Search
Close this search box.

The Marshfield Method, the 10 pillars on which our expert CLM-consulting business is built, was developed over our decades of experience pioneering best practices and a refined approach to contract lifecycle management (CLM). This framework is not just a set of steps; it’s a philosophy that integrates our deep industry knowledge with practical, hands-on experience in managing agreements across various sectors, and is applicable to organizations of every size.

Recently we launched a new service, the CLM Health Check, which is a systemized, holistic evaluation to identify inefficiencies, gaps, and improvement opportunities, turning your CLM software into a maximized tool to deliver the most business value it possibly can.

This blog will take the 10 pillars of the Marshfield Method, briefly define and describe each pillar, and then and walk you through evaluating the health of your CLM system as it relates to that individual pillar.

We begin here with the first pillar: Contract Preparation or Submission. What is it, and how can you tell if this pillar in your process is in good shape?

This pillar is, very simply, the process of Initiating or submitting contracts. With the help of CLM, contract initiation and submission can now be accomplished through automated templates or custom requests, ensuring flexibility and efficiency right from beginning to end. When a CLM system is optimized, automated contract management brings tremendous business value.

Here are factors to consider in evaluating the health of the Contract Preparation or Submission pillar:

  • Indicators of Good Health across the contract lifecycle management process.
    • The user experience is excellent as it relates to all facets of the process:
      • All the appropriate users and team members have the appropriate access and the permissions they need
      • All changes since the solution went live have been captured, and all templates reflect those changes. Users can access, and are using the most updated templates
      • The process captures the data that is needed for the contract initiation or submission process
      • All documents that are generated are complete and accurate
    • The goals set for the CLM system during the implementation have been realized
    • No gaps exist in the process to submit a form and generate a contract and the necessary data points are captured through the process
    • The user experience is seamless, efficient, logical, and easy to follow
  • Indicators of Poor Health for a contract lifecycle management system:
    • Gaps exist in the process to submit a form and generate a contract
    • Changes since the solution went live haven’t made their way into the templates
    • Changes aren’t enabled for all users
    • New requirements from a process audit still need to be captured, or additional data points need to be captured and included
    • Goals set at the implementation of the CLM system aren’t realized
    • The user experience is clunky, glitchy, inefficient, and illogical
    • Users abandon the process because of unnecessary steps, wasted time, and other friction points
    • There are contracts that didn’t go through the process
    • An audit of contracts for process adherence returned a low process adherence score
    • Steps taking place outside the automated system, and/or after contract completion that need to be folded into the process

A CLM system in Poor Health represents any number of missed opportunities. After all, from the 30,000 foot view, CLM is actually the beginning of a business relationship, not just a signature on a document. The CLM Health Check helps identify areas of the business that could benefit from a more robust version of agreement automation, as well pinpointing where contract data can be leveraged across the business to drive value.

To see these principles in real life, check out the case study with our client Beeline, where our expertise reduced their contract creation times from over 200 days down to hours, saving 900 hours annually, and streamlining audit compliance. Read the case study here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *