We get invited to our fair share of competitive RFP processes. One of the things I've noticed over recent years is that the conversations around procurement have changed.
Not so long ago, supplier selection was often viewed primarily as a commercial exercise. Organisations wanted capable suppliers, competitive pricing and confidence that projects would be delivered on time and on budget. Those things still matter, of course, but there is now another dimension sitting behind almost every procurement decision: accountability.
Every dollar spent is under greater scrutiny than it once was. Shareholders expect organisations to make prudent investment decisions. Boards want confidence that investments will deliver results. Executive teams want assurance that risks have been managed appropriately. In the public sector, there is an expectation that taxpayer money is being spent wisely and transparently to achieve the desired results.
The result is that procurement teams and budget holders are operating in an environment where getting a supplier decision wrong can have very visible consequences. That is particularly true when the work is strategically important or highly visible. In those situations, the challenge is no longer simply finding a supplier who can do the work. The challenge is finding a supplier who can be trusted to deliver the outcome.
That's an important distinction because outcomes and outputs are not the same thing.
Accountability doesn't stop at delivery
One of the realities of business is that organisations rarely invest in projects for the sake of the deliverables themselves.
Nobody asks us to develop a campaign because they want a collection of communication materials. Nobody undertakes a brand refresh because they want a new logo. Nobody launches an employee initiative because they need more activity. Those things are simply the means to an end.
The investment exists because someone wants something to change. They want customers to think (and act) differently. Employees to adopt new behaviours. Stakeholders to have greater confidence. Teams to work more effectively. Investors to better understand the organisation's direction and strategy. The deliverables are only valuable if they contribute to achieving those broader objectives.
That's why I sometimes think organisations place too much emphasis on what will be delivered and not enough emphasis on what will be achieved. Procurement processes naturally focus on tangible things - like capacity, capability, sustainability and experience - that can be compared and evaluated. Scope, timelines, pricing and deliverables all fit neatly into spreadsheets. Outcomes are far harder to quantify.
Regardless, It seems non-sensical to evaluate options on outputs, when you’re being held accountable for outcomes.
The false economy of focusing on price
Like most leaders I’ve experienced the false economy. A decision appears sensible because it saves money in the short term, only to create larger costs later.
Supplier selection is no different. A lower-priced supplier may deliver every item specified in the scope. They may complete the agreed activity and satisfy every contractual requirement. But if the work fails to achieve the desired outcome, has the organisation really received value?
Sometimes the consequences are obvious. The project needs to be revisited. Additional work is required. Internal teams spend months fixing issues that could have been avoided. In other cases, the impact is less visible but equally significant. Stakeholder engagement remains low. Customers remain confused. Employees fail to adopt the change. Opportunities for growth are missed.
The organisation has still spent the money, but it hasn't realised the full value of the investment. When that happens, the original price difference between suppliers often becomes insignificant compared with the cost of lost opportunity, rework, delays and underperformance. What looked like a saving at the beginning becomes a much more expensive decision in hindsight.
What value for money actually means
This discussion becomes particularly relevant in the public sector, where achieving value for money sits at the centre of most procurement decisions. While cost is certainly part of the equation, I can’t recall ever being explicitly asked for the outcomes we will deliver. This would allow a true assessment of value to be completed.
True value for money is about achieving the best possible outcome from the resources invested. It requires organisations to think beyond the initial purchase price and consider the total value that will be created.
- A lower-cost option that delivers weaker outcomes, creates additional risk or requires substantial internal effort may not represent value at all.
- An option that reduces risk, accelerates delivery, strengthens stakeholder confidence and achieves better outcomes may generate significantly greater value, even if their upfront cost is higher.
Most experienced procurement professionals understand this instinctively. The best procurement decisions are rarely about finding the cheapest solution but about finding the solution that provides the most confidence that the greatest outcome will be achieved for the amount being spent.
When certainty becomes valuable
When projects are highly visible, strategically important or subject to public scrutiny, the consequences of failure become much greater. A missed deadline can impact organisational priorities. Poor stakeholder engagement can damage confidence. A failed transformation programme can consume significant leadership attention and resources. Public-facing projects can affect reputation and trust. In these situations, certainty has value.
Experienced suppliers bring more than technical capability. They bring perspective. They bring lessons learnt from similar projects. They know where risks are likely to emerge and how they can be managed. They help organisations avoid mistakes before they occur.
That reduction in risk is often difficult to quantify during a procurement process, but it is enormously valuable once a project is underway.
I've seen many organisations focus heavily on comparing supplier costs while paying little attention to the cost of failure. Yet when projects become critical, that is often the factor that matters most.
Looking at value through a different lens
At Insight Creative, we've never tried to position ourselves as the cheapest option. Instead, we've always focused on understanding what success looks like for our clients and helping them achieve it.
At project kick off, we always spend time exploring and quantifying the business and communication goals of a project and what key stakeholders need to see to declare it as successful.
Sometimes value means simplifying our approach and reducing costs. Sometimes it means identifying risks that haven't yet been considered. Other times it means challenging assumptions or recommending a different path altogether. Often it means bringing together strategic thinking, creative execution and practical experience to maximise the impact of an investment.
But for us, value has never been about the volume of activity created but the result delivered. That's because our clients aren't investing in annual reports, communication programmes, campaigns, brands or engagement initiatives. They're investing in what those things help them achieve.
Final thought
In an environment where scrutiny is constantly increasing, procurement teams and budget holders carry significant accountability. They're determining how organisational resources are invested, how risk is managed and what outcomes are ultimately achieved. And that responsibility requires organisations to look beyond the obvious question "Who can do this for the lowest price?" to "Who gives us the greatest confidence that we'll achieve the result we need?"
And of course, it also puts the onus on suppliers like us to make the value we deliver as clear and tangible as possible when pitching for work, giving buyers the confidence to choose us.
