Procurement; taking another look at the definition of 'good practice'
With every period of change, comes opportunity. So it seems like a potentially fertile time to raise questions about a subject Rckt frequently comes into contact with; the public sector procurement process. Clearly this is a massive subject that encompasses everything from buying paperclips for Downing Street to £4bn naval aircraft carriers. So for the purposes of clarity let's focus on the procurement of creative services. Does the current system work, is definition of 'good' practice the right one?
One size might not fit all
Countless times over the years we have been sent procurement documents that have clearly been designed for non-creative projects. Questions relating to construction accreditations, or the health and safety records of our contractors and suppliers frequently appear in tender documents. Whilst ignoring these questions; usually at the request of the awarding authority is easy to do, it is perhaps illustrative of a general lack of experience and understanding of creative services. Whilst it is obvious to say that all public procurement must adhere to common standards, there may be a great deal of value to be generated from developing a more tailored procurement process, not just in the field of creative work.
An obsession with risk?
It can often seem as if the primary goal of any procurement exercise is the elimination of risk. If that exercise is to build a hospital or supply new vehicles for the army you can see why, but should the design of a brochure be bound by the same assessment criteria? In public sector procurement the elimination of risk often translates into size; if you're big you are low risk.
Pre-qualification questionnaires are dominated by questions of size and scale; company formation dates, turnover figures, staff numbers. Whilst no body wants to appoint a supplier that may vanish next week do you really need £10m public liability insurance to design a website?
The creative industries are dominated by small scale (if measured by size) companies. It is these fast moving, innovative enterprises that are at the cutting edge of the industry, often heady with exciting talent and people with an awful lot to offer. A procurement process that favours scale in an attempt to reduce risk is missing out on this talent.
A rush to a solution
Being creative is often unstructured and can even be chaotic. This fact is at odds with the way public procurement currently works. The creative sector is usually engaged on a project by project basis; funding is made available, a project is defined, procurement begins, and a supplier is awarded the work. This process often demands that solutions are defined in quite some detail at a very early stage, often as a criteria of the funding award. Whilst this does create deliverables that are defined and can be measured, it can also place the project in a straight jacket, tying the hands of the client and frustrating the creative process. Too often clients come to us with solutions that they want us to deliver, rather than problems they would like us to solve.
Excellence is more likely to be achieved where a project has room to evolve, and creatives have freedom to explore ideas. Whilst no one is naive enough to ask for a complete free hand, a little wiggle room would deliver better results.
Conclusion: more focus and flexibility
The focus of all public sector procurement must be to deliver the best product possible. To achieve this in a creative services setting the current procedures could benefit from a period of evolution; adopting a more flexible approach, allowing projects to evolve and recognising that the biggest is not always the best.
