INNOVATION & SUPPLY CHAIN
BS ‘We’re not going to find those savings
11000 has featured many times in the pages of RTM in the past two years.
The collaborative working standard grew out of work by the Institute for Collaborative Working (ICW),
whose operations director, David
Hawkins, led a discussion at Infrarail 2014 in May about its role in procurement and supply chain management.
Hawkins has 40 years in the construction industry in procurement roles, and setting the context for the railways for CP5, he said: “There’s masses of money to spend, but some horrendous targets to try to achieve.”
The fi rst speaker was Stephen Armstrong, head of category management at Network Rail, who leads a team of 25 and is responsible for business-wide commercial strategy, touching all categories of external supply chain spend (totalling about £5bn a year).
The only way to do it
He said: “Of the multi-billion pound volume of works to deliver in CP5, over three-quarters of that is now under contract. The benefi t of entering into partnerships is, frankly, that it’s the only way we’re going to deliver in CP5, because of the savings we need to fi nd.
“We’re not going to fi nd those savings through squeezing suppliers’ margins. That money doesn’t exist. We’re not going to create the capacity we need to do things that we haven’t done in recent years, like major network electrifi cation programmes, without working in partnership and giving suppliers some security to allow them to invest.
“By creating framework agreements and partnership agreements for the control period, we’re giving ourselves the ability to work with the supply base in planning and designing projects to improve constructability; we’re giving ourselves the ability to progress our safety agenda with the supply base, encouraging safe behaviours; and at project level, we’re better able to work together on opportunities to deliver in a more socially and environmentally sustainable way.
“But ‘partnership’ is no substitute for good commercial management; it’s not about paying over the odds, it’s about effi ciency.”
Not a new idea
Richard Graham, development director for rail networks at engineering giant CH2M Hill,
Gevaert said: “This shows you how important the supply chain is: it can cost you quite a bit if it doesn’t work out, or if one of your suppliers
W:
www.rail-champions.com FOR MORE INFORMATION
rail technology magazine Jun/Jul 14 | 35
But the project that made its name, he said, was the ‘Rocky Flats Closure’ – a complex nuclear decommissioning programme near a population centre. Original estimates were that it could take 70 years and cost $36bn. Clearly a different approach was required, and CH2M Hill was part of the team that got it done in six years for $6bn.
Graham said: “We did that by focusing on outcomes, not processes. Secondly, on the team, not ‘what’s in it for me’. Thirdly, it was about incentivisation: setting targets to work to common goals. Fourth, it was engaging the supply chain – some of the tools in the box didn’t actually exist, so we needed innovation. Fifthly, it took good governance and programme controls.
“This was in 1995, well before BS 11000. So CH2M Hill and similar companies would argue that we’ve been ‘doing’ collaboration a lot longer.”
He said client leadership was a vital element. “Network Rail coming on board and embracing this has been a key change,” he said.
Supply chain failure
Next up was Annette Gevaert, director of rail and transport at Achilles, and a frequent contributor to RTM on supply chain issues.
She discussed research commissioned by Achilles – featured in our April/May 2014 edition – into the costs of supply chain failure.
The main failures experienced by the companies interviewed were failure to deliver on time or to the required quality. The third most common was fi nancial failure – when a supplier went bust. The most expensive failures, though less common, were reputational, at an average of £300,000 per case. “Though that’s quite diffi cult to measure, of course,” Gevaert acknowledged.
About 8% experienced diffi culties when a supplier didn’t meet health and safety obligations.
gave some of the backstory of the company – an American fi rm that’s made big inroads in the UK with its work on the Olympics and Crossrail, among other projects.
through squeezing suppliers’ margins’ Adam Hewitt reports from The Platform session at Infrarail on supply chain, procurement and collaboration.
doesn’t deliver in time, in quality, or doesn’t deliver at all if it isn’t around any more.
“What surprised me from the research is that half of the organisations didn’t even know who their tier 2, 3 or 4 suppliers were: they had never mapped out their supply chain below the top tier. Yet quite a lot of them experienced diffi culties coming from those lower tiers.
“Getting that visibility will drive performance up. That’s where collaborative working comes in and will help us going forward.”
Hawkins noted that there is far more talk of supplier failure than customer failure, and then made the case for BS 11000, saying too many people saw risks where there were none. He said: “I had a discussion with a Network Rail lawyer who spent two hours telling me about the challenges, diffi culties and risks of moving into a collaborative environment. So I had to ask: how successful have your existing, straightforward, non-collaborative contracts been in delivering projects on time, under budget, up to quality? Not very.”
A different mindset
Stephen Ashcroft, procurement coach at Brian Farrington Ltd, discussed this reluctance. He said that because procurement people usually report into fi nancial offi cers usually perceived as cost-focused, they can feel judged primarily on one metric: saving money. “That makes it diffi cult to attract blue-sky thinking interested in transformational change,” he said. “It needs a different mindset.
“The biggest challenge I see is people’s willingness to embrace those changes at a senior level. Conceptually, BS11000 works fantastically: but are people in procurement willing to change?”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148