An Olympian challenge for sustainable procurement and user satisfaction

In a drawer beside me I have a suite of NIAAF medals, yes, surprisingly, some years ago I was an international athlete!  The medals have personal memories attached to them; I can remember something of each one of those races even now, over 20 years later.  The medals are also something of a tangible legacy which I have always viewed as worth passing to my children and grandchildren.  When I received them, even though I wouldn't be able to retain my fitness, I never gave a second thought as to whether or not the medals wouldn't be durable.

I never had any illusion of being able to win an Olympic medal but I'm sure those who have done assumed their medals would last the distance.  Now we learn that somewhere in the region of 7% of the Medals awarded at the Rio Olympics are starting to wane. It is somewhat ironic that the medals were celebrated for their sustainability - materials used included recycled silver and industrial waste.

Olympic medals are unlikely to have been included in the high cost/high risk profile but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been subject to a risk assessment and evaluated on the basis of fitness for purpose. That fitness for purpose should have included something of the users perspective too.  It can only be assumed that evaluation didn't take place or, if it did, wasn't given a great weight. The Rio Olympics procurement has once again become a talking point for all the wrong reasons.  Wouldn't it have been easier to have got it right and managed the reputational risk!

But the damage through this lackluster procurement also casts a shadow over the approach to sustainable procurement - instead of acting as a role model it now will serve as an impediment. Sustainable procurement doesn't need to compromise fitness for purpose and shouldn't.

Perhaps the lessons from this are:

• Consider the specifications others have used, perhaps through consulting with peers; 
• Place performance and functionality in the perspective of the user;
• Consider the risks to functionality in the specification and award criteria;
• Remember the potential for reputational damage in your risk assessment;
• Test functionality perhaps in the lab;
• Don't compromise performance and functionality for the glister of sustainable procurement PR.

Pirates of the Specification

Buying ships shouldn't be such a big deal if you've a legacy of being one of the great naval nations of the world; you'd have had experience of buying ships to cope with the ice of the Antarctic and the dealing with the Pirates of the Caribbean. Therefore, for many it will have come as a surprise that £1bn of warships are breaking down in the Gulf since the water is too warm, leaving crews vulnerable!!!

The contractors claim the MOD didn't tell them about that particular potential usage, even though the UK has been engaged in flighting there since 1990, if I am correct, and in truth we could go back centuries. Have the MOD locked themselves into a strategy which requires a portfolio of ships which can only be used in restricted climates?  If that was the case, the old news stories of warships being redeployed from various parts of the globe to potential conflict areas will be no more, for the simple reason they wouldn't work.

Setting that aside, now it looks as if a refit of these particular Destroyers will be necessary.  

I assume the courts will have to decide who picks up the cost but already it looks as though the contractor is trying to escape liability by resorting to the technical specification set out by the MOD - in other words Rolls Royce complied with the letter of the specification so it's not their fault: 

Are the conditions experienced in the Gulf in line with that specification? No, they’re not. So the equipment is having to operate in far more arduous conditions than were initially required (Tomas Leahy of Rolls Royce).

I assume we will hear eventually if the MOD used a solely technical specification, but this must serve as a warning to all those who do that using a solely technical specification shifts the burden of functionality to the buyer. To me there will always be a basic need for technical specifications but they need to be accompanied with functional and performance specifications; and when a service is involved, outcome specifications.  It certainly looks, at face value, as if the MOD set aside the functional and performance aspects, and, if that is the case, why?

But there's another question here, what about all the talk of supplier partnerships and innovation transfer - was that a one-way street from the MOD to the market without reciprocation? The relationship between the MOD and its strategic partners now looks as if it has suffered a major set-back and will take some time to recover.

To me there is one lesson for all procurement professionals here: never resort solely to a tec spec.

Brexit preparedness and armoured vehicles - what's so hard about that for procurement?

Just in case you wondered why I hadn't blogged recently, it is quite straight-forward, I've been very busy on my day job and haven't found much to say or add to the current procurement debates. I've also been really frustrated with obvious lack of preparedness to the Brexit vote - I wrote an article in Public Money and Management in March 2015 which warned:

... there is growing discomfort in many countries with their membership of the EU.  Those working in public procurement policy and practice would do well to consider the 'what if' scenario if the threatened exits from the EU materialize as there would be significant repercussions. (PMM, Vol 35, #2,  March 2015, p.95).

Well the news this week certainly suggests my warnings should have been heeded more widely across the UK public sector.

However, excuse that bit of "I told you so" - what do you make of the story in today's Times: 'MOD accused of sham contest for armoured vehicles contract'?  The gist of the story is that there are insinuations that the MOD is engaging in a procurement process while already having made up its mind what the outcome will be.  Apparently, the "preliminary market engagement" has been worded in such a way as to reduce the options to one, even though, functionally, it would appear there are significantly lower priced alternatives available!  The process is underway at the present and this stage closes on Tuesday coming.

I wonder how the MOD assessed the risk of this procurement exercise? What will happen in the rest of the procurement process?

If it turns out the potential alternative providers chose not to bid, then the media and those bidders will say it was a fix and the tax payer may have lost out - we would never know.  If the competing products don't match the needs of those on the frontline but because of media attention is awarded anyway, the frontline users suffer and also the best provider misses out on their competitive advantage. If the alternative providers do submit the required responses and then subsequently aren't shortlisted, it will be perceived as a fix and a very costly fools errant for the bidders.  If the alleged preferred supplier wins, at what is considered to be an inflated price, there will be questions, perhaps even allegations of corruption.  If the process is scrapped ... I could go on but you get the gist.

This procurement has all the hallmarks of not being a CV enhancer - why on earth can we not think procurement risk and manage it?

In the firing line for buying bendy rifles?

If this were the 1st April I would have thought what follows was an April Fool, but since it is early March we will have to take reports that the Paris police have bought guns which don't shoot straight at face value.

We are led to believe the German army had concerns about Heckler & Koch G36 assault rifles and their unreliable aim in temperatures over 23C - supposedly 50cm off target at a range of 200m when the temperature is 30C!  As a result, the German army has embarked upon a replacement plan over the next three years.

However, the French appear to have been unaware of, or ignored, the German concerns and have just bought 204 of the same rifles as a part of a €17m investment. To make matters worse, it is also said that the French have insufficient shooting ranges where the rifles can be used.

So, some obvious questions:

1. Were the rifles purchased by brand or performance specification? A performance specification may provide the French with some reassurance?
2. Is a high degree of accuracy actually required by the French? If not, well perhaps the lack of accuracy isn't an issue unless you're an innocent bystander of course.
3. Were the rifles bought without considering the potential range of temperatures in which a high-degree of accuracy would be required? It certainly looks as though a warm day in Paris may cause problems and heaven only knows what the consequences of the searing temperatures of Syria would be.
4. Did the French reduce their exposure to risk by discussing their needs with other users to learn from their experience? If they were aware of the German concerns perhaps they were able to negotiate a particularly good deal to offset the lack of function.
5. Have the French reduced their risk of a product not fit for purpose by testing a representative sample in the full range of possible scenarios of usage? Maybe the test will provide an opportunity to escape from the deal.
6. Did the French consider the additional requirements of practice ranges when committing the purchase? Sometimes buyers forget the additional costs incurred in the pursuit of lowest price.

Seems a pity that what appears to have been a rushed procurement with good intentions may be a case of flawed procurement - a faux pas.

Can specifiers tell the difference?

Doubtless, you familiar with the old 'taste tests': "can you tell the difference between Stork and butter?" or "Coke and Pepsi?". You may also be aware of the ploys that some of those running the tests use to confuse the taste buds during such tests. However, many will also be familiar with the cry of "clinical preference" which isn't a million miles away from the 'taste tests' but rely on deference to those who say they can tell the difference between one type of surgical glove, for example, and another. The challenge has long been how to argue with someone who's a specialist in their field and cuts people up for a living! The problem, of course, isn't unique to clinicians but, in my experience variations are fairly common across most sectors. A paper by Fritz, et al., in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences should provide some hope.

Fritz and Co have been experimenting with a variation of the 'taste test' on violins, l suppose we should refer to it more correctly as the 'tone test'. Anyway, they wanted to establish if some of the world's leading violinists really could tell the difference between new and old violins, including five Stradivarius (which everyone knows are the best!!). The 'tone test' has surprised many in that the leading violinists not only couldn't tell the difference but many actually preferred newer instruments!

Procurement managers need to hone some of the skills of Fritz et al., in trying to create and gain the ownership of specifiers for 'blind tests' - if specifiers really can tell the difference the test will provide the evidence, if they can't then the problem is resistance to change and possibly supplier loyalty (symptoms of a different aliment). Overcoming that resistance to change will require political and diplomatic skills and tenacity, but it could make markets more effective, save a fortune and stimulate innovation.  

I'd be interested to hear of some of the more innovative 'taste tests' you use in procurement?

P.S. On the 10 April 2014 there was widespread media coverage on how the NHS had 'wasted' £473m on treatments which were more expensive yet with no additional benefit - exactly what this post was about. You can read Ben Goldacre's account of the Tamiflu research  here.

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.

They just don't make trams the way they used to

While much of today's news was concerned with the contrast between last week's sun and this week's snow, I suspect that was of little concern to those at Blackpool beach. To be more specific those concerned with the procurement of Blackpool's new tram and the contrast between what should have happened and what did happen. Or, to put it mildly, the contract!


By way of explanation, let's provide some context.  Blackpool has the honour of having the country's oldest running tram - over 125 years.

Yesterday there was cause for celebration as the newly upgraded £100m tramway hit the tracks. VIPs were able to enjoy the ride.  A four-year upgrade, 11km of track, a new tram depot, and 16 computerised trams. So impressed was the Transport Minster, Norman Baker, that he said, "Blackpool's trams are absolutely on the right track". In a cruel twist those words just couldn't have been more misplaced because today, as the trams were 'open for business', the trams just weren't on the right track, in fact it wasn't on any track at all as sand had caused its derailment.  In true style it appears the service was then maintained for the remainder of today through the use of brushes and trowels!

Thankfully this didn't happen on April Fools day but I assume this is no laughing matter and some illumination is required in Blackpool over contractual liabilities.

Did the intervention have the desired impact?

Tucked away in this week's Sunday Times were some notes from an interview with Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley.  In the interview he is reported to have said, "An interesting case in point is knee surgery.  The data has now come back demonstrating half of knee surgery doesn't substantially change the outcome for patients: their mobility isn't improved that much, nor their pain."  In other words someone asked the common sense question: 'did the intervention make, as a minimum, the desired impact; was it value for money?' This should also be at the centre of any outcomes based commissioning and procurement.

I'm sure you have been asking