Procurement Contract Management Unit V Assessment

Procurement Contract Mgmt Unit V Assessment

Given the scenario at Radio Max, where Jill, the head of engineering and design, faces a situation where her engineering team is contacting vendors directly instead of routing requests through the purchasing department, the key issues revolve around communication, departmental boundaries, and organizational processes. The core problem is the tension between the engineering team’s urgent need for technical information and adherence to established procurement protocols. Both Jill and Ross recognize that if this misalignment is exposed to senior management, it could tarnish their reputations. Therefore, a strategic approach to resolve these issues is essential for operational efficiency and maintaining professional credibility.

Paper For Above instruction

The big picture in this scenario highlights a classic conflict between functional autonomy and organizational procedure. Engineering departments often seek rapid access to technical data to meet project deadlines and maintain innovation, whereas procurement departments are tasked with ensuring cost control, supplier management, and compliance with organizational policies. When these boundaries are crossed informally, it creates friction, risk, and potential operational bottlenecks. To address this, the solution should involve establishing a clear, mutually agreed-upon process for vendor communication that balances speed with organizational control.

A suggested solution involves formalizing communication channels. Jill’s engineering team could be permitted to seek technical information directly from vendors under specific guidelines, such as pre-approved vendor lists, or during designated stages of procurement with oversight from the purchasing department. Simultaneously, Ross and senior management need to endorse a process that recognizes the urgency of engineering requirements while safeguarding organizational policies. Regular cross-departmental meetings can also nurture understanding and collaboration, reducing the likelihood of similar tensions in the future. Implementing a streamlined process, with designated points of contact and agreed procedures, can facilitate swift technical exchanges while maintaining control.

Regarding tactics, as Jill, I would employ collaborative approaches, emphasizing shared goals and mutual benefits, such as reducing delays and ensuring timely delivery of quality components. For example, I might use tactics like "building common ground" or "creating mutual gains" to persuade Ross and demonstrate how revised procedures can benefit all parties. As Ross, I would focus on establishing authority and clarity by reinforcing the importance of adhering to procurement processes but also being receptive to flexible solutions framed within organizational policies. As the engineers, leveraging tactics like “expressing urgency” or “providing data to justify faster communication” can help them advocate for their needs without undermining authority.

This situation can potentially be a win/win rather than a win/lose, provided that both sides understand the underlying needs. The engineering team’s urgency and technical access can be accommodated through agreed-upon exceptions or expedited protocols, while procurement’s oversight is maintained. For instance, creating a rapid-response pathway for urgent technical inquiries encourages cooperation. If each party sees the other's perspective as valid, the resolution can lead to increased efficiency, trust, and organizational harmony. Conversely, if neither department compromises, it risks a win/lose scenario where engineers bypass procedures, leading to risks and accountability issues, or procurement delays hampering production.

The most challenging aspect of this negotiation is overcoming departmental inertia and establishing new, mutually acceptable procedures without eroding authority or creating confusion. Resistance may come from both sides: engineers may feel constrained, while procurement staff might worry about losing control. To prepare the team, it is crucial to communicate transparently about the reasons for process adjustments, emphasizing shared goals such as maintaining project timelines and quality standards. Training sessions and joint meetings can foster understanding and buy-in. Moreover, leadership should highlight the importance of collaboration and establish clear accountability measures to ensure adherence to new protocols. Building a culture of trust and open communication will facilitate smoother negotiations and successful implementation of revised procedures.

References

• Chen, I. J., & Paulraj, A. (2004). Towards a theory of supply chain management: The constructs and measurement. Journal of Operations Management, 22(2), 119-150.
• Croom, S., Morecroft, C., & Mclntyre, J. (2000). Strategic Purchasing and Supply Management. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 6(4), 189-198.
• Harland, C. M., Zheng, J., Johnsen, T., & Lamming, R. (1999). An operational model for managing supplier relationships. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 5(2), 177-194.
• Krause, D. R., Scannell, T. V., & Calantone, R. (2000). A structural analysis of the effectiveness of buying firms’ strategies to improve supplier performance. Journal of Operations Management, 18(2), 141-159.
• Li, S., Ragu-Nathan, B., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., & Rao, S. S. (2006). The impact of supply chain management practices on competitive advantage and organizational performance. Omega, 34(2), 107-124.
• Monczka, R. M., Handfield, R. B., Giunipero, L. C., & Patterson, J. L. (2015). Purchasing and Supply Chain Management. Cengage Learning.
• Spekman, R. E., & Morgan, R. E. (1989). Risky business: Incorporating buyers’ perceptions of risk into supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics, 10(2), 45-59.
• Sullivan, S. D. (2004). Supply chain management: Ethics and risks. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1), 23-28.
• Turner, J. R. (2014). The handbook of project-based management. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Waters, D. (2003). Strategic procurement. Thames & Hudson.