Orthopaedic implant standardisation
An NHS trust spends £2.8m a year on primary hip and knee implants across three hospitals. Six suppliers are used, but 14 implant variants are stocked; two suppliers account for 71% of volume. The contract expires in nine months. Procurement proposes a two-supplier framework based on an 80/20 volume split and estimates £310,000 annual savings. The clinical director opposes standardisation, arguing that surgeon preference protects patient outcomes and that losing preferred implants could affect recruitment. Trust data show variation in length of stay and revision rates, but the samples for individual variants are small. One supplier offers a £40,000 research grant and training; another provides consignment stock that reduces storage costs. Finance wants a decision within six weeks to allow mobilisation, and the board has a £2.5m cost-improvement target.
1. Segment the implant category and explain the implications for sourcing strategy.
Read the worked answer
Using Kraljic, implants are strategic: high spend (£2.8m), high supply risk because clinical preference, patient safety, consignment stock and supplier concentration create switching costs. They are not a leverage item where the trust can simply play suppliers against each other. The implication is a dual or limited-source strategy with clinical involvement, not a pure price auction.
A two-supplier framework can create volume leverage and reduce variants, but only if clinicians accept the clinical evidence. Procurement should build a category plan that separates clinical requirements from commercial variables: implant type, outcomes, inventory model, training and price. Use benchmarking and should-cost analysis; require outcome data and revision-rate reporting. The 80/20 split should be a guide, not a rigid allocation; build in a review mechanism and a route for a clinician to use a non-framework implant with approval.
The £310,000 saving is credible only if volume and compliance are delivered; otherwise it is a paper saving. Consider a gain-share or savings-share mechanism. Also check whether the research grant creates a conflict or inducement.
2. Map the key stakeholders and recommend an engagement approach that addresses the clinical director's concerns.
Read the worked answer
Map stakeholders by power and interest. High power/high interest: clinical director, lead surgeons, medical director, procurement, finance. High power/low interest: trust board. Low power/high interest: theatre teams, sterile services, patients, suppliers.
Engagement: form a clinician-led reference group chaired by a respected surgeon, with procurement as facilitator, not decision-taker. Share the outcome data transparently, including uncertainty from small samples; commission a rapid clinical evidence review; visit reference sites; run a clinician survey on must-have versus nice-to-have features. Address recruitment concerns by preserving access to a range of implants within the two-supplier model and by involving surgeons in supplier selection. Use a joint benefits case showing savings can fund service improvements. Escalate to the medical director and board if consensus fails.
Avoid presenting standardisation as purely a procurement cost exercise; frame it as reducing unwarranted variation and improving value. Document decisions and manage the supplier grant separately.
3. Evaluate the suppliers' offers of a research grant and consignment stock, and explain how they should be treated in the evaluation.
Read the worked answer
Treat both offers through the same evaluation and probity lens. A £40,000 research grant is not a price reduction; it may create an inducement, a conflict of interest or a perceived advantage. It should be declared, assessed against the trust's gifts and sponsorship policy, and excluded from the commercial evaluation unless it is a transparent, contractually binding benefit available to all bidders and approved by the board. Training is legitimate if it is needed to use the product safely and is priced or accounted for; otherwise it can distort competition.
Consignment stock is a genuine commercial model that reduces trust storage and working-capital cost, but it must be valued consistently: compare the total cost of ownership, including stock-holding, obsolescence, handling and any minimum-order commitment. Do not let one bidder's stock model become an unstated evaluation criterion. Ask all bidders to submit the same cost breakdown: unit price, consignment fee, inventory liability, training and support. Score against published criteria and record why. Refer the grant to the trust's conflicts lead and, if necessary, the counter-fraud team.