Relocation of RMV Contractor to own offices

24/11/2010 1:09 am

Writing from experience, I can honestly say that overall, without taking the management of the arrangement into consideration, the disadvantages cancel out the advantages, and vice versa. 

Unless the process is managed effectively, in which case a client-averse contract can become beneficial to the client as well as the contractor, then it matters less, which option has more advantages than advantages. I suppose it is more a matter of risk management than it is project management, in that the mobilisation of the contract is merely a means to an end, which requires excellent project management skills and tools to be implemented. The management of the risks associated to such an arrangement become more important once the contractual obligations begin between the parties especially post mobilisation. 

Having a contractor located in-house would appear like a good idea theoretically, because the advantages could be any or all of the following:

Seamless delivery of RMV function

Improved lines of communication between parties.

Improved delivery times and KPIs such as Right first time, first time fix etc.

Information can be shared between parties more efficiently leading to improved customer satisfaction and a reduction in time taken to respond to complaints.

Improved ability to feed into Asset Management Databases, EDM and live systems, which would allow more reliable and more self audited information to form the bedrock of operational plans and strategies, going forward.  

Reduction in resources and savings in costs to mobilise, manage and deliver framework.

Giving the customers a more unified service, challenging the perception of ‘them and us’. 

Improved ability to identify, monitor and respond to the RMV contractor’s needs, throughout the term of the framework.

Improved ability to build trust and confidence with the contractor and thus, the customer.

Creating an environment where there is better understanding and harmony between the contractor, the client and its customers. This should ultimately lead to a more supportive and caring working environment rather than a hostile one where trust is limited because of the typical client perception of a contractor placing profits before customer needs and subsequent satisfaction.

However, the disadvantages could also be any or all of the following:

Limited resources may jeopardise the entire process which is why the feasibility to project manage such transitional change, needs to be appraised carefully by all stakeholders before implementing any contractual action.

Inability to interface information between stakeholders leading to delays in service provision and frustration within the teams.

Lack of provision from the client to accommodate the activities of the contractor which would affect service delivery such as regional stores, plant, human resources, indemnities, insurances, training, marketing and business development, to name a few.  

Conflicting priorities and objectives of the client and contractor may lead to a dilution of services, if not managed effectively.

A disjointed approach to data migration and management coupled with ineffective change controls and audit trails could lead to services being compromised and the contract being exploited by the contractor for individual gain. 

If the (intelligent) client has not up-skilled its own team to effectively work under such an arrangement, then the likelihood of conflict and a resistance to change, could increase.

Corporate governance and corporate liabilities could deter both parties from one another so it would be prudent to iron out the full impact of bringing an external service in-house e.g. Corporate Manslaughter Act, Corporate Social Responsibility etc.

Therefore, based upon the above advantages and disadvantages, I would assume it is safe to say that it is the management of the risks associated to the arrangement that require attention and elaboration, rather than the arrangement itself. The reasoning behind this rationale is that the arrangement to bring the RMV service in-house successfully is wholly dependent upon the ability of the stakeholders to manage the risks associated with the arrangement and emanating from it. 

I sincerely hope I have been able to do full justice to your question, but if you feel for whatever reason that I may have missed the point, then please do let me know. I am always looking for an opportunity to learn and develop further.

Kind Regards

Mr. Afzal Shabir BSc (Hons) MRICS  

24/12/2010 3:00 pm

In my opinion, the advantages of the contractor being relocated inhouse, is greater than the disadvantages.

During the last 2 years, I have been leading on a 'Systems' Review of the Responsive Repairs Service, which has included for the responsive repairs contractor to be relocated alongside BHP's Responsive Repairs Team.

The benefits have included much greater transparency, and accountability, of the contractor's workforce, and processes, creating more effective communication, which is consequently leading to a much improved working relationship with the contractor, and a more efficient & better delivery of Service.

I am expecting the 'Systems' review to be ongoing, taking into consideration the much wider scope of service improvements required.   

30/12/2010 2:32 am

Happy christmas Kass

30/12/2010 4:12 pm

anonymous 30/12/10 2:32 pm

it must be very nice for you to be offensive and call yourself anonymous.

31/12/2010 11:35 am

mel finucane 9:39 am

You certainly come across as a complete hypocrite.  Coming here, saying nothing about the issue of this thread, saying nothing were I have been offensive to you or anybody else and supporting someone who like you has come to this thread for no reason than to attack me.

09/01/2011 1:03 pm

mel finucane 08/01/2011 5:33 pm

I can see that our contribution to this thread is to keep on insulting me. 

09/01/2011 3:43 pm

Again I politely remind people to stop have a dig at people we are all human and entitled to our option.

Whether we are up to your level or not respect each others option have stop being negative.  Nor  no one will want to give a option.

Remember what you saying could be hurt fallen.

Please allow people they option and whom ever ask for advise or help or understanding what is being ask you help no more no less

Please stop having a dig and stop being negative toward people

Please again consider the person feelings.  I have learning difficults and I may not always put myself across in the best light.

I would say you do not know whether I have health issues (not that I have) but you never know but having a dig at people you never know whether your dig's will make matters worse.

Please consider the person feelings with the greatest respect

10/01/2011 6:01 pm

Junior, Kass anyone else who thinks this is about digs and insults - just read Mel's posts with less anger and resentment in your hearts!

She appears, like me to want contributors comments to be taken seriously and for threads to provide sensible commentary on the question or subject being discussed. We all know that good, informed and interesting threads just become comic strips when littered with aggressive and often irrelevant posts - if you are not on topic why bother to contribute?

Kass you do become aggressive and rude sometimes, resist good advice and answer questions with questions constantly. She is clearly not the only on fed up with it and others have told you before.

11/01/2011 9:34 pm

I should have said Pakistini Englisman