Was there even a contract for the water for Sheffield Half Marathon?

On Sunday I discussed the Sheffield Marathon mess. Today we've seen a new twist with the supplier claiming that they did not make the delivery as the organisers had not fulfilled their part of the deal by paying in advance.

In a statement, the water provider said: 

After amending their requirements a number of times they did indeed place an order on 21 March accepting our offer, the terms of which, as always, clearly state that full payment is required in advance of delivery.

It is that payment that confirms the contract and triggers our process of scheduling the assets for delivery.

In the absence of that payment, despite our reminding them of the need to pay, the scheduling did not occur.

There are a few interesting aspects of this statement:

1. When was the contract established between the buyer and the seller? If the supplier is correct there was no contract at all, but when the supplier says the offer was accepted on 21 March, would that have formed the contract?
2. What happened in previous years? Was there a history of paying in advance or was this a change in the way of doing business?
3. Did the buyer even read the Terms set out in the documentation?
4. Why did the buyer not respond to the reminders for payment from the seller? 
5. Regardless of how weak the procurement may have been, what type of supplier would knowingly put a race in jeopardy and runners health at risk through none supply of water? Not one concerned with reputation and partnership!

This bizarre competition has all the hallmarks of no-winners but certainly we can learn lessons from what the legal eagles decide on formation of a contract and, at the very least, the need to read the small print. 

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.

Water: Bottleneck item that stopped the 'official' Sheffield Half Marathon

I've discussed bottleneck items before - remember the lethal injections and laptop hinges. Yes, these are the low value items which frequently end up classified as 'tail spend' which lack glamour but when things go wrong with them, they can have really big negative impacts.

Today, bottleneck items were making the national news in the UK: Sky, ITV and BBC included this procurement story in their headlines. For those of you who missed the headlines Sheffield Half Marathon was cancelled, for the first time in 33 years, owing to the water for runners not being delivered. In a separate twist many runners were unaware of the announced cancellation and continued regardless with the local community standing in where procurement fell down. The chair of the organising committee apologised:

It is with huge disappointment and regret that we were forced to cancel the 2014 half marathon because of a problem with the delivery of water. We apologise to all the runners, their families and friends and anyone who has supported the event. 

Even the Deputy Prime Minister found time to talk about procurement:

I know thousands of people have trained long and hard for this event, with many running for some outstanding local charities and others coming from around the country to take part or watch. I can only imagine how disappointed they must have been when they learned that the race was cancelled as they were on the start line ready to set off. 

Everyone involved deserves a full explanation of how this farcical situation was allowed to happen. Sheffield is an outstanding city of sport. The extraordinary scenes today shouldn't tarnish that reputation.

Is the quest for 'big spend' involvement forever destined to distract from making a real contribution because we don't take seriously enough the risks of Bottleneck items which lie in The Tail? Tonight procurement has taken another step backwards in credibility, not just in Sheffield but nationally. Tonight, one bottleneck item, I suspect, is causing a lack of sleep for some, and a laugh for many; let's hope the rest of us learn from this lesson.

Procurement Space Chess with Russian music

It matters little which side of the fence you sit on the politics of Crimea but what we are observing is an amazing game of strategy, negotiation and brinkmanship. While the West have huffed and puffed Putin has called checkmate and the threats of the recent past have done little to affect change.

This is clearly a historical event being played out and we can expect strategists to dissect and debate for many years to come. But does anyone seriously believe that Russia will now walk away from the Crimea? Did anyone seriously believe that once the Russian masses assembled for 'military exercises' that Putin didn't mean business?

So we observed, powerless, from the sidelines, as Russian soldiers walked in and redrew the Russian border.

Now we find that NASA employees and CONTRACTORS  have to freeze co-operation with Russia. While the International Space Station is excluded from the break in collaboration, that must only be due to the US deciding that it would be too painful to break off that co-operation. But surely that just signals to Russia how they can inflict pain on the West.

As we know the US has also lost its independence from Russia to even launch people into space - that's been 'outsourced' to Russia. At some stage the US must have decided on a make/buy decision on space launches, now I suspect they are questioning their 'what if' analysis.

Hasn't the space programme always been about economic benefits. Wasn't the reason for co-operation with Russia about economic benefits and gaining economic advantage. We're now seeing the economic advantages being compromised for political rhetoric. But what if Russia decides that co-oepration with the US is no longer advantageous? What if Russia now starts to co-operative with a different partner, one which shares its longer-term view? Wouldn't those scenarios be detrimental to the US?

Is the Met Office new model of relevance to procurement

British scientists have developed a new forecasting model which is said to deliver 80% accuracy. While that may help in planning when to cut the grass and whether to get the BBQ going, is it relevant to procurement?

Anything which can help predict potential demand of goods and services should be of direct relevance to procurement as it cascades to availability and pricing.

Let's consider a few examples. Improved reliability of weather forecasting would:

• Enable better estimating of the demand for road salt; 
• Better profile the demand for flood defences;
• Provide predictability of the demand for some vaccines;
• Help schedule construction works;
• Enable the negotiation of rates which could be gained from lower cost scheduling.

But perhaps we should start from a different position. Do you know which elements of your procurement portfolio are directly impacted by the weather, and do you take any steps to mitigate against the adverse risk of fluctuations while gaining the potential benefits? Perhaps someone else in your organisation's planning is considering weather risk - do you talk with them about the commercial implications.

Inside the mind of a project manager: 'Locke' Film review

Last night I was at a preview screening of 'Locke' - one of the benefits of buying an annual subscription to the Times.

A strange film with a cast of one (although others are on the phone). Shot over just two weeks in London last year, all the action takes place during a car journey with non-stop telephone calls. I don't want to spoil the excellent plot but in amongst domestic crisis and confronting demons of the past, is a major construction project being managed. Some of the innovative solutions to ensure the construction project goes to plan found me laughing yet impressed. Then there's the irony over the limitations of Locke's control - a man who thrives on being in control but paradoxically finds so much of what is important to him as beyond control. I liked Ivan Locke, the main character, but my heart also went out to all the other innocent victims whose lives were turned upside down by the unfolding drama.

I thought this was a really good film and it left me wanting to know 'what happened next?', yet I had no doubt what was going to be the answer in delivery of the project. It may have worked well as a radio programme too but that may have deprived us of some of the tension.

CIPS scores a masterful coup with Borgen procurement training video

I was really disappointed when I heard, last year, that Borgen, the Danish political drama, had finished. Borgen had been some of the best TV I'd seen - compelling viewing and impossible to predict what would happen next.

Borgen was a great example of a successful BBC make/buy appraisal. Auntie just doesn't seem able to produce such a consistently high quality series', so it was a clever to buy from Denmark rather than even attempt to compete by making.

We have all had enough long-running TV series' constructed around regional accents and although I generally have problems with sub-titles that wasn't a problem I had with Borgen. Would it be worth experimenting with subtitles on Eastenders, Coronation Street and Hollyoaks to see if they become more compelling viewing?

Borgen must also have been a tremendous success for the Danish tourist board. I suspect their marketing research now finds that when someone now asks: "What comes to mind when you think of the word 'Danish'?", responses have now moved beyond Danepak, Carlsberg, and pastry to include Borgen. That's a big success and is believed to contribute to the 0.23% increase in the Copenhagen tourist footfall.

So beyond make/buy lessons, what's all that got to do with procurement? As a stroke of genius, CIPS and CCS have entered into a partnership with DUPE (the Danish Unification for Public Procurement Eccord) in commissioning a public procurement training video for politicians based on Borgen. As I understand it, Borgen's central character, Birgitte Nyborg, finds herself faced with calls for her resignation as a result of a scandal involving the CPO and the Danish Chief Secretary to the Treasury. CIPS' press release states that "the video helps demonstrate the need for a clarity of roles between politicians and officers". CIPS also claim that this is a central part of their marketing strategy and is the first of a range of procurement resources using of subtitles due to ease of being able to provide translations. Consistent with that strategy, DUPE have priced for the first and second phases of translations. The first phase of translations are targeted for Belize, Botswana, Kenya, Fiji, Jordan, and Namibia; and the second phase translated for Mauritius, Malta, Nigeria, and the Philippines. It is understood that a recommendation for Cyrillic is being considered by CIPS Congress as part of a wider package of translation of all CIPS resources on public procurement and piloting of CIPS Licence.