WorldCC research shows that organizations frequently fail to realise the true potential of SRM programs. Tara Bevan, a research manager in the Commerce & Contract Management Institute, asked Tim Cummins to share his views on why this happens and how to gain improvements.
One thing we observe is the inconsistent role and positioning of SRM. Where does SRM most often get missed in the contracting lifecycle?
This is a critical point - SRM often fails because there’s no holistic integration across the contracting lifecycle. At its best, it provides end-to-end governance that supports supplier performance and adapts to change. This approach enables long-term value. But too often, its focus is narrowly transactional - for example, enforcing KPIs and managing issues. If SRM isn’t embedded early and empowered post-award, organizations miss its potential, its ability to act as a bridge between contract intent and delivery. Only with this more holistic approach can SRM really hope to drive innovation, ensure continuity, and generate the mutual success on which any strong relationship depends.
We know that measurements drive behavior, is there one simple metric that connects contract management and SRM?
That’s a really interesting question. Again, I think many struggle with how best to measure SRM - in part because they aren’t always clear about its purpose. I think in the context of connecting contract management and SRM, a powerful metric is to create a Commitment Realisation Rate. You do this by reporting on the proportion of key contractual and relational commitments fulfilled by both parties over a defined period. It’s important to note that this is a bi-lateral measure, acknowledging a shared responsibility for success. It goes beyond basic service level compliance to include performance of obligations - for example, the timely delivery of joint plans, whether governance meetings were held, did innovation workshops run, were agreed cost-saving initiatives pursued?
An advantage of this approach is that it looks at key obligations holistically. If service levels are being met but other commitments are at best erratic, the commitment realisation rate would indicate weak alignment and underperformance in SRM. By exposing this shortfall in the total health of the relationship, the measurement also highlights that the contract’s intended value is at risk.
You’ve written a lot recently on OKRs. Are OKRs better than KPIs in SRM?
Yes, I think in many cases, OKRs ( that’s Objectives and Key Results for anyone not familiar) are more effective than traditional KPIs in SRM. KPIs tend to be static and backward-looking, they focus on outputs like “on-time delivery” or “uptime percentage.” OKRs encourage forward-looking, collaborative ambition, they ensure we don’t lose sight of the true goals of the relationship and the results we want to achieve together.
I’m not dismissing KPIs - they have a role - but OKRs are particularly useful in situations where intended outcomes are evolving or not easily reduced to a fixed metric, or where there is a push for joint innovation or transformation, or when there are governance standards in place to support shared ownership and adaptability.
So, I suggest that a combination of commitment-based metrics and outcome-driven OKRs offers a more complete, strategic foundation for SRM. This approach connects contract intent to actual value delivery.
What role should SRM play post-award to improve contract performance?
It needs to shift from monitoring to active orchestration. To a degree, we’ve illustrated this when talking about the Commitment Realization Rate. Structured supplier engagement through joint planning, open escalation paths, and collaborative reviews, helps to manage expectations, anticipate risks, and adapt obligations to changing conditions. Even fairly simple steps, like establishing a shared action log or holding outcome-focused quarterly reviews, can create disciplined communication and heightened transparency. These are critical if you want to surface issues early, maintain trust, and turn the contract into a dynamic tool for continuous improvement, rather than a weapon for enforcement.