I despair whenever I hear people confuse or deliberately conflate public sector commissioning and procurement. Too often the words are used as if they are interchangeable. They are not.
However, all too often the procurement processes and thinking are corrupting commissioning practice. This is a huge mistake and will lead to less effective use of scarce resources, poor quality and potentially the wrong outcomes.
So why is this confusion and/or conflation happening? I believe that there are many reasons and sometimes one or more will be apparent in the same organisation.
First, there seems to be a political view that commissioning is somehow softer and more acceptable to the public and other stakeholders. And some are simply too lazy to draw the distinction between the two processes
Second, procurement especially in times of austerity, tight budgets and cuts seems easier and a faster route to reduce expenditure.
Third, the capacity to undertake effective commissioning with full stakeholder involvement has been drastically cut in many public bodies, if it was ever practiced.
Fourth, the procurement professionals in some public bodies have managed to strengthen their influence and control in name of austerity.
Fifth, it appears that too many public sector leaders and professionals have never understood the difference. And in some cases public bodies only ‘commission’ when they are already predetermined to outsource and procure services.
Commissioning should in principal apply to all services and service delivery models. It is a strategic not a purchasing process.
Procurement is just one of many ways in which commissioning decisions and identified outcomes might be secured.
During the present and ever extending period of austerity it is more critical than ever that public bodies adopt a commissioning led approach at both the strategic and tactical levels to determine what they will do and how they will use scarce resources.
This does have to mean establishing or maintaining large commissioning units or teams. It means politicians and all managerial and professional leaders adopting the behaviours and approaches that underpin effective commissioning.
At the strategic level this includes:
· setting a strategic vision and purpose
· being clear on object objectives
· involving service users, the wider public and other stakeholders in identifying and prioritising needs and aspirations
· determining the outcomes required to meet the vision, objectives and prioritised needs and aspirations
· involving current and potential partners and alternative providers and procurement professionals to identify the optimal means of securing the desired outcomes whilst taking into account social, economic and environmental impact on a holistic basis
· allocating resources to best meet the prioritised outcomes and further prioritise these based on the available resources and the potential means of securing these outcomes
· continually monitoring and reviewing performance and options
The outcomes that commissioning has identified and resolved to secure could be achieved via a number of means including
· in house directly managed services
· partnerships and collaboration with other public sector bodies
· transfer of services to public sector partners, the voluntary and community sector and communities themselves
· procurement of services from the voluntary and community sector, businesses or social enterprises
· collaboration with the voluntary and community sector underpinned by grant aid
· adopting some form of co-production
· a system of direct payments
· encouraging behavioural change by the public and service users
· facilitating staff to work in different ways (without coercion) and / or to establish co-operatives and mutual
· regulation
· and many more
Commissioning may be undertaken centrally or devolved to local communities and neighbourhoods. It can itself ideally be a co-production process involving citizens, service users and communities not simply undertaken by professional staff.
Rushing directly to procurement for ideological reasons or because it seems the easiest approach is a mistake and will lead to many missed opportunities.
Interestingly outsourcing critical public services is currently being challenged and questioned as the most appropriate response in current conditions. It can play a role but only if a robust commissioning process has identified this.
When public services are to be outsourced procurement policy and processes should be aligned to the public bodies’ objectives, values and ethos, commissioning strategy and commissioning decisions. All too frequently anecdotal evidence suggests that once a request to outsource has been passed to procurement teams the default approach is to adopt of over burdensome and prescriptive procurement processes which are driven by price considerations above all else. They should be driven by the pursuit of value as defined through a strategic commissioning approach and by accountable political leaders.
In my experience good procurement professionals recognise this and are leading the charge to align procurement and commissioning whilst recognising the leadership role of the former. The roles are complementary but different. This is not the time for turf war skirmishes.
If we are to secure innovation and better public services we need highly effective commissioning and procurement. We also need a focus on outcomes, social value and value for money not lowest cost.