T&Cs for Breakfast in Bed

Last week I carried out a very brief comparison of the price of a sirloin steak in a hotel restaurant and also as part of room service - insofar as I could see the only difference was that a 10oz steak was available in the restaurant while only an 8 oz through room service. The price difference was £17.50 as opposed £28 - saving the additional £10.50 at the loss of 2 oz of steak, I asked for the room service steak in the restaurant, but avoided the tray charge.

I then decided to carry out a quick comparison of the price of breakfast in bed in two hotels. By way of context both hotels were household name brands, in the same city, of the same star and giving me the same corporate rate - yes, theoretically they should be same. I can honestly say I have never ordered breakfast in bed with either of the hotels, but this week I noted the prices.

I have always assumed it was quite clear how much Breakfast in Bed would cost. However, for all you procurement legal illegals, can you make a judgment and tell me how much Breakfast in Bed at Hotel A should cost? By way of context, I was on a Bed and Breakfast rate, and prior to reading the T&Cs on the foot of the Order Placing Door Hanger, the headline prices are £10.95 for a Continental Breakfast and £14.95 while a cooked breakfast is £14.95. The T&Cs state:

A £5.00 charge will be applicable to all orders. For guests who have paid for a room package including breakfast, there will be a charge of £6 per room, for room service.... All prices include VAT.

So how what is the extra amount of money I should expect to be billed if I order a cooked breakfast?  Would it be £6, £11, £14.95, £19.95, £20.95, £25.95, or what?

Police procurement on the line

There's something very odd about a room where the most common item of clothing worn appears to be a white shirt and the main subject of discussion is how difficult it is to buy white shirts.

Yes, that's what the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee seemed to focus on at its meeting on 5 June when the subject was really Police Procurement.

However, this evidence session should, in my mind, be included within the Public Administration Select Committee's Inquiry into Public Procurement. The evidence had a much more realistic assessment of the difficulties associated with centralisation.

The Committee started with a reality check: why, when Gershon, in 2004, highlighted the need for a 'uniform' approach to buying white shirts for the 43 police forces,  has such a seemingly simple aspiration proved so difficult to implement? Yet, that's the question which needs an unequivocal answer to, and plan to address, before 'the grand collaborative public procurement vision' should be embarked upon.

Theoretically, the silver bullet has been found for the police in the form of the Procurement Hub. It appears the aspiration was that there would have been 100% sign-up to the Hub last year, yet so far only 2%, yes, TWO PERCENT has been reached. The new aspiration is that 80% will be achieved by the end of the current parliament. Asked, what milestone has been set for 12 months time on the journey from 2% to 80%, there was a sense of embarrassment - that question seemed to take the Permanent Secretary by surprise! It does make you question if there is the least likelihood of the 'stretch target' being achieved.


What are the problems with bringing about increased ownership of the Procurement Hub? Answer:

• Cultural issues;
• Changes in processes; and
• Resistance to change.

But hold on a second, the Procurement Hub will not standardise on one uniform white shirt, or one supplier, it's a collaborative 'framework'. Sounds a bit like legalising 'pick 'n' mix' as opposed to Gershon's vision.

The ethics and moral dilemma of Dark Procurement

A judge has ruled that an accountants job is to cut bills even if that relates to tax avoidance.

That ruling provides justification for sharing this blog which was original posted as a guest blog on Spendmatters:

The tragedy of the Dhaka factory collapse, which led to the death of over 1,000 innocent factory workers, has placed some procurement strategy under a cloud. There is a dark side of procurement with moral dilemmas which recognises there is more to ethics in procurement than the CIPS code.

Those directly responsible for the supply chain management of clothes with a 'Made in Dhaka' label are faced with a question as to whether or not this is something they would want to include on their CV or LinkedIn profile. While you would not necessarily be proud of sourcing from the Dhaka factory, is buying from low price sources such a bad thing if you are the CPO and that's what achieves the organisation's strategic objectives?

If there is a perception that buying cheap clothes for retail is distasteful, is there not also an element of public service linked to making available low price clothes for those who have to 'watch every penny'? 

There is another dark side of procurement; buying things which society would not necessarily celebrate. Buying some things must cause personal dilemmas for CPOs but that doesn't mean the CPO has no conscience and is a 'baddie'. The CPO must focus on delivering the best professional procurement, regardless of whether or not they agree with the policy. Arguing that poor procurement is justifiable in bad situations just doesn't add up.

There are other examples of dark procurement. For example, I found it quite bizarre when I learnt of the procurement team at a missile manufacturer seeking accreditation of their approach to environmental management. It seemed very odd to me that, when buying for the manufacture of something which will cause mass destruction, you want to be sure that you minimise environmental impact! Maybe it's not so strange but just professionalism?

Then we have the interesting position of buying ropes for the hangman. Yes, someone has to do that, as has recently been highlighted through a procurement exercise in India. You may be completely against the death penalty and even a sympathiser with some of those awaiting the death penalty for political reasons. But does it not make sense to ensure that the hangman's rope is the most fit for purpose and the most merciful? Shouldn't the best of professionalism in procurement be pursued even in such dilemmas?

Moral dilemmas and ethics work both ways too. It would be wrong for a CPO to go on a personal crusade pursuing their own political, social and religious beliefs if they do not coincide with the strategic position of their employing organisation. Wouldn't that be non-professional?

So, say for example, the leadership of the organisation where you are the CPO has consistently demonstrated cynicism of global warming. You believe in sustainable procurement and that it will benefit society in the long term - the Board don't agree. You are asked to procure a major piece of equipment. You delegate the work to your deputy. Your deputy however, is passionate about sustainability - they believe with their heart 'green is best' and progress a procurement which results in two offers, one 0.5% higher than an alternative option. The only difference between the two bids is the environmental impact. The additional cost for the environment offer is £1m. Your deputy recommends the higher, 'green' bid. You sympathise with your deputy but what are you going to recommend to teh Board?

Does professional procurement have room for a conscience - that in itself is a dilemma which doesn't appear to feature much in discussion.

NB This blog was first published as a guest blog on Spendmatters on 15 May 2013

A case of digital procurement sustaining and saving

It's not often I bring a good news story; maybe the sun has improved my outlook. Regardless, I am thankful to tweet of @360supplierview which drew my attention to a report in yesterday's Yorkshire Post.

Asda have provided a great example of how digital technology can be effectively harnessed by procurement to reduce costs and improve sustainability. Asda's Sustain and Save Exchange is a collaborative platform for suppliers - to me it looks like a community of practice. It aims to share information, knowledge and learning, raise questions, post key documents, attend focused activities, spur new ideas and solve problems.

Set up in February 2012 there are claims of £13m of savings in sustainable innovations. 300 suppliers have joined so far, including, bakery, fish, poultry, chilled, frozen, and ethnic foods.

Collaborative knowledge sharing and problem solving of this type would have been inconceivable a few years ago but this is surely only scratching the surface. Why have so few organisations seized the opportunity?

Ironically, while the retail sector is starting to recognise the potential of social collaboration, the future of LGA's Khub hangs in the balance. The LGA, sadly, has never really been able to drive the original vision and drive of Steve Dale even though he delivered global collaboration. It was a personal sadness to me as I was, at one time, leading the Efficiency and Productivity Exchange which was providing evidence of benefits clearly before the retail sector tipped its toe in the water.

Procurement Needs a Digital Strategy: White Paper

Some weeks ago, through a few posts, I discussed the need for procurement to embrace digital strategy. Those core ideas have now been drawn together into a whitepaper which can now been downloaded:  Procurement Needs a Digital Strategy: White Papers: Resources: TCS.

I hope you find the whitepaper of interest and I'd be delighted to receive any comments.

Outsourcing - good or bad?

Amidst this week's embarrassment of Parliamentarians serving their own interests the Sunday Times Business section included a piece of the increasing outsourcing of public services. I first have to declare an interest in that I am currently involved in a major outsourcing contract, so assume I have some bias, just in case.

One of the criticisms of outsourcing is alleged to be "little accountability or transparency over the claimed savings". To me, that argument just doesn't stack up.

First, it implies an acceptable level of accountability and transparency over existing savings under the 'as is' service delivery. It implies both will be reduced through outsourcing. Accountability for service delivery should remain with the democratically elected representative (or CEO) regardless of whether or not the service is delivered in-house or outsourced - failure to recognise that is a failure to recognise the fundamentals of public service delivery and contracting. Outsourcing delivery does not mean an abdication of accountability for delivery. In a well defined contract there will be clear levels of service stipulated supported with tight performance/contract management - accountability starts in defining what is to be delivered, which may not previously been subjected to the rigour of a specification.

There has been scepticism over claimed savings within the public sector for years. Indeed, even more fundamental, there have been difficulties actually calculating how much the 'in-house' service delivery costs. Without clarity on existing service costs there is no baseline for comparing the achieved savings, regardless of whether an in-house 'efficiency agenda is pursued or outsourcing. However, assuming you have gone through some sort of contracting route, you should be able to see how much an outsourced service will cost through the price. You should also be able to compare that price against any internal cost. Then, in subsequent years, you should be able to see year on year changes in the price paid.

Degrees of rotteness

How can you interpret what is the right thing or reinterpret doing the wrong thing? Whether or not Patrick Mercer MP has done the right thing remains for others to judge but what I can't get my head round are some of the crazy statements which seem to imply there is some honour in doing the wrong thing. Take for example these two statements:

If Mr Mercer has done something wrong he would act totally honourably.

Patrick Mercer has done the right thing in referring himself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and resigning the whip. 

It is a strange world we live in where corporate tax avoidance is considered morally wrong even though it may be complying with the law. Yet someone perceived to be unduly influencing the legislative machinery of the land, breaking rules of the organisation is spun as doing the right thing if they resign when caught.

How big a shift is that from a child murder, who, when there is compelling evidence presented which places them beyond reasonable doubt as the killer, decides to change to a plea of guilty?

Or what about the public sector procurement manager; are they doing the right thing awarding contracts to 'mates', until their malfeasance is exposed?

Is it any wonder confidence in the democratic system is waning when you can make up definitions of what is right as you go along, or rather, when you are exposed!