Celebrity advice, BMJ and lessons for procurement scrutiny

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluation drama for 'the Queen'

Back in August I discussed the Foster's Comedy Awards and their approach to evaluation. Now I turn to the drama of the theatre, rewriting the script and a novel approach to declaring best Actress Award at the Evening Standard Awards. Pantomime may just be seasonal.

In this real-life drama we learn of a secret ballot between five judges which ended in a dead heat. In a very bizarre piece of casting, the two actresses, who could have been equal winners, found themselves relegated to joint second position as they were overtaken by a new winner, Helen Mirren for her role as the Queen in 'The Audience'.

While a secret ballot took place to determine Best Actress, the results were seen by two of judges, who were employed by the sponsor (The Evening Standard). The two judges saw the results of the ballot, then altered their votes and the completely new winner emerged.

One of those who changed their vote did so by eliminating one of the contenders for the starring role by creating a new category, Best Musical Performance. Whether or not that particular actress was given the choice or asked their preference between the existing and the new award, we don't know.

There was no attempt made to reach an agreement with the other judges, but three of the judges have now resigned. Wouldn't it have been interesting if the culprits had watched Twelve Angry Men and learnt from that instead.

For the winner some of the shine has been removed from what could have been a well-earned accolade. For those shortlisted who lost there will remain the doubt of whether or not they should in a just award been the shared winner. For the judges there will remain the lingering doubt that they were just pawns. Who can have pride in such a piece of shoddy workmanship. Who would want to be associated with such a pantomime.

Next year there won't be judges, just an advisory panel. I'd expect the new advisory panel to ask for some terms of reference before participating to satisfy themselves they've more than walk-on parts in a granted play.

Could you just imagine the outcry if, in a tender award, you couldn't work out which of two bidders is the winner and arrived at solution by deciding 'let's give the award to someone both beat and create an additional award to take the bad look of it' - I'm sure that would never, ever happen.

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.

Retail buyers need to think about reducing the impact of factory fires

Only a few months ago I cautioned against retail buyers relaxing their guard due to the proposed agreement on minimum safety workers for Bangladesh factory workers.

Now we learn that factory fires are a weekly occurrence and there appears to be a culture among those responsible for the factories  'comes with the territory'. Would it be acceptable if 800 garment workers in the UK were dying as a result of factory fires.

Don't get me wrong, I am not the enemy of retail buyers but I really think they are in a position to make a difference through their procurement approach. My question is 'Are retail buyers including in their contracts and obligation to provide adequate fire escapes, fire alarms, first aid, fire fighting training and evacuation training?' if they are not they can't claim they are taking commitments to sustainable procurement as seriously as they could. If they are, what are their processes to ensure those commitments are honoured? 

Even if they buying firms don't view fire safety of their supply chain workers are their concern, perhaps they need to reflect on reputational risk and adverse impact on supply chain flows. 

Now let's accept that there are always a range of alternative ways of solving a problem, and the problem is that factory owners want to reduce their costs as opposed to investing in the 'option' of worker safety, equally they don't want to make investments which place their own factory at a disadvantage. That being the case why don't the UK retail buyers combine their influencing power and insist that those in government improve worker safety through stronger health and safety regulation and building regulations, and the effectiveness of the inspection regime? 

Nelson Mandela's memorial lesson for procurement

With the focus of the world's media on Nelson Mandela's memorial, it would have been assumed, not only that the security for the world leaders was going to be exceptionally tight, but also that those delivering any 'front-of-house services' would have a gone through a rigorous assessment to demonstrate their capability. Yet, somehow, the platform party included an impostor, a fake sign language translator.

This is the stuff you just couldn't make up, not only was there a serious breach of security (the fake was standing beside Obama behind the security screen) but, if there was some sort of procurement exercise to provide translation services, it broke down completely. Mind you, there was also an official translator on stage although no-one seems to have questioned what was going on.

So we have the procurement of security which seriously failed. It failed not only in that the fake was on stage, but also it appears no-one has the faintest notion who this person is. That's pretty damming stuff.

But to make matters worse, the fake was only waving his arms about and no-one in the 'signing' world has been able to read a word of which he signed. Serious as this saga is, the clip is worth watching as it is very entertaining:

12 Dec: PS so now it has emerged this was a procurement failure - a company with a poor history of performance and no evidence of checking qualifications.

The adverse impact of cost reduction strategy

I'm sure many of you will have come across one of the 750,000 who suffered embarrassment or frustration as a result of the RBS system failures on Monday, 2nd December. Customer perception of RBS took a nosedive. While it didn't appear clear what was the specific cause of the failure, the chief executive was clear that the route cause was a flawed cost reduction strategy and lack of investment in IT.

I've been thinking about this for a few days. The CPO should be concerned with future costs and whole life costs in particular. The CIO and CFO should be concerned with the IT investment strategy. But should the CPO have a role in raising the risk of a lack of forward investment, its impact on customer and shareholder value, and its impact on future costs? Its very similar to the procurement option appraisal of planned/preventative maintenance as opposed to reactive maintenance. I really can't make up my mind on this one and its not something I have ever personally been involved in.

What's your experience?  What do you think?

Strangers on a Train - Procurement Theatre review

Yesterday, I took on the role of procurement theatre reviewer with 'Twelve Angry Man'. Unfortunately, it's not a role I envisage being able to do often and I am unlikely to be able to justify giving up the day job, not least as I am so rarely in London now. 

However, I recently also had the good fortune to see 'Strangers on a Train' - £11.50 for a £63 ticket seemed a remarkably good start to the night. The joys of buying a cheap deal and receiving an upgrade.

As with 'Twelve Angry Men' I could see procurement lessons. 

The story is that of a causal encounter on a train journey. Two strangers fall into conversation. One of the strangers falls into the trap of saying more than he should to his fellow traveller, who of course entrapped him and he never thought he would see again. In a bizarre twist he then finds himself blackmailed and obliged to act in a way which would have previously have been inconceivable. 

The play is set in the days before mobile phones and those 'private and commercially sensitive' telephone calls which are effectively 'broadcast' in train carriages and executive lounges all over the world. The procurement message is that 'careless words can cost dearly' so be cautious what you say and of your boasts, but equally, be wary of entrapment.

While not as good as 'Twelve Angry Men' I did find myself gripped by the play and drawn in to the extent I actually jumped at one stage. An excellent thriller. While I felt Laurence Fox was really good I just couldn't get past Lewis' sidekicks accent; to me, it was Jack Huston who really shone - an excellent performance. Sadly the benefit of a great set was sometimes detracted from by some of the action being  blocked by the ceiling of the rear stalls.