Does your procurement strategy address Economic Crime?

Thankfully there now appears to be a move to widen the reach of the existing UK Bribery Act to embrace economic crime. My own opinion is that the Bribery Act has not yet had sufficient impact, partly because no prosecutions have taken place, partly because 'bribery' is only part of the problem, partly because of denial, partly as a result of ignorance and partly because of a lack of understanding of the need to take steps to prevent bribery.

Anyway, yesterday we learnt that the journey to an crime of economic crime is underway with cross party agreement. Therefore the election is unlikely to be an impediment but finding time in the parliamentary calender could be an issue. We also learnt that the government plan to publish its first anti-corruption plan - that should be of interest and no doubt procurement will have more than a passing reference.

This is all good news to me and provides an opportunity for CPOs to make use of today's press coverage to place the issue of procurement risk management on the Board's radar - perhaps that's an opportunity worth taking before you become the first case which receives the bite of the current and future legislation.

You may find my related whitepaper of interest

'Cut the Cards: making SAP work' - Book review

At first glance you may wonder what relevance this book could have to you. Don't be put off by the title as it is not a book for SAP 'techies'; it is much more and I would view it as recommended reading for anyone on an MBA course or with an interest in PRINCE2. I suspect those who would benefit most though would be those designated as Sponsor of an ERP implementation and those charged with an oversight or scrutiny role.

Donnelly has produced an easily readable book on what could be a very dry subject and his black humor works very effectively. Having said that, assuming there is a second edition, I think the addition of section headings would be beneficial.

In a forensic analysis of public and private sector IT implementation disasters, Donnelly provides a diagnosis of what he believes really went wrong: cash-flow, poor leadership, self-serving partners, poor project management, poor risk management, and poor contract management are all there.  Key lessons for me are the need to modify SAPs standard processes as little as possible, so change management should be concerned with moving from the As-is to the correct SAP process, having the correct governance in place and use PRINCE2 methodology.

Also covered, although indirectly, is SAP's marketing strategy - a good case study in itself.

But what's there for a procurement practitioner? If there's an ERP project the CPO needs to have a seat at the table as part of the business case development, specifying, contract drafting, selection, risk management, change management and contract management. Then the CPO needs to be engaged with Blueprinting the To-Be - I have previously discussed how that should be an opportunity for procurement transformation, yet too often is missed through automating the existing, yes, that still happens!

Procurement policy, hubris and the cloak of invisibility.

I suspect this week is not the best time to discuss the Christmas Party at CCS given the press attention to IT procurement. Saturday had an excellent feature in Times2 on why government IT projects go wrong, then today's Times had four separate pieces on the Aspire Debacle, for example: here.

To me the big issue isn't yet another IT procurement debacle, it's the issues of procurement policy, hubris and invisibility . 

The political leader of UK government procurement, also famous for his Jerrycan approach to 'bottleneck purchases', is Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister. Earlier this year he decreed that IT procurement policy was that there would be no contracts over £100m - small was considered beautiful regardless of the risks!

Now in spite of a long history of not implementing procurement policy, it seems this 'small is good policy' is going to break the mold and actually be implemented by splitting the major HMRC Aspire project into smaller contracts. I need not join the chorus of those who argue this is high risk, but included in that chorus are some notable voices from the CBI, Public Accounts Committee and Public Administration Select Committee.

A Cabinet Office spokesperson is reported to have said though "HMRC intends to break this contract into packages which is entirely in line with our new approach and will ensure competition from the widest possible  range of suppliers". There is no admission that this may be a demonstration of procurement hubris or even stupid sourcing, just that it is in line with policy. Nor was there any confirmation that discussions with the market have provided confirmation that SMEs will indeed be willing and able to bid! 

Nevertheless, since it's in line with policy, it must be okay? What we have not heard is the voice of the Government's CPO providing an endorsement for the procurement approach. Does he agree with it in this particular case? Does he disagree with it but can't publicly say that? Does he believe that in spite of the accepted positioning of such an IT procurement as 'strategic' within a Krajic model, he has a better recommended strategy which the rest of the 'procurement pack' have yet to see? Then again, what about the Major Projects Authority - haven't they a role in disaster avoidance or do disaggregated contracts of less than £100m avoid their radar?

There's another interesting quote from an HMRC spokesman: "We will renew our IT contract within Cabinet Office guidelines and on time."  Is that a buck passing statement to the effect that if it all goes wrong the HMRC only followed Cabinet Office guidelines? The pedants among you will of course have noticed that the only commitment is to delivery of the 'IT contract ... on time' which does not necessarily mean the actual functional delivery of the service being procured. Isn't it wonderful that the project is called Aspire! 

'The Value Chain Shift: Seven future challenges facing top executives' - Book review

The sub-title of this book is really the important point to consider with this book - it is targeted at 'top executives'. An impressive list of contributors set out to answer the 'seven challenges' against a timeline of 2020.

So what are the seven 'future' challenges identified?

1. Measuring corporations' cost and contribution to society; 
2. Managing resource scarcities; Scale and speed; 
3. Traditional multinationals versus emerging market firms; 
4. Optimising IT-enabled process and systems in the value chain: 
5. The role of governance; The organisation design shift; 
6. How speed affects risks, opportunities and new business models in the value chain; 
7. Corporate social responsibility: Moving from compliance to value creation in value chain relationships. 

Are these really future challenges, and if they are, are they the biggest challenges? Actually I recall some of them being included in Farmer and Taylor's 'Corporate Planning and Procurement' published in 1975, yes, 39 years ago! More recently we could compare New and Westbrook's (2004) 'Understanding Supply Chains', and Brindley's (2004) 'Supply Chain Risk'. So I would have liked to have heard the authors views on what they would put as a compelling argument, to the sceptical top executive on: "if these challenges have been around so long, and a laissez-faire approach has worked so far, what's so different?"

Setting that aside, let's consider some of the chapters. Say the chapter on IT. While I recognise the problems of geographic standardisation of processes and systems, and am currently working on a similar problem, I am really surprised that the whole digital agenda with the imbalance between marketing's adoption and that of the supply chain isn't viewed as a challenge.

I did, however, find the chapter on 'optimal speed' thought provoking and something I hadn't previously considered.

Sadly, I found many of the chapters more like an introduction and lacking in depth - I wanted more.  
You could classify them into three categories: 'A statement of the blindingly obvious', 'We wanted to create a model, so we created a need', and the really valuable, 'Have you thought about this?'.

In fairness, let's remember the book is targeted at top executives. If the book is read by top executives and they progress to addressing the challenges, then it will be really beneficial, but for me, and the average procurement specialist, I doubt it is worth £22.15?

CIPS warning of a pending supply chain crisis points to a bigger concern

I nearly fell of my seat when I read in the latest issue of Supply Management that CIPS CEO warned of a potential supply chain crisis based on a CIPS survey which "found around 80% of supply chain professionals in the UK cannot guarantee there is no malpractice in their supply chain".

Was this a typographical error, a badly constructed survey or misreporting?

Just pause for a moment, does this mean that CIPS, and the 20% of the 'senior business decision makers and supply chain professionals' who responded to the survey actually believe they can guarantee there is no malpractice in their supply chains?  If that's what they are saying then their understanding of risk in supply chains appears to be flawed - they are either delusional, lying or fooling themselves.

CIPS' concern shouldn't be with the 80% who acknowledge the risk but the 20% who don't!

If someone came to me and said they could provide such a guarantee I think I may pose the following questions:

1. How do you define malpractice in supply chains?
2. How could anyone possibly know there is no malpractice in their supply chain?
3. How can you give such a guarantee?
4. Would you stake your job on that?
5. Are you responsible for supply chain risk management?
6. Could I see the risk register as I think there may be a need for concern?

When CIPS' CEO warned "that British businesses could be "sleepwalking into another supply chain crisis"", I think he linked that with those who couldn't guarantee no malpractice - conversely, I would caution that the crisis is more likely in the organisations which think they can guarantee there is no malpractice.

CIPS Global Standard for Procurement & Supply gets the thumbs up.

CIPS have firmly positioned themselves in the world of 'Procurement' as opposed to 'Purchasing' with the release of the Global Standard for Procurement & Supply.

Some may argue that it is a bit revisionist to describe this as "the first of its kind" -  I could cite other antecedents, even endorsed by CIPS. Yet, setting that aside, this is a useful resource and credit is due to those who have created, what appears to be a very thorough piece of work.

Sadly though it does little to support the claim that commissioning is synonumous with procurement. Regular readers will know I disagree with that argument anyway. But how do public sector procurers, with social care being a critical spend item relate to the Standard?

I was also surprised, given the rise in Vendor Management Offices in the private sector, that the associated roles, and even the term Vendor Management, weren't included or specifically named within the framework - I think CIPS missed an opportunity there. Yes, I recognise the similarities with Contract Managers but aren't Vendor Relationship Managers slightly different?

Setting those issues aside, one of the great virtues of the Standard is that it can be viewed as objective. So if you first gain acceptance of the Standard, then you can have a more reasoned depersonalised discussion on matching the standards.

I recently had to complete an evaluation of some staff and their competencies, and then develop role descriptions for new posts - the Standard would have helped a lot and I recognise that I will draw on this in the future.  I can also see its role in completion of Training Needs Analysis.

On balance, the Standard gets a 'thumbs up' from me and a thanks to all those involved in its development.

Can the Major Projects Authority deliver?

The Financial Times reported this week that John Manzoni, head of the UK Major Projects Authority,  has now lost critical expertise due to outsourcing and now lags "five to eight years behind business". He also implies an absence of execution and delivery skills - that's not a big surprise as I have frequently discussed the gap between policy and implementation. A related article then talks about the scarcity of skills in Whitehall to deliver big programmes.

Let's be honest, the average man or woman in the street could have said that.

But the average man and woman in the street wouldn't be in a position to understand that there have already been many, many, many years investment in MSP and PRINCE2 training over the years. There have been no shortage of methodologies and training opportunities, either - reflect on the former Civil Service College prospectus.

While I support the notion of the Major Projects Authority, my prediction is that it will just join the plethora of other good but failed ideas.  Sadly, it too, will in all probability, fail in delivering the desired outcome. Why? Well quite simply, we don't need school lessons on why projects fail. We need  a breed of managers who are brave enough to say to politicians: "No - this isn't the best approach", "We're not ready yet",  "We haven't sufficient resources", etc..

The problem is that those good writing and negotiating policy are politicans echoing what Politicians want to hear - they are diplomats as opposed to change managers. Perhaps they see implementation as 'lower down the food chain". Rewards, in the form of promotions aren't for delivery, they are for political nous not the bravery to speak truth.

Can the Major Projects Authority itself deliver? I don't think you can change the DNA of those who have been groomed in risk aversion. Nevertheless, let's revisit this blog in five years time and see if I am wrong.