Late last month, Sean Delaney, Determine’s VP of Sales, and Mike Behne, VP of Professional Services, presented a webinar with IACCM on taking contract management “Beyond the Expected.” During that event, Sean and Mike discussed how real-life challenges morph into ideas and concepts for contract management innovations. One of the most important areas of focus for companies that want to manage uncertainty, mitigate risk and eliminate obstacles to competitiveness is implementation. After all, the success of any CLM implementation will play out over time in terms of adoption and value creation.
There is a constant stream of information coming out about GDPR – the General Data Protection Regulation – most of it with a sense of urgency, if not doom, about it. A recent article by Efficio, one of the valued organizations in the DetermineAlliance Partner Program, laid out a very clear and rational explanation for how to approach GDPR compliance. In essence, you need to see where your risks are so you can plan for them.
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.
In my last post, I wrote about the differences between global and multinational contract lifecycle management. These two seemingly synonymous terms provide guidelines for a large group of varied users and organizations, but they achieve their objectives in different ways. Global implies control, pushing a set of standards universally, while multinational implies flexibility, modifying a localized ability to accommodate regional norms. Continue Reading
In a recent webinar co-presented by IACCM and Determine (available on demand here), IACCM CEO Tim Cummins discussed the history of global contract lifecycle management (CLM) efforts reaching back to the 1990s. As he pointed out, the CLM approaches of the time had a tendency to overemphasize centralization and standardization for the sake of cost efficiency. Though this strategy did bring some short-term operational wins, it both alienated local users and created regulatory and/or accounting complications for the company and their suppliers.
In Part One of this two-part series, we explored the logistical complexity of deploying contract lifecycle management (CLM) worldwide. In Part Two, we lay out the requirements that a CLM solution will need to meet to be successful on the world stage.
A new incoming administration, Brexit, global power shifts…. The world is changing—are your contracts ready?