Value Definition / Awareness
Description
The extent to which “what matters” and “value” go beyond cost, are clearly and mutually understood, and are measured.
Help
Failing
Value and “what matters” are not defined by either party and value improvement is not addressed.
Struggling
The concept of value and “what matters” is recognised by the parties, but this is either not shared or focuses solely on price.
Performing
The parties have each defined “what matters” to them and what they value, they have shared improvement objectives and plans, and value is considered in decision making. However, price remains the main focus, and there is little joint implementation or deployment.
Exceeding
The parties have shared “what matters” to them and what they each value, and improvement objectives go consistently beyond price, are shared, consolidated and agreed. Plans are deployed to jointly deliver benefit to all parties and value added is measured.
Best Practice
The delivery of continuous value improvement on “what matters” and of efficiency savings are priorities that are collaboratively managed. Price is far from being the main or only value objective. Benefits to all parties are demonstrated, and sophisticated measures of value added are employed.
Strategic Alignment
Description
The appropriate awareness and understanding of each other’s objectives, the pursuit of shared goals and benefits, and the extent of mutual dependence.
Help
Failing
No awareness of each other’s business strategy or disengagement imminent.
Struggling
Limited awareness of the other party’s strategy, but relationship treated largely transactionally with no objective to align. No activity to identify synergies, capture benefits or consider opportunities. Ending the relationship would likely have no real consequences.
Performing
Reasonable awareness of each other’s strategy, and an objective to achieve alignment around the goals and conditions of the contract. Some synergies, shared benefits and opportunities considered, and a degree of mutual dependence.
Exceeding
Visibility of each other’s strategy, with objectives that go beyond the contract appropriately shared. Synergies, shared benefits and opportunities identified and focused on, with differences consciously managed, and significant mutual dependence.
Best Practice
Full strategic alignment achieved, with integration across concurrent or sequential projects. Synergies, shared benefits and opportunities pursued and realized, with differences fully understood and accommodated, and profound mutual dependence.
Complementarity
Description
How far the parties have identified differing expertise and capability, and how far they capitalize on these for mutual advantage.
Help
Failing
No consideration of how the parties complement one another.
Struggling
There is some willingness to share capability and expertise, but the parties have identified little in practice to offer each other and there is no transfer of knowledge/skills. No reputational benefit.
Performing
The parties have identified capability gaps which the other could assist with, and the contract defines specific situations where particular specialisms and expertise are deployed. Obligations are fulfilled, but little knowledge/skills transfer. Some reputational benefit.
Exceeding
The parties consciously work together to complement and capitalize upon each other’s individual specialisms and expertise. This is under regular review, with the parties receptive to requests for assistance from each other. Some knowledge/skills transfer. Considerable reputational benefit.
Best Practice
The parties actively work jointly to eliminate unnecessary overlaps and create opportunities. Knowledge and capability are shared resources in assisting each other, with skills transfer an actively managed goal that adds value beyond the parties’ relationship. High reputational benefit.
Loyalty / Joint Focus
Description
The extent to which the parties commit to, and demonstrate, serving the interests of the other, and the short-to-long-term perspective they have of their relationship.
Help
Failing
The parties have made no commitment to serving the interests of the other, and don’t trust each other to do so.
Struggling
The parties claim to serve the interests of the other, but there is only limited evidence of this in practice. There are some aspirations for the relationship to go beyond expediency, but problems typically obscure this and threaten the future.
Performing
The parties generally accommodate the interests of the other, and there is evidence of this in practice. Short term issues don’t prevent a longer-term perspective for the relationship, and there is reasonable confidence of longevity and loyalty.
Exceeding
The parties actively plan to serve the interests of the other, and this is under regular review. A long-term perspective for the relationship is reinforced by examples of demonstrated loyalty and general commitment to the future.
Best Practice
The parties are fully committed to serve the interests of the other, including placing these ahead of their own. Trust here is implicit and mutually reinforcing. A long-term perspective for the relationship is reflected in demonstrated loyalty and explicit commitments to the future.
Continuous Improvement
Description
The extent to which the parties – singly and jointly – focus on, and proactively manage, continuous improvement to benefit all parties, including end customers.
Help
Failing
No perceived need for improvement.
Struggling
A general need for improvement is recognised, but there is little focus or evidence of it, and there is no joint coordination. Improvement targets are mostly for the benefit of one party, are only sometimes met, and always need intervention to do so.
Performing
Some specific improvement plans are in place, there is evidence of improvement and there is ad hoc joint coordination. Improvement targets consider benefits for the other party and for end customers, and are often met, with intervention not always required.
Exceeding
Improvement plans are in place and embedded in processes to consolidate and extend improvements already achieved. The parties often coordinate to set improvement targets for mutual benefit and to serve end customers. These are typically met, with intervention rarely required.
Best Practice
A culture of joint continuous improvement permeates the relationship, reflecting a strong track record of delivering substantial improvements to the benefits of all parties, and especially end customers. The parties set joint improvement targets and work together to consistently deliver and exceed them for mutual benefit, and to transform value for end users.
Relationship Development
Description
The extent to which the parties work together to build the relationship, and how resilient it is to internal and external pressures.
Help
Failing
No investment. Relationship is static and regularly breaks down under pressure.
Struggling
Relationship is rocky and conflicts are frequent. Limited investment and some willingness to improve, but efforts to develop the relationship are one way.
Performing
The relationship is generally intact and conflicts rarely affect business delivery. There are issues in the relationship, but the parties mutually discuss, assess and make some investment in improvements.
Exceeding
The relationship is consistently good and readily withstands pressure. Improvement activities are jointly discussed, planned, invested in and implemented.
Best Practice
Relationship is proven and stable, delivering mutual benefit. A joint plan has been established for investment and development, with agreed improvement targets and demonstrated progress.
Leadership Structure
Description
The extent to which leaders are empowered with clear roles and responsibilities within leadership structures, and whether these structures are adequate, clear and integrated.
Help
Failing
There is a consistent lack of leaders, leadership structure, role definition and empowerment, both within and between the parties, leading to regular breakdowns and clashes.
Struggling
Leadership structure and roles aren’t clearly defined, there are gaps, leaders frequently lack empowerment, and many are inexperienced. Between the parties, it is often unclear who the counterparts are and there are clashes over responsibilities.
Performing
Leadership structures are generally clear and roles mostly defined well within the parties, although less well understood between them. Leaders generally possess sufficient experience and counterparts are reasonably clear, although there are empowerment issues, and responsibilities aren’t always clear.
Exceeding
Leadership structures are clear and roles well defined within the parties, and generally well understood between them. Leaders are experienced and demonstrate effective empowerment, with counterparts and responsibilities between the parties clear.
Best Practice
Leadership structures and role definitions are fully integrated and shared between the parties. Leaders are highly experienced and fully empowered. Integrated stakeholder maps fully define roles and seamlessly assign responsibilities.
Nature of Leadership
Description
Leaders’ capability, treatment of others and openness, whether they do what they say, and the extent of trust they will do the right thing.
Help
Failing
Complete lack of trust in leadership capability and attitudes.
Struggling
Leaders have an over-inflated view of their capability, relying on coercion and fear, serving their own interests, guarding information and showing little care for others. Frequent disparity between what they say and do, and little confidence they’ll do the right thing.
Performing
Leaders generally capable, only sometimes using coercion or fear, and mostly consider others’ interests, share information when asked, and show care. There is sometimes a gap between their words and actions, but there is reasonable confidence they will do the right thing.
Exceeding
Leaders are highly capable, using persuasion, logic and incentives to get things done. They prioritize others’ interests where possible, share information willingly, and demonstrate consistent care. Their words and actions are generally congruent, and they have shown they usually do the right thing.
Best Practice
Leaders are extremely capable, but humble, using encouragement and empowerment to inspire confidence and get things done. They prioritize others’ interests ahead of their own, cultivate full openness, and demonstrate active and continuous care. They prize congruence of words and actions, and time has proven they always do the right thing.
Direction-setting
Description
The extent to which leaders set and demonstrate agreed expectations for direction; are visionary, confident and enthusiastic; and act and behave congruently.
Help
Failing
Leaders set no direction. They have no recognizable collaborative skills, delivering wildly different messages.
Struggling
Expectations for direction set and agreed, but not demonstrated by leadership. Leaders usually lack vision and collaborative skills, act and behave inconsistently and incongruously, and often deliver conflicting messages without enthusiasm or confidence.
Performing
Expectations for direction understood at all levels, and demonstrated to some extent by leadership. Leaders have some vision and collaborative skills, generally act consistently and congruently, and mostly deliver consistent messages, even if not always with full confidence or enthusiasm.
Exceeding
Leadership consistently demonstrates and models the expectations it sets for direction. Leaders have vision and are committed to collaboration, acting and behaving consistently and congruently, and delivering consistent messages with confidence and enthusiasm, even when things are hard.
Best Practice
Leadership consistently embeds and demonstrates jointly agreed expectations for direction. Leaders possess foresight, champion change and work together to shape consistent and inspirational messages. They retain full confidence and enthusiasm, even when things are hard, and their actions and behaviors lead to mutual benefit.
Leadership-Staff Relationships
Description
The extent to which leaders are present and treat people well, whether they effectively direct, motivate, supervise and encourage, and how far they seek and act on feedback.
Help
Failing
No evidence of leaders engaging with, guiding or motivating their people.
Struggling
Leaders often absent/removed, rarely engage, and out of touch. They demotivate and treat people inconsistently, giving little direction, supervision or encouragement, and feedback and input are either not sought or ignored.
Performing
Leaders mostly present, engaging with employees on an ad hoc basis to stay reasonably in touch. They generally motivate and treat people consistently, give adequate direction, supervision and encouragement, and provide some opportunities to give feedback and input, even if this isn’t consistently acted on.
Exceeding
Leaders usually available, regularly engaging in a structured way to remain mostly in touch. They motivate and treat people equally with direction, supervision and encouragement to generally bring the best out of them, often involving employees in decisions, soliciting their feedback and acting on it.
Best Practice
Leaders always available, proactively and constantly engaging to remain completely in touch. Leaders inspire their people to over-achieve, considering them to be stakeholders, and they provide exemplary direction, supervision and encouragement. Employee input and feedback is actively sought, driving decisions and actions.
Behavioral Management
Description
Identifying, clarifying, agreeing and managing ‘ground rules’ and acceptable ways of working to support the relationship, and the extent to which these are adhered to.
Help
Failing
Standards not discussed or defined. Negative behaviors dominate and frustrate the relationship.
Struggling
Some high-level standards discussed and defined, but tokenistic, vague and more often ignored than adhered to. Behaviors poor and not monitored, requiring frequent interventions and hindering the relationship.
Performing
High-level standards defined, with some effort made to ground them, and adhered to reasonably well by most personnel. Behaviors generally acceptable and informally monitored, with interventions as needed to avoid disrupting the relationship.
Exceeding
Standards agreed in some detail, with effort made to integrate them with processes, and consistently adhered to by all personnel. Behaviors mostly positive and regularly reviewed and discussed to ensure they continue to serve the relationship.
Best Practice
Standards jointly developed in detail to serve as a foundation for processes, and exemplified by all personnel at all times. Behaviors under continuous review to preempt issues, and ensure a common purpose and joint team ethos underpin everything that happens in the relationship.
Morale & Employee Satisfaction
Description
The atmosphere, morale, motivation and energy levels within the relationship, the outlook of personnel towards the future, and how all this is gauged and managed.
Help
Failing
No attention placed on atmosphere and morale. Personnel feel unvalued, betrayed and jaded, they experience no job satisfaction, and they are wholly resigned to more of the same in future.
Struggling
Some high-level recognition of the need to consider atmosphere and morale, but little concrete effort made to do so. Personnel feel undervalued and cynicism is high. Energy and motivation levels are low, job satisfaction is limited, and there is little optimism about the future.
Performing
Some commitment to gauging the atmosphere and levels of morale, and some efforts are made to respond to both. Personnel feel reasonably valued and cynicism is rare. Energy and motivation levels are acceptable, job satisfaction is adequate, and there is some optimism about the future.
Exceeding
Significant commitment made to gauging, responding to and improving the atmosphere and levels of morale. Personnel feel valued and are mostly trusting. Energy and motivation levels are positive, job satisfaction is mostly high, and there is general optimism about the future.
Best Practice
Continuous commitment to maintaining and further enhancing the desired atmosphere and levels of morale. Personnel feel highly-valued and cared for. Energy and motivation levels are infectious, job satisfaction is deep, and there is profound optimism about the future.
Contractual Agreements
Description
The extent to which the legal and commercial frameworks through which the relationship is defined and operated are appropriate, fair and serve both parties.
Help
Failing
Unsuitable, vague, ambiguous or incomplete contractual arrangements.
Struggling
Contract is a poor fit, being mostly fixed and imposed by one party on the other, and has a primary emphasis on redress, remedy, liability, limitation and failure.
Performing
Contract is an adequate fit, being fairly standard, but generally mutually-agreed, clear and fair, and reflecting some flexibility and accommodation of both parties. Contractual terms are mostly away-from-the-negative, but outcomes have been considered.
Exceeding
Contract demonstrates significant flexibility and a degree of innovation, facilitating the relationship by being clear, mutually-agreed, and reflecting an intention to serve both parties equally. Contractual terms balance away-from-the-negative with a focus on outcomes and incentives.
Best Practice
Contract embodies flexibility and innovation, with its primary purpose being to serve and encourage the relationship. The interests of both parties are equally represented and prioritized, with contractual terms primarily focused on outcomes, incentivizing the achievement of mutual benefits and encouraging a collaborative ethos.
Relationship Plan
Description
The extent and scope of any relationship plan, who is involved in developing it, how well understood it is, and how it facilitates day-to-day activity.
Help
Failing
There is no effective relationship plan in place.
Struggling
Limited and mostly one-sided relationship plan that lacks workable processes for much day-to-day, and is vague and hard to understand, leading to confusion and compromising the relationship.
Performing
Mostly clear relationship plan with inputs from both parties that contains high level processes for most day-to-day activity, and is reasonably well circulated and understood, but has little focus on developing the relationship and lacks some detail.
Exceeding
Clear relationship plan mutually developed by management detailing workable processes and decision-points for aiding day-to-day activity, and that is visible and valuable to most people, helping to provide clarity and develop aspects of the relationship itself.
Best Practice
Mature and transparent mutual relationship plan that reflects ongoing inputs from all operational levels within the relationship, and where full detail supports and facilitates day-to-day activity, delivering critical value, giving full clarity and greatly developing the relationship.
Communications
Description
How often and regularly the parties meet and communicate, and whether communication is predominantly one-way or more of a mutual, two-way exchange.
Help
Failing
No or very limited interactions.
Struggling
Interactions and meetings are infrequent, reactive, inefficient and focused on problems/issues. Communication is ad hoc, infrequent, transactional and dominated by one party.
Performing
Interactions and meetings are regular, reasonably frequent and efficient, and help sustain the relationship, even if mostly focused on problems/issues. Communication structure generally clear, even if not fully formalized, and some exchanges mutual.
Exceeding
Meetings and interactions are regular, frequent and effective, even when things are going well, enhancing the relationship. Structured two-way communication follows a clear and consistent formalized process. Exchanges are generally mutual.
Best Practice
Near-constant meetings and interactions are a seamless aspect of effective joint governance rather than separate “events”, deepening the relationship, and ensuring the smooth and efficient flow of short term actions, as well as longer-term planning. Exchanges are always fully mutual.
Information Sharing
Description
The extent to which the parties trust each other, identify and proactively share accurate and appropriate information/knowledge, and how they do this in a controlled way.
Help
Failing
Information is withheld (e.g. commercial confidentiality is used as a barrier) or inadequate, and active mistrust persists; no evidence of learning.
Struggling
Information provided is strictly limited to obligations, only provided on request, and often inaccurate or unclear. There are few processes in place, chasing is often required, and there is little evidence of learning.
Performing
Information provided is mostly limited to commercial obligations, but adequately available, clear and accurate. Some processes exist for what knowledge can be shared, chasing is mostly not needed, and ideas are shared between specific individuals.
Exceeding
The parties willingly share high quality and accurate information to mutual benefit, even beyond commercial obligations, and even about difficult issues. Clear processes govern what can be shared and how, and regular sharing of information, ideas and learning is encouraged.
Best Practice
The parties proactively and openly share fully accurate, targeted “real time” information far beyond commercial obligations, with trust and integrity assumed. Joint learning and knowledge transfer are standard at all levels, underpinned through effective processes, and ideas flow freely.
Decision Making
Description
The extent to which the parties consider and involve each other in decision-making, the clarity of the process, authority and rationale, and the diversity of perspectives sought.
Help
Failing
Unilateral and/or arbitrary and/or delayed decisions that disrupt the relationship.
Struggling
Decisions often made late, with the decision-making process, authority and rationale unclear. Limited consultation and discussion with the other party and little evidence of consideration for them.
Performing
Decisions usually made independently and reasonably timely, with the decision-making process, authority and rationale usually communicated. There is also evidence that the other party is considered, with some discussion and different perspectives sought.
Exceeding
Decisions often made jointly, mostly timely, and with clear communication of the decision-making process, authority and rationale. The other party is always considered, with opportunities to discuss and challenge, and diverse perspectives considered.
Best Practice
Decisions typically made jointly and always timely, with a fully transparent process and rationale as part of shared management/governance. The other party is a priority, often influencing or even changing the decision, and comprehensive and wide perspectives incorporated and reconciled.
Technological / Systems Support
Description
The quality, appropriateness, ease of use, and integration of supporting systems, together with how well they reflect the state of technology and serve the relationship.
Help
Failing
No integration between systems that are old, slow, unreliable, hard to access and hard to use, compromising the relationship
Struggling
Minimal integration between mostly legacy systems that are frequently unreliable, restricted and unintuitive, making data difficult to obtain and creating issues in the relationship.
Performing
A degree of integration between established systems that are mostly reliable, accessible and intuitive, perform adequately, and which generally provide the data needed to conduct the relationship.
Exceeding
A high degree of integration between reliable, accessible and intuitive systems that effectively leverage some aspects of new technology, and that help to improve the relationship, provide timely data and meet goals.
Best Practice
Full and seamless integration between systems that judiciously blend cutting-edge technology and usability with relevance and reliability, dramatically enhancing the relationship, and providing immediate, real-time data and fresh insights that help exceed goals.
Performance Management
Description
The nature and scope of performance measures, how these have been developed and agreed, the frequency and mutuality of evaluation, and the visibility of results.
Help
Failing
Performance measures not defined and/or relevant and/or evaluated
Struggling
A few standard and vague KPIs limited to contract obligations, either not shared or fixed/imposed by one of the parties. Evaluation is ad hoc, involving one or two individuals, with poor visibility of results.
Performing
Some mutually acceptable, reasonably clear and fixed KPIs adequately cover contractual obligations. Evaluation is regular, involving several individuals, with some one-way reporting between the parties and results available on request..
Exceeding
Clear and mutually-agreed measures go beyond traditional KPIs, range beyond the contract into perceptions of the relationship, and change as needed. Evaluation is frequent, with diverse inputs, two-way reporting, and detailed results generally visible.
Best Practice
Comprehensive, jointly-developed and fully holistic performance measures cover all of the things that matter, constantly adapting to reflect and drive change. Evaluation is continuous by everyone involved, with complete transparency of two-way reporting and detailed results.
Risk Management
Description
The extent to which the parties identify and report risks, how they are allocated between the parties, and the nature and effectiveness of subsequent management and mitigation.
Help
Failing
No evidence of risk management processes or risk mitigation.
Struggling
Some risks identified by each party, but minimal reporting between the parties, responsibilities are either unclear or pushed onto one of the parties, and risk mitigation is limited and ineffective.
Performing
Risks mostly identified by the parties and generally reported between them, with allocation and responsibility between the parties generally clear, and risk mitigation documented and acceptably effective.
Exceeding
Risks comprehensively identified and reported between the parties, with allocation and responsibility clear and mutually agreed, risk assessment information and mitigation plans shared, and risks effectively managed.
Best Practice
Risks are exhaustively identified and mitigation plans developed as a joint activity, responsibility and allocation are either mutual or agreed to be with the appropriate party, and continuous review and monitoring ensures that risks are effectively avoided.
Problem Solving
Description
How effectively the parties manage potential and emergent issues by making decisions, delegating necessary authority and engaging those necessary in support of solutions.
Help
Failing
No acknowledgement or resolution of problems.
Struggling
Resolution of problems is reactive, wholly internal and hampered by a lack of authority. Problems are either left unresolved or any resolution is partial and slow.
Performing
Problem solving is mainly internal and limited to emergent problems. However, authority is usually sufficient to resolve them satisfactorily in an adequate time frame, and there is some coordination. Recovery plans are communicated in advance.
Exceeding
Resolution of emergent problems is efficient and authority is sufficient to resolve them swiftly. The parties are willing to coordinate and provide mutual assistance with suggested solutions, and they proactively plan for potential problems.
Best Practice
Resolution of emergent problems is exemplary and authority is sufficient to resolve them decisively. The parties work fully jointly to preempt, mitigate and resolve any problems, regardless of liability.
Implementing Change
Description
How well considered and coordinated planned changes are, how well they are managed and delivered, and the extent to which benefits are realized and mutual.
Help
Failing
No evidence of change being planned or implemented.
Struggling
Planned changes are poorly considered, poorly handled, and not coordinated. Any resulting change is typically incomplete and ineffective, delivering only limited benefit and causing issues for the other party.
Performing
The parties mainly focus on changes for their own benefit, but some efforts are made to plan them effectively, consider wider impacts and coordinate with the other party. Not all planned changes are realized or effective, but some benefits are delivered.
Exceeding
The parties are open to changes that benefit each other, often working together to plan them, and assess and mostly mitigate wider impacts. Planned changes are generally implemented and usually effectively managed, with benefits containing mutual gain.
Best Practice
The parties proactively plan change, prioritizing changes that maximize mutual benefit, and working closely together to increase effectiveness and minimize wider impacts. Planned changes are fully implemented and jointly managed for mutual gain and wider stakeholder benefits.
Teamwork / Ethos
Description
How effectively the parties encourage and achieve working together, and whether a blame culture, contracts, processes, etc, compromise teamwork.
Help
Failing
The parties often appear to be blaming and working against each other. No effort to encourage teamwork or joint working.
Struggling
The parties grudgingly work together when required, but only on agreed tasks. Teamwork ad-hoc, generally out of necessity, and often undermined by fault-finding, contractual agreements, processes or leaders.
Performing
The parties generally work together effectively on key tasks. Teamwork mostly encouraged, reinforced by some activities to develop a team ethos and focus on solutions. Contractual agreements, processes and leaders generally don’t obstruct teamwork.
Exceeding
The parties consistently work together effectively. The parties actively plan activities to encourage teamwork, develop joint ways of working, foster a team ethos and find solutions. Contractual agreements, processes and leaders generally facilitate teamwork.
Best Practice
The parties work together effectively as an integrated team in all situations, and a team ethos is fully established. Collaboration is constant and effective, and the team is always looking for ways to improve. Contractual agreements, processes and leaders prize teamwork.
Fairness
Description
How equitable the parties feel their relationship to be, and how this influences the way they respond to each other and evaluate their relationship.
Help
Failing
The relationship exclusively benefits one party, with no consideration of the other party.
Struggling
The relationship mostly benefits one party, with the other party only considered on request. Responsibilities and liabilities are mostly one-sided, with regular bias/double-standards and inconsistent treatment.
Performing
Efforts are made to consider the priorities and viewpoints of both parties, and to try and fairly allocate responsibilities and liabilities. Some evidence of feedback being sought about any examples of bias/double-standards and inconsistent treatment.
Exceeding
The parties actively consider the priorities and viewpoints of both parties, aim for mutual benefit, and regularly review the allocation of responsibilities and liabilities to improve fairness. Feedback is actively sought to correct any rare examples of bias/double-standards.
Best Practice
The parties actively review and pursue the priorities and viewpoints of both parties, mutually share responsibilities and liabilities and ensure mutual benefit. Regular reviews and active solicitation of feedback ensure that this remains the case. Bias/double-standards is unacceptable.