What Is Wrong With Us: We sign off on value for money before we have even defined it
There is a particular kind of national regret that never makes the evening news: the project completed on budget, delivered on time, technically flawless by every measure, that nonetheless leaves a country no stronger than before the contract was signed. No scandal, no headline, simply an opportunity quietly spent rather than wisely invested. Every year, developing economies commit vast sums to…
The decision to sign off on value for money before defining it can lead to public funds building assets without strengthening a nation. Despite projects being technically sound, competitively priced, and meeting procurement rules, they may not result in national growth. This is a governance failure at the board level, occurring before any tender is drafted.
Value for money should first be understood as a matter of boardroom governance, shaped by strategic intent and interrogated by relevant committees. Price matters, but so should lifecycle cost, job creation, skills development, local supplier development, technology transfer, and foreign exchange exposure. Boards should ask not just how much a project will cost, but what development those funds will leave behind.
The procurement process should focus on delivering strategic outcomes, with the relevant committee scrutinising them before the full board approves them. Establishing a dedicated procurement committee to define value, interrogate contracts, and monitor delivery could enhance decision-making. While the World Bank and African Development Bank require evaluation criteria beyond price, the choice is not between lowest price and reckless spending, but price considered within a richer, measurable definition of value.
Written by urgent.news from MyJoyOnline Ghana's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
