Yes, in my case the larger issue is vendor service in general, not merely
account rep. turnover. In my case we don't actually have a contract in place
because the vendor will not agree to many requirements. The vendor already
has our boxes, which is my company's mistake (which predates me).

Obviously, in an ideal world, the contract is tight and
includes incentives for the vendor to improve service. Procurement
departments can help with incentive ideas. A tight contract ideally
should preclude the need for the customer to research legitimacy of monthly
charges because invoice content, reports, and service processes should
be spelled out in excruciating detail. And then ideally the vendor agrees to
the lengthy customized contract. Which vendors big and small rarely do. The
big vendors somehow get away with it. Refusal to negotiate is, I
suspect, the 'business model' of many vendors. It's certainly the way they
end up making money. It's important to get that reality out in the open for
us records managers. Another reality is that there's collusion across
vendors on issues like insurance (e.g. per-box minimums). This list serv has
discussed it in the past. Collusion also happens with NFPA standards (for
example the Technical Committee) where there's underrepresentation by
records managers. Records managers need to assert themselves to vendors and
consortia that dominate standards committees.


maureen cusack
san francisco, CA
[log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]