Uncertainty starts in the market – not inside the organization

Businesses - and governments - exist to serve markets. Any redesign of operating models must therefore begin with how organizations engage with those markets. Internal design should follow as the enabler, not the starting point.

Viewed through this lens, one of the biggest barriers to adaptability becomes clear: the way organizations form and manage their external commitments.

Those commitments are expressed through the contracts and commercial relationships established with customers, suppliers, partners, distributors and service providers. These relationships are the mechanisms through which strategy is actually delivered. Yet they are rarely considered in discussions about operating model transformation.

World Commerce & Contracting research consistently shows that this is where the real constraints lie and, until addressed, will frustrate strategic efforts to truly manage uncertainty.

Organizations operate through vast networks of agreements, but the processes surrounding them are often fragmented and poorly designed. Ownership and decision authority are unclear. Governance is dominated by defensive control mechanisms. Data about obligations, performance, and risk is scattered across multiple systems or missing entirely.

In short, the system through which organizations define and manage their market relationships is typically the antithesis of adaptability.

Ironically, when uncertainty increases, the most common response is to add more controls - tighter clauses, additional approvals, more oversight. Each is intended to reduce risk, yet collectively they often make organizations slower, more rigid, and less capable of responding to change. In other words, they introduce and add to systemic and operational risk.

The problem is structural. Internal systems and organizational design are still largely built around functional control rather than adaptive commercial capability. That was confirmed by the latest edition of the Global Benchmark Report, issued by the Commerce & Contract Management Institute in October 2025 and the more recent studies on adoption and use of AI in the contracting process.

This creates a persistent gap between executive intent and operational reality. Leaders call for greater agility, resilience, and responsiveness, but the commercial frameworks through which organizations interact with the market remain rigid and fragmented.

Addressing uncertainty therefore requires a broader perspective. Internal transformation is essential, but it must be accompanied by external enablement.

The uncertainty organizations are trying to manage does not reside within the enterprise. It resides in the markets where they operate and the relationships through which value is created and delivered.

Unless those external relationships and the processes used to design and manage them are rethought, many well-intentioned transformation efforts will continue to stall and meet resistance at the boundary between organizations.

If executives truly wish to better manage uncertainty, here are a few reflective questions:

• Where does contracting capability sit on your list of strategic priorities?
• Are you investing in AI and technology to elevate contracting as a strategic enabler, or relegating this to a later date?
• Is contract data being cleansed and structured so it can become a critical source of business intelligence?
• Has your organization adopted a coherent lifecycle framework, such as the global Contract Management Standard (CMS), to align responsibilities and decision rights?
• Do executives receive meaningful metrics on the efficiency and effectiveness of contracting - cycle times both pre and post-award, value erosion, change performance, dispute rates? Or is this not possible because no one has the data?