the measure of our success the challenge and opportunity of state procurement measures l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The Measure of Our Success: The Challenge and Opportunity of State Procurement Measures PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The Measure of Our Success: The Challenge and Opportunity of State Procurement Measures

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 30

The Measure of Our Success: The Challenge and Opportunity of State Procurement Measures - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 269 Views
  • Uploaded on

The Measure of Our Success: The Challenge and Opportunity of State Procurement Measures NASPO Annual Meeting August 30, 2005 Directions from the NASPO Board Appoint a small, nimble committee to oversee the project.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'The Measure of Our Success: The Challenge and Opportunity of State Procurement Measures' - liam


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
the measure of our success the challenge and opportunity of state procurement measures

The Measure of Our Success: The Challenge and Opportunity of State Procurement Measures

NASPO Annual Meeting

August 30, 2005

directions from the naspo board
Directions from the NASPO Board
  • Appoint a small, nimble committee to oversee the project.
  • As its initial task, survey our membership asking them what performance measures they use currently.
  • Second, prepare a paper to address the history and practices of benchmarking as well as its benefits and pitfalls. With that backdrop, the survey results will be the focus of the report to advise the membership of the performance measures being utilized now by our membership. Target = 2005 Annual Meeting.
directions from the naspo board3
Directions from the NASPO Board
  • Third, utilize the information collected from the membership as well as industry practices to identify and recommend a limited number of common performance measures that we might all use to benchmark our programs. Target = December 31, 2005.
  • Fourth, once the benchmarking measures are determined, survey the membership regarding those benchmarking measures. For states that choose to participate, the results will be compiled in summary, anonymous fashion reporting only the statistical summary, without state names. Target = June 2006.
directions from the naspo board4
Directions from the NASPO Board
  • Fifth, the survey will be refreshed biannually as part of the Survey of the States. Unlike the remainder of the data collected for the Survey of the State, this performance data will not be for publication.
the committee
The Committee
  • Vern Jones, Alaska
  • Doug Richins, Utah
  • Fred Springer, Florida
  • Kent Allen, Minnesota
  • Mike Smith, Illinois
  • Voight Shealy, South Carolina
  • With AMR participants, Matt Trail and Michelle Sisler
the brief
The Brief -
  • The Measure of Our Success: The Challenge and Opportunity of State Procurement Measures
  • Primary author, Michelle Sisler, AMR
  • Reviewed and approved by the committee
what is benchmarking
What is benchmarking?
  • Benchmarking is a process used in strategic management that allows you to evaluate and compare actual performance against targets or set goals throughout the cycle of a process to determine where improvement is needed.
  • For state procurement directors, benchmarking is a key task in becoming a procurement performance leader.
what is benchmarking8
What is benchmarking?
  • In practice, benchmarking usually encompasses:
  • regularly measuring and comparing quantitative and qualitative aspects of performance (functions or processes) across time and/or between similar entities.
characteristics of a good performance measure
Characteristics of a "Good" Performance Measure
  • Easily understood by prospective bidder, departments and the general public
  • Focused on the results or desired changes and defined with a specific goal or level of performance expected
  • Well-defined and considers both the quantitative (how much?) and the qualitative (how well?) aspects of a service
  • Developed by engaging as many stakeholders as possible as early in the process as possible
  • Developed with a written definition and well-defined calculation on how data will be reported
  • Realistic in terms of available resources, funding and timeliness and recognizes externalities beyond the control of the system
    • Source: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Operational Services Division (2005)
smart
SMART
  • Specific
  • Measurable
  • Attainable
  • Results oriented
  • Time bound
types of performance measures
Types of Performance Measures
  • Inputs (i.e., requisitions processed),
  • Outputs (i.e., solicitations processed),
  • Outcomes (i.e., percent of state term contract savings).
why benchmark
Why Benchmark?
  • For many states, it is becoming mandatory. Federal Reforms (i.e. A-76) and individual state legislation require most procurement programs to measure performance.
  • Provide a compelling argument for improving and implementing changes
  • Provide a strong marketing tool to encourage public support of state government.
  • Aid state procurement offices in preventing both internal and external outsourcing.
slide13
"I think we're measuring the wrong things - and taking a lots of time and resources to do it. What we need to do is figure out what's really important to our success and measure that."

-- anonymous Purchasing Director (NY)

benchmarking methods
Benchmarking Methods
  • Internal Benchmarking - comparing between different departments of the same state or between functions within one department
  • Competitive Benchmarking - comparison between different states or more specifically, state procurement departments
  • Functional/Generic Benchmarking - compares the state’s practices with others considered to be best practices
top chief procurement officers measures
Top Chief Procurement Officers Measures
  • Price negotiations
  • Creating leverage through combining volumes
  • Past-delivery performance
  • Monitoring of delivery performance
  • Requirements that suppliers have a credible quality and stress continual improvement
  • Department budget versus actual expenditures
    • Source: 1997 CAPS Research, Measures of Purchasing Effectiveness
top ceo measures
Top CEO Measures
  • Quality of purchased items
  • Key supplier problems that could affect supply
  • Supplier delivery performance
  • Internal customer satisfaction
  • Purchase inventory dollars
  • Purchase cost savings
    • Source: 1997 CAPS Research, Measures of Purchasing Effectiveness
question to be answered
Question to be Answered
  • Should we benchmark what we want to benchmark for our own purposes or seek input from our CEO's and others on what they think we should benchmark?
benchmarking as a four phase process
Benchmarking as a Four Phase Process
  • Phase One - Planning
  • Identify customers
  • Identify resources
  • Determine the purpose of the information to be used
  • Determine the timeline
  • Determine the costs
  • Determine what will be benchmarked
benchmarking as a four phase process19
Benchmarking as a Four Phase Process
  • Phase Two – Collecting
  • Create a data collection plan
  • First collect internal data to create a baseline to help develop the final set of measures
  • Research potential partners
  • Establish uniform collection methods
benchmarking as a four phase process20
Benchmarking as a Four Phase Process
  • Phase Three – Analyze
  • Review and study the data
  • Produce a gap analysis
  • Identify key performance indicators
  • Identify opportunities for improvement
  • Develop improvement actions
benchmarking as a four phase process21
Benchmarking as a Four Phase Process
  • Phase Four - Adapting
  • Monitor results and progress for continued success and identification of future opportunities
  • Report results and progress
  • Continue to gather resources when necessary
  • Recalibrate the measure
the pitfalls
The Pitfalls
  • Inadequate preparation
  • Developing either overly simplistic (measuring the obvious) or overly complex (making the process so difficult and resource-intensive that it never gets done or never gets used).
  • Comparing “apples to oranges.”
  • Faulty interpretation of benchmarking data or, worse, the use of benchmarking data for other ends (political, “gotcha” games, etc).
  • Inadequate follow-through
toward common measures
Toward Common Measures
  • NASPO’s survey suggests that the following are just some of the processes and indicators currently being measured and benchmarked by the states:
    • Efficiency of the procurement process
    • Technical or system development
    • Professional development
    • Cost savings/cost avoidance
    • Economic growth and development
efficiency of the procurement process
Efficiency of the Procurement Process
  • Processing Time for RFP, IFB, RFQ’s, etc.
  • Number of Commodity, Technical and Professional Service Contracts Developed/year
  • State Contract Lapses
  • Customer Satisfaction
  • Protest Activity
technical or system development
Technical or System Development
  • Website or Electronic System Functionality
  • Innovation – Actions Taken, Rules Promulgated to Improve Performance
  • Rate of Reverse Auction
  • Online Registered Vendors
  • Online Bid Responses
  • Contracts with Online Pricing and Ordering Capabilities
professional development
Professional Development
  • Training and Development Hours
  • Number of Certified Staff
cost savings cost avoidance
Cost Savings/Cost Avoidance
  • Multi-State Contract Savings
  • Multiple Award Contract Savings
  • State Agency Usage of State-Wide Contracts
  • Revenue per Employee in Office Supplies and Surplus Operations
  • Price Benchmarking
  • Negotiated Savings - Offered Price vs. Negotiated Price
  • State P-Card Rebate and Volume of P-Card Spend
economic growth and development
Economic Growth and Development
  • Minority and Small Business Outreach
  • Environmentally Preferable Contracting
  • Redistribution Activities (% returned to state agencies)
  • Customer Base Growth
  • Registered Vendors
next step
Next Step
  • Utilize the information collected from the membership as well as industry practices to identify and recommend a limited number of common performance measures that we might all use to benchmark our programs. Target = December 31, 2005.
conclusion benchmarking and the value of public procurement
Conclusion: Benchmarking and the Value of Public Procurement
  • One of the strategic tasks for today’s public procurement officer is helping both government and citizens understand that public procurement is not a cost center, but rather, a revenue and value center for the enterprise.