More people weigh in on the question of governments funding suppliers . . .
As any blogger or social networking maven will tell you, comments from readers are sometimes far and few between depending on the topic being discussed. While I have certainly enjoyed the commentary feedback from as many as 50 plus people for a particular post or article – usually dealing with the lighter side of the business world, occasionally you strike a nerve relative to a more serious...
Read MoreResponse to government’s subsidizing supplier participation seems to be more a question of why versus how
In my February 17th post “Supply Chain Finance (Part 1): How do governments finance suppliers when their own credit worthiness is in question?,” I broached the concept of governments financing supplier involvement in the acquisition process as a means of addressing the steadily declining responses to public bids. It is not that outlandish an idea on many levels including the fact that...
Read MoreProactive Recognition on the part of IACCM will help their members maintain relevancy in a changing world
No sooner do I talk about a study spanning several decades which concluded that generally speaking executives perceive the buyer role as a low level position, in which “one strategic business thinker with the right skills and capabilities is worth 10 or 12 of your normal, run-of-the-mill purchasing people,” and (not surprisingly) IACCM demonstrates their forethought in terms of getting...
Read MoreComplex contracting in the public sector: Managing relations and negotiating contracts in the absence of market discipline
Governments buy lots of goods and services. The U.S. federal government spent over $419 billion in fiscal year 2006 for procurement, almost double 2001 procurement expenditures (Hutton, 2008). The rationale for buying is to lower costs through scale or market efficiencies, spark service delivery improvements or innovation through competition, and access expertise or capacity unavailable in-house...
Read More