I hope that you have enjoyed the article “Remedies For Supplier Screw-ups, Part I.”
Remember the children’s story “Goldilocks & The Three Bears?” How, Goldilocks makes her way into the home, finds three versions of certain amenities, and decides that two versions of each are flawed for polar opposite reasons but the third version of each is “just right?”
Well, I am eager to hear from all of the “procurement Goldilockses” out there to know whether you think that the above linked article is too strategic, too tactical, or just right.
You see, I feel that the advice laid out in this article is applicable to any product purchase, whether it’s a one-time, small value order or a multi-year contract. But the danger of writing such an “all-encompassing” article is that it will be perceived in one of two ways: (a) so tactical that people in strategic roles won’t pay attention, or (b) so specific to contract writing that people in tactical roles who simply place purchase orders won’t pay attention.
Well, I’m here to tell you that this little article has advice that can benefit both constituencies!
Those of us in procurement always talk or hear about how the need to “put out fires” keeps procurement professionals from doing strategic work. Well, if you prevent fires, you won’t have as many distractions. This article is all about preventing fires – thinking about what could go wrong in advance so that, if something does go awry, remedying the problem won’t be a matter of “putting out a fire” but simply a matter of following the predetermined next step in a procedure to minimize disruption. To me, preventing tactical work overload is a pretty strategic pursuit.
So, pretend you’re Goldilocks. What do you think of this article?
Too tactical? Too strategic? Or just right?
To Your Career,
Charles Dominick, SPSM, SPSM2
President & Chief Procurement Officer
Next Level Purchasing, Inc.
Struggling To Have A Rewarding Purchasing Career?
Earn Your SPSM® Certification Online At