Marta Andhov [00:00:00]

Welcome to Bestek, the Public Procurement Podcast. Today we’re discussing servitisation and public procurement, what is their role for the law and ‘manels’.

About Bestek [00:00:16]

Welcome to Bestek, the public procurement podcast. In this podcast, Dr. Willem Janssen and Dr. Marta Andhov discuss public procurement law issues, the love of food and academic life. In each episode, Willem, Marta, and their guests search for answers to intriguing public procurement questions. This is Bestek. Let’s dish up public procurement law.

Marta Andhov [00:00:41]

Hello Willem.

Willem Janssen [00:00:42]

Hey Marta.

Marta Andhov [00:00:44]

So, we’re talking today.

Willem Janssen [00:00:46]

Sorry. Like, I don’t know why. I always have to laugh when we start.

Marta Andhov [00:00:49]

You always chuckle a little bit.

Willem Janssen [00:00:50]

I think it’s because and I don’t think our listeners know this, but I think we record the introduction and then our kind audio man, it chucks in this bit of the din, and you know the tune. And then we have to, we wait for a bit, but we just look at each other and it’s I don’t know. Anyway, sorry.

Marta Andhov [00:01:06]

Let’s look. It’s like who will crack up first.

Willem Janssen [00:01:09]

Exactly.

Marta Andhov [00:01:10]

Yes. We have two, like always, I think interesting, at least interesting for the two of us, subject matters for today: our main so again to just remind, if we have any new listeners hopefully, the main where we’re discussing the substantive topic regarding public procurement law and today that is servitisation and the public procurement. And specifically what role is the law to play here. And that will be followed up by our dessert where we more relate to our life as academic, as teachers, also maybe mentors to some young academics and discuss a little bit broader, not procurement related, but academic related topic. And today, provocatively titled, dessert, titled ‘manels’. So, let’s start with the main so servitisation. I think that probably a good idea would be to start with somehow characterizing or defining that as a concept. So, Willem, can you help us out here, what is servitisation?

Willem Janssen [00:02:17]

A short answer. I think it’s a bit vague of what it is, so it’s like it’s quite an ambiguous trend or development some people even refer to as a business model, a different way of approaching public sector procurement. But to really sketch the contours, it’s really moving from a product-based economy to a service economy, and it means moving from before purchasing products, but actually granting more responsibility. I think in general; responsibility is a key term to the bidder who actually doesn’t simply just provide the goods but is also remains an owner of those goods and actually gives them to you as a service. So, you basically use them for a while, they maintain it, they replace it, they refurbish it, they recycle it. But the ownership and the responsibility, I think that’s one of the key examples, remains with the bidder instead of the bidder, you know, just passing on ownership to you and then you’re stuck with them.

Marta Andhov [00:03:25]

And it’s a little bit also connected, I guess, with the costs, isn’t it, that we have a certain or we gain with time a certain understanding that particularly maintenance or service associated with us purchasing some goods at times may actually cost more than the products themselves. I think probably what is good is to just give an example to sort of make it a little bit more practical. So, one of the examples for servitisation that is very common these days are, for example, printing machines. So, we used to buy them for offices as products. But then of course, this is your typical idea. There’s always someone standing next to a printing machine cursing because something is not working.

Willem Janssen [00:04:12]

I might very well be that person.

Marta Andhov [00:04:13]

Yeah, I’ve been that person more than the last for sure. And of course, for those printing machines for a longer time, you need services, maintenance, update of different systems, etc., etc. So, since some time we buying them as a service – because obviously everything beyond the actual sort of hardware of a product may actually cost more than, than the printers themselves – any other idea from, from sort of different sectors?

Willem Janssen [00:04:41]

Yeah. So, I think the printers is a great example. The reason why I recently posted something on LinkedIn because I’m due to give a talk on this topic at the University of Leuven, KU Leuven.

Marta Andhov [00:04:57]

If you say KU, I think about Københavns Universitet, so I’m thinking my own.

Willem Janssen [00:05:00]

Yeah, I won’t dare to do that. It’s in Leuven, in Belgium. And there’s a conference called servitisation and Circular Economy: Economic and Legal Challenges, and they’ll really look at the economic aspects of it, but also in various fields of law, you know, what are challenges when it comes to servitisation? And I was asked, well, I’m going to say something in April, and I thought who else to discuss this with is Mara. We can bounce off some ideas and perhaps and this is I’ll come to that later. Perhaps our listeners also have some good ideas on, you know, where this is going. What does it mean? What is it? What a good example. And one of those examples or a couple of them came up. But before I give those, I do think that in the public sector, it’s still at a very infancy level. So, this is a trend that I think makes a lot of sense to a certain extent. And it’s happening, but there’s not, or at least in the Netherlands, as far as I can see, it’s not a traditional purchasing of products has not been departed yet. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have potential, that there’s no examples. I’ve heard a couple that are quite common in the construction sector. So, air conditioning systems, lighting systems that, you know, remain within the ownership of the bidder and they basically service it. So basically, the service they offer to cool the building rather than providing air conditioning units. Clothing of lock stewards…..

Marta Andhov [00:06:33]

Oh interesting.

Willem Janssen [00:06:34]

In Dutch being with the Netherlands, being very prone to having a lot of water, lots of locks in summer, they need to be manned because of also, you know, the little vessels that come through that clothing is then leased, which means that the company remains an owner and or the bidder remains the owner of that set of clothing. They recycle their refurbish at the end of this season and they end up actually putting it into picnic benches afterwards. So, they really re-use it. Right. It’s not fully circular, but yeah.

Marta Andhov [00:07:09]

Yeah. I think the two things that come to my mind here is A) complexity and B) innovation. I think that the moment did you also switch from goods to service services. It also usually we making I think your contract in itself for your tender in itself a bit more complex. So, where I see this happening, this servitisation is usually on these more professional buyers or the large buyers or the sort of regional buyers or search central buyers. Right. So, this is one thing, but also innovation because what you are talking about there is this very cool project. Some time ago the London Fire Brigade was doing, and they were experiencing that, you know, when you go to deal with fire of a building, it’s very chaotic situation. So different tools, different parts of the protective outfit are placed in different spaces. And you need to you need to at some point collect them. So, the idea at some point was in competitive dialogue, they were developing a sort of chips that you could, you know, put in different things. And that is also like a part because then you need to somehow service that chip, you need to know how to operate that, etc., etc. So, the clothing, the thing also that you are mentioning, right, like you introduce innovation and that anymore is not a very basic, you know, I don’t know, a protective jacket for a fireman. Right. But it’s actually becoming something different. So, the complexity, innovation, I think is also quite connected to the servitisation. Would you agree?

Willem Janssen [00:08:53]

Yeah, for sure. I think those two elements are very important. I think also sometimes it can make it less complex. And that’s an example that I heard of some provinces, or I should say municipalities in the east that are responsible to keep for roadworthiness. I don’t actually know what the correct English term is, but, you know, when it freezes, roads get slippery, and they have to send out their little wagons with salt.

Marta Andhov [00:09:16]

Oh, yeah, right. So, road to readiness. Yeah, readiness.

Willem Janssen [00:09:19]

Let’s just let’s call it like that. I’m sure someone could help us out with a better term. And they were a producer of those vans. And they basically said, Well, why don’t we just run the whole thing for you? So instead of, you know, providing them and what happened is basically they felt an urge, an urge to innovate because they kept the vans. And instead of, you know, I’m going to say this disrespectfully, but dumping them, you know, after they’d sold them, here they are. Go for it. Look after maintenance yourself. They started changing some of the nuts and bolts, some of the things to make them more long lasting.

Marta Andhov [00:09:56]

Long lasting, or for it to take less time so they can profit more, right? More time-efficient is like the market will respond, right? If you give them a chance, the market will respond.

Willem Janssen [00:10:06]

Yeah. And I think on top of those characteristics because we’re trying to sketch it a bit because like I said, there’s not really a definition. But you know, this is, I think giving our listeners a bit of a feel for the for the theme is it’s also very much linked to a circular economy. So, in making the bidder responsible for the service in the long term, it actually makes them think about, you know, recycling, refurbishing a re-use of the of the whole system, that no microfibers would leave the circle of the circular economy in the end. Instead of just reusing it, there’s no waste. Right. And so, in that sense, also moving from a less product-based industry might also be a key factor in creating a stronger circular economy. So that’s why I think the two are very much intertwined. Servitisation is very much linked also to a circular economy.

Marta Andhov [00:11:01]

But there is also a slight challenge here, right when you started to talk about lifecycle costing, circular economy, all this aspect because also from our research, from our work, we know that for the fact it’s much easier to have standard certification, eco labels, etc., etc. on goods and a majority of things of examples within all this green or sustainable areas. The moment that it becomes actually service, it becomes slightly more difficult to actually quantify it. Besides the traditional things of transport or energy efficiency, if you go beyond that, it’s slightly bit more complex.

Willem Janssen [00:11:50]

I 100% agree with you. So, one of the things that I’m looking at the moment and that I’d also be like I said, I’d be really interested to hear our listeners in where they see potential issues. Right? Because I always find that often when we get asked to participate in research projects – I don’t know if this is your opinion – but it’s also often the question is, and that’s also why we why I chose the title for this episode to be “What’s the role of the law?”. It’s often a question of Is this in our way, right? Is the law creating this nasty obstacle that we need to circumvent and then we will do what we want, which was in the public interest anyway, right? So, it’s seen as like a and I’m exaggerating it quite a bit.

Marta Andhov [00:12:31]

But you know, it’s very funny that you mentioned day after week that I’ve been having, this is exactly how I feel. I was like, am I in the right business? Because it seems that we are just making things unnecessarily complicated. So, I totally get this sort of standpoint, like what is our role? What is that we actually are to serve?

Willem Janssen [00:12:52]

Yeah. So, I mean, the way I look at it is we need to provide an understanding of what the law is to show where legal certainty is, but also where legal uncertainty exists. And perhaps also the next step, which is far more interesting, to also discuss how we can improve the law. But in a way, the question here was as well, because that’s clearly what happens at these conferences when you get different fields of law is like, what’s the position of EU public procurement law when it comes to this, you know, this topic and I think you highlight one of the very important aspect is because of that link with circular economy, you basically load in all the issues we have with trying to elongate discussions about longer involvement of bidders and trying to get them to work towards circular business models. And you rightly highlight that point of lifecycle costing, right? It still seems in a way, I still hope that that’s the future, but it still seems like a not distant future. So that’s I think one aspect. I think also the longevity of contracts, right? There’s an ending to it. And I still find that lots of contractors are hesitant to fully adopt this circular model simply if they feel like, well, if we’re only going to be involved for four years. Right. Is it worth changing our entire business model because of it? Clearly, there’s some that do. But from a like an economic standpoint, there’s a risk. A risk there. You might also say the contrary. Right. Playing devil’s advocate, you could also just say, well, if it’s important, you have to do it. And if you if you think your product is good enough, then you’ll win the next tender as well. Right? So, there’s different ways of looking at it, but that’s really the public procurement aspect of it. And my impression is, but maybe I’m being overly optimistic is that the law is not really a big issue here. And I even thought about the fact maybe this is weird. Also reflecting on our role as researchers and legal scholars is I even thought, should we even discuss it on this podcast if it’s not a problem, like why should we discuss it? So, my question is, I suppose, twofold. Is my assumption right, that this is not a massive problem. And if it’s not right, where do those problems lie? Because when I look at the directive, to give another example. Even the concept of public contract in its definition in Article 2, Section 1. 7 or 8. Don’t pinpoint me. In Directive 2014/24, it refers to lease rental, hire purchase with or without an option to buy products. So, there’s already that variety that’s included in the directive of different ways of constructing your contract. So clearly you would need to have a pecuniary interest, you would need to have multiple parties involved. So, you still need to fulfil those criteria. But like I feel like that flexibility is already included in the directive. So, things like pay per use, right, which is becoming more common in this context. So, talking about the roadway worthiness, they set up a basically a panel in simplifying this. But this was basically what it was. It was cold. There was Frost Municipality press the button. Fans would show up. And per time that they would press that button they would pay. So, I think those contractual arrangements that are important for the trend towards privatization already taken up by public procurement law.

Marta Andhov [00:16:33]

You know where I see the issue when it comes to procurement law, because I agree with you so far as it comes to the definitions of public supply contracts. But where I think and this is actually taking me all the way back slightly to my Ph.D. thesis.

Willem Janssen [00:16:52]

Are going to get sentimental as well or not?

Marta Andhov [00:16:54]

Just slightly. But something that we that I mentioned to you on a couple of occasions, and we need to do at some point episode on that but it’s just I just always something is missing. But this is the notion of this is actually a mixed type of contract is a mixed procurement, right? Because that ultimately what it is. Do you have the part on if there – it’s not trucks, but the sort of machines that you use for the road readiness or if there’s the printers or whatever is the traditionally understood or in previous procurements supply. And then you have a service. And the challenge of that slightly at some point is because then you have, if you have construction works involved and you have this concept of main purpose, if you don’t if you are supply and services, then you just look on the value of individual elements that defines you, kind of which set of rules works. But the reason why I think this is slightly odd where there is a potential slight issue with the law is that if we’re going to say, okay, we have a supply part, we got service in general, it will be probably service contract. But it all depends here if you consider devalue element because if you’re starting to include innovation and if you’re going to start including circularity the way how you innovate and make, let’s say that printing machine a super, you know, 22nd century flying on its own kind of, you know, super energy efficiency or whatever.

Willem Janssen [00:18:30]

No more grumpy Marta or Willem standing next to it.

Marta Andhov [00:18:32]

Exactly. Exactly. Then the notion of that is also like particularly if you starting to use the twofold procurement procedure so that competitive dialogue or something like that. This is also in my mind, a slight problem of this can be a proportionality principle because to what extent you are to negotiate and how much time and effort and what how for, how much you ask your suppliers is defined by the main purpose of your contract. Why the other part and servitisation might be also extremely important for all this shebang to work. But the counterargument can be that the principle of proportionality is slightly potentially might limit you in how much you can ask from your tenders, at least principally. And then and that is then connected with the last bit that I wanted to mention. Circularity in general is, you know, right now a hot topic. The both of us strongly believe in all the different things, but I think that we are reasoned enough to also see that there is a long way to go because also from private contractual law, which majority time will you end up with public contracts? That is actually a form of sort of privately ruled by private law ruled contract. Private law is not ready for circularity because whatever you will buy the guarantees, the insurances, etc., etc. for products that you have, the fact that that product is going to change its purpose later on and be, you know, repurposed for something else, etc. It’s not really there yet. So, I think that there is, you know, a several layers that comes into it that makes it quite complicated.

Willem Janssen [00:20:16]

Yeah. If I can be completely honest. Maybe I’m being too simplistic about this, but I do not overcomplicate it right now because I think with those mixed contracts, right, to think about your two points to say those going, I love that we keep going back to the example that where we don’t know the English word, the roadworthiness of the roads. So, I say that’s quite an extensive contract. Right. And the van, yes, those trucks would be expensive, but to run it for a couple of years, maintenance, manpower, the salt that goes into it probably more than that, fuel prices, etc. I mean, what’s the issue? I understand it would be it makes contract that like the value would supersede it. Then it’s just a supply contract for of course are not supply contract buyers but a service contract.

Marta Andhov [00:21:07]

Yeah. But let’s imagine that you are the public buyer that have for whatever reason at the core of your, of your operation right now, you wanted really to make as sustainable as possible that contract. Right. Which means that it’s not only this on the value based then, as you say, the services usually the services will take over in how expensive they are, right? But it might be of a core interest for you to discuss, maybe also in a context, if you want to introduce certain innovation to how that machine works, what it can and cannot do. Yeah. And you would want to spend a fair bit of time on debating that throughout the procurement process and sort of define to quite detail in a procurement document. Well, the question here is that I have is, particularly when you ask for, you know, previous experiences in, you know, development of stuff like that, etc., etc., well, this is not problematic. Did you focus on something t that as a legal qualification goes is not the main purpose of your contract.

Willem Janssen [00:22:18]

Yeah. Okay. So, I understand that point. And then if I can then bounce back. Wouldn’t that problem be solved if you would just say, let’s not over specify in the contract and we’ll just say, well, I don’t know if this is an international term, but in the Netherlands, we call it functional specifications, right?

Marta Andhov [00:22:37]

Yeah, it is English. Okay. So, you’re saying would you on the outputs be you don’t say what the input is to be.

Willem Janssen [00:22:42]

Exactly. So, say we would just say the issue we have – thinking out loud now – the issue we have is roadworthiness in the winter. It’s dangerous for our citizens. So, we don’t want that to have that those risks associated to it, traffic accidents, etc. and we don’t want those to occur. So can you please take on the responsibility for that.

Marta Andhov [00:23:07]

Figure it out.

Willem Janssen [00:23:08]

Figure it out, like solve it. And all we will do is be on the alert of when we need you. Right. We’ll still take that responsibility with where the station and information services, our road traffic controllers together with the police, fire departments. I’ve got no idea. That’s when we press the button. So, wouldn’t that solve most of the issues that you have? Because then innovation, it’s fine, but it’s all on the if they can find a more innovative way of doing it, it’s their problem. And maybe just to give you some time just to think about it, or if you still think that this is nonsense and you want to stick to your previous argument, that’s fine. I also think that your second point that’s super relevant, the project law perspective and I know secretly that you’re going to be working on that for a couple of years. I think in your new funded project, if you do the subtle plug, I’ll do the no so subtle plug. We’ll be talking a lot about PURPLE, right. Is that the next projects now?

Marta Andhov [00:24:06]

Yes, that’s the next project.

Willem Janssen [00:24:08]

I think that’s super, super important. But then again, that’s not a public procurement law issue.

Marta Andhov [00:24:13]

Well a little bit though is right because the question, okay, to sort of start from the end and I wouldn’t want to go too far from ultimately what our topic is, but it is slightly public procurement issue because the notion of that is the contract that we have in the end is the vehicle for implementation of what we promised and what we paid for and what we potentially, to a certain extent limited the competition for. Right. Yeah. So, we really need to make sure that we can ultimately deliver that. So, I would say that on the other end, actually the laws then impact how you use that contract will be somehow sort of connected with procurement. So that’s the one thing. The second thing is that this thing about contract that I mentioned, it’s a little bit, as you said before, it’s also for me, you know, talking out loud. And that’s the reason that we didn’t record it specifically that episode because there is still some part of it missing is. Because I think that it’s again, one of those that we would need to have a specific case study. And in one case study, this is this is sort of overcomplicating it. And the other it might be a problem. So, it’s one of one of those things. It’s I think that it’s depending to what extent you as a public buyer want to have a say and want to have a certain control and to what extent? You like how hi in regard to different aspects of your tender. You set a requirement because I think that if we going to say that this is a service contract and you’re going to have an awfully a lot of specifications or award criteria weight on things connected with particular goods that are delivered as a part of that service contract. I worry that you may establish yourself or open yourself for a legal challenge when the disregarded bidder comes back and say, Hey, this is not that relevant. Like, I can provide the service that you want, the sort of if my machine, you know, does this or whatever else, you shouldn’t ask this. This is, you know, not sort of related to the actual subject matter of the contract that I’m making. This is a little bit on the very general theme that where I see slightly an issue, but I also see the point of view that it might be also several cases that this not going to be really, really an issue, particularly if you use the output specification, the performance and functionality specification.

Willem Janssen [00:26:43]

Yeah. Yeah. No, for sure. I think also making sure that we still have enough time for our manel discussion dessert. I actually realized that we didn’t explain what a manel is, but we’ll get there in a second. Yes. So perhaps my call to action or question would be to our listeners is and just to start off, we did this, this call out as well with the Didam episode, two episodes ago, and Matt (Last name) from Estonia was so keen to share his thoughts on the Estonian context on the sale of land. So that was great. So, please keep, keep sharing that, that space. We also received some, some direct messages. So, really appreciated everyone getting involved. So, you know, setting that standard, I kind of felt like, let’s do it again. So, my hypothesis would be EU public procurement law is not the problem when it comes to servitisation. If it is a problem, it’s actually more of a problem of circularity and not so much servitisation as a concept.

Marta Andhov [00:27:52]  

Maybe changing business practices.

Willem Janssen [00:27:54]  

Thank you so much for that link. I was just about to say that as the third bit is, I think it’s really more of an issue of capacity, professionalization and moving forward, bit of guts, maybe all those type of, you know, financial capacity, all this type of circumstantial things that are super important for professional purchasing bodies or for contracting authorities in the law is that to make that shift? But perhaps some people would disagree. So, I’d love to to hear that either on LinkedIn or directly. We always look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Marta Andhov [00:28:29]

Absolutely. So, the main takeaways, Willem concluded with some main takeaways or main points of our main – going back to our sort of restaurant theme. And now to our dessert. So more academic stuff. More stuff connected with our day-to-day life, not research related so much. And we did in a sort of provocative way, title it without explaining it a little bit, cliff hanger, so to speak We’ll be talking about ‘manels’ and I guess, yes, there is a need to explain slightly bit more.

Willem Janssen [00:29:09]

Yeah, for sure. I also find that I’ve used the word ‘manel’ in meetings and then people thought I was talking about a type of animal like a mammal. So, a ‘manel’ is a panel. So, like it can be a panel, I suppose, in the broad sense of the word as a selection committee. But more often it’s referred to as a panel at a conference that is made up solely out of male participants. So male panel. ‘Manel’. And I think the reason why we wanted to discuss that today it’s because it’s often discussed, I find at universities at some it’s not an issue at all and I think perhaps it should become one. And it was also sparked by some of my personal experiences and I’m sure you’ve had some as well, Marta. Where, you know, you’re confronted with this. And let me just start off before we kick off the substantive discussion. I already feel like a bit awkward and anxious talking about this. I just want to be completely open about it because I am that like. What do you say?

Marta Andhov [00:30:17]

‘Manel’ material?

Willem Janssen [00:30:18]

I am ‘manel’ material. And now you’re laughing. See, that’s why I was nervous. 

Marta Andhov [00:30:24]

I don’t think that you should. I fully understand why you feel uncomfortable. Because it’s an uncomfortable topic. That’s the reason that we still dealing with this issue. But I also want to take this opportunity to commend you for the fact of opening the discussion about it, because I think it’s a discussion particularly, you know, lot of young academics listen to us. And I think that the world needs to be changing. We have some challenges ahead. We have some challenges that we experience both along the way. So, it’s important conversation to have. So, if we stumble a little bit or we say things that are maybe not necessarily correct, we are hoping that we have by now a quite good relationship with our listeners, and they know that we always tried to do our best and represent all different viewpoints in our chats.

Willem Janssen [00:31:14]

For sure. And I think also the reason why, you know, I think it’s important we talk about it is that it’s not in the position where we’d like to, we’d like to be. There’s still a lot of ‘manels’ that are being organized for not very good reasons and I think through the discussion we can get some change going. Let’s talk about it in a bit more substance. And the reason why was also sparked is last year I organized a conference, and we had a ‘manel’ there and I think I learnt a lot from organizing that conference in the sense that I think there’s a couple of things, there’s a couple of questions that I think are important here. Can you still organize a ‘manel’? Or can you just simply not organize them anymore, because it doesn’t provide a proper representation of quality in academia or for a different type of reasons? I think also a question would be for me is what diversity do we go for, right? Gender is only one type of a bit of diversity. And what are intentions of people and how do you communicate about them? So those I think these are least things that I would love to talk about a bit more when it comes to ‘manels’.

Marta Andhov [00:32:37]

Yes. I think that there are substantially there are two, sort of back end and front end of a ‘manel’ that we want to address. One is sort of how you go about organizing things and what challenges you may face yourself and what’s the right thing to do. And then on the other hand side are what is. What happens when there is a ‘manel’, whether there should be some reaction to that from participants. Because I also partook in the conference that Willem is mentioning. So, what is the right way? How we all do our bit to ultimately not have ‘manels’ in the future? And if we don’t have ‘manels’, then is it already good enough or we need to try again harder to include even more diversity that Willem is addressing. I think first and foremost there is also importance when it comes to organization of these things to distinguish between on the one hand say being mindful and trying to organize a conference event, whatever it is, to have a level of diversity, to not have ‘manels’ and failing at it, due to different circumstances that not necessarily are at fault of you as an organizer. Versus you just doing kind of sloppy job, are not thinking about it at all and just thinking, let me, you know, invite three or four people that I work with, and I always worked with them. I’m a dude, they are all dudes and just that are you don’t put thought into it. Right? Because those two things are substantially different, I think.

Willem Janssen [00:34:21]

For sure.  I think one of the arguments that often raises, yeah, but I went for quality. Right, which is one very harsh thing to say.  that’s one of the arguments that people say.

Marta Andhov [00:34:40]

Come on. It’s a lazy one.

Willem Janssen [00:34:43]

Yeah. Yeah, I’m trying to be fully, fully honest. And this is this is the thing that I struggle with sometimes is. So, say you’re organizing something, right? And you’ve done the legwork. Right. Because people are lazy and I fully understand, even though I hope I’m not a dude, but like, I also don’t like The Big Lebowski. If that was the reference you’re making. Like if you’ve done the legwork. So, this was also something that happened at another the conference. Right. So maybe that’s also where the examples coming from. If you properly tried and you’ve done it. There was also momentum. I think the only thing that I could reflect upon, I think, for last year was maybe we shouldn’t have done it, but we should have done it at a later date. Right. So that’s I think also still a discussion if, say, you ask a lot of women to be part of the panel and they say no, for whatever reason. Ask them. And this is something that I definitely learnt is okay, I really want you to be involved. When can you participate? Right. What would be an alternative? Right. I think that’s a very important lesson that I at least learnt. But then, then again, still there’s this quality thing and it’s, it’s in a way, it’s also a discussion about what’s more important. Right. Do you just go with people that are there? I’ve talked about this a lot since clearly, but people then give back to me. Well, they’re only there because they keep getting invited.

Marta Andhov [00:36:11]

Exactly.

Willem Janssen [00:36:12]

And I think that’s a valid point. Maybe we should find balance in this.

Marta Andhov [00:36:18]

I think there is also educational point because I am a firm believer in, you know, broad diversity. And I and I very strongly believe exactly in the statement that you made, that we all make leaders in the field, and we all give people platforms. So, you know, a particular person just gets invited because other five people invited them before. And the sort of ride the wave, so to speak. And I think that today in the globalized world, it’s quite sloppy to make a statement that you go for quality. And that means that you have, you know, three wide pale and stale speakers for the, you know, directness. I’m pretty sure that you can find women that that provide exactly as good quality, if not even superior. Of course, the question is of networks and how you get that right, because it might be a situation that your immediate network, you only know a certain male scholar in that field. And I think that for sure, one of the things is, rather than inviting them is just to reaching to them and saying, you know, I’m looking for a female in your field. Is there anyone who you could recommend? And I would hope that we have enough, you know, great colleagues that would do that and will give that platform, too. Because, you know, the thing is that it’s an opportunity creation, on the level of that. I think that this is this is a bit tricky because there might be a variety of issues. As you said, there might be a reason that I don’t know, you know, some sort of external funding and the conference needs to be organised in particular timeframe. And that ultimately can mean that you go with the panel that you do have. And that brings us to the second point. Let’s say that you did the legwork, you genuinely tried your best. You still end up with a ‘manel’ and how you go about it. Is it something that you address then before the panel starts, or is that something we don’t address?

Willem Janssen [00:38:26]

Okay. Knowing that I’m already being scrutinized here. We didn’t.

Marta Andhov [00:38:34]

But how you feel from a perspective of time of that, would you do that again?

Willem Janssen [00:38:42]

To be honest I still don’t know because. I still also think there’s a valid reason for, you know. I would not feel great if I was. But then again, I understand that I’m then not the right person to say this because I am that white man. But I do feel like I have some type of agency here. The people that are there sound like second choice. If you say that. I don’t want to make them feel shitty about their participation. Maybe that still means that, you know, that’s just the collateral damage of showing leadership and the importance in it, right? That’s possible. But how do you do that in a, you know, clever way, just to say, hey, we understand that there’s a bit of a gender disbalance, we value that.

Marta Andhov [00:39:44]  

Well, you know, if I was in this situation. You know that there’s also a bit of my role in this, you know, that we had a conversation about it. And I think that ultimately from a perspective also of participant in that conference of yours it and we had some chats about it later on is like, I feel bad for you because I also know you personally and I know that you genuinely, you know, you’re not that person that ultimately as a source of this ‘manels’ issues you, as you said yourself and your colleagues, you tried. But I think that the challenge is that if you don’t address it in any way like this, good thing that you did that you tried is somehow lost, is not communicated. And people, unfortunately usual then assume the worst. Right. And I also fully understand the point that you are making that how you communicate, if you decide to communicate that, how you do that in a way to not sort of disrespect in a way the people that actually join. Right. And I wonder whether a solution to that would not be to actually, you know, give a call because it’s not something that you want to write an email, but to give a call, you know, before the conference to the final participants and say, you know, this is the situation we strongly believe in, that we are extremely grateful. We’re extremely grateful that you are participating. But we think that this is an important thing to address. Yeah. Would you be okay for us to address it in a way to really, you know, give a credit and show your appreciation to, as you say, not really make them feel like second choice, but at the same time have a bit of this role that we are, you know, educational institutions. We are to lead by an example. And if something like that happened that genuinely we would say today shouldn’t happen anymore, that we should address it. So, you know, I think I would try to probably find a way to address it.

Willem Janssen [00:41:41]

Yeah. Fair enough. Yeah. It makes a lot of sense. There was one question I think I also was interested in. How do you feel when – I don’t know if you’ve been in this situation – but like I, I’ve heard from colleagues, female colleagues when they get asked for an interview and these five guys are already talking and there’s one woman that they’re still looking for or have in a panel. There’s five, five people and one is a woman. And does the last one that gets confirmed and they were kind of at a meeting probably. And they thought…

Marta Andhov [00:42:16]

We need a lady.

Willem Janssen [00:42:18]

We need a lady. Who can we find, right. Not disrespecting the quality, perhaps. Or hopefully not, but like. How do you respond to that?

Marta Andhov [00:42:29]

Well, you know, have you watched at any point – there’s this American series called Good Wife. It’s a about lawyers. A very famous one. It’s a really good one.

Willem Janssen [00:42:41]

We can talk about. I watch a lot of average television. This sounds like quality stuff.

Marta Andhov [00:42:44] So it’s a really good show. I’m hoping that some of our listeners watched it. It’s all about lawyers. And it’s a situation in which one of the lawyers is being female lawyer is being invited to some sort of committee or some sort of panel or something. And she goes to the partner who is a female of the law firm, and she sort of says that. And the lady says to her, you know what? The idea is that does not, or it should not make you feel anyhow. It doesn’t matter if you go there through the door or through the window. What is your role is to get in and make sure that no one after you need to experience that. So, for sure, it’s not in any way a nice thing. And you know, the amount of times that I’m somewhere and I feel like I’m not sure whether I’m here because they genuinely want me here or because they needed the woman. But it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter because that gives me a platform. So then when I organize something, I make sure that this is done better. And then I also will raise a question if I’m the only person that is, you know, in that an agenda of a conference or a panel and it’s, you know, like 90% or something male. I’ll ask, what’s the reason? And on one occasion when I was the only person out of ten, there was a woman. And I asked and they said kind of all, you know, it’s about quality and this and that. Then I said, well, then then do without me and I stepped down. Because then it was just really sad. They wouldn’t say that they don’t have a woman, but they didn’t have an interest genuinely of having a, you know, like more diversity in the panel. The reason why I think it’s important because it’s not just, you know, men or woman are nonbinary or different ethnicity or different religion that, you know, visually also communicates. It’s the thing that we have more and more diverse students and we need to model for them also through those things. But it’s also simply on the variety of perspectives in the conversation that we have, because I think that the problem is that we all, you know, Western Europeans, let’s say, and we all from very similar backgrounds, etc., etc., we will all have quite similar viewpoints. And the aspect is that it’s, you know, if it’s an event in which we all kind of clap to each other and say how great and this and that and agree on everything, then it’s a little bit the sort of added value of that, I guess it’s a little bit decreased, right?

Willem Janssen [00:45:14]

Yeah. I’m playing a bit of devil’s advocate and don’t see it as a bad thing, but like, does make it even more complex, right? Like, I think this is an easy thing to address and maybe that’s the first step. But I think a general diversity focus is important and I think that’s maybe also topic related, right? For some topics, it makes a lot of sense to have different types of backgrounds And what I’m then faced with is people say, well, it’s always relevant to have all those different types of perspectives, but then yeah, you end up with a conference or with a hundred speakers, do you know what I mean? So, it’s like a balance of all those things.

Marta Andhov [00:45:59]

Well, I think that the aspect that I always try to think is. It cannot be used as an excuse for not doing anything right. So, the argument of saying, well, we need to be we need to be fully diverse, having just women is not enough. So, it’s all the time will be something. And this is with all this changes that happens in any field or in anything, right? You sort of use it as, you know, sustainability and procurement. And then what we else will put into is always used as this type of argument of saying, no, no, let’s just stay. Let’s not change anything. Let it be as it is because I have an interest in keeping the status quo. Ultimately, this sort of one way or another for many discussions, it might be rightly that this sort of argument. So, I don’t think that it can be used as an excuse of not doing anything. It is a long, long path. It’s circumstantial. Also, you know if it’s a particular field, let’s say, you know, EU public procurement. On the largest conferences that are on EU public procurement, I’m not talking about global public procurement, but on EU public procurement, you have a representation of European university environments that to a large extent is still quite a sort of uniform. Right, largely, for example, when it comes to ethnicity, right?

Willem Janssen [00:47:25]

Yeah.

Marta Andhov [00:47:26]

So, you want in a way have much sort of opportunities to choose, but if you have them, I think that you have an obligation to try to investigate them. You have an obligation to try to do better. And then if you feel ultimately that you failed at something, I think there is a your right also to defend your standpoint in a way to address it and saying, you know, we tried, but this didn’t work out from X, Y and Z. We are particularly extremely grateful that we have the speakers that we have and da da da and you know.

Willem Janssen [00:48:04]

I think one of the things that is really important is one and what we started with is to have this discussion – and it’s weird in a way because having this discussion, I also instantly thought, have I said something that’s not couth, right? I was just having that thought.

Marta Andhov [00:48:22]  

I think it’s very normal when we talking about all this like quite charged conversation, that you feel, feel very automatically self-censored.

Willem Janssen [00:48:31]

Yeah. And knowing that this is going to be shot into the air makes it even more interesting. But I think I’m still I’m still okay with whatever we’ve said and please correct us if it wasn’t right. I think maybe because we also have to have a brief look at time. I think, maybe what we could close off with is two is just some key takeaways or some intentions that we have. So, for me, that means that I’m not organizing ‘manels’ anymore. Because I simply think it’s wrong. I still struggle with the further diversity thing. I can be honest about that, and I still think it’s difficult, particularly in this European setting. And I fully agree with you, but I think at least that’s a first step. Right? And along the way, perhaps I or the community will grow into something better even. Two, I think. I also don’t want to be part of ‘manels’ myself anymore. So, this point that you’ve mentioned before I think is very valid. I declined an invite last week. And I think that came as a shock and me kind of breaking the bro code like you would refer to it, right?  Like, is this really an issue? We’re just trying to get things done. Yeah, I think I will continue to struggle with the time aspect of it. And if you really need to keep going and if you’ve put in the legwork, that’s I think something that’s difficult. So, but like I said, the first vow is to not organize them anymore. So, as I’ve sold that for myself. And I think it’s important that more men also take on this role. I think that’s a still quite far of a discussion, to be honest. But yeah, I think in a way, a lot is also expected from women like yourself. Right. Like. Like standing up and, you know, still sitting in the room and then making others not have to experiences all those things that you explained.

Marta Andhov [00:50:31]

Well, you know, it’s this thing of what you said on the one hand. So, you kind of get a bit side I if you say, no, I’m not participating in ‘manels’ and then I will get the same amount of sort of side I if I ask why, it is a man, you know, that you even raised the question, right? So, this is difficult. We none of us wanted to come across wrongly in in professional settings. You need to put a bit of skin in the game, so to speak. And, you know, from my perspective, we also represent a little bit different standpoint, kind of just by who we are right in this discussion. But I would definitely very much agree with the points that you made. I think that this is not something that also in the sort of divisive way men versus men, etc., is going to be solved. We really need also, as you said, the type of support for each other. But I think for me, the main takeaway also of that is consider how you ask about it, because I think that it can come across very accusatory. I mean, right now from a perspective of someone that comments or why this is a ‘manel’ or we shouldn’t have a ‘manel’, X, Y and Z. And I think did lesson learnt also, you know, from the conference and from our chats around the sort of experience that we both share. And so, it’s also like how you then also ask that question because I think that you should ask the question, but the way how you do it also matters because then you can make that a harm. Similarly, as organizing a man or similarly for questioning that you can and do harm to institution organization group that was organizing a particular event and really tried. So, I think it’s also from a perspective of, of the end of this how you ask the questions matters too.

Willem Janssen [00:52:25]

Yeah, that’s a super valid point. Let’s assume, but I suppose that’s just about life is that people’s intentions are good. If we start from there, we can perhaps change our opinion about them. But I think that would make the discussion a lot more fruitful.

Marta Andhov [00:52:39]

Yeah, and wouldn’t need to worry so much, right? You wouldn’t need to worry because I think what we do right now is like kind of you’re measuring each of your word and that’s for sure not helpful for us to move forward with this development. So, I think with those great takeaways and sort of summary points of our dessert, something that we really hope that sort of serve also as a lesson, as inspiration of how you can deal with this type of situation. And similarly, as Willem’s call from early on if you have some good advice or experiences to share that can help us as a community to move forward, we would be very grateful if that is a privacy of a message to either of us or engaging with the podcast on LinkedIn or Twitter, etc. I think that then we can conclude for today, what you think?

Willem Janssen [00:53:36]

For sure. Sounds good.

Marta Andhov [00:53:37]

Good. Thank you so much to our listeners. Thank you to Willem. This is Bestek Public Procurement podcast.

About Bestek [00:53:46]

This was Bestek, the public procurement podcast. Do you want to contribute to today’s discussion? Then share your thoughts on LinkedIn or Twitter. Do you have an idea for a future episode? Write to us at www.bestekpodcast.com.

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.