One of the major challenges when outsourcing services or projects is to ensure that there is no “value leakage” over the complete life cycle of the agreement. Most organisations put a significant amount of up-front effort into securing the best possible contractual and commercial terms with a vendor, often through an extensive RFP process, but then find that they have significant additional unplanned costs over the term of the agreement.
Independent research consistently identifies the importance of a disciplined approach to vendor management as an enabler for organisations to control costs, drive vendor performance, manage risk and ensure value for money throughout the lifetime of an engagement. In some instances, 50% of value can be lost due to unsustainable contract terms and poor ongoing vendor relationship management. TORI has identified why and where “value leakage” occurs and developed methodologies to minimise the operational and financial risks.
Through our Business Process Improvement Practice, we can assist our clients through the life cycle of vendor management. This can involve a strategic review of their vendor landscape to actively reduce the number of vendors or re-negotiate existing contracts, linked to such factors as application decommissioning, legacy systems and targets for disinvestment. Or it may involve specialist support throughout the complete outsourcing life cycle from sourcing strategy through to sourcing preparation, supply selection, transition and supply management.
From our experience, good execution processes within a project can potentially recover from poor initial vendor engagement and commercial negotiation but poor project management can completely negate excellent initial contractual and commercial engagement with a vendor. The effectiveness and benefits of a well drafted vendor agreement are only as good as its application when executing individual projects under that agreement.
For example, a reporting regime identified within a vendor agreement is of little benefit if individual Project Managers are not then required to ensure and report compliance by the vendor or if there is no consolidated view of a vendor’s performance across the whole organisation. And an agreement might include provisions that all additional costs should be borne by the vendor, but it becomes increasingly difficult to enforce such a clause if cost overruns are not escalated immediately and before the financial exposure of the vendor has increased to a potentially unsustainable level. Exercising efficient but pragmatic controls over the vendor estate does not have to involve large overheads within a Vendor Management or PMO function.
The further reality is that programme portfolios can extend over significant periods during which the original objectives may no longer be relevant, for any number of valid reasons, or the underlying projects themselves may have got out of control through unstructured project management. In such cases, TORI can help through our Programme Management Practice which uses expertise gained over many years to define and execute successful delivery, turnaround and recovery strategies.
If you have any issues or requirements in this area then please contact Yogi Patel, Head of our Business Process Improvement Practice on +44 (0)20 7025 5555

