Podcasts about Procurement

How do you bridge the gap between today's urgent requests and your long-term, strategic goals? What tools and strategies can you use to plan and lead change better? And why is the simple act of writing things down the best habit to learn to become more confident in your decision making? Procurement futurist and leadership keynote speaker Dr Graham Norris is our guest for this episode. He offers practical and plain-speaking answers to those challenging questions. A guru in organisational psychology, Norris shares how practical strategies like 'backcasting' and 'mental time travel' can help procurement and supply professionals unlock their inner strategists, even amidst a backdrop of uncertainty. Further reading: Find out more about Graham Norris DOWNLOAD: the CIPS Global State of Procurement & Supply 2025 report, supported by GEP READ: The seven skills of strategic foresight READ: Graham Norris' emerging AI trends in procurement  

Nos últimos 20 anos, as plataformas digitais transformaram radicalmente a forma como compramos, negociamos e nos conectamos com fornecedores. Se antes falávamos apenas em digitalização de processos básicos, hoje vivemos em um cenário de leilões reversos, integração com ERPs e dashboards completos. Mas a grande pergunta é: estamos prontos para o próximo salto? O futuro de Compras não é apenas comprar melhor, mas comprar de forma mais inteligente. Plataformas que já começam a incorporar IA para prever preços, sugerir fornecedores e até negociar via chatbots. Analytics em tempo real, com insights preditivos que mostram riscos e oportunidades antes que eles aconteçam. Experiências muito mais intuitivas, leves e acessíveis tanto para compradores quanto para fornecedores. ESG e compliance integrados de forma nativa, entregando indicadores automáticos de sustentabilidade e diversidade. Blockchain garantindo segurança, transparência e contratos inteligentes. Ecossistemas conectados, em que procurement se une a fintechs para destravar crédito e soluções financeiras na cadeia. Já vemos exemplos globais de startups disruptivas, gigantes como Coupa, Ariba e GEP se reinventando, e empresas que enxergam procurement tech não como um suporte, mas como inteligência de negócios estratégica. E aqui fica a reflexão: As plataformas vão substituir o comprador ou potencializá-lo? Fornecedores menores conseguirão acompanhar essa transformação? O verdadeiro valor das plataformas vai além de savings? O futuro já está batendo à porta, e cabe a nós decidir se vamos apenas usá-lo ou liderá-lo.

Patrick McKenzie (patio11) is joined by Bean, a pseudonymous defense industry expert, to explore the intellectual crossovers between military and civilian domains. The conversation reveals how the defense industry's fundamental constraint of having only one customer (a monopsony) creates entirely different incentives than tech, leading to conservatism and 30-50 year product lifecycles. Bean argues that drones are largely modern iterations of cruise missiles we've had since the 1950s, and explains why current anti-drone defenses make swarm attacks less threatening than headlines suggest.–Full transcript available here: www.complexsystemspodcast.com/defense-with-bean-of-naval-gazing/–Sponsor:This episode is brought to you by Mercury, the fintech trusted by 200K+ companies — from first milestones to running complex systems. Mercury offers banking that truly understands startups and scales with them. Start today at Mercury.comMercury is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services provided by Choice Financial Group, Column N.A., and Evolve Bank & Trust; Members FDIC. –Recommended in this episode:Naval Gazing: https://www.navalgazing.net/––Timestamps:(00:00) Intro(00:29) The overlap between tech and defense(01:35) Operations research in World War II(02:55) Mathematical insights and military strategies(05:28) The role of operations research in modern warfare(16:59) Tech and defense (Part 1)(19:48) Sponsor: Mercury(21:00) Tech and defense (Part 2)(26:07) Economics behind the defense industry(32:07) SpaceX's early challenges and achievements(33:00) The Super Hornet development story(34:39) Military procurement lessons(37:42) Aerospace industry retention rates(38:42) Lockheed Martin's dominance and supply chain(40:55) Drone technology and military applications(46:53) Anti-drone defenses and future warfare(48:01) Naval warfare and historical perspectives(01:01:03) Wrap

In this final keynote, Jeff Sage, Director of Enterprise Service and Analysis Division at NASA's Office of Procurement, discusses the integration of AI in NASA's procurement processes. Introduced by Andrew McAllister, Jeff elaborates on NASA's historical and current use of AI, particularly focusing on its role in optimizing procurement operations amid workforce challenges. He shares practical AI applications like the statement of work generator that significantly enhances efficiency. Jeff also talks about the cultural and operational shifts needed for successful AI implementation, including training in prompt engineering and maintaining human oversight to mitigate biases. The session emphasizes that while AI is a powerful tool, it requires human expertise to fully leverage its potential. Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform to never miss an episode! For more from ACT-IAC, follow us on LinkedIn or visit http://www.actiac.org.Learn more about membership at https://www.actiac.org/join.Donate to ACT-IAC at https://actiac.org/donate. Intro/Outro Music: See a Brighter Day/Gloria TellsCourtesy of Epidemic Sound(Episodes 1-159: Intro/Outro Music: Focal Point/Young CommunityCourtesy of Epidemic Sound)

Listen in as Satyen Pathak, Managing Director–India for ProcureAbility, shares his predictions for the future of procurement and his tips for future-proofing procurement operations in an interview with Dawn Tiura, CEO & President of SIG. While many procurement best practices—like category management, procurement transformation, strategic sourcing, communicating procurement's strategic importance to the business, and building supplier relationships for the long term—will remain at the heart of CPOs' strategies, emerging trends will reroute the path to success. Learn how to incorporate and leverage the latest influences, including: The impact of Generative AI. A global focus on environmental, social, and governance. The possibilities of improved data analytics, machine learning, and risk solutions.

The supply chain faces a lot of challenges right now: geopolitical unpredictability, tariff uncertainty, the end of de minimis exemptions, and constantly changing regulations worldwide. It doesn't need one more problem - but it has one anyway. And that's cargo theft. According to Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb), since 2021, there has been a 1,500% increase in cargo theft incidents in the U.S., costing $35 Billion annually. The Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) has reported that cargo theft grew by over 600% between November 2022 and March 2023 alone, less than 6 months.  Recent estimates say that 2,500 truckloads are stolen every year, an average of 200 truckloads per month, or 7 per day.  And who pays for all of that theft? Companies shipping goods, companies transporting goods, and you. The consumer. In this episode of the Art of Supply podcast, Kelly Barner looks into this massive and growing problem: The different types of theft associated with the cargo crime epidemic How technology is making it easier for criminals to seize loads and making it easier for shippers to safeguard their cargo A case example involving one of the worst and fastest growing areas of cargo theft: copper Links: Kelly Barner on LinkedIn Art of Supply LinkedIn newsletter  Art of Supply on AOP Subscribe to This Week in Procurement  

Procurement can play a crucial role in driving a company's transformation, and leaders are now recognizing its potential to be a strategic enabler of change. In this episode of Inside the Strategy Room, we explore the key findings from our recent McKinsey.com article titled “Aim higher and move faster for successful procurement-led transformation”. Teresa George, a partner in our Chicago office, Raul Santos, a partner in our Madrid office, and Cole Wirpel, an associate partner in our Atlanta office, join Sean to share insights on how procurement can be a catalyst for company-wide transformation and the essential capabilities required to achieve this goal. Related insights Aim higher and move faster for successful procurement-led transformation How procurement leaders can bring metals and mining up to speed The digital spend control tower: Shift spending mindsets at scale Defining your ‘true north’: A road map to successful transformation McKinsey Insights on Transformation McKinsey Transformation on LinkedIn McKinsey Insights on Strategy & Corporate Finance McKinsey Strategy & Corporate Finance on LinkedInSupport the show: https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/mckinsey-strategy-&-corporate-finance/See www.mckinsey.com/privacy-policy for privacy information

Rikesh Shah is a visionary in public sector innovation and the driving force behind the Innovation Procurement Empowerment Centre at Connected Places Catapult. Rikesh shares how rethinking procurement can catalyze transformative solutions in the public sector, fostering environments where governments proactively solve pressing societal challenges. Drawing from his groundbreaking experience at Transport for London, Rikesh reveals how opening up city data empowered entrepreneurs to reshape mobility for millions, and how adopting a venture mindset in public procurement can deliver remarkable outcomes. Tune in to explore how procurement strategies can shift from cautious compliance to bold innovation, redefining what's possible for cities around the world.

On this episode, host Sagi Eliyahu talks with Karthik Rama, CEO and Principal Consultant of Procurement Doctors. With nearly two decades of procurement experience, Karthik shares candid insights about the state of procurement today, the impact of AI and the gap between technology's pace and procurement's maturity. They discuss how procurement leaders can prepare for rapid change, why chasing the latest trends is a mistake and what it means to redefine procurement beyond just cost savings. Key Takeaways:00:00 Introduction.03:12 Why generic frameworks and slide decks won't survive in the AI era.06:38 The lack of global standards keeps procurement unstructured.07:59 How chasing shiny objects every few years undermines real progress.13:18 The risks of defining procurement too narrowly as only about savings.16:21 What it takes for procurement to be viewed as a strategic partner.19:38 Lessons from an automation project that failed despite working technically.22:09 How layered agentic bots with human support could reshape procurement.24:45 Why centers of excellence fail when treated as side priorities.27:39 The importance of growing in breadth before growing in length.Resources Mentioned:Karthik Ramahttps://www.linkedin.com/in/procurementdoctor/Procurement Doctors | LinkedInhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/procurementdoctors/Procurement Doctors | Websitehttp://www.procurementdoctors.comThis episode is brought to you by Tonkean.Tonkean is the operating system for business operations and is the enterprise standard for process orchestration. It provides businesses with the building blocks to orchestrate any process, with no code or change management required. Contact us at tonkean.com to learn how you can build complex business processes. Fast.#Operations #BusinessOperations

Stephen Grootes speaks to Sikonathi Mantshantsha, Journalist at News24 Investigations, about the suspension of GPAA CEO Kedibone Madiehe amid allegations of procurement misconduct and the appointment of Job Stadi Mngomezulu as acting CEO to ensure continuity and stability in the administration of government pensions. The Money Show is a podcast hosted by well-known journalist and radio presenter, Stephen Grootes. He explores the latest economic trends, business developments, investment opportunities, and personal finance strategies. Each episode features engaging conversations with top newsmakers, industry experts, financial advisors, entrepreneurs, and politicians, offering you thought-provoking insights to navigate the ever-changing financial landscape.    Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Money Show Listen live Primedia+ weekdays from 18:00 and 20:00 (SA Time) to The Money Show with Stephen Grootes broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show, go to https://buff.ly/7QpH0jY or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/PlhvUVe Subscribe to The Money Show Daily Newsletter and the Weekly Business Wrap here https://buff.ly/v5mfetc The Money Show is brought to you by Absa     Follow us on social media   702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702   CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/Radio702 CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"Business partnering is what sets apart good procurement teams from great procurement teams, especially in indirect procurement... Those who are good at partnering with the business, they actually are able to excel." - Sasha Sergeev, Director of Technical & Corporate Procurement, Nova Chemicals Procurement must evolve beyond traditional cost-focused metrics to become true business partners that drive organizational success. The most mature procurement teams understand that delivering exceptional stakeholder support and building embedded relationships creates far more value than savings alone. In this episode of the Art of Procurement podcast, recorded at the Supply Chain Canada National Conference, procurement transformation leader Sasha Sergeev, Director of Technical & Corporate Procurement at Nova Chemicals, reveals the comprehensive approach his organization used to elevate their indirect procurement team from good to great through strategic business partnering. Sasha shares practical insights on conducting honest maturity assessments, embedding procurement professionals within business teams, and building stakeholder relationships that separate high-performing procurement organizations from the rest. Sasha also discusses: How to conduct comprehensive procurement maturity assessments using both quantitative benchmarks and qualitative stakeholder feedback The critical importance of honest, anonymous feedback in identifying procurement's blind spots and pain points Strategies for embedding procurement business partners directly within stakeholder teams and daily operations Why in-person engagement accelerates relationship building and trust, though virtual partnering can also be effective How to train procurement professionals to balance being helpful business partners while maintaining appropriate governance Links: Sasha Sergeev on LinkedIn Subscribe to This Week in Procurement Subscribe to Art of Procurement on YouTube  

This week, the GovNavigators welcome Jason Miller, Executive Editor at Federal News Network, for a wide-ranging conversation on the state of federal acquisition and IT leadership. From the long-awaited FAR overhaul and GSA's contracting shifts to the evolving role of the federal CIO, Jason unpacks what these changes mean for agencies, industry, and small businesses alike.Show NotesOMB: Improper Payments MemoEO: Improving our Nation Through Better DesignEvents on the GovNavigators' RadarAugust 25, 2025: A Hole in One with ACT-IACSeptember 16-18, 2025: Partnership for Public Service's GovHR Conference September 18, 2025: GAIN 2025 (Marketing Conference)

Send us a textWelcome to Part Three of our special four-part series on building a profitable interior design business with Laura Thornton!In this episode, Laura brings together everything you've learned so far—understanding your numbers, tracking your time, and getting lean on spending—and reveals how to turn efficiency into profit that's yours to keep. If you've invested in your systems, process, and team, you deserve to be rewarded. Laura shows you how efficiency and smart procurement are not reasons to lower your fees, but the very foundation for sustainable, scalable growth.In This Episode, You'll Learn:Why efficiency gains and streamlined systems are your business's reward—not a discount for clients.How investing in tools, team, and technology pays for itself through better margins and less stress.Why procurement is the untapped profit center that can transform your business—and how to claim it.How strong vendor partnerships (like Laura's experience with Decor-Rest) can help you avoid client “comparison shopping” and elevate your value.How to communicate the true worth of your service and confidently charge for your expertise and streamlined process.Key Takeaways:Efficiency and time-saving systems aren't “extra”—they're built-in investments you deserve to profit from.Procurement offers scalable income and supports a seamless client experience.Your profit covers more than just your paycheck—it pays for your business's foundation: rent, insurance, software, team, and more.As you grow, tracking your profits by project type and revenue stream helps you see what's truly sustainable—and what's not.Be sure to follow along on Instagram @thebusinessofbeautifulspaces + @thorntondesign to stay up to date on what we're talking about next week. If you love our podcast, please, please, please leave us a review. If you have any questions or topic ideas OR you wish to be a guest email us thebusinessofbeautifulspaces@gmail.com or find us on instagram @thebusinessofbeautifulspacesLaura Thornton is the principle designer of Thornton Design Inc, located in Kleinburg, ON. Since founding the company in 1999, Laura has been committed to creating a new kind of interior design experience for her clients. Thornton Design is an experienced team of creative talents, focused on curating beautiful residential and commercial spaces in the Toronto, Ontario area and beyond. Now sharing all the years of experience with other interior designers to create a world of collaboration and less competition. The Business of Beautiful Spaces I @thebusinessofbeautifulspacesThornton Design I @thorntondesign

Dalam penanganan tindak pidana korupsi, sektor pengadaan barang dan jasa (PBJ) kerap disebut sebagai salah satu “lahan basah”.Meski pemerintah sudah menerapkan e-Procurement, praktik kotor seperti mark-up harga, rekayasa tender, kolusi, hingga suap masih terus terjadi. Semua berawal dari lemahnya perencanaan dan minimnya standar acuan harga celah yang dimanfaatkan oknum untuk kepentingan pribadi.

Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

“Today, the U.S. ranks 19th in the world in commercial shipbuilding, and we build less than 5 ships each year, while the PRC is building more than 1,700 ships. In 1975, the United States ranked number one, and we were building more than 70 ships a year.” - Katherine Tai, U.S. Trade Representative (2021-2025) The Trump Administration is on a mission to make shipbuilding great again… a bipartisan effort that started during the Biden Administration. In the spring of 2024, the U.S. Trade Representative released the findings and recommendations of a Section 301 investigation into whether or not China is engaged in anti-competitive shipbuilding practices. This release led to the “Ships for America Act,” introduced by Senator Mark Kelly, among others. When both sides of the aisle agree, the problem must be huge… and in the case of U.S. shipbuilding capabilities, it is gargantuan. There are currently about 80 U.S.-flagged ships involved in international commerce compared to over 5,500 China-flagged vessels, and the connection between military shipbuilding and commercial shipbuilding is too strong to ignore. In this episode of the Art of Supply podcast, Kelly Barner: Tracks the downfall of U.S. shipbuilding from its peak in the 70s to today Examines China's strategy for combining military and commercial shipbuilding capabilities and how that has helped them build a dominant global position  Considers the many moving pieces that will have to fall into place to put the U.S. on a better path Links: Kelly Barner on LinkedIn Art of Supply LinkedIn newsletter  Art of Supply on AOP Subscribe to This Week in Procurement

How to Successfully Work with Local Governments: Insights from Shane Silsby of Silsby Strategic AdvisorsIn this episode of The Thoughtful Entrepreneur, host Josh Elledge talks with Shane Silsby, CEO and Founder of Silsby Strategic Advisors and author of Managing for Meteors: Preparing Local Government Leaders Before the Impact. Shane shares his deep expertise on the evolving local government landscape, the challenges agencies face, and how businesses can position themselves as trusted, long-term partners. Listeners gain practical advice on building authentic relationships, navigating procurement, and offering strategic value beyond just the lowest bid.Building Trust and Value in Local Government PartnershipsShane explains that working effectively with local governments requires a clear understanding of their constraints, workforce challenges, and shifting leadership dynamics. He points to the “silver tsunami” of retirements and the influx of younger leaders as both a challenge and an opportunity for the private sector to bring fresh expertise. Businesses that research agency needs, approach with empathy, and provide specialized knowledge can fill critical gaps in skills and capacity.He emphasizes that procurement at the local level isn't solely about price—it's about qualifications, problem-solving ability, and alignment with the agency's mission. Companies that lead with value, demonstrate a track record of success, and remain engaged beyond a single project are more likely to earn repeat work. Building relationships over time, rather than pushing for quick wins, creates trust and credibility that pays off in the long run.Shane also recommends that businesses tailor their approach to each agency's unique situation, from offering fractional or project-based services to helping with disruption preparedness. He advises proactive engagement, sharing resources, and being honest about capabilities—even referring other providers when it's a better fit. By doing so, businesses position themselves not just as vendors, but as indispensable partners in delivering better outcomes for communities.About Shane SilsbyShane Silsby is the CEO and Founder of Silsby Strategic Advisors and author of Managing for Meteors. With extensive leadership experience in public works and infrastructure, Shane helps local governments and private sector partners prepare for major disruptions, strengthen organizational capacity, and build sustainable solutions for community needs.About Silsby Strategic AdvisorsSilsby Strategic Advisors is a consulting firm specializing in helping local governments navigate disruption, address workforce challenges, and enhance service delivery. The firm also works with private sector companies to successfully engage with public agencies through strategic planning, relationship-building, and targeted expertise.Links Mentioned in this EpisodeSilsby Strategic AdvisorsManaging for Meteors – BookEpisode HighlightsLocal governments face generational shifts and workforce shortages, creating opportunities for private sector expertise.Procurement at the local level values qualifications and alignment over lowest price.Long-term relationships and trust are essential for sustained public sector partnerships.Businesses should consider offering fractional or project-based services to meet agency needs.Proactive disruption preparedness positions companies as valuable, strategic...

During this episode, Santosh is joined by Conrad Snover, CEO of ProcureAbility. Conrad explores the evolving role of procurement in the utility sector. He also discusses the importance of sustainable procurement—focusing on both security of supply and responsible practices—alongside the challenges and opportunities brought by electrification, renewable energy, and increased demand. The conversation highlights the need for supply chain resilience, especially in the wake of COVID-19, and emphasizes the value of optionality and risk management. Listeners will gain insights into how procurement can drive value, adapt to industry shifts, and why even simple tools like Excel remain indispensable for procurement professionals. Don't miss this great conversation. Highlights from their conversation include:Overview of ProcureAbility (0:41)Conrad's Career Journey (2:04)Sustainable Procurement: Definition & Implementation (4:01)Sustainability Trends in Utilities (6:30)Procurement in the Utility Sector: Fundamentals (8:36)Utility Industry Structure & Financial Model (9:21)Procurement's Role in Utility Operations (12:09)Skills Shift: IoT, Cybersecurity, and Construction (16:48)Complexity of Large-Scale Energy Projects (18:05)Supply Chain Resilience & COVID-19 Lessons (19:35)Current Material Shortages & Integrated Supply Chain (23:24)Procurement's Strategic Value in Contracting (25:35)Risk Management Lessons from Mountaineering (27:16)Final Thoughts and Takeaways (29:36)Dynamo is a VC firm led by supply chain and mobility specialists that focus on seed-stage, enterprise startups.Find out more at: https://www.dynamo.vc/

“Savings is completely self-invented and pointless because it's separated from the real P&L." This assessment from Bayer Chief Procurement Officer Thomas Udesen captures the essence of what may be procurement's most radical transformation in decades. In this episode of “Buy: The Way...To Purposeful Procurement,” Thomas joins Philip Ideson and Rich Ham to discuss how one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies abandoned traditional procurement metrics entirely, replacing “savings” with six C's that actually drive business outcomes: cost, cash, carbon, community, compliance, and continuity.  Thomas's approach defies conventional wisdom at every turn.  At Bayer, every employee can spend up to €50,000 without pre-approval – a level of transactional autonomy that would terrify most procurement organizations. Yet the results speak for themselves: increased responsibility, entrepreneurial thinking, and more strategic spend management decisions driven by transparency rather than control. The conversation reveals how procurement's obsession with “savings” has become a self-inflicted wound. Stakeholders roll their eyes when procurement leads with savings slides because the metrics mean nothing to them. Instead, Bayer measures real P&L impact through price index benchmarking and spend ratios that directly correlate to competitive performance.  In this episode, Thomas demonstrates that purposeful procurement isn't just theoretical; it's already happening. His parting challenge: procurement can be “the heartbeat of the change that is coming.”    Links: Thomas Udesen on LinkedIn Rich Ham on LinkedIn Learn more at FineTuneUs.com

On this episode of JHLT: The Podcast, the Digital Media Editors invite first author Luke Williams, a cardiothoracic surgery trainee at Royal Papworth Hospital, NHS Blood and Transplant Clinical Research Fellow, and a PhD student at Cambridge University in the UK. Luke discusses his paper, “The United Kingdom's experience of controlled donation after circulatory death direct procurement of lungs with concomitant abdominal normothermic regional perfusion with an analysis of short-term outcomes.”   The discussion explores: Requirements, regulations, and practices in the UK around DCD procurement and A-NRP How survival rates differ and what they might imply about primary graft dysfunction in DCD versus DBD Further work planned in the area in the UK and throughout Europe For the latest studies from JHLT, visit www.jhltonline.org/current, or, if you're an ISHLT member, access your Journal membership at www.ishlt.org/jhlt.   Don't already get the Journal and want to read along? Join the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation at www.ishlt.org for a free subscription, or subscribe today at www.jhltonline.org.  

Rujul Zaparde is the co-founder and CEO of Zip, the $2.2 billion AI platform for procurement trusted by OpenAI, Anthropic, Snowflake, and hundreds of leading enterprises. He previously co-founded FlightCar, which raised over $40 million and was acquired by Mercedes-Benz. A former Airbnb product manager and Y Combinator visiting partner, Rujul has built Zip into the category-defining leader in procurement orchestration.In this episode of World of DaaS, Rujul and Auren discuss:Why everyone hates procurement departmentsBuilding 50+ AI agents for enterprise workflowsThe future of autonomous business processesYC's evolution and startup quality over timeLooking for more tech, data and venture capital intel? Head to http://worldofdaas.com/ for our podcast, newsletter and events, and follow us on X at @worldofdaasYou can find Auren Hoffman on X at @auren and Rujul Zaparde on Linkedin at @rujulzEditing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant https://thepodcastconsultant.com

Split up between different tasks, our concerned adventurers take steps to get out of Qi as fast as possible. While Jhori goes to retrieve their belongings, she realizes she left something very important behind. And as Smalren and Nehemiah search for safe transport up river, they realize that their passage might not coast what they originally anticipated. Companions are retrieved, pirates are conversed with, and sacrifices are made. Join us and Nehemiah, Smalren and Jhori secure their voyage. Music and SFX Credits: Intro - “Whispers of the Ancients” by Justin Longacre (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCb91nye1bAWGc70VQevM5cA) “Tempting Secrets” Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 “Vanishing” Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 “Lasting Hope” Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 “Ever Mindful” Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 “Mourning Song” Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 “Ether Vox” Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 Outro - “The Monolith Speaks” by Justin Longacre (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCb91nye1bAWGc70VQevM5cA)

"I believe if you can define it, you can source it. And if you can source it, you can auction it." - Adam Collins, Head of Sales, Esker Procurement teams are navigating unprecedented global disruptions, from tariffs and geopolitical tensions to supply chain instabilities that refuse to settle.  What if these chaotic conditions actually present procurement's greatest opportunity to demonstrate strategic value? In this episode, Philip Ideson and Kelly Barner are joined by Adam Collins from Esker to explore how procurement can leverage fundamental strategic sourcing techniques to not just survive but thrive in turbulent market conditions. Adam's procurement technology experience is predominantly focused on source-to-contract capabilities that offer practical ways to turn market chaos into competitive advantage. In this episode, Adam discusses: Why transparency with suppliers during market engagement drives better outcomes than secrecy The critical importance of being proactive rather than reactive when markets are unstable  How to challenge traditional definitions of "addressable spend" and uncover hidden opportunities  Strategic approaches to payment timing that support working capital while serving as negotiating levers  Why keeping a calm head and making fact-based decisions separates successful procurement teams from the rest Links: Adam Collins on LinkedIn Watch: Sourcing Strategically in Chaotic Conditions Subscribe to This Week in Procurement Subscribe to Art of Procurement on YouTube  

In this special episode of The Big Bid Theory, host Bill Culhane speaks with Stephen Hetzel, CEO and Co-Founder of Beacon Bid and BidPrime, about the state of procurement and e-procurement following NIGP Forum 2025 in Denver.Stephen shares Beacon Bid's progress since 2022, lessons from the conference, and how agencies can simplify bidding, engage more suppliers, and improve project outcomes. The conversation covers balancing agency and supplier needs, strategies to connect with local vendors, and best practices for e-procurement implementation, including the City of Houston's rapid go-live.The Big Bid Theory is powered by Beacon Bid and BidPrime.Don't forget that the David and Beverly Nash Leadership Award nomination period runs September 1–October 15, with submissions due October 31. Recognize someone making a difference in procurement. Subscribe now for more insights shaping public procurement.Stephen Hetzel bio summary: Stephen Hetzel is the CEO and Co-Founder of Beacon Bid and BidPrime, leading SaaS providers elevating government procurement through efficiency, accessibility, and transparency. For over 15 years, he has driven innovation in procurement technology, overseeing the development and execution of transformative solutions. Stephen has shared his experience through speaking engagements and written articles on business operations and SaaS management. He regularly presents at industry conferences, championing initiatives that lower entry barriers and encourage broader supplier participation in public contracting.

What do procurement specialists really do? How does the practice fit into the function of modern government operations? Academy Fellow David Gragan, former Chief Strategic Operations Officer at the National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO), and Angela Shell, Chief Procurement Officer of the California Department of General Services, help us demystify the world of procurement. With everything from emergency management to the construction of roads, schools, and hospitals, you'd be surprised how much requires a procurement specialist, and these experts are here to tell us why. Management Matters is a presentation of the National Academy of Public Administration produced by Lizzie Alwan and Matt Hampton and edited by Matt Hampton. Support the Podcast Today at: donate@napawash.org or 202-347-3190Episode music: Hope by Mixaund | https://mixaund.bandcamp.comMusic promoted by https://www.free-stock-music.comFollow us on YouTube for clips and more: @NAPAWASH_YT

On this episode, host Sagi Eliyahu talks to Freya Hurwitz, Director of Procurement at Tripadvisor. Freya shares how she brought a product management mindset to procurement and helped digitize and streamline internal processes from the ground up. She also breaks down the tension between automation and culture, the limitations of AI in negotiation and how procurement leaders can evolve into strategic business partners.Key Takeaways:(04:43) Use product management thinking to improve internal workflows.(05:38) Digitize contract processes before introducing new technology.(09:51) Reduce resistance by giving teams better process visibility.(13:51) AI tools can't yet replace human negotiation skills.(15:40) Expect AI to reshape, not replace, procurement roles.(20:08) Strategic procurement requires moving upstream in decision-making.(23:30) Traditional sales roles are fading in software procurement.(27:04) Tech advances faster than most teams can adopt.(31:51) Stay flexible — career paths and tools will keep evolving.Resources Mentioned:Freya Hurwitzhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/freyahurwitz/Tripadvisor | LinkedInhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/tripadvisor/Tripadvisor | Websitehttps://www.tripadvisor.comThis episode is brought to you by Tonkean.Tonkean is the operating system for business operations and is the enterprise standard for process orchestration. It provides businesses with the building blocks to orchestrate any process, with no code or change management required. Contact us at tonkean.com to learn how you can build complex business processes. Fast.#Operations #BusinessOperations

“If you're as good as you say you are, you should be able to keep your cost structure down, deliver the mission and the outcome, and still make a margin.” - Josh Gruenbaum, Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service at the GSA The General Services Administration (GSA), responsible for Federal contracting, has been making DOGE-style headlines of their own this year. In late June, they sent a letter to a number of large consulting firms under contract, looking for opportunities to reduce spending and better understand the work that is underway. Josh Gruenbaum, who is overseeing the review, specifically requested “No consultant gobbledygook” in the responses. The GSA has signaled a mindset shift from time-and-materials to outcome based contracts, a dynamic that is likely to impact private sector consulting contracts and spending as well. In this episode of the Art of Supply podcast, Kelly Barner looks into this shift and what it will require from all involved parties: How the government defines consulting services The multi-round outreach process being led by the Federal government and how firms are responding How to shift to outcome based agreements and the pressure of AI is likely to change the future of consulting Links: Kelly Barner on LinkedIn Art of Supply LinkedIn newsletter  Art of Supply on AOP Art of Supply on YouTube Subscribe to This Week in Procurement

Jeff Cellucci, MB2's Chief Strategy Officer — or as we like to call him, our Chief Miscellaneous Officer — talks about the incredible teams he leads (Procurement, Marketing, and Continuing Education) and how initiatives like Cerebro, the Family Foundation, and more recently, Carabelli Club came to life. It's a conversation about how Dr. V, our Founder and CEO, and leadership team, are continuously finding ways to help practices grow, while creating tools that keep our doctor partners connected.  ------------------------------------------------------------------------  Subscribe & Listen: Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/69Dz26hgC9D6YqwN8JMDBV Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mb2-underground/id1747349567 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Follow MB2 Dental on Social: MB2 Dental: mb2dental.com Instagram: instagram.com/mb2dental Facebook: facebook.com/mb2dental YouTube: youtube.com/@mb2dental LinkedIn: linkedin.com/mb2-dental

Amy and Alex are joined by NASICO President and Texas state CIO Amanda Crawford to discuss her president's initiative around state IT procurement and the report that was released last week. NASCIO held a number of listening sessions between state and corporate members to learn about procurement pain points and how to to avoid them. See the report here: https://www.nascio.org/resource-center/resources/2025-presidents-initiative-demystifying-state-technology-procurement/

Dustin explores the major areas where tech leaders can leverage procurement to advance their core goals and maximize mission delivery.

After more than two decades in federal service, including a transformative tenure at NASA, one of the government's most influential procurement leaders is stepping down. From modernizing acquisition systems to mentoring the next generation of contracting professionals, her impact reaches far beyond space missions. In this two-part conversation, we look back on a career defined by innovation, integrity, and inclusion—with insights on what's next for federal buying from NASA's Assistant Administrator for Procurement, Karla Smith Jackson.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

There is no template for transformation. You have to build transformation for the organization that you're in. Go and learn as much as you can about the organization and then pivot where you need to.”  - Tanya Roach, Director of Procurement, Federated Co-operatives Limited Building procurement from scratch is never easy… let alone within a 90-year-old organization, during a pandemic, and with business demands changing faster than ever. Resilient, adaptable team members are the key to overcoming challenges and creating lasting transformation. In this episode, Tanya Roach, Director of Procurement at Federated Co-operatives Limited, speaks to Philip Ideson at the 2025 Supply Chain Canada National Conference.  Tanya shares her transformation journey: from assembling a new team during COVID to designing processes with flexibility, and the lessons learned from steady, people-centered change. In this candid conversation, she details how picking the right talent, using technology as a true enabler, and upskilling for AI set the stage for procurement success in a complex cooperative model.  Whether you're leading a transformation or shaping day-to-day change, Tanya's story offers practical strategies: How to build and scale procurement teams amid uncertainty Why adaptability, curiosity, and resilience trump job titles in transformation How to introduce technology and AI in ways that add lasting value The essentials of aligning stakeholders in a distributed organization Links: Tanya Roach on LinkedIn Subscribe to This Week in Procurement Subscribe to Art of Procurement on YouTube  

In this episode of A Shot in the Arm Podcast, host Ben Plumley engages in a comprehensive discussion with journalist and author Emily Bass about the current state of global health, specifically focusing on HIV/AIDS. Recorded in sunny Sacramento, they reflect on the extraordinary events of the past few months and assess the alignment of innovation and equity in global health. Their conversation covers a wide range of topics, including the importance of community-based care and accountability, the evolving role of international NGOs, and the critical nature of differentiated service delivery in HIV treatment. They also discuss the geopolitical uncertainties affecting global health funding and the influence of recent political changes in the US on the future of the global HIV response. They touch upon the significant role of entities like PEPFAR, the Global Fund, and UNAIDS, and the necessity for national contributions and regional procurement in sustaining HIV programs. Emily emphasizes the need to preserve community-based accountability and the value of innovative, country-led solutions for delivering healthcare. They conclude with a commitment to delve deeper into HIV prevention in a future episode, recognizing the ongoing challenges and opportunities in achieving global HIV/AIDS objectives. Emily's book: To End a Plague: America's Fight to Defeat AIDS in Africa https://www.amazon.com/End-Plague-Americas-Defeat-Africa/dp/1541762436 Emily's recent essay in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/14/opinion/pepfar-hiv-foreign-aid.html Emily's Substack: https://substack.com/@emilysbass Ben's Substack: https://substack.com/@benplumley1 Chapters: 00:00 Introduction and Host Welcome 00:36 Guest Introduction: Emily's Expertise 02:26 Global Health Check-In 03:11 Humanitarian Crises and HIV 05:00 Impact of Global Health Policies 06:44 HIV Treatment Challenges 08:57 Sustainability and Ownership in HIV Response 12:47 Global Health Architecture and Funding 16:33 The Role of PEPFAR and Global Fund 22:25 Future of Global Health Initiatives 38:25 Global Fund's Role in Procurement and National Contributions 40:33 US Congress and Global Health Budget 42:15 Innovation in Global AIDS Response 49:30 The Importance of Differentiated Service Delivery 01:00:58 Community Accountability in Public Health 01:09:38 Challenges and Future of HIV Prevention Join the Conversation! How do you see the future of global health unfolding? Share your thoughts in the comments! Subscribe & Stay Updated: Listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or your favorite podcast platform. Watch on YouTube & subscribe for more in-depth global health discussions: www.youtube.com/@shotarmpodcast

At the heart of The Prophets' vision are “The 24 Essential Supply Chain Processes.” What are they? Find out, and see the future yourself. Click here When constant disruption becomes part of the job, how do you build a supply chain that can withstand the pressure?In this episode, Kyle Price, Vice President of Procurement at Caterpillar, joins Jan, Terry, and James to talk about building a resilient, flexible supply chain in a world that doesn't slow down. With more than 20 years at Caterpillar, Kyle offers valuable insights that acknowledge the complexity of supply chain management, but don't get stuck in it, either.Supply chains have gone from regional and predictable to global and deeply complex. And the risks? They're not just more frequent; they're evolving. So how do you lead through that? Kyle says don't wait for the perfect solution. You build flexibility into the design from the start. That means dual sourcing, holding strategic inventory, and using AI to spot risk early.These ideas aren't new, but Kyle explains how to make them work. Dual sourcing, for example, doesn't have to mean doubling your cost. You can move quickly when needed by identifying backup suppliers early and setting up agreements in advance, without spending heavily up front.Kyle brings up the importance of prioritization. With massive amounts of supplier data, it's easy to get lost. He explains how Caterpillar uses internal tools, including AI, to focus on what matters most to the business. For them, managing risk is not a side task. It's part of how procurement works day to day.He also talks about the impact of new regulations. Kyle doesn't see this as something to push back on. For him, it's about being prepared and building the capability to respond. Resiliency, in his view, isn't just about avoiding disruption. It also affects cost, quality, safety, and how competitive you can be.Jan asks Kyle what he'd tell supply chain leaders who feel too busy or too stretched to think about risk strategy. His advice? Start small. Don't wait for perfection. Focus on the pain points you already know, and build from there. Whether you do it in-house or partner up, just start.Toward the end, Kyle talks about how he stays connected to the industry outside Caterpillar through his work on the AIAG board and with students at BYU's supply chain program. His goal isn't just to manage risk today but to help build better supply chain leaders for the future.Themes discussed in this episode:Why flexibility needs to be designed into the supply chain from the startHow AI and data tools are reshaping procurement risk strategiesHow to lead a supply chain team when the pressure never stopsHow risk planning must be embedded into everyday procurement processesThe growing compliance pressure to trace materials across global supply chainsHow supply chain resiliency drives cost, quality, and safety improvementsThe importance of industry engagement in building the next generation of supply chain leadersFeatured on this episode:Name: Kyle PriceTitle: Vice President of Procurement at CaterpillarAbout: Kyle is the Vice President of Procurement at Caterpillar, overseeing the Supply Resiliency organization. In this role, he leads a global procurement team that supports all four Caterpillar verticals and is responsible for developing enterprise strategies and processes that promote operational excellence within the supply network.Over his 24 years with Caterpillar, Kyle has worked in various areas of the business, taking on...

I spent this week untangling one of the wildest New York Times stories in recent memory about organ donation. The article set off a firestorm online, and the clickbait headlines had everyone ready to rip “organ donor” off their driver's license. But is it really that bad? I break down what's true, what's exaggerated, and what it means for a system that saves thousands of lives every year. Then I get fired up about neonatal conjunctivitis and the nonsense being spread by wellness influencers who think erythromycin ointment is more dangerous than gonorrhea (spoiler: it's not). Throw in some eye speculum nightmares, an unexpected syphilis diagnosis, and a listener Q&A that went completely off the rails, and you've got one wild ride through eyeballs, ethics, and misinformation. Takeaways: Why that viral organ donation article might not be as scary, or as wrong, as it first looked. The eyebrow-raising system that pits organ procurement groups against each other. How one strip of erythromycin can save a baby's vision (and why influencers are getting it wrong). The surprising risk of squeezing too hard during cataract surgery. How an ophthalmologist once diagnosed syphilis just by looking into someone's eyes. — To Get Tickets to Wife & Death: You can visit Glaucomflecken.com/live  We want to hear YOUR stories (and medical puns)! Shoot us an email and say hi! knockknockhi@human-content.com Can't get enough of us? Shucks. You can support the show on Patreon for early episode access, exclusive bonus shows, livestream hangouts, and much more! –⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ http://www.patreon.com/glaucomflecken⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Also, be sure to check out the newsletter: ⁠https://glaucomflecken.com/glauc-to-me/⁠ If you are interested in buying a book from one of our guests, check them all out here: ⁠https://www.amazon.com/shop/dr.glaucomflecken⁠ If you want more information on models I use: Anatomy Warehouse provides for the best, crafting custom anatomical products, medical simulation kits and presentation models that create a lasting educational impact.  For more information go to Anatomy Warehouse DOT com. Link: ⁠https://anatomywarehouse.com/?aff=14⁠ Plus for 15% off use code: Glaucomflecken15 -- A friendly reminder from the G's and Tarsus: If you want to learn more about Demodex Blepharitis, making an appointment with your eye doctor for an eyelid exam can help you know for sure. Visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://www.EyelidCheck.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for more information.  Produced by⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Human Content Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Olena Tregub is a Ukrainian expert in policy analysis, policy design and reform implementation, with a special focus on corruption prevention in economic and security sectors. Since 2017 Olena has been Secretary General of NAKO (the Independent Defence Anti-Corruption Committee) – an international oversight body created by Transparency International. It's her mission to strengthen democratic oversight over defence spending, increase accountability and transparency of the sector, which is critical in wartime, and has become a hotly debated topic in the run-up to the 2024 US election. ----------DESCRIPTION:Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Efforts: Challenges and Triumphs Amid WarJoin us as we speak with Olena Tregub, Secretary General of the Independent Defense Anti-Corruption Committee (NAKO), on the critical role of anti-corruption in Ukraine's defense sector. Since 2017, NAKO, an oversight body created by Transparency International, has been working to enhance democratic oversight, accountability, and transparency in defense spending. In this engaging episode, Elena discusses the ongoing challenges and successes in the fight against corruption, especially during wartime, and the significant influence of civic protests on government actions. She reflects on the complexities of maintaining integrity in defense operations and the substantial impact of public and international support in pushing for reforms. This in-depth conversation delves into the importance of maintaining anti-corruption measures to ensure Ukraine's resilience and ultimate victory against Russian aggression.----------CHAPTERS:00:00 Introduction to Olena and Her Mission00:54 Welcoming Olena to the Channel01:24 The Heart of the Anti-Corruption Storm02:51 Zelensky's Response to Protests04:27 The Big Question: Conspiracy or Cockup?05:33 Zelensky's Anti-Corruption Journey08:22 The Role of Protests in Ukrainian Democracy12:26 Comparing Government Reactions to Protests20:24 The Importance of Anti-Corruption in Wartime23:29 The Role of International Partners28:19 The Future of Ukrainian Reforms37:06 Conclusion and Final Thoughts----------LINKS:https://twitter.com/OTregubhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/olenatregub/https://cepa.org/author/olena-tregub/https://archive.kyivpost.com/author/olena-tregubhttps://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/olena-tregub/https://nako.org.ua/en/about----------SUPPORT THE CHANNEL:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtainhttps://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtain----------TRUCK FUNDRAISER - GET A SILICON CURTAIN NAFO PATCH:Together with our friends at LIFT99 Kyiv Hub (the NAFO 69th Sniffing Brigade), we are teaming up to provide 2nd Battalion of 5th SAB with a pickup truck that they need for their missions. With your donation, you're not just sending a truck — you're standing with Ukraine.https://www.help99.co/patches/nafo-silicon-curtain-communityWhy NAFO Trucks Matter: Ukrainian soldiers know the immense value of our NAFO trucks and buses. These vehicles are carefully selected, produced between 2010 and 2017, ensuring reliability for harsh frontline terrain. Each truck is capable of driving at least 20,000 km (12,500 miles) without major technical issues, making them a lifeline for soldiers in combat zones.https://www.help99.co/patches/nafo-silicon-curtain-community----------

“We've had this whole period of trying to manage supply chains for lowest cost, whereas I think now we're managing for resilience at a managed cost and at an acceptable cost.” - Tim Richardson, Founder and CEO, Iter Consulting Supply chains aren't really chains anymore. They're complex, interconnected networks.  Supply networks are anything but predictable. What used to be straightforward relationships between suppliers and customers have become webs of interconnected partnerships, each with its own risks and opportunities. The leaders and teams who succeed in this environment understand that optimizing for resilience at a managed cost has fundamentally replaced the old paradigm of chasing the lowest cost… at any price. In this episode of Art of Supply, Kelly Barner welcomes Tim Richardson back to the podcast. Tim is the Founder and CEO of Iter Consulting, a global team of experts with supply chain and manufacturing experience that are helping companies navigate the new world order of distributed manufacturing and supply network complexity In this episode of the Art of Supply podcast, Tim and Kelly discuss:  Why we've moved past peak globalization and what "local for local" manufacturing means for supply network design How to balance the challenge of mapping supply network complexity against the need to understand cost and risk exposure The talent gap in supply chain leadership and why strategic thinking capabilities haven't kept pace with operational demands Links: Tim Richardson on LinkedIn Supply Chain Forecast: Volatile with Tim Richardson Kelly Barner on LinkedIn Art of Supply LinkedIn newsletter  Art of Supply on AOP Subscribe to This Week in Procurement  

Developing a strategic workforce roadmap for human resources (HR) and procurement to optimize its contingent workforce, Mastercard unleashed a program driven to greater efficiency, compliance and scalability. AGS Managed Services (AGS) Executive Director of Client Delivery Dave Corrion hosts an in-depth discussion with Mastercard executives David Feldman, vice president of contingent workforce management, and Pratik Patel, director of sourcing and supplier management, on how this partnership has yielded lasting results.

As billions in new funding head toward the Federal Aviation Administration, industry experts are questioning whether the agency has the staffing and infrastructure to manage the procurement surge. Meanwhile, the president's newly unveiled AI strategy is sending ripples through the contractor community, with PSC weighing its implications for innovation, compliance, and competitiveness. Here to unpack the details is President of the Professional Services Council, Stephanie Kostro.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

“Deglobalization is a nice soundbite, but the reality is, we need more focus on risk management and mitigation.” – Philip Ideson, Co-Founder and Managing Director, Art of Procurement Deglobalization is a hot topic right now, but behind the big headlines and boardroom buzzwords, real change is proving to be slow, complicated, and deeply influenced by geopolitics and regulation.  Are companies really bringing supply chains home, or is the story much more nuanced? In this episode, Art of Procurement co-hosts Philip Ideson and Kelly Barner get candid on what's behind deglobalization: from shifting away from China and the reality of “diversifying in name only,” to why risk management and local expertise matter now more than ever.  They discuss why many global supply strategies often move in cycles, and what procurement leaders can do to shape smarter, more resilient portfolios (despite increasing uncertainty). In this episode, Philip and Kelly cover: How to reframe deglobalization beyond the headlines and signal real risk Why China +1 isn't always the diversification strategy it seems The value of local presence in mitigating global risk How to connect cost, optionality, and stakeholder alignment for practical deglobalization Which supply chain trends are actually moving (and which are just noise) Links: Subscribe to This Week in Procurement Subscribe to Art of Procurement on YouTube  

Send me a messageProcurement's role is changing, or at least, it should be. In this episode of the Sustainable Supply Chain podcast, I sat down with Conrad Snover, CEO of ProcureAbility, to unpack why procurement still struggles to evolve beyond a transactional role, and what it'll take to transform it into a true driver of value.We covered a lot, from why most procurement teams still don't have a seat at the strategy table, to how utilities are coping with 2+ year lead times on transformers while trying to hit electrification targets. Conrad shared real-world examples of how procurement leaders can build resilience without stockpiling inventory, and why relationships, not just contracts, are the key to sustainable supply chains.We also talked about the path from tactical to strategic to profit-generating procurement, how digital tools (including AI) are shifting the playing field, and the operational basics that still hold too many teams back.If you're leading supply chain or sustainability efforts, and you've ever been frustrated by the inertia of outdated procurement practices, this episode is well worth your time.

Procurement 6 is a short podcast from Art of Procurement that publishes in the Art of Procurement feed every Friday morning at 6am US Eastern Time. Presented by a member of the Art of Procurement team, each episode has 6 short segments that summarize the week in procurement. Segments range from procurement tips to podcast summaries, from details of events to news or overviews of blog posts that capture our attention.

Our guest on this week's episode is Lisa Anderson, founder and president of LMA Consulting Group. The One Big Beautiful Bill is now the law of the land. Among the provisions in this expansive legislation are incentives to encourage business investment. But, how will the bill affect our supply chains and will it provide support to grow domestic manufacturing? Our guest offers some insights.Two of the nation's major railroads are attempting to create the country's first coast-to-coast freight railway. On Tuesday, Union Pacific said it had made an offer to acquire Norfolk Southern in an $85 billion cash and stock deal. The acquisition would connect more than 50,000 route miles across 43 states, linking about 100 ports and reaching nearly every corner of North America. Will such a deal be approved, as many industry groups are speaking out against the proposed merger. Chief procurement officers have a lot to worry about these days with all of the trade turmoil around the world, but now add another worry to their plates - the risk of extreme weather events. There have always been hurricanes and typhoons, but in recent years the severity of some of those events has gotten worse, with examples in the US of violent floods and fast spreading wildfires. The consulting firm Proxima has issued a report that identifies the five nations that are most vulnerable to extreme weather and climate sourcing risks. We share the list. Supply Chain Xchange  also offers a podcast series called Supply Chain in the Fast Lane.  It is co-produced with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals. A new series has just started on Top Threats to our Supply Chains. It covers topics including Geopolitical Risks, Economic Instability, Cybersecurity Risks, Threats to energy and electric grids; Supplier Risks, and Transportation Disruptions  Go to your favorite podcast platform to subscribe and to listen to past and future episodes. The podcast is also available at www.thescxchange.com.Articles and resources mentioned in this episode:LMA Consulting GroupUnion Pacific makes bid for Norfolk SouthernA report lists five nations most vulnerable to climate sourcing risksVisit Supply Chain XchangeListen to CSCMP and Supply Chain Xchange's Supply Chain in the Fast Lane podcastSend feedback about this podcast to podcast@agilebme.comPodcast is sponsored by: Storage SolutionsOther linksAbout DC VELOCITYSubscribe to DC VELOCITYSign up for our FREE newslettersAdvertise with DC VELOCITY

Marx, an analyst of real businesses? You must be crazy. Well, before you arrive at that conclusion, consider the following: Procurement time, lead time, inventory management, freight costs, and supply chain management: these are terms commonly encountered by business analysts and participants alike on an everyday basis. Contemporary corporations, such as Amazon and Walmart, have developed elaborate interconnected networks of warehouses and logistics management systems that reduce the 'turnover time' (the two-day delivery method) and facilitate the circulation of capital. Any analyst of the world capitalist system cannot help but notice how geopolitical tensions over supply chains, semiconductors, GPUs, and rare earths tie into the circuits of contemporary global capitalism. A serious analyst of capitalism must, therefore, pay close attention to the "CIRCULATION" of Capital.  But what is the circulation of Capital? How does the world capitalist system connect retailers and financiers with networks of direct-producers ---- Marx's exploited classes in Volume 1--- and suppliers that are spread out across the entire planet? What does Marx's theory say about the 'subsumed classes', or the classes in society that do not directly participate in the production of surplus-value, but facilitate or provide conditions of existence to it? How do we incorporate bankers, merchants, and financiers into the circuit of capital? Volume 1 of Capital deals with the PRODUCTION of surplus-value to demonstrate how MORE value is extracted from workers than they receive in wages. The core of capitalist accumulation is thus the stolen value of workers. But what happens once this value is stolen? Does the capitalist keep all of it? Does he make distributions out of it? To whom are these distributions made and why? These questions are at the heart of Capital Volume 2. With this aim, this week the dialectic goes to work to explore the amazing world of Marx's Capital, Volume II: The Circulation of Capital.   About The Dialectic at Work is a podcast hosted by Professor Shahram Azhar & Professor Richard Wolff. The show is dedicated to exploring Marxian theory. It utilizes the dialectical mode of reasoning, that is the method developed over the millennia by Plato and Aristotle, and continues to explore new dimensions of theory and praxis via a dialogue. The Marxist dialectic is a revolutionary dialectic that not only seeks to understand the world but rather to change it. In our discussions, the dialectic goes to work intending to solve the urgent life crises that we face as a global community. Follow us on social media: X: @DialecticAtWork Instagram: @DialecticAtWork Tiktok: @DialecticAtWork Website: www.DemocracyAtWork.info Patreon: www.patreon.com/democracyatwork

Last week, Mark Aesch and Alvin McBorrough unpacked a striking statistic: only 4 % of Americans ride transit, yet 84 % of people say they value it. This week we keep that conversation going with Rikesh Shah, former Chief Innovation Officer at Transport for London. Together with host Paul Comfort, Rikesh explores how customer‑focused metrics, open data, and smarter procurement can turn that 84 % of “transit supporters” into satisfied users—and why leadership has to set the stage for risk‑taking and co‑creation. From Volume to Value —Why ridership shouldn't be the sole north‑star KPI, and how London's open‑data program shifted travel behavior for the better.Customer‑First Metrics —Using design‑thinking and qualitative research to uncover the real pain points of diverse riders (and non‑riders).Making Cities a Test Bed —How transparent “problem statements” and outcome‑based procurement invite startups, scale‑ups, and tier‑ones to co‑create solutions.Smart Procurement 101 —Engage procurement early, signal future tenders, and use one streamlined process that covers pilot, scale‑up, and rollout.Leadership & Risk —What CEOs can do today to foster entrepreneurial cultures, align internal teams, and de‑risk innovation without overprescribing specs.Lessons from London —Congestion charging, Ultra‑Low Emission Zones, and open innovation under successive mayors—and what U.S. cities can adopt.

Send us a textStrap in, because this “daily drop” is a full-throttle rollercoaster of Pentagon absurdity and global WTFs. From promoting a former Space Force whistleblower to Under Secretary of the Air Force, to blowing $200M on a border wall while ignoring busted pistols and flood victims—this episode doesn't pull punches. Peaches goes off on political aircraft pork, war with China (spoiler: lots of body bags), and the Space Force's asteroid defense ambitions. Oh, and yes, Pizza Cat is alive and well. You're welcome, internet.

"I think we have hit a tipping point where procurement has become a pretty complicated practice. There's so many options and choices and optimizations with concepts that are just so alien to the typical user." - Jason Kim, Senior Director of Product Management, Coupa The procurement technology landscape demands solutions that work for both power users and occasional requesters, yet many organizations struggle with platforms that create friction rather than facilitating smooth workflows. Usability isn't just about the user experience. It's about adoption, compliance, and ultimately the strategic perception of procurement itself. In this episode, Jason Kim, Senior Director of Product Management at Coupa, explains how AI, integration capabilities, and user interface design are reshaping the procurement experience for everyone from seasoned buyers to infrequent requesters. Jason shares practical insights on designing systems that eliminate cognitive overhead, the critical importance of transparency in procurement workflows, and how meeting users where they are (rather than forcing them into rigid interfaces) drives better outcomes for procurement organizations. Jason also discusses: How the procurement technology landscape has evolved from suite-based to point solutions and back again over the past decade Why successful procurement platforms must meet users in their existing workflows rather than forcing context switches The critical difference between designing for power users versus infrequent requesters (and why both matter) Why eliminating cognitive overhead is essential for user adoption and spend management compliance The evolution from centralized to truly decentralized procurement models enabled by intelligent orchestration Links: Jason Kim on LinkedIn Subscribe to This Week in Procurement Subscribe to Art of Procurement on YouTube  

This week, the GovNavigators sit down with Brian Friel, Co-Founder of BD-Squared, for a discussion on how federal procurement looks in the age of consolidation. An expert in procurement data, Friel offers great insight into how past efficiency efforts have led us to this administration's push to rid the federal government of duplicative and unnecessary contracts. Show Notes:Leadership shakeup at GSA M-25-31 (OMB memo on procurement consolidation)America's AI Action PlanThree AI-related EOs releasedEvents on the GovNavigators' RadarJuly 28-29th: AGA's Professional Development Training July 30th: Rare HSGAC markup scheduledAugust 5th: Data Foundation's Evaluating for Efficiency: Lessons from GAO and IGs August 19th: Celonis' Public Sector Process Intelligence Day August 20th: Data Foundation's AI Virtual Forum: Data & Policy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

In procurement, tight control over external spend is a golden rule for cost savings. But what would happen if leaders loosened the reins? Malik Akhtar, Chief Procurement Officer at Bayer Consumer Health, tells Zero100 VP, Research Geraint John how the company's "Freedom to Spend Smartly" strategy is putting buying power in the hands of non-procurement users while keeping spend and supplier numbers in check.The why and the how of Freedom to Spend Smartly (00:56) Initial concerns and selling the policy to the CFO (3:20)Managing governance and non-compliance (4:24) How AI is helping procurement leaders and rookie requisitioners (5:22) Decreasing costs, frictionless service, and other early benefits (7:09) Rethinking procurement skills, responsibilities, and incentives (11:28)What's next for Freedom to Spend Smartly (15:18)

Procurement 6 is a short podcast from Art of Procurement that publishes in the Art of Procurement feed every Friday morning at 6am US Eastern Time. Presented by a member of the Art of Procurement team, each episode has 6 short segments that summarize the week in procurement. Segments range from procurement tips to podcast summaries, from details of events to news or overviews of blog posts that capture our attention.