Weekly blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Sharing the golden nuggets!'

I spent a day this week at the ICM's Quality in Credit Management Best Practice Conference in London. The event was for organisations that have achieved, are on the journey towards achieving, or aspire to achieve the Quality in Credit Management accreditation award. What a great day.

 

I'm not going to bang on about the benefits of the Quality in Credit Management Award accreditation scheme (though clearly I could) but rather I'm keen to talk about the benefits of sharing best practice. When you get a group of people in a room who are at the top of their game - either personally or from an organisational perspective - it's amazing what comes out.

 

At the conference, we heard a series of speakers sharing their experiences and giving examples of best practice. Of course, what works for one organisation might not work for another, but hearing and filtering ideas is a great opportunity to improve, and helps meet one of the objectives of QICM, that of facilitating continuous improvement for people and organisations.

 

Some of the ideas were incredibly simple and others far more sophisticated. For example, we heard about the huge impact of introducing very simple and cheap 'music on hold' which made a great positive impression on both customers and the internal organisation.

 

More than one presenter talked about their plans to educate customers to improve their own credit management processes and procedures on the basis that, if they were more effective at collecting cash, they'd be better able to settle invoices promptly. A good example of sharing best practice with the wider business community and particularly with SMEs and micro-businesses who may lack relevant experience and expertise.

 

We saw some impressive dashboards and an explanation of how they can be used to best effect. Letting commercial people understand the value of overdue debt in terms of a number of new salesmen or replacement delivery vehicles, for example, is not a new idea but is very powerful.

 

Afternoon presentations addressed how to energise and motivate teams through periods of change and how to make step changes in performance. Some innovative and invigorating ideas on how to create a culture that is focused, cohesive and driven. The case studies came from large organisations but contained concepts that could be adopted in a variety of environments.

 

What's even more interesting about events like this is that people can contribute more than they realise. Participants turn up expecting to learn from the wisdom and experience of the presenters without realising how good they are themselves, and what nuggets they also have to share. Whether we call it networking or by some other grand name, sharing what we know, what we do, and what we've learnt is one of the most powerful business tools, and we should do more of it.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'A case of the tail wagging the dog'

Ed Davey announced last Thursday that the Government is not going to seek to introduce new legislative controls on pre-packs at this time because it is not convinced that the benefit of new legislative controls presently outweighs the overall benefit to business of adhering to the moratorium on regulations affecting micro-businesses.

It's hardly surprising that the announcement has caused a furore and been presented as a victory for the insolvency profession and a massive blow for creditors. Indeed, there was a blog over the weekend that drew attention to my comments and those of Frances Coulson, President of R3, as epitomising the two positions. To be frank, this suggestion misses the point. My anger and frustration is not at the decision not to introduce legislative changes, even though I think they had some merit.

I am not fundamentally opposed to pre-packs and I believe they can be of enormous benefit when used correctly and appropriately. What I am fundamentally opposed to, however, is the abuse of pre-packs and the phoenix situation when the same directors continue what is, to all intents, the same business, but without previously incurred debts, leaving creditors high and dry. Two of the key benefits of the proposed changes were the notice period that would allow creditors to communicate with insolvency practitioners and bring what might be important and relevant information to their attention (a notice period that the Court could agree to be waived in certain circumstances), and the requirement that the IP should make a declaration in advance that he believed the pre-pack to be the appropriate solution in the circumstances; psychologically, so much more powerful than making that statement after the event as part of the SIP16 process.

But perhaps what really frustrates me is the obvious waste of time, resources and effort, and the justification for the decision that has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. A consultation launched in March 2010, and the subject of numerous meetings with stakeholders, papers, and discussion, has now been kicked into the long grass (as I feared it would) with an assertion by Ed Davey that he has asked his officials "to undertake an urgent review in conjunction with stakeholders of how the existing controls on pre-packs have been working.......". Surely that 'urgent review' could and should have been carried out as part of the consultation process? I am all for cutting regulation and red tape, and I am encouraged by the Government's ambitions and success in reducing bureaucracy through the work of the Better Regulation Executive under Lord Curry, but when the regulations argument justifies policy decisions, it feels too much to me like the tail wagging the dog.

I certainly do agree with those who, in the debate since last week, have suggested that suppliers might - and should - pay more attention to credit risk management in order not to be in the frame (or at least to control their exposure) when a pre-pack, or any other insolvency, happens.