In a series of articles for journals and LinkedIn, I have outlined the idea of treating contracting as a process, rather than contracts as stand-alone documents.
A contract process maturity model, or CPMM, is a tool designed to refine this idea and future-proof your contracting (read more). Disputes, lack of collaboration, failing to sign contracts combined with the large sums of money at stake have shown we definitely have room to improve (read more).
But why do we need another model or tool or pyramid?
It depends on whether you are interested in changing the predominant risk-dumping and adversarial approach of the industry to one based on trust not terms. It depends whether you think a long-term collaborative supply chain is good for the industry. My audience of contractors and clients yesterday certainly thought so.
A CPMM can improve trust as it focuses on improving co-operation, competence and character (read more).
The purpose of the model is not to make contracting more complex but to highlight best practice, decide how good your organisation is at contracting, and then suggest ways to improve your processes. Like most maturity models, there are a series of levels moving from reactive (read more) to developing (read more) to proactive (continuous process improvement). As an organisation moves up the pyramid it has more mature contracting, and its processes increasingly become:
This doesn’t necessarily mean more complexity – I am a advocate of simple processes as they work best in the real-world of time pressures, deadlines and client demands (read more).
What’s your view?