Tag Archives: Consultants

Leadership in Supply Chain

by Larry Berglund, SCMP, MBA, FSCMA

Presentations Plus Training & Consulting Inc.

Ideas are easy. Implementing them is the challenge.

Leadership in organizational structures is fleeting. Leaders take on the tough tasks and provide a vision and direction for attaining their goals. Managers follow the plan and try to insert efficiencies along the way. In supply chain management we often use the term “leading practices” when in actuality, we are referring to common practices across a sector.

When one organization continues to issue competitive bidding process for services, following the practices of its peers, we consider this to be following a leading practice. When another organization is first in its sector to adopt a vested outsourcing strategy, we are observing leadership in action

Leaders are not satisfied with the status quo. The need to drive innovation is inherent in every leader and thus every industry. Followers value leadership because while they can perceive when something needs to change, they tend not to accept the professional and personal risks associated with driving that change.

Change is perhaps the only true constant – but leaders must articulate a vision before real change can happen. Such a vision does not necessarily come from a brief and illuminating epiphany, but more often from leaders’ abilities to perceive that which is beyond the noise in the market or the confusion in the messages. Leaders instead appreciate nuances during the discovery and presentation of new ideas while accepting a reasonable level of risk. Leaders are also not too humble to draw from successful ideas of others and give credit where due.

What makes a person a leader? First, it is their self-conviction in knowing what needs to be done and their commitment to following that goal. They realize when it is beyond their personal resources to reach their goals without the commitment of others. A leader is less concerned with the how of change, allowing for their followers to utilize their own ideas and energy for carrying out that change. A leader is more focused on the why of change.

Leaders paint the picture of the future and have their audience – their followers – understand how their roles can complement the vision. This aspirational aspect of leadership is concurrent with the inspirational communications within the organization and to its external stakeholders.

Leaders need to create the buy-in. Without followers’ commitment to the vision, success is doubtful or compromised. Buy-in requires credibility, a focus on common interests, shared passions, resilience and an emotional connection created by the leader. People need affirmation that a leader is authentic before they will hear the new message. Leaders anticipate both a certain level of resistance and the occurrence of conflicts. They need to listen to concerns and adequately address them in their action plans. A guiding strategy requires an approach in accord with the organization’s values. Changes in behaviour indicating a stronger alignment with the leader’s vision can provide evidence that the buy-in is taking place.

In supply chains, we see these changes in behaviour when leading practices – such as adopting total cost of ownership – replace pursuing the lowest cost; when public organizations utilize the buying power in procurement to positively affect social and economic development; when targets are set to ensure diversity across supply chains; when we see inclusive opportunities for people who face employment barriers; and when value for money exceeds arbitrary budget limits and considers benefits to the community as a whole. That is leadership. Leadership begins when we start to think outside the books.

Larry has been in the supply chain management field as an author, manager, business trainer, academia, and consultant for many years. Larry has worked in both the private and public sectors. Recently he has been co-facilitating NECI eSeminars, classroom sessions, and online modules. His new book, Good Planets are Hard to Buy is now available on Amazon.com

Readers are cautioned not to rely upon this article as legal advice nor as an exhaustive discussion of the topic or case. For any particular legal problem, seek advice directly from your lawyer or in-house counsel. All dates, contact information and website addresses were current at the time of original publication

National Education Consulting Inc.

Phone: (250) 370-0041     Toll Free: (888) 990-7267

[email protected]

Share

Planning a Software Development Project? You need to read this!

What can you do to ensure your software development projects are successful and avoid costly redesigns.

Part One in the Series: Software Development Guide for Business Leader.

When you do as much custom development as we do, we hear a lot about future-proofing in development. The average expected lifetime of software that our customers expect is between 5 and 7 years. When a system is designed to last that long, a considerable amount of effort should be invested into planning. For a business that plans on developing a custom application, it’s important to future-proof your project to avoid costly application redesigns and to improve application longevity. Future-proof through planning, honest reviews of your in-house skills and capabilities, striking a balance of in-house support and outsourced development, and by avoiding proprietary tools and frameworks.

Future-Proofing Checklist

  • What is the life expectancy of your final product?
  • Have you assigned a Project Manager?
  • Have you set realistic project goals, budgets and timelines?
  • Have you done an assessment of your in-house resources?
  • Does the project rely on proprietary tools?
  • Have you assigned a Project Manager?
  • Is your outsourced partner large enough
  • Do you have a software update plan?

The key issues this post addresses include:

  1. How to avoid painting your development project into a corner by using proprietary frameworks and tools.
  2. How to be in control of your application development, regardless of your in-house development skills.
  3. How to ensure long-term support for your application when resources fail, are replaced or become incapacitated.
  4. How to handle post development support and why it is crucially important – The work continues even after initial development is complete.
  5. How to create the ideal mix of outsourcing and internal support.

Future-Proofing a Project During the Planning Process

Future-proofing your project starts just after it’s been envisioned and is typically the domain of the Project Manager (PM). The PM will use planning tools and methods and determine what is best for the business and the project long before any development occurs. PM techniques and processes help avoid uncomfortable situations where developers are vying for the work based on their skills and capabilities.

The PM uses tools and processes along with their knowledge of organizational assets and history, resource capabilities and strengths, and weighs this information to determine the right mix of in-house work and outsourcing.

Without thinking about future-proofing during the planning process you may end up with a short-lived web-application with higher than expected costs to the business. This is why dedicated pre-development planning is so crucially important.

Avoiding Costly Application Redesigns

Your company can avoid costly application redesigns and redevelopments if you critically review internal resources at the beginning of the project and if you avoid, as much as possible, the use of proprietary technology.

Also, an effective way to prevent costly redesigns is to:

  • Use Project Management techniques and tools, (use a Project Manager).
  • Complete project scope and business requirements documentation at the beginning of the project.
  • Have sufficient budget to do the project right the first time.
  • Setting a realistic timeframe and make sure not to cut corners.

The Importance of Assessing In-house Skills and Capabilities

An evaluation of your in-house capabilities is critical to the success of your business and crucial to your application development’s longevity. Your PM should execute a Capabilities Matrix to understand where your organization’s weaknesses are. A great place to start is the TOGAF Architecture Skills Framework for processes and layouts of an IT Capabilities Matrix.

Be honest about the real capabilities of your organization. Do you have the capacity, knowledge, and resources in place to make this project a success? An honest assessment will help avoid any problems and mitigate risks in the future.

Avoiding Proprietary Tools and Frameworks

To effectively future-proof your development project, PM’s and development leaders should avoid proprietary tools and frameworks sourced from new, or untested sources. The terms, “open source,” “free,” or even low cost, should be approached with extreme caution and diligence during the evaluation and selection processes.

You can achieve some amazing designs and benefits through these programs but never be lenient about accepting unproven technology or partners; especially during the planning phase of your project.

The long-term viability of using development resources from smaller organizations must be evaluated and weighted against other factors. Smaller, less experienced teams may be exciting to work with, but their stability in the long-term may trigger a redesign in the short-term.

When in doubt, go for tried and true solutions, tools and frameworks. You’ll have an easier time finding resources in the IT community to help you and you’ll all but eliminate the risks associated with partnering with an immature organization.

It’s not always as exciting, but it will be significantly less risky, and if something does go wrong, you have more contingency options available.

Keeping Custom Applications Up-to-date

Developing a custom application may incur a significant up-front cost, but the work doesn’t stop when the app goes live. There are ongoing costs and time investments that must be made to maximize the life of your new tools. Just like the operating system on your computer, your application will require upgrades over its useful lifetime.

You will need upgrades on databases, frameworks, tools and operating systems and there will be new features, additions, and business opportunities too.

No matter the cause, it is important to factor the cost of keeping your new application up-to-date in your annual budgeting of time and dollars.

Outsourcing Application Development and Support

Outsourcing is the ultimate future-proofing of your development projects.

When a development project has internal support for infrastructure and project management but uses external resources for the development then greater levels of success can be achieved.

Some of the benefits of outsourcing that I’ve seen include higher levels of technical expertise, excellent project management, and time management to name a few. Others can include tighter budgets, less scope creep and avoidance of the long-term cost of people.

Conclusion

If you plan on developing a custom application, be sure to future-proof it and avoid costly application redesigns while improving its shelf-life.

Future-proof it by using a project manager and project management tools and techniques.

Plan on updates. If secondary systems require updates, they may also need you to update your custom applications. Plan and budget for updates, then perform them; doing so will improve application longevity.

Assess the skills of your in-house team, (if you intend to develop in-house) and use an assessment framework to get the best result. An honest evaluation of resources and skills will help you avoid important operational tools using old thinking and skillsets.

Outsource; the costs associated with in-house development teams are more than dollars. While it is true that your team will know the business better and can react quicker; it’s also true that they will cost you more, get outmoded and limit development to their capabilities and skillsets. Outsourced agencies often have a broader, more modern approach to development.

On your next project try a hybrid approach by deploying an internal PM to oversee and coordinate the project, and an external development team to apply the latest techniques and programming tools.

About CoreSolutions

The CoreSolutions team of experts, including developers, systems analysts and project managers, build web and mobile applications using the latest technology and tools and will assist you through all phases of the project including brainstorming, requirements planning and project management.

Connect with CoreSolutions today to start your project with a free estimate.

Share

Clearing Obstacles to Successful Projects: The Importance of Disclosure in Creating Tender Documents

North Pacific Roadbuilders Ltd. v Aecom Canada Ltd, 2013 SKQB 148

The duty to provide accurate information to contractors is of paramount importance, as the verdict in this case from Saskatchewan’s Court of Queen’s Bench demonstrates. Failing to do so, whether deliberately or negligently, can cost defendants thousands of dollars and delay important projects. In this case, the plaintiff successfully argued that the defendant failed to provide accurate information, and that relying on the information provided was entirely reasonable for them to have done.

The plaintiff, North Pacific Roadbuilders Ltd. (“North Pacific”), is a company incorporated in British Columbia and owned by Ronald Burek, who had also incorporated a company called Prairie Roadbuilders Ltd. (“Prairie”) in Alberta. North Pacific, which had been created in order to allow Mr. Burek to bid on projects outside of Alberta, relied on Prairie to supply it with roadbuilding machines. North Pacific had done considerable work in British Columbia, but prior to the events detailed in this case had not worked in Saskatchewan. For its first project in the province, North Pacific successfully bid on a road construction tender issued by Cameco Corporation. The bid had been submitted jointly with Tron Power, a northern Saskatchewan contractor, since Cameco had a policy requiring a certain number of northern personnel on any of its contracts and since Tron Power did not have sufficient machinery to perform the contract themselves. Further, roadbuilding was not Tron Power’s area of expertise.

The road North Pacific was supposed to construct was a 57-kilometre ore haul road between Cameco Corporation’s mine and mill at Key Lake and a new mine at McArthur River. The specifications and technical information in the tender documents were prepared by UMA Engineering Ltd. (“UMA”), which was later acquired by the engineering firm AECOM Canada Ltd. Once UMA had become involved in the project, Cameco gave it three reports on the area’s terrain; the reports had been prepared by a firm of engineers (J.D. Mollard and Associates Limited; “Mollard”) specializing in air photogrammetry – that is, making measurements of terrains based on photographs taken from above. The route UMA eventually chose for the road was an approximate of the one the engineering firm had originally chosen.

North Pacific alleged that UMA misrepresented – deliberately and/or negligently – the conditions of the terrain on which the road was supposed to be built, and that these misrepresentations caused them to lose over six thousand dollars. The defendant, UMA, denied that they misrepresented anything, and further denied both that the plaintiff had relied on the soil information in those documents and that the terrain conditions had caused North Pacific’s losses. UMA also alleged, in the alternative, that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

In order to determine if the tender documents issued by UMA had accurately represented the terrain, the judge examined the documents alongside the reports from Mollard. The judge also examined the reports UMA had made for Cameco in order for Cameco to get regulatory approval for the project, prior to issuing a request for bids. The judge found, among other facts, that:
• UMA’s reports to Cameco included mentions of boulders in the soil and other soil conditions that were not included in the tender documents;
• UMA’s reports to Cameco also included different terrain mapping information that was not made known to bidders;
• The tender documents did not make it known to the bidders that Mollard’s reports were available for inspection, as Mollard had strongly recommended;
• UMA prepared all of the drawings and technical specifications included in the tender documents;
• UMA had included descriptions of sample soil that stated they contained only sand, despite the sample testholes having actually also contained a certain percentage of rock;
• UMA did not include a description of the Standard Test Procedure it used for testing soil in the tender documents;
• UMA did not note that samples contained cobbles or boulders when they did;

For these and other reasons – including a short visit to the site by Mr. Burek, where he was told that the conditions he saw then would continue throughout the road-construction site – the equipment brought to the site by North Pacific was based on an expectation of primarily sandy soil. Because of delays due to equipment being damaged by boulders, and later needing to demobilize equipment for the winter and then remobilize, Cameco did not accept the road as complete until August 20, 1998; Cameco had intended to use the road as a winter road in December 1997.

A week before the road was accepted as complete, Mr. Burek spoke to a Cameco representative by telephone and let him know that the extra rock North Pacific had encountered – a quantity of which had not been included in the tender documents – had caused delays and damage in the amount of approximately $2 million in additional costs. Mr. Burek was advised to make a written claim to UMA. He did so in a letter dated November 10, 1998; UMA responded and denied the claim.

In order to assess the reasonableness of the claim, along with whether North Pacific had reasonably relied on the information given by UMA in the tender documents, the judge considered testimony from Mr. Burek, from an employee of Prairie (Mr. Burek’s Albertan company), George Mollard (of the engineering firm Mollard), an expert engineer with experience in northern Saskatchewan in both the public and private sectors, UMA’s engineer in charge of the project, UMA’s supervising engineer on the haul road, a junior design engineer employed by UMA, a heavy equipment operator familiar with the region who had been employed by North Pacific for part of the project, a Cameco engineer with expertise in soil mechanics, an engineer employed by neither party but with expertise in preparing bids, and an engineer with expertise in tendering contracts who had worked for the province for many years. Thus the judge examined a considerable amount of evidence in determining the claim.

In order to assess if UMA had negligently misrepresented information to North Pacific, the judge first examined previous case law to determine that UMA did owe a duty of care to bidders to provide accurate information that was not misleading in any way. The judge further determined, based on assessing technical and testimonial evidence, that some – but not all – of the information UMA had provided in the tender documents was in fact misleading, either expressly or by omission. The judge also found that many of Mr. Burek’s assumptions regarding the soil were unreasonable, which is why not all of the information UMA provided was found to be misleading: that is, it would only have been misleading had Mr. Burek’s assumptions based on them been entirely reasonable.

Three further points were made out, thus leading the judge to hold that the misrepresentation was negligent. First, the judge held that, based on evidence, UMA had fallen below the standard of care it owed bidders by failing to disclose the Mollard terrain mapping. Second, the judge found that it was reasonable for the plaintiff to have relied on the information UMA provided that did not disclose an increase in rock further north along the planned route and made no mention of extensive boulders. Third, the judge accepted the evidence that North Pacific incurred costs over and above what it anticipated because of relying on the information. Thus the plaintiff was found to be entitled to damages. While the plaintiff did also allege deliberate misrepresentation, or deceit, the judge did not find this based on evidence.

UMA had claimed that should they be found negligent, the plaintiff should be found to have contributed to that negligence by failing to make its own inquiries into additional geological information. The judge held that North Pacific was not so negligent, in part because none of the bidders had made these types of inquiries, indicating that all assumed they had been supplied with all available terrain information.

North Pacific claimed nearly $5 million in damages. In assessing the plaintiff’s and defendant’s arguments regarding damages, the judge was unable to determine what a correct bid would have been, due to insufficient evidence. However, the judge did note that Mr. Burek had twice – first verbally, to Cameco, and second in writing, to UMA – stated his damages to be $2 million. Thus the judge awarded North Pacific $2 million.

Readers are cautioned not to rely upon this article as legal advice nor as an exhaustive discussion of the topic or case. For any particular legal problem, seek advice directly from your lawyer or in-house counsel. All dates, contact information and website addresses were current at the time of original publication.

National Education Consulting Inc.
Phone: (250) 370-0041 Toll Free: (888) 990-7267
[email protected]

Share

Is it a good idea to add a “this RFx is non-binding” clause in our RFx template?

Is it a good idea to add a “this RFx is non-binding” clause in our RFx template?

by Lise Patry, ba sc (chem eng), llb, icd.d, Patry Law

Owners seeking shelter from the legal risks associated with Contract A are increasingly including a clause reading: “this RFx is non-binding and therefore does not create Contract A” into documents that otherwise have the elements of a binding RFx.

Is this a good idea? It certainly seems to be. At common law, no freestanding duty of fairness is owed to bidders in a non-binding RFx process. Seems like a no brainer – if you want to avoid Contract A, just make the RFx non-binding!

How to design a non-binding RFx

Although this strategy makes sense in many cases, keep in mind that whether an RFx is binding or non-binding is matter of substance and not form. Courts will look at a variety of factors to determine whether the parties intended to enter into a binding contract – Contract A – by the submission of a proposal. A statement that “no Contract A is created,” while important, is just one of the many factors courts examine.

The most comprehensive summary of factors courts consider when determining whether the parties intended the process to be binding is from the trial level decision Tercon Contractors v. BC 2006 BCSC 499, and presented as the following list in Topsail Shipping Company Limited v. Marine Atlantic 2013 NLTD 163 (upheld on appeal):

  1. The irrevocability of bids or proposals submitted; 
  2. The formality of the process; 
  3. Whether bids or proposals are solicited from selected parties; 
  4. Whether the identity of bidders or proponents is confidential;
  5. Whether there is a deadline for the submission of bids or proposals; 
  6. Whether a security deposit is required; 
  7. Whether bid or proposal selection or evaluation criteria are specified; 
  8. Whether there is a right to reject proposals; 
  9. Whether there was a statement that this was not a tender call; 
  10. Whether the work or service for which proposals are submitted will definitely proceed; 
  11. Whether compliance with specifications was a condition of bids or proposals; 
  12. Whether there is a duty to award contract ‘B’; 
  13. Whether contract ‘B’ had specific conditions not open to negotiation. 

Generally, the more formality there is in the process, the more it points to an intention to conduct a binding RFx. As we saw in the case of Topsail, even if many of the above criteria point to a non-binding process, courts will often strain to conclude a process was legally binding in order to hold an owner accountable for unfair conduct. Therefore, to successfully avoid Contract A, owners are advised to design a process that is clearly non-binding having regard to all of the above factors.  

Can a “this RFx is Non-Binding” statement, on its own, effectively negate Contract A?

When determining whether an RFx is binding, courts will strive to respect the parties’ intention and will look at the express and implied terms of the RFx in the context of the above list of factors. The insertion of a “this is a non-binding RFx and no Contract A is created” clause, as highlighted above, will help support an argument that the RFx was intended to be non-binding, but is not in itself determinative. As we have seen with privilege and disclaimer clauses, even in the face of clear RFx provisions protecting the owner, courts may refuse to enforce the clauses when to do so would compromise the integrity of the tendering process. Since a non-binding RFx provision is really just another type of disclaimer clause, judges will likely subject them to the same judicial scrutiny and uncertainty, particularly if it’s the only factor pointing to a non-binding process.

Owners seeking to protect themselves by using a ‘non-binding RFx’ clause in an otherwise binding RFx should therefore not derive too much comfort from the protection it can offer as courts may, under certain circumstances, refuse to enforce it.

A good idea but not a perfect solution

Given the above, is it a good idea to include a “this RFx is non-binding” in your standard RFx document to avoid Contract A duties? In our view, yes. Like liability disclaimers and privilege clauses, these provisions could provide strategic leverage in negotiations with disgruntled bidders and may be legally enforceable under certain circumstances. In deciding to use these clauses, however, owners should be aware that, while they may be a good idea, if put to the test in court they may not act as a perfect solution to the Contract A problem.

Rather than simply inserting a ‘non-binding’ clause in your standard RFx template, a more effective approach is to work with your legal and other advisors to create a template that is specifically and thoroughly designed to be non-binding with regard to all of the above factors. You can then decide when and how that instrument is to be used, keeping in mind that in some cases Contract A might be the most efficient way to proceed.

Lise Patry, an instructor with NECI, is a lawyer and former business executive with a strong background in technology and more than 20 years of business and legal experience in the public and private sectors. As principal of Patry Law, in addition to general law, she offers virtual counsel services and specialized expertise in contracts, licensing, government procurement and corporate governance. She can be reached in Ottawa at (613) 730-5959 or [email protected].

Readers are cautioned not to rely upon this article as legal advice nor as an exhaustive discussion of the topic or case. For any particular legal problem, seek advice directly from your lawyer or in-house counsel. All dates, contact information and website addresses were current at the time of original publication.

National Education Consulting Inc.

Phone: (250) 370-0041     Toll Free: (888) 990-7267

[email protected]

Share

Canada Free Trade Agreement Implications

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

CFTA Implications

by Lise Patry, B.A.Sc., LLB, ICD.D

Will the Canadian Free Trade Agreement that came into effect July 1 impact my ability to engage with GPOs?

Thanks for this interesting question. It will come as good news to many that in fact the CFTA provisions clarify rules around the use of buying groups

Under the AIT, we only see a reference to buying groups in the Annexes applicable to Crown corporations and MASH sector entities. Covered entities wishing to purchase through buying groups must ensure the activities of the buying groups are carried out in a “manner consistent with this Annex”.

In the CFTA, the buying group provisions apply to all covered entities and additional rules have been added. Covered entities purchasing through buying groups:

  • no longer have to ensure the procurement is consistent with the CFTA if they have little or no control over the procurement process; and
  • must publish a notice of participation with the buying group at least annually on their tendering website. The notice must direct potential suppliers to the buying group tender notices website if it is different than the tendering website used by the covered entity.

Lise Patry, an instructor with NECI, is a lawyer and former business executive with a strong background in technology and more than 20 years of business and legal experience in the public and private sectors. As principal of Patry Law, in addition to general law, she offers virtual counsel services and specialized expertise in contracts, licensing, government procurement and corporate governance. She can be reached in Ottawa at (613) 730-5959 or [email protected]. This article originally appeared as a series of blog posts in September 2016 at patrylaw.ca. It has been adapted and is used by permission.

Readers are cautioned not to rely upon this article as legal advice nor as an exhaustive discussion of the topic or case. For any particular legal problem, seek advice directly from your lawyer or in-house counsel. All dates, contact information and website addresses were current at the time of original publication.

National Education Consulting Inc.

Phone: (250) 370-0041     Toll Free: (888) 990-7267

[email protected]

Share

BC AGLG Flags Management of Vendor Performance

The Auditor General for Local Government in BC has published a series of booklets designed to help improve government performance and complement its performance audit reports.   Although specifically targeted to local government in BC, these booklets provide a wealth of information, templates and suggestions that can help guide any Canadian public sector organization.

In a January 2016 publication the AGLG highlights vendor performance management as one of three topics to improve achieving value for money in operational procurement. It discusses key elements of a vendor performance management framework, best practices in managing vendor performance and includes a number of templates that can be adapted for use by any organization. The full document can be accessed at https://www.aglg.ca/app/uploads/sites/26/2017/04/Perspectives-T1-T1-PDF.pdf.

This important report complements PSPP 203 – Managing and Evaluating Contract Performance – and augments many of the examples and templates we cover in that course. As an organization that works with public sector right across the country, we see repeated examples of major procurement and contract mishaps related to incomplete or inadequate vendor performance evaluation. Users and business clients become frustrated when the procurement department ‘continues to engage the poor performers’. Yet the procurement department is not provided with enough (or any) information about performance issues to solve this problem. Outstanding vendors see the less than stellar performers continue to be awarded contracts, so they are de-motivated to keep up their own performance standards. All contract performance then slips to the lowest common denominator, further frustrating the users and eroding value for money from government spending. And as we know, terminating a contractor without adequate performance documentation can lead to expensive and protracted lawsuits, unwanted publicity and consumption of valuable resources that could best be directed elsewhere.

If any of this is starting to sound familiar, you or your staff may want to join us online, starting June 26, for a cross-country cohort in <PSPP 203>. (link to 203 reg for june 26 session)   Spanning four weeks, this course takes approximately 3 hours of time per week, and delves into many detailed examples, illustrations and best practices related to this important aspect of the procurement and contract management cycle. The analogy that we often use is that if the RFX process is the ‘wedding’, then the contract management process is the ‘marriage’ – that’s where the hard work really takes place! Determining how performance will be measured and managed must be thought about in the planning stage, carefully described in the RFX and resulting contract, and then implemented as contract performance unfolds.

Share

Content is Still King for Getting Attention for your Business

As you know, keeping your business top of mind with your ideal customer will help you be their first choice when they’re in the market for what you offer.

But cutting through the noise to reach your ideal customers and grabbing their attention is getting tougher than ever. The ways consumers find information have changed.

Enter the Power of Content

What type of content you produce and where you distribute it will be uniquely specific to your brand. You can’t just put a piece of content up on your website and hope people will find it.

Writing articles through the use of a blog is one of the most common and powerful types of content marketing – and having the ability to publish articles to a community blog focussed directly on your target audience is even better!

Doing so helps you build visibility with your customers and potential customers while at the same time engaging them and strengthening the reputability of your brand.

Your content gives you the power to become an influencer and the voice of authority in your field of expertise.

If you’re like me though, because the heavy traffic on the social media channels available for content marketing is constantly growing, I’m finding that my content posted on various social media sites, is like publishing into the abyss. You might get some “likes” and “comments” but it’s hard for most of us who are “technologically impaired” to determine if it actually reached our target audience.

To make content marketing work best, not only does it need to be good and relevant to your customers, you must also consider effective distribution of it and getting it in the right places.

“The most essential issue in Content Marketing, as cited by more than half of in-house respondents, is “Effective Distribution and Getting Content in the Right Places.” [1]

Getting Started

  • Identify your core audience (i.e. for our professional members, it’s the municipalities)
  • Determine their pain points and write custom content that helps – tell stories from your experience, provide information that prompts them to ask questions and contact you.
  • Then publish it where they will see it – “in the right places” (i.e – our “muniBLOG”)

Remember – one article alone won’t be the primary source of conversions so you’ll want to think creatively about what types of content you need to produce. Keep your articles closely related or neatly categorized so, as people start connecting with your content, they’re inclined to read more and more.

Content No-No’s:

  • Too much self-promotion – a bit is ok but your articles can’t be a sales pitch. Keep it mostly educational or informational and follow the 80/20 rule. (80% information/20% promotion)
  • Misspellings & Poor Grammar – if you’re not comfortable writing your own content consider getting someone to write your content for you
  • Not including a strong call to action – if someone is reading your blog, they need to be able to reach out to you – otherwise, what’s the point. Tell them what you want them to do next and provide your contact information.

Now here’s my 20% Rule in action.

Are you leveraging muniSERV’s Content Marketing potential?

According to the Incite Group’s 2017 Marketing Trends, “Personalization” is the next big thing.

muniSERV is ahead of its time and we already offer our members a component of personalization, in that we take your content and target it directly to municipalities for you.

As a muniSERV member, did you know your content on our blog has the potential to reach every Canadian municipality and it will be delivered directly to the inboxes of our 750 subscribed municipal decision-members?

So be sure you’re taking advantage of the power of publishing your content to our muniBLOG so you can leverage the strength of our subscribed municipal members. I cannot stress enough, the power in getting the right content to the right people at the right time.

Finally, if content writing is just not your thing and you need help – contact me. We can help you with that too.

By the way – we’re working hard on taking “personalization” to the next level for our members by developing personalization that will provide segmented targeting to help you reach exactly who you want to reach – so stay tuned!

Susan Shannon, Founder & Principal

muniSERV.ca

[email protected]

855.477.5095

[1] Incite Group – 2017 Digital Marketing Trends

 

Share

Leadership in Supply Chain

Leadership in Supply Chain 

by Larry Berglund, SCMP, MBA, FSCMA

Presentations Plus Training & Consulting Inc.

Ideas are easy. Implementing them is the challenge.

Leadership in organizational structures is fleeting. Leaders take on the tough tasks and provide a vision and direction for attaining their goals. Managers follow the plan and try to insert efficiencies along the way. In supply chain management we often use the term “leading practices” when in actuality, we are referring to common practices across a sector.

When one organization continues to issue competitive bidding process for services, following the practices of its peers, we consider this to be following a leading practice. When another organization is first in its sector to adopt a vested outsourcing strategy, we are observing leadership in action

Leaders are not satisfied with the status quo. The need to drive innovation is inherent in every leader and thus every industry. Followers value leadership because while they can perceive when something needs to change, they tend not to accept the professional and personal risks associated with driving that change.

Change is perhaps the only true constant – but leaders must articulate a vision before real change can happen. Such a vision does not necessarily come from a brief and illuminating epiphany, but more often from leaders’ abilities to perceive that which is beyond the noise in the market or the confusion in the messages. Leaders instead appreciate nuances during the discovery and presentation of new ideas while accepting a reasonable level of risk. Leaders are also not too humble to draw from successful ideas of others and give credit where due.

What makes a person a leader? First, it is their self-conviction in knowing what needs to be done and their commitment to following that goal. They realize when it is beyond their personal resources to reach their goals without the commitment of others. A leader is less concerned with the how of change, allowing for their followers to utilize their own ideas and energy for carrying out that change. A leader is more focused on the why of change.

Leaders paint the picture of the future and have their audience – their followers – understand how their roles can complement the vision. This aspirational aspect of leadership is concurrent with the inspirational communications within the organization and to its external stakeholders.

Leaders need to create the buy-in. Without followers’ commitment to the vision, success is doubtful or compromised. Buy-in requires credibility, a focus on common interests, shared passions, resilience and an emotional connection created by the leader. People need affirmation that a leader is authentic before they will hear the new message. Leaders anticipate both a certain level of resistance and the occurrence of conflicts. They need to listen to concerns and adequately address them in their action plans. A guiding strategy requires an approach in accord with the organization’s values. Changes in behaviour indicating a stronger alignment with the leader’s vision can provide evidence that the buy-in is taking place.

In supply chains, we see these changes in behaviour when leading practices – such as adopting total cost of ownership – replace pursuing the lowest cost; when public organizations utilize the buying power in procurement to positively affect social and economic development; when targets are set to ensure diversity across supply chains; when we see inclusive opportunities for people who face employment barriers; and when value for money exceeds arbitrary budget limits and considers benefits to the community as a whole. That is leadership. Leadership begins when we start to think outside the books.

Larry has been in the supply chain management field as an author, manager, business trainer, academia, and consultant for many years. Larry has worked in both the private and public sectors. Recently he has been co-facilitating NECI eSeminars, classroom sessions, and online modules. His new book, Good Planets are Hard to Buy is now available on Amazon.com

Readers are cautioned not to rely upon this article as legal advice nor as an exhaustive discussion of the topic or case. For any particular legal problem, seek advice directly from your lawyer or in-house counsel. All dates, contact information and website addresses were current at the time of original publication

National Education Consulting Inc.

Phone: (250) 370-0041     Toll Free: (888) 990-7267

[email protected]

Share

Five Essential Skills That Make You an Inspiring Leader

FREE WEBINAR

Five Essential Skills That Make You an Inspiring Leader

How can leaders most effectively engage and inspire others? What’s the best way to gain true buy-in and investment? This webinar, led by communication expert Kristi Hedges, will push participants to think about their own ability to influence in new and surprising ways.

With an interactive format and rich content underscored with social science research, this webinar offers participants practical tools for enhancing their leadership skills, including:

  • Communication strategies to enhance your impact
  • Ways to drive buy-in and adoption of ideas
  • Helping others to find meaning in their work

TOPIC: Five Essential Skills That Make You an Inspiring Leader
DATE: July 12
TIME: 1 pm EDT
DURATION: 60 minutes
SPEAKER: Kristi Hedges

To Learn More and Register

Share

Dodging Defensible Documents Decried

While Canadian procurement is rooted in our unique legal structure, we are among many jurisdictions in the world that ascribe to fair, open and transparent competitive procurement processes. As we know, organizations that follow these guidelines tend to get better value and attract more sophisticated respondents while fully demonstrating the unbiased nature of their contract award decisions. In the public sector this translates into demonstrating effective stewardship of public funds, which in turn bolsters taxpayer confidence.

A recent decision out of the UK highlights the international attention to fairness in procurement. Energysolutions EU Ltd. v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority [2016] EWHC 1988 (TCC) outlines a myriad of fairness complaints lodged by an unsuccessful bidder to a procurement for the decommissioning of 12 different nuclear facilities in the UK. Among other arguments, the claimant Energysolutions (‘ES’) alleged:

  • Acceptance of a non-compliant bid from Cavendish Fluor Partnership (‘CPF’), the entity who was ultimately awarded the contract;
  • Manipulation of the evaluation process to ensure CPF success;
  • Seeking clarification differently with respect to some bidders;
  • Providing inaccurate or incomplete information to ES during debriefing; and
  • Deliberately limiting the permanent records of the evaluation process to thwart any potential challengers to the process.

The complaint was not filed within the time limit for suspending the contract award decision, which meant that ES was limited to only a claim for damages. They estimated their losses to be £100 million (roughly CDN$165 million).

As one of the largest contracts ever tendered by the UK government with a procurement process spanning nearly two years, the final decision by the High Court understandably includes a long and complex analysis. For the purposes of this article, we will focus on the final challenge, which related to the government’s insufficient record-keeping.

The evidence presented at the lengthy trial shows that the government was acutely aware that an unsuccessful bidder might initiate a challenge to the contract award decision, and pro-actively and deliberately directed staff to limit or destroy documentation that might be detrimental to its case. This defensive approach included restricting evaluators’ note-taking, possibly destroying contemporaneous notes, and issuing directives to “consider shredding documents” that could damage their position should the matter proceed to litigation.

The credibility of the government became an issue early on in the proceedings, as they failed to produce witnesses to provide evidence on key points, and, in the words of the judge, the witnesses that did appear “suffered from what, on occasion, bordered on an almost obstinate refusal to accept that any mistakes or errors had been made at all.” Pivotal to the Court’s finding of liability against the government was evidence of deliberate attempts to avoid scrutiny by unsuccessful bidders and to subvert the procurement rules that required an open and transparent process.

Damages payable to ES will be assessed in a separate proceeding, but we can assume they will be in the range of several hundreds of millions of dollars – certainly not an effective use of tax dollars.

While this is a particularly egregious example of deliberately sabotaging principles of transparency, it serves as a cautionary tale for all procurement professionals. Had the UK government spent as much time and energy ensuring the process was conducted fairly – rather than redirecting those resources to limiting documentation that could support a potential challenge – the outcome would have likely been entirely different. A well-designed process with skilled and highly trained evaluators, coupled with rigor and discipline throughout the evaluation documentation process, would have provided a complete defence to any potential challenge. Instead, the UK government has taken a huge hit to its credibility, wasted potentially millions of taxpayer dollars and become embroiled in highly contentious and public litigation.

This case serves as a stark reminder of one of the key principles of our Canadian legal system: ‘justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.’ As we have seen in other, less egregious cases, it is not enough that the evaluators acted fairly and transparently: the procuring entity must be able to prove such conduct through proper and complete documentation of its process. We often receive questions about how much documentation should be retained through the procurement evaluation process, and our answer is always more rather than less. Retaining the absolute minimum required by legislation and/or policy is not always an effective approach to risk mitigation when it comes to procurement challenges in this litigious era.

Readers are cautioned not to rely upon this article as legal advice nor as an exhaustive discussion of the topic or case. For any particular legal problem, seek advice directly from your lawyer or in-house counsel. All dates, contact information and website addresses were current at the time of original publication

National Education Consulting Inc.

Phone: (250) 370-0041     Toll Free: (888) 990-7267

[email protected]

Share