When working in Africa, one of the things that I love the most is: the networks.
You see, because doing business can be so difficult there and because Africa is so feared, these networks are generally small and very tight-knit. They facilitate business being done the way I believe to be the most efficient and the cleanest: relying on the people you are dealing with, knowing them well, and making a plan to get the job done. No tenders, no inflation of price or scope to maximize income, just good old-fashioned ‘Let’s make a plan.’
You see, because doing business can be so difficult there and because Africa is so feared, these networks are generally small and very tight-knit. They facilitate business being done the way I believe to be the most efficient and the cleanest: relying on the people you are dealing with, knowing them well, and making a plan to get the job done. No tenders, no inflation of price or scope to maximize income, just good old-fashioned ‘Let’s make a plan.’
I can hear you already. ‘No! That’s the easiest route to corruption!’ I know why you might say so, and I understand it. However, I would argue that tenders in themselves, due to their impersonal nature and the complicated adjudication techniques, are the very breeding ground for corrupt practices, and that knowing one’s contracting partner helps to develop trust and security.
That is not in any way to say that partners should not be fully vetted and fully compliant; just to observe that current tendering and procurement methods place too little emphasis and weighting on strong relationships, trust, and history, and too much on price and theoretical knowledge.
As a result of this imbalance, third parties will often win work on the perception of having submitted the best overall offer, and will subcontract it back to the original supplier. This will lead directly to the inherent delays of a longer distribution chain, the cost of which was not considered when sifting offers.
So now I have a question, and one to which I have no answer yet. There has to be a more efficient method for the procurement of services than the current tendering process. What is it?
Tendering works for manufacturing and production, but for services, with their many intangibles, the simple outline and price procedure leaves too much to chance. Despite this, the modern world fears relationships so much that it attempts to administer them out. The value of experience, mutual respect and shared history should somehow be given some credit within this process, so that these are not considered ugly terms, to be whispered in the background.
That is not in any way to say that partners should not be fully vetted and fully compliant; just to observe that current tendering and procurement methods place too little emphasis and weighting on strong relationships, trust, and history, and too much on price and theoretical knowledge.
As a result of this imbalance, third parties will often win work on the perception of having submitted the best overall offer, and will subcontract it back to the original supplier. This will lead directly to the inherent delays of a longer distribution chain, the cost of which was not considered when sifting offers.
So now I have a question, and one to which I have no answer yet. There has to be a more efficient method for the procurement of services than the current tendering process. What is it?
Tendering works for manufacturing and production, but for services, with their many intangibles, the simple outline and price procedure leaves too much to chance. Despite this, the modern world fears relationships so much that it attempts to administer them out. The value of experience, mutual respect and shared history should somehow be given some credit within this process, so that these are not considered ugly terms, to be whispered in the background.
