The Truth About Public-Private Partnerships

“The fact is that the majority of all long-term complex business arrangements underperform or fail because they are structured as a deal or a transaction as opposed to a strategic relationship between key stakeholders. Whatever name you give it, a transaction or a deal is still a deal.” – The (Real) Art of the Deal by Andy Akrouche, Relational Contracting Intelligence Blog, December 23rd, 2013

When I considered the response to a recent Toronto Star newspaper article that talked about the myth of Public-Private Partnerships or P3s, the only surprise was that many people were . . . well surprised.

In calling into question Infrastructure Ontario CEO Bert Clark’s position that P3s are an ideal way to pass off some of the risks associated with complex projects to the private sector, the article while accurate in terms of outcomes was technically incorrect.

What do I mean?

The promise or potential for P3s to deliver significant savings and improved outcomes for governments and the citizen’s it serves is in fact very real. Therefore the myth is not in the possibilities in terms of deliverables, but is in the areas of expectation and execution.

It is this latter point that requires closer examination and the development of an implementation process that is based upon open communication and collaboration.

Communication – More Than Just Talking

In an article written by IACCM’s Tim Cummins he has made reference to the paper “A Conspiracy of Optimism,” by the International Center For Complex Project Management.

The paper identified what it called “the conspiracy that leads executives on both sides of the table to lie to their trading partners and to create a combined version of the truth that leads to mutual delusion over what they can achieve, by when and for how much.”

This I believe forms the basis for the conclusions reached in the Star article, including the misguided suggestion that P3s are “against the public interest.”

The idea or premise of the P3s is not the culprit here, but the way in which we do business.

In his paper titled How to make your outsourcing & PPP initiatives successful, Jon Hansen made reference to the “transactional mindset” associated with most P3 initiatives.

While I will let you read that paper at your convenience, the key take away is that a transactional mindset means that the relationship between the primary stakeholders is viewed as one time interaction. This leads to what Hansen called a “win the business first, worry about making it work afterwards” approach, that ultimately undermines the relationship and eventual outcome.

To move beyond the misconception of P3 promise, we have to change the way in which we approach complex projects. In short, we have to adopt a relational as opposed to transactional mindset. This means that the public sector can work with the private sector to better manage certain risks, however said risks cannot be totally transferred or allocated to the private sector as the public sector ultimately remains accountable for outcome realization. There instead must be a sense of shared risk ownership and reward when working towards a mutually desired outcome. In other words, we must view our interaction with key stakeholders from the standpoint of embarking on a new and long-term relationship, in which all concerned parties work towards an outcome that is rewarding both individually and collectively.

It is only within this framework that open and honest communication can take place.

Collaboration Is An Act Of Will

In his book The Procurement Value Proposition, Robert Handfield wrote “integration across the business is not the responsibility of a few but rather a challenge that must be embraced company-wide.”

These are incredibly powerful words as they speak to the fact that collaboration takes a conscientious and concentrated effort on the part of all stakeholders both within and external to the buying organization. Or to put it another way, one cannot simply hope to become collaborative. There has to be a tangible and coordinated effort to create the means by which stakeholders can work together towards a shared outcome.

P3 connectthedots

This is where the creation of a Relationship Charter comes into play.

The Relationship Charter provides the strategic and operational framework for working together. It is within this charter that metrics, timelines and financial obligations, as well as quality are jointly managed.

Consisting of three parts: Shared Mission and Purpose, Joint Governance, and the SRS Open book financial management framework, the Relationship Charter is based on six foundational principles, which are as follows:

  • Act of Relating – and this is where “relational” comes from.  Connecting and linking in a naturally complementary way
  • Mutuality – Having the same or similar view or output each to the other
  • Respect – Recognizing each other’s needs, requirements, contributions, abilities, qualities and achievements
  • Innovations – Use of combined strength and synergies to deliver improved outcomes
  • Continuous Alignment – Making necessary adjustments to improve and achieve relationship objectives
  • Empowerment – Introduction of Joint management structures and processes at the strategic and operational levels to manage the realization of relationship objectives.

As highlighted in the above text, there is a methodology through which a P3 project can be effectively managed towards the desired result.  A vehicle if you will that enables stakeholders to proactively deal with both known and unknown variables that ensures the project remains on track and meets stakeholders expectations.

The creation and introduction of a Relationship Charter, will eliminate the purported secrecy and lack of public accountability, higher financing and consulting costs, and implied profit making on massive scale that was bemoaned in the Star article.

The introduction of a Relationship Charter also makes far more sense than the suggested throwing out the baby with the bathwater abolishment of P3 projects.



Are You Ready To Become Relational by Andy Akrouche

Over the past couple of years there has been a notable shift in the area of complex business arrangements including outsourcing,  public-public and public-private partnerships centered around the importance of relationships.  Specifically the recognition that effectively managing the “relationship” between all stakeholders is the single most critical element of a successful initiative.

Even industry associations and practitioners of transformational and vested outsourcing are now talking about “relational importance” as they transition their models towards what I call a relationship first approach.

So what does it mean to be truly relational?

Before I answer that question, let’s quickly identify what it isn’t?

To start, terms such as win-win and the mere acknowledgement that relationships are important is not enough.  The reason is that recognition without meaningful action is nothing more than wrapping the old adversarial model in shiny paper and putting a bow on it.

Unfortunately, this repackaging exercise has been repeated far too often because it is much easier to add a new label to an existing model, than it is to actually make the necessary changes to being relational – especially within the public sector.   The reason is that becoming relational means that you will almost always have to facilitate a cultural change within the organization from the top down. 

For many the prospects of a cultural change is a daunting, even fearful exercise.  This is because it forces us to shift from a familiar performance-based model that is structured around an adherence to the inflexible terms and conditions associated with a static outcome.

The main problem is that the real-world does not operate within the narrowly defined conditions of a contract – no matter how well it is structured.

Initiative goals can and do change, and with it the capabilities of key stakeholders to fulfill their established role.  This means that rather than attempting to enforce compliance to a rigid set of performance requirements based on a single point in time objective, one must be able to adapt to the reality of inevitable change.

The recognition and subsequent ability to adapt to changing goals and stakeholder capabilities, is the true definition of a relational arrangement.


To reach this point of relational readiness, it is important to build awareness and capacity within the buying organization.  This “education process” as I will call it, must target all levels of the organization from senior executives to those who are managing the day to day activities. Therefore, the focus of this program should include:

  1. A general understanding of the relationship based model from the standpoint of not only its differences from transactional or performance-based models, but the benefits that can be derived from it in terms of improved outcomes. This includes an understanding of the needed organizational structure, process and behavioural changes associated with being a participant in high performing relationship.
  2. A guideline for how to plan and source a relationship, as opposed to a transaction or one-time negotiated deal including; i) How to define the attributes of the required relationship, ii) How to objectively select vendor(s) based on those attributes in a manner that satisfies the tendering process, and iii) How to build a Relationship Charter during the procurement process.
  3. A process to “operationalize” the Relationship Charter so that it is transformed from a well-intentioned paper model, to one in which it defines the way that stakeholders actually work together towards achieving a mutually beneficial improved outcome.
  4. The mechanism to organize, tool and manage the partner relationships management function within the organisation.

In subsequent posts, I will examine more closely each of the above elements in greater detail.


How to make Outsourcing and PPP Relationships Work Webinar Series Launched on Udemy by Andy Akrouche

In response to the steadily increasing number of requests I am receiving from senior managers of both public and private sector organizations regarding the Relational Model of Outsourcing and Public-Private Relationships, I have created an on-line webinar series.

Utilizing a frank, conversational style format, the 4-Part video series on “bridging the gap between expectations and successful outcomes” will provide senior managers with an executive level briefing on how to make complex Outsourcing, FutureSourcing™ or PPP initiatives successful.

In this series, in which I talk with host Jon Hansen, I focus on providing answers to the following five most frequently asked questions:

  1. Why do Outsourcing and Public-Private Partnerships fail to meet expectations, and more specifically what are the fundamental issues?
  2. What is a relationship based approach and how can it solve many of the root problems?
  3. How can you introduce effective consumer protection constructs and create the conditions for sustainability?
  4. How can you use procurement framework and industrial policy to create a strategic supply chain and economic value beyond the project bubble?
  5. How can you establish and operationalize a relationship charter representative of all stakeholder interests and goals?

Available on the Udemy platform I invite you, as well as others who are contemplating any form of strategic procurements including Outsourcing, FutureSoucring™ or Public-Private Partnerships, to view the series.  My ultimate goal is to provide you with the insights that will help to guide you towards achieving improved outcomes with lower risk.

Up until the 28th of April I am pleased to offer you a 50% discount off the regular course price.  Simply enter Coupon Code COMP503W where indicated using the following link;


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 (Real) Art of the Deal by Andy Akrouche

With everyone from deal architects to premier transaction firms embracing a “Relationship” mantra when it comes to complex contracting and outsourcing, the true meaning of the word is being lost in a sea of good intentions.  Or to put it another way, just because you say the word relationship, or incorporate it into your negotiation process, does not mean you have a relationship with your trading partners.  This is especially true when you continue to view doing business through a transactional lens.

Relational . . . more than a catch phrase

Relational . . . more than a catch phrase

The fact is that 70% of all long-term outsourcing, futuresourcing and PPP initiatives underperform or fail because they are structured as a deal or a transaction as opposed to a strategic relationship between key stakeholders.  Whatever name you give it, a transaction or a deal is still a deal.

So what is The “REAL” Art of the Deal?  Quite simply it is knowing when something isn’t a deal or a transaction.

At this point I would like to emphasize the fact that I am not against deals or transactions.  There is definitely a place for them.  However, the mistake we frequently make is to erroneously apply a deal or transactional mentality to what is supposed to be a dynamic business arrangement.

What is a deal or a transaction?

A deal or a transaction is an instance of buying or selling something, such as closing on your house, getting a new mortgage, withdrawing money from an ATM machine.  In a transaction like the ones previously described, there is no flexibility, no need to interact and absolutely no changes allowed.  This of course works well in these instances.  After all, what interaction is really required after you get your money from the ATM machine?  It is a done deal!

Complex business relationships or dynamic business arrangements are not as cut and dried, as a deal is never done – even after the ink dries on the contract.

Change both within and outside of the complex or dynamic relationship is inevitable.  Whether it be the result of Political, Economic, Social, Technological or Legal otherwise known as “PESTL” variables, the fact remains that change will happen.  In this light, attempting to respond to said changes within the framework of a transaction arrangement is as the Department of Defence’s Ian Mack put it, tantamount to trying to “achieve certainty based on the initial deal.”  It just doesn’t work.  Hence the reason why 70% of all outsourcing, futuresourcing and PPP initiatives miss the mark!

Despite this dubious track record, legal firms and financial advisers are still trying to manage both the anticipated and unanticipated risks associated with complex business relationships within the confining framework of a deal or transactional structure.  By doing so, they are attempting to “legislate” change and its associated risk rather than recognize and adapt to it.

This is not a true relational approach.

So what do I mean by a relational approach?

When I first developed the relational model more than 20 years ago, I in essence redefined what complex business relationships actually entail.

If you have had the opportunity to attend one of my many seminars or workshops or, have had the chance to read my book, you will already know that I define a relationship in a business context as being a continuous, process-centric interaction involving an infinite number of deals or transactions.

From this standpoint, the focus is not solely on contractual metrics such as timelines, financial obligations and service level quality, but on the establishment of a Relationship Charter within which each of these critical areas is jointly managed.

Consisting of three parts: Shared Mission and Purpose, Joint Governance, and the SRS Open book financial management framework, the Relationship Charter is based on six foundational principles, which are as follows:

  • Act of Relating – and this is where “relational” comes from.  Connecting and linking in a naturally complementary way
  • Mutuality – Having the same or similar view or output each to the other
  • Respect – Recognizing each other’s needs, requirements, contributions, abilities, qualities and achievements
  • Innovations – Use of combined strength and synergies to deliver improved outcomes
  • Continuous Alignment – Making necessary adjustments to improve and achieve relationship objectives
  • Empowerment – Introduction of Joint management structures and processes at the strategic and operational levels to manage the realization of relationship objectives.

My book Relationships First: The New Relationship Paradigm in Contracting provides an introduction to what is needed to source and manage relationships vs deals or transactions.  Coupled with the SRS Complex Outsourcing Body of Knowledge COBOK™, you will have everything you need to establish high performing complex business relationships.

In the meantime, I would exercise due caution when you hear phrases like “negotiating to Yes” and “negotiating to We” as they reflect the “old” as opposed to “Real” Art of the Deal.


To buy or not to buy . . . that is the FWSAR question! by Andy Akrouche

In a recent presentation I gave to a senior government management team I was introducing what I believed to be an innovative yet practical approach relating to cross agency collaboration.

While there seemed to be no disagreement as to the merits of what I was presenting, the inevitable first questions were not unexpectedly centered on what I call the “let Mikey try it first” mindset.  Specifically, where has this be done previously, did it work and, what were the results?

On the surface, they are reasonable questions.  However, it is not so much the actual asking of the questions themselves, but the reasons behind their being asked that leads one to wonder if we Canadians have lost the ability to think and the ingenuity to innovate without the tacit approval garnered through the previous experience of other governments such as the United States, UK, Australia or New Zealand.  Logic and overwhelming evidence to the contrary we have for all intents and purposes become fixed on an innovative entry strategy of between fourth and second in.

Speaking of being fixed, let’s examine more closely the Fixed Wing Search and Rescue (FWSAR) project.

In its 8th year, the project to purchase new aircraft to replace our aging CC-115 Buffalo and CC-130 legacy Hercules aircraft is reminiscent of the number of years that have passed since the Toronto Maple Leafs last won Lord Stanley’s Cup or for you movie buffs, the 31 years that the animated film “The Thief and the Cobbler” was in production before it was finally released.

FWSAR image2

A CC-115 Buffalo on training maneuvers

Okay, the examples may be somewhat extreme in terms of actual time, but the point is pretty clear . . . why is it taking so long to replace rapidly aging equipment?

Perhaps this is the reason why the Canadian Government has created a secretariat to oversee the FWSAR procurement similar to what had been done for the shipbuilding program.  Although it is worth noting that in the latter instance, the framework for the shipbuilding project lacked critical relational elements that have plagued its progress from the get go.

Challenges notwithstanding, the FWSAR team is using its best efforts to select the replacement aircraft from an existing array of capable technologies   ̶   a summary of which is available on the following website;

Interestingly enough, and as reported by The Ottawa Citizen’s David Pugliese in his July 22nd article Team Spartan Finishes Cross-Country Partner Tour For Fixed Wing Search and Rescue, one of the manufacturers competing for the contract recently concluded a cross-country partner tour under the name of Team Spartan.  I am of course talking about the C-27J team who embarked on the tour with the “twofold objective” of gaining a better understanding of the aerospace and industrial capabilities of each Canadian region as they relate to Team Spartan’s FWSAR offering, and to identify new Canadian partners who match Team Spartan’s platform and Industrial Regional Benefits (IRB) needs.”

While the outcome of the tour was deemed to be generally positive, it still failed to answer what I consider to be the most important of questions; why do we want to own and operate the equipment in the first place?  Would it not make more sense to procure them as a service?

The idea is certainly not out of the realms of being a sound strategy worth pursuing.  In fact when I used the FWSAR project as a case study during my July 10th and 11th seminar in Toronto on Public-Private relationships, every senior executive in attendance indicated that they would pursue the outsourcing strategy as opposed to their owning, maintaining and operating these aircraft themselves.

After all, and being mindful of the importance of the “who’s done it first” viability test, the British not that long ago made the decision to outsource their SAR requirements to a third party (see Colin Cram’s July 24th article Outsourcing of UK Air/Sea Rescue).  This decision according to the Defense Industry Daily is part of a global trend toward public-private partnerships to perform some Coast Guard and SAR functions, including Australia’s billion-dollar Coastwatch program.

So what’s holding Canada back from becoming part of the above trend   ̶   or perhaps creative contracting evolution would be a better term?  The way I see it, there are many benefits relating to outsourcing our SAR operations including: 

  1. Gain a major step change in service coverage and quality that cannot be gained organically by means of evolution or incremental change.
  2. Manage fluctuation in demand for SAR services.
  3. No capital investment – relieves Canada from the task of having to decide what plane or combination of planes can do the job properly and from making huge capital investments and upgrades on an ongoing basis.  In essence, Canada will pay for the service at the quality levels it deems necessary at any time today and into the future.
  4. Under a relational procurement approach, the outsourcing option provides ongoing alignment with Canada’s needs versus the needs at a particular static point in time.
  5. Focus on core business – the business of SAR delivery management through relationships and not SAR delivery itself.

Once again, we have to stop and take advantage of this unintended 8 year pause to ask why we are continuing to go the buy route.

Even though I would not consider outsourcing the security and defence of our country, when it comes to non-military services, we owe it to ourselves to examine this option in an objective, forward looking manner.

I firmly believe that if we consider our goals and expected outcomes relating to SAR operations we will, like a growing number of other governments, come to the conclusion that a service based relationship with a private sector provider and partner will deliver a high quality service at a lower cost.

Further, and with the right outsourcing strategy we can create significantly more sustainable economic value in Canada when compared to the current options on the table.


The truth about Public-Private Partnerships by Andy Akrouche (Part 2 of 3)

In yesterday’s Part 1 post (The truth about Private Public Partnerships) Colin Cram provided some much needed insight in terms of both the promise and the failings associated with Private-Public Partnerships or PPP-driven initiatives.

Cram, who has served in the public sector at the senior executive level for more than 30 years, is obviously familiar with PPPs.  As a result, he adeptly points out the unquestionable benefits in terms of the public sector getting facilities, hospitals, roads or prisons built without upfront investment.  The challenge however is not in the promise of an end result but in the management of expectations, returns and ultimately relationships.

This last point has proven to be the major stumbling block that has derailed many PPP-driven programs.

The problems according to Cram originate with the process for negotiating what he refers to as being complex and inflexible “consortium” contracts.  Then through what he considers to be the ineffective decentralized management of disjointed objectives, PPP relationships usually denigrate into a self-serving abyss of unrealized outcomes.

In other words, in the rush to capitalize on complementary strengths and individual gains, PPP stakeholders overlook the most important elements of a successful partnership, which is the Relationship governance model.

This is why recent announcements of relationship-based PPP legislation in states such as Florida are very interesting.

While I applaud Florida’s Governor for seemingly walking away from the traditional transaction oriented mindset that governed past initiatives, I cannot help but wonder how the new legislation in and of itself will foster a more collaborative or relationship oriented approach.

Certainly the intent for a practical and manageable governance model exists as demonstrated by the following legislative requirements associated with Florida’s HB 85 PPP Bill:

·         The legislation requires that the responsible public entity ensures that provisions are made for the private entity’s performance and safeguards the most efficient pricing.

·         The legislation provides for protections that will ensure that provisions are made for the transfer of the private entity’s obligations if the comprehensive agreement is terminated or a material default occurs.

·         Additionally, there is an assurance that the public entity must perform an independent analysis of the proposed public-private partnership that demonstrates the cost-effectiveness and overall public benefit.

Once again, the above requirements or elements of the new Bill   ̶   if read correctly   ̶   are laudable, as they actually reflect the insight versus oversight process associated with the SRS relationship-based model.

For those who may not be familiar with the SRS relational model, it is a model that advocates an evolutionary approach to relationships by ensuring that stakeholder expectations, priorities and needs are properly aligned with present day realities on an ongoing basis.

In the previous post Colin Cram pointed to the importance of this ongoing adaptability when he made reference to the inflexibility of traditional contracts and the difficulty in seeing many years into the future.  The fact is that attempting to structure a deal based on an initial set of assumptions and plans limited to what we know in the here and now is a recipe for disaster.

What is required is a dynamic model that is responsive to change, as opposed to a rigid and inherently adversarial static transactional model.  This of course is the key to creating a truly collaborative and adaptable governance framework in which all stakeholders benefit according to their different yet inextricably linked objectives.

As the Florida Bill is likely to be used as a reference point for other states, let’s examine the key elements or requirements in greater detail.

With regard to the first point, when we talk about the need for ensuring that provisions are made for the private entity’s performance and safeguarding the most efficient pricing, what we are really discussing is the need to pursue dynamic relationships as opposed to transactional engagements based solely on present day assumptions.  More specifically, this means that the legislation requires a continuous alignment throughout the entire relationship, and not just at the beginning by way of the traditional “carved in stone and signed in blood bankable” P3 agreements with which we are most familiar.

In terms of providing the protection referenced in the second point by way of provisions which ensure the transfer of the private entity’s obligations should the agreement be terminated or a material default occur, this quite simply refers to an executable “off ramp.”   An executable off-ramp provides the means by which the relationship would be terminated in the event that the strategic fit between stakeholders ceases to exist.  Interestingly enough, the likelihood that a strategic fit will endure over the life of the contract should be established as part of the original sourcing process utilizing the certainty score evaluation methodology associated with the SRS relational model.

Finally, Florida’s Governor wants to make certain that there is a high degree of accountability in terms of whether or not the public-private partnership is actually delivering value.  This is why the third point is so important.  Traditionally, and for those familiar with the P3 planning process, a public sector comparator case or PSC is initially used to financially justify an acquisition or initiative that excludes the private sector “partner” element.   Once the PSC case has been built, a Value for Money or VfM assessment is undertaken to determine the impact that the introduction of a private sector partner would have on the same acquisition or initiative.  The hope is that the outcome of the VfM assessment will justify a Public-Private Partnership.  The inherent flaw with the above assessment process is that it attempts to get an accurate read on the nature of the relationship 20 to 30 years down the road based solely on assumptions in the here and now.  As Colin Cram pointed out in Part 1 of this series, many fail to recognise beforehand or erroneously believe they have the expertise to effectively see into the future.  Unfortunately they do not, which ultimately results in a sub-optimal project or even worse, a near disastrous one.

The only way the Governor and the State of Florida can realize the true and full value of a Public-Private Partnership, is to ensure that the VfM assessment is linked to an ongoing or continuous management and realignment process.  As allude to earlier, an insight as opposed to oversight process that is focused directly on improving the outcome and performance of the relationship.

In the third and final part in this series, I will share with you a set of practical steps to form and manage a dynamic public-private relationship.

Remember to also check out the advanced publisher’s eBook and hard copy versions of my new book Relationships First! The New Paradigm in Contract Management (see below).

Click to purchase Relationships First!

Click to purchase Relationships First!