If your company is like most, it promotes “boilerplate” contracts or at a minimum, pushes for standardized terms, such as the contract length, warranties, a 30-day termination of convenience clause or 90-day payment terms. While this may make your lawyer and CFO happy, Russell Korobkin suggests that using standard contract clauses is a bad idea.
- Supplier Pre-Qualification
- Bid Strategy
- Request for Proposal/Solution/Partner Development
Since the breakup of AT&T in 1982, the U.S. telecom carrier landscape has evolved rapidly, sometimes in dramatic fashion. Familiar names have come and gone – MCI, WorldCom, Qwest, Cingular and Nextel, to name a few. Today, with CenturyLink acquiring Level 3, AT&T completing its acquisition of Time Warner and Sprint looking to combine with T-Mobile, we see no signs of these changes slowing down.
All too often, businesses are faced with bold promises about the services they will receive from their outsource providers; they are drawn in by the “ideals” pitched to them and ultimately, find themselves disappointed with the outcome as those services fail to live up to expectations.
You’ve all been told that to create value in your negotiations and get the “best” deal for your organization you need to expand the pie, not just haggle over the limited and fixed number of pie pieces. But no one has really demonstrated pie expansion – value – for commercial contracts – until now.
The traditional view of outsourcing has tended to see cost reduction as one of the primary drivers for any customer. The idea that the ‘total cost of ownership’ of a particular business function over the term of the outsourcing contract should be lower is very often part of the business case. Similarly, seeing outsourcing as a means of transforming a collection of assets on the balance sheet into a recurring service charge, and reducing (or at least apparently reducing) capital costs is another common refrain at the outset of deals.