Breakthrough in collective procurement of hardware
Until recently, it was unthinkable: 36 SURF members from mbo, hbo, wo, TNO and SURF itself are purchasing their new PC hardware jointly through the SURF cooperative. “We can see very clearly that we now pay less for a computer than when we purchased independently.”
Arno Hartman
It all started within the SURF working group where four 'linking pins' from the mbo were working on aligning procurement processes. They approached this task thoroughly, says Arno Hartman of Yuverta, the driving force behind the group. "Over the past three years, we have carried out an inventory of all the opportunities we saw for collective procurement. At our request, all mbo institutions completed Excel spreadsheets: for example, what needs did they have in the areas of applications, security or hardware?”
While SURF members have been purchasing software together for many years, the need for hardware also turned out to be remarkably well aligned. This led to a first joint hardware procurement project via SURF, for printers.
That success caught the attention of the rest of the SURF cooperative. "In that trajectory, the SURF sector really benefited from its scale," says Arian Prins of the Amsterdam School of the Arts, and linking pin for the higher education sector. "I thought: this is important for all of us. We have to do this."
Choosing functionality
Arian Prins
After the success of the joint procurement of printers, Arno and Arian also saw opportunities for PC hardware procurement. A SURF steering group was formed, which led to many lively discussions. Although needs are often generic, the organisation of procurement is not. Arian explains: “I myself work at a small university of applied sciences, but SURF also includes organisations that are so large they can make direct agreements with manufacturers.”
The steering group also benefited from the expertise of another collaborative partnership within the mbo: the IGEA group. This consists of nine institutions that have been jointly purchasing computers for years on the basis of European procurement rules. Not by brand, but by price, within pre-defined criteria for functionality.
This approach made it possible to reach agreement for all parties. “Our technical staff did become a little uneasy,” says Arno. “They wondered: will we still get an A-brand? We reassured them: of course we are not going to buy laptops from Lidl or Action. And in the future, the IT teams will be able to maintain direct contact with the supplier.”
“We can see very clearly that we now pay less for a computer than when we purchased independently”
Joint requests and ordering
A thorough tendering process through SURF ensured outcomes that all 36 participating institutions support. The group of participants is very diverse. It includes around 15 mbo institutions, but also Utrecht University, Erasmus University, large universities of applied sciences such as Inholland and Fontys, as well as TNO and SURF itself.
Three suppliers have been selected: one for Apple hardware and two for Windows computers. The latter each serve a share of the SURF sectors.
Every six months, a joint request for hardware is issued via SURF: which institutions want to place orders, and how much? Together, that group does a mini-competition with the selected suppliers, to determine which manufacturer offers the best price.
Institutions can also place smaller individual orders in between. Arian explains: “If someone drops a laptop, a replacement will still be needed. You don’t want institutions to end up buying those through a retail shop.”
Cost benefits
Inge van Spaendonk
In a time of budget cuts, costs are naturally at the forefront. The collective approach offers participants many advantages. Arno says: “We can see very clearly that we now pay less for a computer than when we purchased independently."
That price advantage was already there for members of the IGEA group such as Yonder, where Inge van Spaendonk is responsible for IT procurement. Even so, through the SURF tender she is now achieving even lower costs: “With the SURF approach, we can adjust our orders every six months. This provides more flexibility for an organisation that is constantly evolving.”
The financial benefits are easily calculated. But they are only part of the story. Arian mentions the option to have computers pre-installed and delivered on site, to the employee's home if desired. “We have always wanted this but never managed to organise it properly,” he says. “It saves a great deal of work and therefore money.”
For him, the bottom line is that procurement is now better thought through. "For 90% of the workstations, you can simply predict when to order based on depreciation periods. So you can make efficiency gains."
“Whether a party in a tender promises something is one thing, but to what extent do they actually deliver? And how quickly do they do so? You need a party that stays on top of this and escalates where necessary”
Quality of tendering process
The benefits of collective tendering go even further, says Arian: "For a small institution like mine, procurement processes require a relatively large amount of time from expensive staff." Collective procurement does take time for consultation, but it also saves work.
The quality of the process is further improved through collaboration via SURF. Arno's institution has a large, experienced procurement department. Nevertheless, he noticed that consulting with the other participants provided new insights, for example in the technical field. "We were at the table with TNO and with large universities of applied sciences and universities. We definitely learned something from that."
Finally, the interviewees mention SURF's role. Not only as a participant in the tender, but also as a coordinating partner for the suppliers. Arian explains: "Whether a party in a tender promises something is one thing, but to what extent do they actually deliver? And how quickly do they do so? You need a party that stays on top of this and escalates where necessary." Van Spaendonk explains: "SURF is so large and knowledgeable that people really listen to them. And our experience is that SURF also listens carefully to us. The contact is always excellent.”
"With the SURF approach, we can adjust our orders every six months. This provides more flexibility for an organisation that is constantly evolving"
Advice for those not participating
Despite the advantages, many institutions have nevertheless did not participate in the tender. "Those unfortunately missed the boat," says Arno. "And that’s despite the fact that we presented everything clearly and thoroughly. Now I often hear that they regret it, both board members and CIOs.”
Arian advises institutions to take this into account when entering into contracts now: they should retain the freedom to join collective procurement when such an opportunity arises. That freedom does not create an obligation, but the benefits are evident.
Fortunately, Arno sees many more opportunities for collective procurement. “There are products and services you can’t really differentiate yourself with, but that you simply need. Those are often well suited to collective purchasing. Hardware is only the beginning.”
An inspiring example
All three are happy with the success of the tender. Arno was "quite pleasantly surprised" by the large number of universities and universities of applied sciences that signed up. Inge also likes the fact that universities and hbo take the mbo as an example. But that is hardly surprising, says Arian: “With their success, the mbo institutions have convinced many large organisations.”
Text: Aad van de Wijngaart
Breakthrough in collective procurement of hardware is an article from SURF Magazine.
Back to SURF Magazine
Questions following this article? Mail to magazine@surf.nl.