Are you Employed to just fill the position or add value?

Often time when i walk into people's offices and asks questions as to why the do things the way the do, i usually get an answer that it is a part of my routines in my job description or company policy.

As much as i respect the routine defined and set procedures, i also respect the ability for one to be innovative and give in a little more than just the routine and dictates of the job requirement.

I will use an example of Procurement for Instance, it is most of the time a norm to go for the lowest bidder. But the question we i have is; is the lowest bidder truly the lowest in terms of general value and post contract satisfaction? Another one, is if the highest bidder seems to have a bit more advantageous on their terms and conditions of the contract, should we just go for the lowest bidder because that is what is in the company policy or requirements?

If the answer is yes, then what is our value addition? what is the role of negotiations? Until we answer these questions, then as employers and managers will begin to get the best out of our employees.

Yes there would be risks associated with this approach but sometimes, failure to take risks would be failure to innovate and breakthrough in our decision making and management activities.

Allow value addition by maximising the potential in your procurement and supply function.