Author Archives: thedoctor

Good Public Procurement Recommendations from the McClelland Report, Part III

It may have been written five years ago, but the recommendations from the McClelland Report, which inspired Scotland Public Procurement to new levels of efficiency and performance, are as poignant today as they were then. These recommendations include:

  • Procurement “Centres of Expertise” should be established on a commodity-by-commodity basis.
    And these centres of expertise, which can be cross-disciplinary should be coordinated by a centre of excellence.
  • It is obvious that there is a level of mandatory compliance required for the effective operation of the [contracts] model described above.
    Projected cost avoidance is only realized if the plan is followed.
  • A Charter for Suppliers should be established for the complete public sector in Scotland. It should essentially describe the sector’s commitment to suppliers by defining the generic standards which suppliers can expect from the operation of public-sector procurement and in turn what will be expected of them as suppliers to the sector.
    Suppliers should know what to expect and what to deliver.
  • There should be total transparency in connection with procurement decisions.
    Hidden opportunities are lost opportunities.
  • There should be a review of non-core activities to establish candidates for outsourcing evaluation.
    Remember, outsourcing doesn’t necessarily mean offshoring. You can outsource to an operation down the street. Outsourcing is about doing what makes financial sense. Letting someone do non-core activities that they are better at than you so that you can do what you’re good at.
  • A clear and unambiguous central information systems strategy for the Scottish Public Sector would deliver major benefits in terms of effectiveness of services, staff productivity and overall cost, including improved benefits to procurement.
    Good technology enables good processes and good results. Plus, good technology enables good data, which enables good data analysis, which leads the way to good results.

Your Manufacturing Is Lean, But Are Your Communications?

A recent article over on Industry Week on how “Lean Communication Strategy Can Bolster Marketplace Position” asked a great question:

How does a manufacturer implement external communication initiatives without compromising performance or proprietary information?

Because, as the article points out, those companies that can elevate their brands and voices can also leverage incremental revenue streams.

So how does a company implement these external communication initiatives? According to the article, the answer lies in a lean model that unites functions; mirrors the manufacturer’s approach to efficiency and effectiveness; and utilizes QC initiatives that ensure accurate information is dispensed while trade secrets are not. In other words, through a lean communication strategy.

So how does one implement a lean communication strategy? According to the author, it’s effectiveness, prioritization, and ongoing analysis to ensure that the answers to the following questions are always available so that the correct message is always conveyed.

  • What is the value of the story?
    Will it support new business initiatives, influence public policy, establish the brand, burst with innovation, or echo CSR?
  • Who needs to hear the story?
    A niche market, the entire industry, or the public at large?
  • What is the best way to tell the story to the intended audience?
    General press release? Senior officer? One-on-one interview with the innovator?
  • What is the best channel for the story?
    Traditional news sources like radio, TV, or newspapers? Industry specific magazines? Social Media? Sales collateral through targeted channels?
  • Is there a strategic time to tell the story?
    That would enhance a new product launch or business expansion?
  • Who forms the review, vetting, and approval team?

The answers to these questions allow for the development, and deployment, of focussed communications that gather attention without wasting time and resources (to flood the market with messaging that is indistinguishable from the rest of the background noise).

It’s a logical application of lean. And hopefully Supply Management is involved to direct Marketing to the right innovations to focus on.

Good Public Procurement Recommendations from the McClelland Report, Part II

It may have been written five years ago, but the recommendations from the McClelland Report, which inspired Scotland Public Procurement to new levels of efficiency and performance, are as poignant today as they were then. These recommendations include:

  • The procurement leadership role should extend to those activities associated with functional excellence including staff communications, education and training, staff development, career paths, job gradings, salary scales and where appropriate workload balancing.
    Procurement leadership is more than negotiations and contracts. Good procurement is also about good people.
  • A public sector-wide Procurement Policy Handbook should be established offering a standard and well-documented approach to be utilized across all of the public sector.

    It must also cover ethics as well as procedures.
  • Each organization within the Public Sector should review its procurement organization to establish the adequacy or otherwise of the resources including skill levels dedicated to the procurement activity.

    The team must be appropriately skilled.
  • Work should be undertaken to establish how a complete, cross-public sector career path or ladder can be established which will facilitate career management and employee development and retention.
    Talent wants a career path.
  • Every public-sector organization should have a formal programme of procurement internal efficiency measurement and management.
    Improvement requires a baseline.
  • Absolute information and performance data should be exchanged and shared across the public sector in a formally co-ordinated procurement benchmarking programme.
    A little data goes a long way. Let the teams challenge each other for better performance based on the metrics.

What’s the Big Idea?

Seriously, what it is? Inquiring (not enquiring) minds want to know. Because, as far as many of us can tell, there aren’t any big ideas any more. As Neal Gabler said in the New York Times article on the elusive big idea, we live in a society that no longer thinks big. And that’s bad. Why? In many fields of technology, there have been no big ideas for decades. Sure, we see new and better devices every year and sure the iPad just came out, but, let’s face it, the iPad is a netbook with a touchscreen. A netbook is just a miniaturized laptop, and a laptop is just a miniaturized portable computer, and portable computers have been around for over 30 years. (Yes, you read that right, over thirty years, with the first portable computer manufactured in 1979.) And touch-screens have been around almost as long (with the first commercial touchscreen computer released back in 1983). Apple just took the technology to the next generation, while making sure it was easier to use than all of its competitors products. But, contrary to their marketing, there is no new “big idea” in the iPad.

The cloud? Well, I hate to burst your bubble (actually, not true, I love to burst that bubble), but the cloud is just a return to the fundamental concept of mainframe computing with dumb terminals — one big shared computer that services a whole bunch of users who are remote and don’t want, or need, to know how the big computer works. Except this time the big computer is a whole bunch of smaller computers networked together and, since the network is very big (and, in fact, global), the computers can reside anywhere. I could go on, but, even in computing theory, almost everything traces back fifteen to thirty years (or more).

I’m almost ready to agree with the author of a recent Forbes opinion article on the New York Times article that asked why did big ideas die when he said that we live in a post-idea society where people don’t think at all. With exceptions fewer and further between by the day, most people don’t think [deep] anymore.

Why is this? As Gabler says, we are living in an increasingly post-idea world — a world in which big, thought-provoking ideas that can’t instantly be monetized are of so little intrinsic value that fewer people are generating them and fewer outlets are disseminating them.

Who’s to blame? Gabler blames the usual suspects — the web, Twitter, and everything else that, instead of facilitating a lively intellectual life, instead drowns us in information. And while some of these suspects, like Twitter, are indeed a problem, the reality is that they are a symptom and not the root cause.

The problem lies with Wall Street and VCs. They’ve convinced the business world that nothing matters beyond the current quarter and any idea that can’t be brought to market overnight isn’t worth it. We did not come further in the last 100 years than in all of human history by only focussing on products that could get to market quickly. (We have to remember that the first cross-Atlantic transmission did not occur until 1902. This transmission, and all major computational and communication advances since, did not happen in a quarter. Most of the advancements took years of research and decades to perfect.) If you’re trying to change a market — to go from a Model-T to a Jaguar — that takes years, but VCs won’t support anything that can’t be done in more than a few months. As a result all we get are small incremental improvements, with significantly diminishing returns as time goes on, as no one is investing to take the big leap forward.

And, despite claims to the contrary, we haven’t really reinvented the organization (as telecommuting and outsourcing have been common for at least a couple of decades), education, health care, or ownership. We’ve simply redefined management and, in some cases, who foots the bill. I’d like to see some fundamentally new big ideas, but these are looking more unlikely by the day.

Good Public Procurement Recommendations from the McClelland Report, Part I

It may have been written five years ago, but the recommendations from the McClelland Report, which inspired Scotland Public Procurement to new levels of efficiency and performance, are as poignant today as they were then. These recommendations include:

  • The optimum reporting line for the Head of Procurement is directly to the Chief Executive but at a minimum he or she should report to an Officer or Executive who reports to the Chief Executive. The Procurement Function should not have a less senior reporting line than this minimum.
    Procurement must have visibility at the highest level.
  • Contractual commitments on behalf of all organizations should be executed by a “Procurement Officer”. The Procurement Officer should have the sole authority to make these legal commitments on behalf of the organization.
    Large procurements must go through the Procurement function.
  • Procurement activities and transactions should be conducted by the appropriate staffed and skilled procurement function and its procurement officers. It should not be undertaken by non-procurement staff located either in central structures or employed in other (e.g. operational) sub-sections of the organization.
    Procurement must be done by procurement personnel with the skills.
  • In some cases internal business practices inadvertently facilitate the ease of unofficial buying. All organizations should review controls and practices with this in mind.
    Processes must be reviewed to insure that they do not facilitate maverick buying.
  • Where the procurement of low-value goods or services creates anomalies in administration cost versus value procured, then alternative methods such as payment on receipt should be developed and introduced within the principles of full procurement and financial controls.
    A buy that costs money is not a good buy. A buy should reduce costs.
  • A business conduct guideline document should be developed and issued for all of the Public Sector.
    Standard procurement processes should be developed, clearly documented, and distributed.