Research indicates shift in rules of procurement hampered by tender policy

Research indicates shift in rules of procurement hampered by tender policy [Image:]

Professor Douglas Boateng of the Unisa Graduate School of Business Leadership (SBL) is Africa’s first Professor Extraordinarius for Supply and Value Chain Management. Ahead of his ‘Executive Insights into Negotiations in Supply Chain Management’ workshop to be held at the SBL on 2-3 July 2015, he provides some research-based insight into the rules of procurement.

How global corporations and governments view supply chain procurement, in the context of contract development, can have a profound impact on the practice of procurement. From the sustainability of corporations to countries’ socio-economic growth, the power leveraged through optimal supply chain procurement should never be underestimated. 

Over the past eight years, purposive research has been undertaken on director-level perceptivities of aspects of supply chain management. Over the period, the research has tracked a shift in the approach to supply chain procurement among the study’s target audience, many of whom sit at the helm of global corporations (some of which are worth over USD400bn.) This shift means that procurement is increasingly being viewed as a specialised area, which requires specialist personnel to successfully drive the process for long-term benefit.

It is helpful to consider that there are three main activities that make up the procurement, be it tangible or intangible: the first is negotiation, the second is reaching agreement on specificities, and the third is legal contracting. While legal professionals would argue that these activities are all one and the same thing, decision-makers from the world’s top companies and policy making corridors believe that these are three discrete activities. The research indicates that the perceptions of each of these three areas influence what happens at the negotiating table and beyond.

The first activity in supply chain procurement is negotiation. During the negotiation phase, parties must gain an understanding of one another’s requirements so as to reach an agreement that is of mutual benefit. Negotiations should lead to the formation of an agreement based on requirements. It is during this stage that the specificity of the agreement should be articulated. What has tended to happen in practice, however, is that insufficient time is spent on specificity. That is, far too regularly, parties move swiftly into the contracting process, with an emphasis on the protection of interests, rather than exploring common ground. 

In the developing world, this hasty, often ill-considered, jump from negotiation directly into contracting has been compounded by convoluted tendering processes which are often initiated to support development challenges. This jump to contracting has not always had the desired effect, as can be seen in South Africa, for example, where twenty years into democracy the government still grapples with socio-economic challenges. In particular, albeit inadvertently, the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act (PPPFA) limits the space to negotiate and agree specificities. This is, however, not unique to South Africa - in fact, all over the continent, governments are struggling with tendering processes that tend to stifle rather than encourage innovation in procurement. 

While 96% of the research respondents agreed that negotiations are integral to value chain performance, product, and service quality; the findings of the study indicate that not enough time is spent on negotiation and agreement, and too much time is spent on contracting. Furthermore, half of those surveyed in the 2013 research sample identified the need to spend more time on specifics. By focusing more time on the specifics of an agreement, top-level decision-makers will be able to effectively distinguish between agreements and contracts, and subsequently reduce the widespread litigation issues synonymous with procurement in Africa.

While the specificity of an agreement should inform any legal contracts, it could be argued that a good, solid agreement might not even require a contract. Though the legal fraternity might heartily disagree, the Japanese automotive sector has proven that a legal contract is not always necessary to govern business relationships. In particular, they have developed the notion of the Service Level Agreement (SLA) which has been adopted successfully around the globe.

When entering into a negotiation, all of the parties involved must know unequivocally what it is that they want. A lack of planning and preparation can lead to a weakened position at the negotiating table. While 58% of the research respondents viewed bargaining and negotiation as one in the same thing, bargaining and negotiation are two inherently very different activities, and a lack of planning often results in a deterioration of negotiation into bargaining.

back to top


About us

Follow us

Follow us @BusinessNewsCT

BusinessNewsCT 6 trends you need to know about if you want to open a franchise in South Africa in 2019
BusinessNewsCT This is what your credit score should be and how to improve it
BusinessNewsCT What Joburg, Cape Town and Durban’s best areas for property growth have in common