به سوی یک درک مشترک از تفاوت بین خرید، تأمین تجهیزات و راه اندازی در بخش دولتی بریتانیا

This paper recognises that commissioning has now become an important term in the lexicon of UK public policy but the term ‘commissioning’ is taking on a different meaning than that traditionally used within the purchasing and supply management community. The frequent inter-changeability of the terms ‘commissioning’, ‘procurement’ and ‘purchasing’ is now causing confusion and means different things to different people. Therefore the academic community needs to help practitioners understand the differences and implications. A document analysis of various UK Central Government departments’ commissioning frameworks was used to establish the key themes and compare commissioning, procurement and purchasing. This paper discusses the similarities and differences, and argues that commissioning is different from procurement, but that commissioning offers major opportunities for Procurement practitioners to make a strategic contribution.

This paper is concerned with the commissioning, procurement and purchasing processes as opposed to Commissioning and Procurement functions or professionals. Paulraj et al. (2006) and Bernardes and Zsideisin (2008) have separately discussed what is meant by the ‘strategic purchasing’ and ‘supply management’ functions, while Ramsay and Crom (2008) have discussed problems in the application of terminology relating to the ‘function’ and the activities it carries out. The paper does not imply a hierarchical status but that procurement professionals have differing roles, in terms of their potential leadership and contribution, within commissioning, procurement and purchasing processes. The paper's major contribution is in helping to differentiate between commissioning, procurement and purchasing processes as they are now being applied within the UK public policy environment. The differences in terminology are directly applicable to the UK and will have relevance to others drawing on UK literature. Therefore the paper does not seek to create new definitions but merely to provide clarity on how the terms are emerging within UK public policy; it is therefore descriptive. The paper recognises that commissioning has now become an important term in the lexicon of UK public policy (for example, Cabinet Office, 2006; Communities and Local Government, 2006) but the term ‘commissioning’ is taking on a different meaning than that traditionally used within the purchasing and supply management community. The frequent inter-changeability of the terms ‘commissioning’, ‘procurement’ and ‘purchasing’ is now causing confusion, meaning different things to different people. Indeed the potential detrimental impact on public policy and the need for a common understanding were highlighted by the UK Public Administration Select Committee of the House of Commons: If there is no common understanding of what commissioning means, that can only be a barrier to effective relationships. Government and the private and third sector need to come to a commonly accepted definition of commissioning if it is to continue to be the State's preferred method of interacting with the sector. In particular, Government needs to convince the third sector that commissioning is something distinct from procurement. (Public Administration Select Committee, 2008, para 38). Anecdotal evidence suggests that practitioners are also confused in understanding the differences between commissioning, procurement and purchasing (for example, Davies, 2007). This anecdotal evidence also was supported by focus group research, with 30 pan-public sector participants completed by the author during the summer of 2008, and a subsequent questionnaire survey of lead procurement managers within English local government in the Autumn of 2008. Those investigations suggested that 36% and 53%, respectively, of those participating, felt procurement and commissioning were synonymous. van Weele (2007, pp. 204–205), contributing to a debate on research methods in purchasing and supply management, stated: Academic research in purchasing and supply management is needed since, as an academic community, we feel the need to contribute to insight into and describe patterns of human behavior in organisations or networks against different contextual backgrounds. We need to contribute and build theories through which we can better understand purchasing and supply chain management phenomena… to provide managers with some clear guidelines to make better decisions in these areas. Therefore, it is argued, the academic community needs to help practitioners understand the differences between commissioning, procurement and purchasing and the implications. In doing so the academic community could also provide the clarity called for by the Public Administration Select Committee of the House of Commons. This paper discusses the similarities and differences. It argues that commissioning is different from procurement, that commissioning encompasses procurement, which in turn encompasses purchasing. The paper also suggests that commissioning offers major opportunities for Procurement practitioners to make a strategic contribution.

The argument set out above highlights that there is confusion on how the terms commissioning, procurement and purchasing are used. It also argues that commissioning encompasses procurement, and that commissioning and procurement are not synonymous. It is however appropriate to conclude that commissioning provides major opportunities for procurement practitioners to make a strategic contribution, not only to the strategic process but also to impact the lives of communities. For many years it has been argued that procurement practitioners should be an active participant on cross-functional teams (Fitzpatrick, 1996; van Weele and Rosemijer, 1996) and that procurement can make significant impact prior to competitive bidding (Axelsson and Hakansson, 1984). In both respects, commissioning provides scope for Procurement professionals to play to their strengths. Thus, procurement professionals’ could: 1. help their organisations map their commissioning cycles and contribute to the discussion as to the allocation of the most appropriate roles, remits, responsibilities and relationships; 2. assist in interpreting the public procurement legislative framework and understanding the commercial sensitivities relating to engagement with the market; 3. assist with mapping the market, market development and engagement; 4. contribute to the commissioning options appraisal, for example, assist in appraising the appropriate pros and cons of grants, investment and contracts; 5. assist in translating outcomes into specifications; 6. develop procurement strategies that support wider commissioning priorities through, for example, determining optimum contract bundles; and 7. contribute to collecting lessons learned. Surely, if the procurement function took on those roles, it would represent ‘meaningful involvement’, namely, “an ultimate state of perfection and integration with all other functions and activities in the organisation” ( Johnson and Leenders, 2003). What are the implications for research? The rise in prominence of commissioning presents new opportunities and needs, not only for procurement practitioners but also for public procurement research. Potential research questions include: 1. How robust are the definitions of commissioning, procurement and purchasing processes? 2. Does the rise in prominence of commissioning increase or displace P/procurement's strategic contribution? 3. How do commissioning and procurement optimise their interfaces? 4. What skills should procurement practitioners engaged in commissioning develop? 5. How does procurement strategy best reflect commissioning outcomes? 6. How are outcomes best translated into specifications? 7. Are different approaches to bid evaluation required as a result of the shift to commissioning outcomes? This paper refers to the UK policy environment, which considers commissioning to be politically and strategically important. The paper highlights that commissioning is different from, but encompasses, procurement. That difference and encompassing provide opportunities for procurement as a profession and as a research discipline. The paper acknowledges that there is confusion; it would therefore be helpful if the academic community could reach a consensus on the differences between commissioning, procurement and purchasing processes. It is hoped this paper goes some way towards providing a common understanding of the differences between commissioning, procurement and purchasing in the UK public sector.