A framework agreement sets prices. It almost never sets accountability.
That gap is invisible while everything works and decisive the moment it does not.
1/9
The exercise that changes it, and it fits on one page: for each critical process, write down which supplier owns the result, which metric shows it is going wrong, and who decides in a conflict.
8/9
If that page cannot be filled in, the gap is real and it is not a procurement problem.
Anyone on the buying side: does your framework name an outcome owner per process, or only rates per profile?
#Sourcing #Procurement #ServiceDelivery #COO #VendorManagement
9/9
Most sovereignty requirements I see have none of those four. They have a vendor headquarters address and a comfortable feeling.
7/8
Worth checking this quarter, for any supplier where residency was a decision criterion: what in your contract still holds if that supplier is acquired next month?
#DataSovereignty #GDPR #VendorRisk #CISO #Procurement
8/8
By the time escalation is on the agenda, four of the five useful moments have passed.
Escalation is written down as a process: level one, level two, steering committee. What it actually is, is a relationship that either exists before it is needed or does not exist at all.
1/11
What separates organisations that catch it in moment one is not a better process.
It is whether the person who noticed believes that raising it early will be treated as diligence rather than as noise.
10/11
That belief is built long before the incident, by how the last five escalations were received.
Which of the five moments does your organisation actually catch?
#ProgrammeManagement #ServiceDelivery #Leadership #COO #RiskManagement
11/11








