About a year ago we wrote up a four-part blog series around third party risk. As we prepare for a webinar at the end of this month – Third-Party Risk Management Efforts 101: Aligning Supplier Onboarding With Contract Onboarding – I thought it would make sense to revisit the topic by delving into another industry from where I left off…
Procurement is so accustomed to aligning our technology and processes with the objectives of the business at large that we sometimes miss opportunities to align our own technologies and processes with each other. Supplier Information Management (SIM) and Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) provide a perfect case example. Both bring together suppliers and internal touch points, extend beyond procurement’s peak involvement in managing spend categories, and play an important role in addressing (and mitigating) supply chain risk.
We do love our acronyms in procurement, but rather than being an exclusionary tactic designed to keep “them” out, I like to think that shortening our long phrases to “TLAs” is in line with the resource efficiency we apply to spend management.
At approximately 175,496 pages (as of 2013), the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is not a casual beach read. So, until recently, I had never heard of Section 317.8(5)(ii) of title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations. But I have experienced the impact of that rule first hand on many occasions. Specifically, in the bacon aisle of the supermarket.
Back in the day I did some work for a wealth management firm in New York. At that time, I was introduced to the area of Behavioral Finance, and more broadly, behavioral economics. While not new concepts, they gained new relevance – and urgency – during the financial meltdown 10 years ago. As my client used to say, investors are often their own worst enemies. In times of stress, even the most solidly constructed investment portfolio can be undermined through panic, overreaction and poor decision making. Part of the advisor’s role was, and is, saving people from themselves. There are parallels in technology decision making.