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?
Over the holiday break I came across a recent article in Forbes Magazine. A Forbes study, conducted jointly with Hitachi of 573 global companies, reveals that just 13% of them have integrated digital technologies enterprise-wide, and 51% plan to dedicate 10% or more of revenues to digital transformation over the next two years.
Observations from the IACCM Americas conference
A recent Liberty Mutual commercial highlights a woman talking about a typical car insurance contract being 22 pages long, and that most people don’t read it except lawyers because no one really understands it; to the average person it reads “blah blah blah blah blah”.