ISO 44001: Creating The “New”​ Standard For Business Relationships

Over the past few months there has been, with increasing frequency, the publication of many articles written on the emergence or re-emergence of the relational approach to complex business relationships.

Whether it is a true renaissance or not, remains to be seen. After all, the importance of relationships in business, and for that matter, in everyday life is not a “new” concept.

However, what is new, is that for the first time there is a means by which you can quantify and evaluate the effectiveness of your relationships.

ISO 44001 Standard: Moving From Intent To Actualization

In today’s increasingly diverse marketplace, the complexity of doing business demands more than just a simple intent to collaborate. It requires both a commitment and a solid understanding of the changing dynamics in how government and industry do business, and the critical role that relationships play in achieving successful outcomes.

To this end, and to address the complexities of public-public and public-private business arrangements, several collaborative models and corresponding frameworks have emerged over the past decade. The primary objective of these new models was to move beyond the transactional architecture and mindset that has limited collaboration effectiveness.

While this demonstrated a recognition and intent to become relational, a clearly defined framework through which such relationships could actually be structured, implemented, and measured for effectiveness on an ongoing basis, was not available.

ISO 44001, presents a real and meaningful opportunity for organizations to both contribute and share best practice methodologies in the areas of collaboration and relationship management.

Originally established in 2013, the ISO/PC 286 Collaborative business relationship management framework, was proposed by the British Standards Institution in the United Kingdom – otherwise referred to as “BSI-UK” based on the success of the BS 11000 model in the UK and Europe. ISO 11000 which has been renamed to ISO 44001 was approved for publication on December 6, 2016.

With an established and globally recognized standard such as the ISO 44001, a continuity of understanding and progressive insight will ultimately create a truer and more enduring framework that will serve as the standard for relationship management.

New Standard Inevitability

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is an international organizations that was founded on February 23rd, 1947. Focused on promotion worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards, ISO was one of the first organizations that was granted general consultative status by the United nations Economic and social Council.

Needless to say, ISO certification carries a great deal of influence around the globe in terms of certifying that an organization’s management system, manufacturing process, service and documentation procedure meet all the requirements for standardization and quality assurance.

In this context, the introduction of the ISO 44001 standard was inevitable. The reason is relatively straight forward; relationships and relationship management – especially when it comes to managing complex contracts, requires more than an enforcement of legal terms and conditions. It requires true collaboration and transparency between all stakeholders, which prior to the establishment of the ISO 44001 standard, were merely reflections of the desire to work together.

iso-logo

Upcoming ISO 44001 Related Seminars and Workshops

Strategic Relationships Solutions Inc., in partnership with the Centre for Executive Leadership, Telfer School of Management, and the Institute for Collaborative Working (ICW) is pleased to offer a seminar on Relationships Management and Relational Contracting in Ottawa on May 23-25 and Toronto on June 14-16, 2017.

For more information and registration please see course outline for details or contact us directly at Relationships@srscan.com

30

Advertisements

Strategic Sourcing And The Road To Transformational Leadership

In his recent post titled Who Are Procurement’s New Leaders, Jon Hansen referenced a reader comment that “business strategy and traditional procurement strategy are often misaligned.” As a result, “necessary leadership talent must synthesize the best . . . and discard the obsolete to create something new.”

In my experience the “new” to which the reader referred must be centered more on mindset or rather organizational culture, and the related change in approach it can bring about in terms of strategic relationships.

Let’s look at the purported transition to a strategic procurement practice.

Being strategic has taken on an added new dimension of importance. However, most people who have made or are making the transition to “strategic procurement,” have done so within the framework of the very same adversarial models that have undermined supplier relationships in the past. So, just because there is a new awareness of importance, does not mean that one becomes strategic from a practical execution standpoint.

The same can be said when it comes to relationships, or being relational.

To become truly relational, an organization has to do more than talk about it. It has to extend itself beyond the T&C’s of a contractual enforcement model. When one is relational, the usually inward focused strategic thinking, is actually extended to include the vendor or vendor community through a continuous system of relational governance. Unfortunately, this type of engagement has been limited to a select few.

If we are to see real traction in terms of the transformation of the overall procurement practice to one that is based on being truly strategic, the catalyst for change has to go beyond a response to exceptional circumstances or rare “one of” scenarios. In other words, the procurement practice has to become relational.

The Minnesota Bridge Project

While the approach to rebuilding the collapsed bridge in Minnesota a few years ago is a great example of relational thinking, it was induced under circumstantial pressure, and therefore hasn’t become a scalable model or standard by which all complex acquisition are guided in the state. Despite its success, the apparent lack of scalability in terms of the approach or model that was used in this instance is noteworthy, because it is not viewed as being an adoptable standard across the board. Therefore it is what I refer to as being a model by exception.

The real question is why?

Once again, and in principle, the Minnesota bridge project incorporated a number of important elements that focused on a collaborative approach to meeting a challenging objective. Unfortunately, it was viewed as a process that fell outside of the accepted norms that has traditionally governed complex procurement acquisitions. This meant that the circumstances dictated its use as opposed to representing a real transformation from the standpoint of the state’s overall procurement practice. Or to put it another way, the model used to successfully drive the Minnesota bridge project was transactional as opposed to being relational. It simply incorporated relational elements into what was ultimately viewed as a special transaction.

As a result change – real change, has not occurred. This means that the state has not become strategic or relational in its procurement practice, and therefore has not been transformed.

For a real transformation to take place, leadership must first recognize that a change is needed. Then, leaders must assume the lead role in making the transition from a transactional model to one that is relational.

For this to occur, the ability to standardize the relational approach beyond a transactional event requires a clearly defined road-map.

The road-map to which I am referring, will provide the leadership team with a clear outline as to how they can move complex acquisitions from the intended objective stage through to a successful outcome.

In my next post, I will go into greater detail as to how this standardized road-map can be created and implemented on a large scale, industry-wide basis.

Transformational Leadership

30

Achieving certainty: How to create a culture for collaboration by Andy Akrouche

The sole purpose for creating a contract is to establish a path of certainty that will guarantee a successful outcome.  In short, if I do “A” and you do “B” we should achieve “C”.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as absolute certainty in the real world.  As a result, even a well crafted contract with clearly defined terms and conditions will fail if it does not accommodate the need to adapt to the inevitable changes that occur over the life of the agreement.

When I talk about changes and adaptability, I am not referring to compliance relating to the terms of the contract itself.  What I am talking about is the practicality of recognizing and responding to external factors that were not identified in the original contract, and therefore fall outside of the framework of the existing agreement.

Once again, and using my long journey analogy, you may have chosen a particular route to get from one place to another based upon known factors such as distance and time.  In this regard, you anticipate the length of time you will be on the road, and at what points you will have to stop along the way to refuel.

But what happens if during the actual journey you encounter bad weather or discover that the route you had originally planned to take has an unexpected detour or, you experience car trouble.  What do you do?

You adapt.

For example, with bad weather, you will likely delay your journey and spend time at a rest stop along the way until it blows over.  This may mean that you will take longer than expected to arrive at your destination but, you will ultimately arrive safe and sound.

Seems simple enough.  Even though you did not expect to encounter bad weather when it hit, rather than pushing through with potentially dire consequences in an effort to adhere to the “original” plan, you adapted to a new reality or set of circumstances.

This demonstrates both experience and maturity.

Within the context of a contract, there is usually little if any room for such flexibility.  This is because we are locked into its terms, even if said terms do not reflect the unexpected events of the real world.  In those instances where one party is late on a deliverable due to unforeseen circumstances, they are more likely to be penalized, even if said delay benefits the entire project in the long run.

As a result, using contracts to manage relationships does not reflect relational maturity.

What Is Relational Maturity?

Relational maturity in its most basic form is present when there is a desire on the part of all stakeholders to participate as productive and useful partners in a long term arrangement.  However, this desire needs to be accompanied by the establishment of a solid management structure created within a truly collaborative organizational culture.

In other words, and rather than employing a top down command and control model of management in which there are thick layers of oversight centered around compliance management in relation to contract enforcement, the relationally mature organization takes a different approach.  This includes recognizing and responding to change from the standpoint of achieving the best outcome, even if said change means expanding upon the original engagement parameters.

With the relationally mature organization, such expansions or adjustments are not undertaken through an onerous change management process.  Nor are there risks of a partner being penalized for acknowledging unanticipated issues.

Instead, a relationally mature organization having established the necessary systems and processes to facilitate the collaborative approach to problem solving, are able to proactively manage change while keeping the desired outcome clearly in site.  Similar to Jim Collins’ autopsies with blame approach, which he identified as being one of the key differentiators with the companies who have made the transition from good to great, the relationally mature organization seeks solutions as opposed to either assigning blame or enforcing adherence to terms and conditions that are no longer relevant.

To get to this point of productive partnering or relational maturity, a new model of engagement is needed.

Maturity

The New Model For Achieving Certainty

The relational model to which I have referred throughout this series is centered around a core concept of establishing a charter that becomes the strategic and operational framework for the relationship.

It represents a departure from how we have traditionally viewed relationship sourcing and management, which in the past has been based primarily upon a contract compliance or enforcement mechanism .

While changing a company’s culture is not an easy task, it is nonetheless essential for success.  This means that the internal organization (Program Owner), as well as the partner or partners service capabilities need to be properly aligned and enabled for the joint relationship structure to work.  By this I mean that on one hand, a mechanism is needed to translate business objectives and priorities into performance goals for the relationship.  On the other hand, there is the need to support and process relationship requirements and take the necessary measures to enable them.

The basic internal organizational framework needed for effective relationship delivery management involves establishing and operationalizing the following management structures:

  • Relationship Approval and Review Board – (RARB) – An executive committee representing lines of business, procurement, delivery, finance and legal responsible for achieving corporate objectives through strategic relationships.
  • Relationship and Delivery Management function (RDM)– an organization reporting to the RARB responsible for the administration of the relational approach including, but not limited to, standards, coaching, joint governance secretariat, change management, relationships budgeting process, operational reviews and relationships portfolio management.

 

Even though complex business arrangements are by definition intricate and diverse, beyond this basic management structure, success is ultimately based on people.  More to the point, people working together to achieve a mutually beneficial goal within an operational framework of shared values and open dialogue.  As such, becoming relationally mature is a journey that requires the presence of the following key elements:

Leadership – recognition at the executive table that delivery models of today rely on partner capabilities, which include a high degree of agility and responsiveness that can only be achieved through adaptive relationships as opposed to transactions or deals.

Business operations – proactive implementation of the model, which includes the institution of the RARB, RDM and the Relational Governance structures referenced in both this as well as previous posts.

Education – continuous education programs for individuals involved both directly and indirectly with the initiative to ensure that the structures and processes to facilitate the creation of high performing relationships are understood.

Incentives – establishing incentive based HR programs to promote collaborative behavior within the organization and across all participating organizations.

Communication – relentless communication program supported by strong and continuous messaging from the top.

30

How Do You Source A High Performing Business Relationship? by Andy Akrouche

Now that we have in my previous post, identified what a high performance relationship actually is, the next question is how do you find one?  Or perhaps the better word would be “establish” one?

“The contract must become a platform to manage inevitable change, not pursue certainty based on the original deal.” – Ian Mack. Director General Major Project Delivery (Land & Sea), Canadian Department of National Defence

The “Relational” Ties That Bind

Establishing a collaborative high performing relationship requires a different sourcing process, as one cannot use the prescriptive or familiar procurement mechanisms to source a dynamic business relationship.

This becomes particularly important as it relates to Futuresourcing projects.

With Futuresourcing projects, where neither the client nor the vendor has constructed, built or delivered the required capability, past work experience cannot be solely relied upon or used as a selection criteria.

In sourcing dynamic relationships, a closer examination of the vendor’s strategy and core capabilities are paramount to determining the likelihood of the ultimate success of the relationship.

In this context, all projects should be viewed with this fresh look of uncertainty, especially given the fact that the vast majority have failed to deliver the expected results.

Beyond these needed checks and balances, the sourcing process about which I will be talking today, advocates an intense industry analysis and engagement before and during the actual procurement, as well as post procurement.  This sourcing process also involves the application of advanced analytical tools to objectively assess and evaluate the fit between a vendor’s strategy, core capabilities and the initiative’s strategic objectives in relation to the expected outcome.

With high performing relationships, collaboration is born out of common purpose and intent, and must therefore be a product of strategic fit.  The advanced analytical tools associated with my SRS relational model are used to determine the veracity of the “strategic fit” between the client and vendor.  This “fit” as I call it is critical for establishing the framework for the Relationship Charter about which I will be talking at great length in an upcoming post.

I think that it is important to note at this point that irrespective of where you presently are in terms of your current contract management lifecycle, it is never too late to introduce the relationship-based model.  That being said, the sooner in your process that the model is used, the more effective your relationship management framework interms of achieving all the benefits delivered by the relational model.

business teamwork - business men making a puzzle

Within the context of the above, the following 4-Step process will enable you to reliably source and establish high performing relationships.

Step 1 – Creating the BRF Framework

In 2003, and based on our team’s extensive experience to that point in time, we established Benefits Realization Factors (BRF®) as a means of defining the variables or key factors that must be enabled to achieve success relative to the expected outcome.

Not to be confused with Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), which need to be defined jointly with your selected partner at a later stage, a BRF® to a procurement initiative outcome is much like a Critical Success Factor (CSF) to project management and risk factor in risk management.

It is a factor without which the desired benefits associated with an acquisition or delivery cannot be harvested.  In this context I am certain that almost all procurement professionals can recall at least one initiative where despite the success of one or two success factors the expected outcome in terms of the overall initiative was never realized.

Step 2 – Industry Analysis

I have often been asked about the advanced analytical tools that I have used to understand an industry and assess the strategic fit between potential partners.

The fundamental idea behind the use of these tools is to introduce Competitive Analysis and Competitive Intelligence gathering  within a procurement framework prior to the actual procurement itself.  These tools ultimately  enhance both the insight and the understanding of specific industries and organizations within those industries, as it relates to identifying the critical points of strategic fit relative to achieving an expected or desired outcome.

In essence, and as an initial step, by understanding an industry as opposed to an individual company, you will be in a better position to compare all competitive bidder capabilities by a single standard that truly aligns with your contracting goals.

Or to put it another way, to really understand individual company capabilities you must first understand what their specific industry is doing as a whole.  This is of course where the importance of strategic grouping comes into play.

A strategic group is a concept used in strategic management that groups companies within an industry that have similar business models or similar combinations of strategies.

My Strategic Group Analysis (SGA) aims to identify organizations with similar strategic characteristics, following similar strategies, or competing on a somewhat similar basis.

The Industry Analysis phase will also provide added insight needed in your procurement strategy, enabling you to determine if your expected outcomes and BRFs can be achieved.

This second step establishes the preliminary alignment between your objectives and industry capabilities, that will enable you to intelligently engage the targeted industry.

Step 3 – Strategy and Industry Engagement

One of the critical issues engulfing the procurement regimes particularly in the public sector, is what is referred to as industry engagement.  For many years the government had simply relied on defining their requirements and then taking them to market in the hope that a vendor, any vendor would be able to step forward and deliver to contract specifications.

The problem with this approach is that it abdicates buyer responsibility in terms of the successful delivery of the required product or service.   In essence the government would ask for “A” and then rely on imposing legal terminology and financial penalties as a means of enforcing the desired outcome.

History has clearly demonstrated that this approach in both the public and private sectors has failed to produce successful outcomes.

With Steps 1 and 2, we have addressed this issue.

Based on your newly gained insight of the industry, rather than raising the defined requirement flag in the hope that a vendor – any vendor, will salute it, you are now able to develop a strategy that focuses on two key elements.

The first being the Business arrangement framework which includes a description of your strategic objectives, and the resulting alignment with target industry capabilities.  From this, the profile for an ideal business arrangement that encompasses the actual relationship itself, as well as the corresponding service and financial management framework will emerge.

Once you know what you require in a high performing relationship partner or partners, the second element, which  is a description of the procurement process itself, can be mapped out and acted upon.

It is important to note that this initial connecting point with the target industry, is part of a ongoing engagement process that will continue to provide intelligence to what will become the joint governance team, throughout the duration of the relationship.  I will talk about joint governance in greater detail in my next post when I review the process to “operationalize” the Relationship Charter.

In the meantime, we are now ready to move on to the fourth and final step in sourcing a high performing relationship.

Step 4 – Vendor Selection

In sourcing high performing relationships, vendor selection is based primarily on the following four components:

  1. A business proposal that describes the general approach and strategy for meeting known deliverables and immediate or short term goals along, with any technical, HR and management plans that may be required in the immediate future as seen and determined by the bidder;
  2. Strategic Fit Assessment – As mentioned earlier in this post, this is a process that uses advanced analytical tools to objectively quantify the fit between a corporate strategy and core capabilities, with BRFs. The assessment output is what we call a Relationship Certainty Score and is carried out by an independent team of qualified professionals and academic personnel in strategy, finance and business operations.
  3. Relationship charter components and Joint Governance team qualifications. The Relationship Charter (components of which are covered in prior posts, and will be revisited in my next post on Operationalizing the Relationship Charter) is introduced as a Straw model template format during the procurement process. Finalized at the negotiation phase of the procurement – it is one of the few things that will require phase based negation in the relational approach.
  4. Open book Framework, which is the financial evaluation of vendors proposed financial terms and management metrics. As I mentioned in a previous post, the OBF is a pricing model based on actual cost accounting with dynamic constructs and incentives depending on the type of activities involved during the relationship lifecycle.
  5. Last but not least, and before any transition can take place, operationalizing the relationship charter is critical as it empowers stakeholders to work in teams as a cohesive single unit. This collaborative cohesion is at the heart of any high performing strategic relationship, and it is the Charter platform that provides the parties with the ability to effectively and successfully address problem areas as they arise, as opposed to being avoided.  This Charter platform also provides the insight into the relationship elements that enable the delivery of improved outcomes and, the intelligence across the value chain to better leverage change as a strategic advantage as opposed to being viewed as an undesired and unanticipated risk.  As a result, there will be a resiliency to the relationship in times of inevitable change that will ensure an effective shared response, and ultimately a successful outcome.

As previously indicated, in the next post I will go into greater detail regarding how to operationalize the Relationship Charter.  However, the key take away from today’s post can be found in the following response from a senior private sector executive when he was asked why relationship-based models work:

Successful private sector organizations attribute their success to close customer intimacy where they learn and work with their clients to produce the next generation products and services – the Relationship based model is the systematic approach that delivers customer intimacy”.

Register for our next Seminar – November 18 – 19, 2014 Toronto, Ontario

(Click image below to register)

Andy Seminar Banner Fall 2014

30

Bridging the gap between PPP promise and successful outcomes by Andy Akrouche

“Recent failures, bailouts, and excessive costs show that the risk analyses and value-for-money accounting used to justify P3s are clearly flawed and cover up the true costs and risks for the public.”

Such as the one from which the above excerpt has been taken, there are no shortages of articles and papers relating to the unrealized expectations of what were once promising PPP initiatives.  The question is why do PPPs consistently underperform?

An April 2012 report titled “Public Private Partnerships in India: Lessons from Experiences” goes a long ways towards identifying at least in part, some of the key problem areas that have caused so many programs to run off the rails.  While this report points to many of the issues requiring solutions, it unfortunately fails to offer a real systematic framework for fixing them.  The issues to which I am referring include a “static” transactional orientation, how variability of demand and expected changes are viewed and managed, risk/reward allocation, and the effective utilization of PPP procurement as a vehicle to create sustainable economic value above and beyond project bubble.

With UK government taking a hard look at PFI and introducing PF2 as a measure to improve the performance of traditional PPPs, where the public sector partner(s) take an active role and ownership of the “business”, the gap between the promise of P3s and their outcomes may become slightly narrower.  However, until a truly holistic adaptive framework is introduced, we will continue to struggle to gain the necessary traction to achieve the hoped for outcomes.

So what is a holistic adaptive PPP framework?

An adaptive PPP, or as I sometimes refer to it as a relational PPP (in keeping with the relational terminology), is a relationship-based Public-Private partnership framework where the focus of the PPP management process is on two integrated dimensions:

a)      Establishing the baseline business arrangement from which we will begin a continuous alignment process. This dimension includes all of the usual management, technical and financial planning activities, but without the burden of having to predict the unforeseeable in terms of variability of Demand and PESTL  environment; and

b)      The establishment of a Relationship Charter within which contractual elements and metrics such as deliverables, timelines, financial obligations, service level quality and performance are jointly managed.

For those who have already read my book Relationships First (eBook ,Hard Copy), and have attended my seminars and training programs, you know that the SRS Relational Contracting Methodology provides a detailed roadmap for managing the process and development of baseline arrangement referenced in point “a”, as well as how to properly structure and operationalize the Relationship Charter.

Consisting of three constructs, the Relationship Charter will also provide the framework that is needed to operationalize the new UK approach to PPPs.  

The SRS Relationship Charter consists of:

a.       Shared relationship mission and purpose;

b.      Joint Governance Framework;

c.       Open book financial management offering transparency and accountability in managing public funds.

With the added layers of transparency, openness and objectivity required for public procurements, the SRS Relational Contracting Model becomes an essential enabler and a natural platform to launch and implement successful Public-Private Relationships.

This is due to the fact that the SRS relational model provides the necessary checks and insight mechanisms to ensure the selection of the right strategic partner. In referring to the right strategic partner, I am of course talking about one that can deliver to meet today’s needs, but is also strategically capable of adapting to changing circumstances to jointly manage the delivery of improved outcomes.

The Ultimate Relational Contracting Model Primer by Andy Akrouche

I was recently asked a question regarding Futuresourcing™ in terms of developing an effective contract governance model.  Specifically, what is the best way to structure a contract to ensure that the desired results are achieved when neither the buyer nor the supplier have had any previous experience with the required task.

My answer was simple . . . Futuresourcing™ is an inherent part of all contract relationships in that history is not a sufficient indicator of future success, nor can you anticipate all future events or try to manage them within the framework of a static contract.  In short, regardless of whether or not one is dealing with the delivery of a known product or service or looking to source an entirely new deliverable, relying on a contract to ensure an intended outcome will not work.

Rather than merely providing a critique of existing contracting protocol without offering a viable alternative, I wrote the book Relationships First: The New Relationship Paradigm in Contracting as a means of introducing the Relational Contracting Model.

For those of you who have already read the book you know that within its pages is a practical guide – supplemented by corresponding case studies – for structuring a relationship-centric model that has over the past 20 years, consistently delivered the expected outcome for clients in both the public and private sectors.

In February, we will be extending this knowledge transfer through our new interactive Relationships First webinar series on Udemy.

With more than 2 hours of quality, high impact content, I will personally take you through my new introductory course that will provide you with the basic framework for establishing a truly relational contract.

As part of our series launch, Udemy will be providing one-time special discount pricing, so you will definitely want to take advantage of their exciting offer.

In the meantime, take a few minutes to watch the following video to learn more about the new Webinar and the SRS Relational Model.

Andy Video Pic1

30

The Relational Divide: Why CGI HealthCare.gov experience reflects more about the contracting process than the company itself by Andy Akrouche

I read with interest the January 14th Wall Street Journal article “Accenture to Take Over Fixing HealthCare.gov Website” by Stephanie Armour, in which it was announced that CGI’s contract with the Federal U.S. Government would not be renewed.

Even though the loss of the contract was small in terms of CGI’s overall revenue, what likely stings the most is the perception that blame for the highly publicized challenges with the new website was the sole responsibility of the Montreal-based consulting firm.

But does this conclusion reflect the true story?

One of the biggest lessons I have learned over the years, is that when faced with the opportunity to enter into a true partnership based on a shared mission and purpose there really is no other alternative. You must choose to collaborate.  Unfortunately and as repeatedly demonstrated by so many initiatives in both the public and private sector, collaboration is an afterthought when it comes to the contracting process.

In the following excerpt from Relationships First: The New Relationship Paradigm in Contracting, I talk about why initiatives – and more specifically relationships – such as the one involving the HealthCare.gov website go off the rails:

Why Do the Majority of Outsourcing Initiatives Fail?

Despite industry’s best efforts to modernize and professionalize sourcing practices, project management and service delivery methods, 70% of significant business relationships or large projects do not meet their objectives.

This is because organizations in both the public and private sector continue to rely on outsourcing partners who provide services based on a static requirement that is established at a specific point in time. Relationships that are structured around this approach inevitably fail because a ‘single transaction’ approach does not allow for the natural evolution of needs and stakeholder capabilities.

These issues are further exacerbated by ‘futuresourcing’ which takes place when new service requirement capabilities are introduced in the absence of client or vendor experience.

Even with the promise of significant up-front reductions in operating costs, vendor responses to ‘futuresourcing’ bid requests are speculative and often tied to a ‘let’s win the business first and worry about making it work afterwards’ mindset.

As discussed in Section I, the failed relationship between the U.S. Navy and EDS demonstrates the folly of this approach. Yet it continues to be the norm in the industry.

In order to reverse this trend, we must change our mindset around contracting and contract governance. We have to think in terms of being ‘relational’.

In my book I go into great detail in terms of what it means to be relational.  For the purposes of this post I will say that without a relational framework collaboration is a virtual impossibility.  And this is where the challenges with the creation and launch of the HealthCare.gov website likely originate.

The fact is that this was an extremely complex undertaking, which meant that traditional contract governance models would prove to be ineffective in creating the kind of collaborative framework that would have been necessary to address the website challenges in a timely and cost effective manner.

The real question going forward is simply this . . . has Accenture been set-up for success or failure?  If the same engagement process that was used to originally create the relationship with CGI was also used to select Accenture, how can we expect a different outcome?  This of course is the real story behind the headlines.

Over the coming weeks and months we will likely learn the answer – at least in part – to this last question.

CGI post HealthCare

30