B2B brands and Namibian procurement practice

This is a personal take, based on my experience of long-term business relationships as a supplier and as someone who was responsible for procurement. It factors in the successful and sustainable elements of a strong B2B brand.

The new Namibian procurement regime, particular to state-owned enterprises and larger enterprises calls into question the validity of B2B brands, with not just a lack of trust, long procurement cycles and flawed results, but also with its impediments to forming productive relationships.

In theory, the standard B2B brand should be based on the actual product and / or service dimension at the point of acquisition, however the current realization of the procurement exercise favors the lowest price and reliance on belief in any claims made by the potential supplier.

Ask for a fuel-efficient company vehicle, and don’t be surprised if the exercise results in delivery of a highly fuel-efficient bicycle six months down the line, and a disingenuous explanation from the procurement structure. This is a frustration for and threat to not only the bona-fide contenders for contracts, but also the departments making the procurement. I say this not only as a current entrepreneur but also as a former employee who made procurement requests.

The current procurement regime is driven by a need for high-quality deliverables, accountability and a fear of nepotism, kickbacks and other forms of corruption. However, it has not adequately addressed the benefits of a strong B2B brand.

Although there are many approaches to the B2B brand, the most important will be trustworthiness of the entity making the offer. So, the very first determinants should be the quality of the product and / or service. This can be determined by actual inspection of actual goods. The quality of services can be established by factors such as the duration of relationships, references from users of the services (which must be sampled at random and checked against the shopping list) and press.

Assessment based on awards should be excluded, as these can either be gained from participation, or the criteria may be dodgy, for instance unaided brand recall that was long the basis for very popular awards that were claimed by companies all over Namibia.

The proof of the pudding, however, lies in post-purchase or appointment. The B2B brand is governed by the identity and image component of the brand. In other words, delivery of the product or service must be matched to experience. This is generally governed by an individual-to-individual relationship.

The individual emotional dimension will primarily develop from trust in and consistency of results. This will occur on the basis of positive outcomes for the enterprise and develop into personal interests. Nobody who has a vested interest in positive enterprise outcomes will want to replace a supplier. That leads to trust-based reliance and long-term business.

Other factors that may come into play are flexibility in prioritizing the contractor and added value in the form of service delivery and greater flexibility of pricing. One further benefit which is overlooked is the ability of the supplier to get to know the contractor and its environment in the long term, meaning the supplier does not have to relearn the environment and can often operate in a proactive and advisory capacity.

The current procurement regime does not have an adequate means to assess and rate the B2B brand factors and will discard the long-term value and efficiency gained from a strong B2B brand in favor of a policy of rotating suppliers.

As much as I understand the need to avoid corruption and inefficiency in the current procurement process, I also see the losses that it currently generates.