confidence that the benefits will not be transferred beyond UK shores?
7. It seems slightly bizarre to have a strategy using procurement, and in parallel the announcement of the new Crown Commercial Services, yet at first glance neither the Government CPO nor the CCS appear to have any role in the implementation - why is that?

I really do think the strategy is good yet I am reminded that Michael Fallon was going to use procurement to correct some of the retail sectors supply chain ethics way back in April - what happened next?

It does strike me that both Vince Cable and Michael Fallon understand strategic procurement and its potential, but that is seldom sufficient, there is a need for change management, performance management and 'grit'. Without those we risk just having procured hot air.  

Small Business Friendly Concordat and institutional memory loss

Isn't it great to hear Chloe Smith has made a commitment to bring about change in central government procurement so that it is easier for SME's, particularly in the construction sector, to gain business.

Not so great that no-one actually briefed Chloe that what was being said had little new. Not so great that Chloe wasn't briefed that much of what was being championed had been committed to in the 2001 'Smaller Supplier ... Better Value? Not so great that Chloe wants local government to follow her example, without having been made aware that many council's have already signed the 2005 Small Business Friendly Concordat.

What we really need Chloe to tell us, isn't the old, old story of commitment to ..., but a new story of accountability for implementation, what's going to change to ensure her commitment is acted upon, and whether the Government are prepared to be measured against this commitment in May 2015 election.

Bring on the Procurement Star Chamber

There's something quite remarkable about the concept of the 'Star Chamber' which seems to have been lost in today's political dumbing down and popularising of the approach - it existed until 1641 to enforce laws against those so powerful that the traditional courts would never act against.

Consider the Opinion piece in today's Times, a great deal of which had already been discussed in this blog in the context of the evidence given to the Public Administration Select Committee inquiry into public procurement. Now it is clear to me that some very lame excuses were given to PASC justifying poor implementation of procurement policy and strategy. After all, if those charged with implementation can't deliver, why on earth did they, or their predecessors, not make it clear when the policies where being drafted that there was neither the readiness to change or the skills necessary to 'make it happen'. The PASC was just too chummy and lacked any real sense of personal accountability - I don't believe for one minute that much will change in the duration of this parliament.

However, I would like to pick up on one aspect of the Opinion piece and suggest a way forward:

Some mandarins are refusing to renegotiate IT and procurement contracts to get a better deal. "It's all about saving face ... they've signed off rubbish contracts and they don't want to admit it".

1. Are the mandarins actually refusing to renegotiate bad contracts?
2. Is there the scope to renegotiate the contracts anyway? Basic contract law reminds us that there is no obligation to enter into only good contracts and if you enter a bad contract, it is still a contract;
3. Is the real constraint face saving?

If we really want to bring the transparency to public procurement and accountability we need to expose and explode these myths if they are not true. But if they are the truth, we need to find a way forward so we are not replaying this discussion in another decade.

There has been a long history of 'the great and the good' of business being asked to provide their opinions on what is wrong with public procurement - it's easy to throw those stones. Yet, in almost thirty years that has delivered little change - that model just doesn't work. However, why don't we just use that type person and deploy them on Procurement Star Chambers. Let the Procurement Star Chamber sit in judgement over the implementation of public procurement policy and strategy, let it be linked, at the very least, to the civil service performance management system too. Let the Star Chamber establish if bad contracts have been entered into, where there is scope for renegotiation, and whether the  reluctance to do so is based on face saving? Bring on the Procurement Star Chamber if you want to get beyond the rhetoric and 'make' change happen.

Will UKIPs success impact on procurement?

UKIPs success in Thursday's local government elections certainly changed the English political landscape but will it make a difference to local government public procurement? Or, put a different way, if you're a local government procurement practitioner in a council where UKIP have now a major voice what changes should you anticipate, if any?

Let's first recognise that in local government politicians should shape the agenda; that's what democracy is all about. Although UKIP have not yet taken control of a council that does't mean they can't affect change.

The first area I would anticipate an impact will be if a UKIP member secures the portfolio which covers procurement - given the strategic significance of that portfolio to UKIP's strategic intent, that should be one of their core political objectives. The second impact would be if UKIP members secure a strong position on Resources Overview and Security. If either of these roles is secured expect UKIP members to reflect their manifesto - and, if my experience of local government is a reliable indicator, expect the euphoria of the Thursday's results to bring the confidence and boldness to make a quick impact, even though there will be a lack of understanding.

So what can we assume based on the UKIP Manifesto?

1. Greater focus on cost reduction as opposed to service cuts;
2. Resistance to the EU procurement regulations;
3. Resistance to awarding contracts to non-UK businesses;
4. Cynicism over the effectiveness of previous initiatives designed to support local businesses;
5. Questions on how to make it easier for local businesses to tender for contracts;
6. Challenge on the need to embed equalities in procurement; 
7. Environmental procurement resisted;
8. A resurgence in the desire to support third sector organisation;
9. Cynicism that the procurement manger is committed to serving the citizenry as opposed to their own self-interest;
10. Expect a need to justify existing procurement staff numbers;

I suspect many, new to local government, may have listened to the election results and thought 'so what?'. Well, if that's how you felt, you have a real problem and need to remember that in local government, political manifestos are the backdrop which should shape strategic procurement objectives. One other thing worth reflecting on is that UKIP have an electoral mandate for pursuing their manifesto objectives, while procurement professionals don't. Procurement's challenge is to provide the best professional advice on how objectives can be achieved, regardless of whether or not they agree with the objectives.

What will Fallon do, what can he do?

'Any Questions' is a great programme on Radio 4. The episode on 26 April (repeated on 27 April) (specifically the section at 11 minutes) was all the more interesting since the panelists were discussing procurement in the context of the Dhaka factory collapse which I discussed earlier today.

Michael Fallon MP, currently, Minister of State for Business and Enterprise, gave an interesting undertaking "that [UK Government] will look at what responsibility can be put on retailers". When pressed, the only clarification he gave as to what that meant was "we'll look at the various codes that they're signing up to and see whether they are sufficiently transparent and whether enough retailers in this country are actually signed up to them and whether there are significant gaps".

Another panelist, Sir Ming Campbell, suggested accurate labelling may be part of the solution, yet we know 'accurate labelling' didn't protect against 'horse meat in the UK food supply chain'.

We also know that the government have not been able to effectively mandate their own spending departments to use centrally set up contracts.

Yet bizarrely Stephen Kelly, in his evidence to PASC, was implying the public sector should look to retail as exemplars!

So what will Fallon do, or more specifically, what can Fallon do?

He can hardly tell those who have just had their benefits cut to buy more expensively.

However, given that it is alleged it was only the need to meet buyer deadlines that caused the workers to be in the factory on Wednesday in spite of the obvious risks, perhaps he could ask UK retailers to demonstrate that they were not culpable through placing undue pressure on supply chains. Could he initiate legislation which would bring about a new criminal offence of supply chain culpable negligence which may well help strengthen political relations? Or could he have the issue addressed through the G20?  I suppose it all depends on whether there's a will!

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?

Making the Games

It is unlikely to be in the memorabilia sought on eBay but Making the Games does represent a very useful legacy of the London Olympics and Paralympics. A round of applause to the Government Olympic Executive and Department of Culture, Media and Sport for asking the Institute of Government to carry out this review of lessons learnt. Is it cosmetic though?

There's a lot in the report which just echoes what should be viewed as good practice, I'll plagiarise the lessons below and then highlight some lessons which we don't appear to have learnt, yet.

The key lessons, all worthy of consideration for anyone organising events, are:

1. Project trumps silo;
2. Bring together the right people in effective teams;
3. Personal stability and personal responsibilities matter;
4. Political cooperation creates space for project success;
5. Change and time discipline are crucial; 
6. Limit innovation;
7. Budget realism and transparency brings benefits;
8. Arms-length and the public sector can deliver;
9. Design in safety and sustainability from the start;
10. Beware false economies;
11. Plan, assure, test.

Had we been asked to provide a checklist for those organising the Games in advance, I suspect most of us could have produced that list (and some more) - it is hardly rocket science. Yet, the Institute of Government clearly think they need stating. To be honest I think they do need stating and restating as the failure to address them is frequently a topic of this blog.

A few observations though:

Personal accountability & Mea culpa

Is there such a thing as personal accountability? I think there is a skewed version of it, 'responsibility', when it is used for job evaluations but it means little in terms of the downside 'being held to account'. I am now convinced we need to revisit 'the buck stops here' concept and bring some meaning to personal accountability. When something goes wrong, it is not individuals who carry the can but faceless institutions. When something goes wrong, it is not individuals, and frequently not even the institutions, who pick up the tab, but the tax payer.

Today we have learnt that failures in 'the system' could lead to that taxpayer picking up a potential bill for millions of pounds as a result of Savile's abuse. Let's be clear, Savile was wrong and appears to have been a totally unpleasant person. But Savile was not alone in blame - also in the dock are the Crown Prosecution Service, Surrey Police, the Metropolitan Police, West Yorkshire Police, BBC and the management of so many of the organisations which 'failed to protect'. If the individuals managing these organisations had managed irresponsibly, it strikes me, that if cases were taken under health and safety legislation those who oversaw such failures would be potentially facing for custodial sentences - had that been the case they may have treated 'responsibility' more seriously.

But it doesn't stop with Savile though, think of Hillsborough.

Then consider the case of making inappropriate employment decisions. I have already discussed unusual appointments to some procurement positions. The potential cost of benefits lost or foregone is not  personally carried by those who make the appointments, nor would the cost of any employment tribunal.

But what about those 'responsible' for procurement decisions?

Policing police procurement: Suggested questions for Home Affairs Select Committee

Scrutiny of public procurement is a good thing but it also needs to be informed and pragmatic. I'm not aware of any impact assessment having been carried out on the required publication of local government expenditure, but it appears far from achieving its original objective cost effectively. We now have Police and Crime Commissioners, it will interesting to see how they address procurement.


However, Tuesday 27th will bring the Metropolitan Police procurement spend of £35bn under the scrutiny of the Home Affairs Select Committee.

Unless care is taken, there is a real danger of the Committee diverting its focus to what's been bought rather than was it bought well. Looking in the rear view mirror trying to understand why £500k is spent clearing horse manure may well set the pulses racing but this shouldn't be a version of scrutinising MPs expenses but something fundamentally different.

In an earlier blog I suggested questions the Home Affairs Select Committee might ask in its inquiry into the Olympics Security debacle. I suspect they missed that blog. Nevertheless, in the spirit of citizen participation (and also helping those in the Met prepare), I would suggest MPs focus on the following:

Maude's procurement speech impediment

Back in November I spent some time reviewing Francis Maude's speech on revolutionising procurement.  My key messages at that time included:

1. The ideas espoused would not revolutionise how government buys because most of initiatives were far from new but recycled;
2. Policy makers need to concern themselves less with rhetoric and more with delivery.  Just saying something is going to happen, evidence would suggest doesn't make it happen - embedding in practice is the challenge;
3. Policy makers need to make greater use of evidence based research, have consistency in definition of key terms, understand existing policy and commitments, and, collect and learn lessons from the past; 

Francis Maude made, what to me was, a follow-up speech at the Procurex Conference on14 March.  It seems sensible to consider what he said.  

Maude describes himself as "the Minister who gets excited about procurement". Whether or not that is a good thing will be judged in the fullness in time.  However, I wonder if his 'excitement' is a barrier. I honestly question whether those advising him are intimidated by his excitement and are being as diligent as they should be in their advice.

Potentially a perfect love match: Northamptonshire's romance with the waste market

Too often procurement features in the news because it is found wanting. Yet I highlighted last week that the GO Awards for Excellence in Public Procurement demonstrate examples of good practice exist.  So it was great to see  BBC coverage of Northamptonshire County Council's seeking ideas from the market on how to address non-recyclable waste.

Why is this story so newsworthy?   What can we learn from Northamptonshire's approach?

1. The council are acknowledging that the market may know better than their own technical staff how to solve problems - the market is a source of innovation to be drawn on but that rarely happens.
2. The approach goes some way to slaying one of the common myths/excuses I frequently hear, namely, you must have a really tight specification which sets out explicitly the 'how and what' bidders have to deliver if you don't do that you will be exposed to challenge. Hopefully, the only challenge to Northamptonshire will be a constructive challenge to the old ways, whereas what I find so often is comfort in 'the old ways'.
3. The approach also suggests a confidence in managing risk.  This strikes me as a council which is risk aware and seeks to manage risk - the greater risk is not listening to the market.

What we now need to do is learn from the Northamptonshire case study as it develops, warts and all.  Hopefully there will be a researcher who has access to the full story and retells that story with academic rigour. Only then can we really learn.

Nevertheless, I congratulate Northamptonshire and look forward to following the story and hope fortune favours the brave.