Another Groundhog Day for UK public prourement

Supply Management has covered a news item that the government will review public sector food procurement with a view to reducing leakage from UK agriculture sector. Isn't this yet another Groundhog Day for UK public procurement? Back in 2003 we had the Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative. I spent many hours at meetings and training days which were aimed at strategically using UK public procurement to deliver UK farming benefits.

I have previously discussed the Groundhog Day approach to UK political procurement (and here). The Groundhog Day approach to procurement policy is interesting. Imitation is said to be both the best and most sincere form of flattery - there must be some agreement that these policy through procurement initiatives, conceptually at least, have some merit. They also have the potential of being good political platform announcements - when a politician makes a conference speech the concept may well resonate with the audience and few appear to stand up and shout 'Groundhog Day'. The Groundhog Day Policy must also give the person who suggested the recycled initiative some kudos.

But do Groundhog Day procurement policies not also throw up other questions. For example, what lessons have been learnt from the previous attempt at addressing this, was there an outcome evaluation of the previous initiative, why was the previous initiative not embedded in practice, will those who adopted the former strategy now have problems reselling the new strategy, are those who resist change actually the winners in Groundhog Day procurement policy?

It does strike me as strange that opposition MPs, who may well previously have led on these Groundhog Day initiatives, aren't asking questions and attempting to break the cycle. Either way, as I say, the policies, generally appear to be good, pity about the implementation and performance management.

Any suggestions as to what the next Groundhog Day procurement policy will be?

CIPS Ethical Procurement & Supply eLearning & Certificate

I can only give CIPS praise today for the introduction of its Ethical Procurement & Supply eLearning and certificate.

The training covers: eradication of unethical behaviour to the human race, eradicating corruption and exploitation, and, personal conscience, compliance and influence. The content, is bang up to date and well presented.

I spent sometime yesterday completing my employer's compulsory 'Compliance with Governance, Anti-bribery and Corruption Awareness' eLearning and test too. So I half expected the CIPS eLearning to have been a bit easier. However, I found the training, informative, quite demanding and not something I could rush through.

There's quite a nice mix of reinforcing detailed case studies and tests on the way through which give you a warm-up to the final test. On completion of the training, which probably took me in the region of four hours, there's a final test which is no pushover but leads to a Certificate. Perhaps useful as a Personal Objective for all procurement staff.

The eLearning and test is free for CIPS members until October 2014. I'd encourage CIPS to continue to offer the training and test free of charge as part of the overall membership offer but perhaps embed it into membership renewal, otherwise I suspect it will slip off the radar. Nevertheless, an excellent CIPS offer which I recommend.  

Lessons for procurement from care.data

There are few areas in public services delivery which are more precious to individuals in the UK than the NHS and the protection of personal data. Yet somehow the NHS, in trying to introduce an IT system which will share patient data, appear to have forgotten that. As a result of getting the communications plan relating to the change wrong the NHS have had to delay implementation of the initiative by six months - perhaps even indefinitely. What seems to have gone wrong and are there any lessons for procurement?

First, let's remember that this is about change management. You can't expect people to just go along with your belief of what represents an improvement, you have to win them round, you have to listen to their concerns, understand their perceptions of the potential risks, and clearly communicate the benefits. On all these fronts the NHS seem to have got it wrong as far as care.data is concerned. You also have to get those who are trusted and have influence over those impacted on the change on board - recall we heard last month that a reasonable proportion of GPs are sceptical about care.data.

Experts believe that the new system will help in the assessment of new solutions, better manage risks and help performance management - all very laudable. But patients believe their personal data will be sold and have a lack of confidence in existing data security - all very understandable. The NHS claim every household received a mailshot outlining the benefits, yet many of those impacted by the changes still appear to be in the dark and sceptical - did they receive the mailshot or was it lost in all the other 'noise'?

So what are the lessons for procurement?

What the GO Awards tell us about the state of UK public procurement

I've spent the last few days reading and discussing entries for this year’s National GO Excellence in Public Procurement Awards. This is a significant task given the increasing number of submissions the Awards receive each time. I've been judging for three years and I always find it very educational. 

The entries, looked at collectively, tell an interesting story of trends, what practitioners consider to be current exemplary practice (if that wasn't their view why would they enter?) and leading edge practice which would stand on its own two feet regardless of the sector.

I can see that eAuctions are delivering great results, I can see that engagement with users throughout the procurement cycle has moved from an aspiration to a practice and I can see that category management is being adopted. I can see that social benefit clauses have moved from a 'how could we?' to a reality. I can see that Procurement Teams have a seat at the table in solving public services delivery problems. I can see that good public procurement is no longer limited to the public sector but some great work is also taking place in the social landlords’ world and third sector. I can see that collaboration is becoming more ambitious, effective and participation is wider. I can see that procurement projects are becoming more audacious and delivering real benefits. I can see that sustainable procurement hasn't been sacrificed on the altar of 'savings'. The GO Awards provide an excellent showcase for the best so that others can learn, replicate and adapt.

Having said that, I can also see that there are areas where public procurement still has room to improve and could lead the way where the private sector has only dipped its toe in the water, for example, harnessing digital within procurement strategy. There is time to work hard on some new things and gain a first next year.

Now I'm looking forward to the GO Awards being presented in Birmingham on the evening of 19 March (seewww.goawards.co.uk for details) when the good work will be shared and celebrated. I won't have to obey a oath of silence but can sing out my praise for the best.

The wonders of consumer credit ratings

Most mornings I listen to SkyNews punctuated with advertisements which generally go in one ear and out the other. Then today the Experian Credit Expert advertisement caused me to think.

I've been paying a trivial monthly fee for years to Exeprian so that I can access my credit rating.

It all dated back to a problem with Santander whose Direct Debit system couldn't cope with the additional public holiday for Willy and Kate's Wedding. Santander said I had missed a payment on a loan even though I knew their system had failed to take the money out of the account. Customer focussed Santander, despite their assurances not to, and unknown to me, bizarrely gave me a 'black mark' on the Exeprian Credit Rating system.  Then, when I wanted to get a mobile phone from Vodafone I was embarrassed to learn they couldn't supply and I needed to pay a subscription to Experian to find out why. I therefore started the Experian subscription to establish how I had a 'black mark'. I established it was due to Santander's mistake, but had to contact Santander to get the 'black mark' removed.

So, Experian, accumulate information, regardless of how unjustified it is, and use that to give me a credit rating. Those who feed the information to Experian, no doubt pay for the service of also extracting information from Experian. I have to pay to access the information. And now, if today's advertisement is correct, Experian will now provide me with a service, to tell me how to reduce the credit rating they have given me. Isn't that one fantastic business model. Does the payment of the fee for the service de facto mean I'm paying Experian to get their information right?

Procurement 20/20: Supply Entrepreneurship in a Changing World - book review

A new book on procurement is always of interest but too often takes on the 'emperor's new clothes. Unfortunately, even though this is a book written by four McKiksey consultants, little is new. 

For example, the authors take Lamming's suggestion of purchasing needing to become External Resource Management (1993) and provide examples that becoming a reality. Sadly Lamming doesn't get an acknowledgement of the rebranded concept. That would be understandable if it were not that McKinsey's father of the Kraljic model is used as a springboard for the book.

Great examples are trotted out, but yet a blindspot exists by not recognising the problems Apple and others encountered through using Foxconn. Instead Apple's outsourcing to Foxconn is viewed as exemplar! So, for example, "Apple maintains control over nearly every step along the value chain. ... The orchestration is so tight and extensive that Apple places electronic monitors into some parts boxes at supplier sights to allow remote monitoring of production speed and discourage product theft". Then think of the problems I've highlighted in this blog previously encounered by Apple and Foxconn!

Have we reached a watershed with advisers

Who's to blame for the water chaos in England? Eric Pickles has apologised by saying

"I think we recognised we should have dredged .... I'm really sorry we took the advice, we thought we were dealing with experts"

Yet the Met Office's chief scientist argues climate change  has probably contributed to the awful weather that has been seen.

Meanwhile, Lord Smith of the Environment Agency blamed the Treasury's strict cost-benefit rules.

So Eric Pickles, presumably acting on advice, has pointed the finger at the government for listening to advisers, the government's meteorological advisers have pointed to the climate change, the Chairman of the Environment Agency has pointed to the HMT advisers who developed/apply the cost/benefit model. That's a lot of finger pointing with only Eric Pickles, 'advisedly' saying mea culpa. I wonder will some smart QC provide legal advice to those who have suffered on who should be asked to pay the costs?  

Isn't it true though that Ministers have to seek out best advice, weigh up the options and form a judgement? Will we now see a reduction in the role of advisers - on the contrary, if anything, I think what is required is the need for a wider range of advice from those with a pedigree to give it, including from those who aren't prepared to just tell Ministers what they want to hear.