A recurring question in our field concerns the lessons we can draw from delays in the procurement process. These delays are more than administrative inconveniences; they directly affect the timely delivery of public goods and services. Some originate within the procuring entity, and others do not. This is precisely why careful planning and realistic scheduling remain central to effective procurement management.

From my experience, everything begins with developing procurement schedules that are both realistic and grounded in historical data. Once a schedule is agreed upon, the process must start on time, and the activities under our direct control should be completed promptly. For tasks that depend on others, consistent follow-up, supported by clear communication, helps maintain momentum.

It is equally important to acknowledge that procurement processes are rarely controlled by the procurement unit alone. Technical specifications, Terms of Reference, and scopes of work often come from user departments. Evaluation committees may involve staff from different agencies, and the approving authority, frequently a major source of delay, is usually external to the procurement unit. For this reason, schedules need to reflect how long each step has taken in past operations rather than how quickly we hope they will be completed.

A point often raised in discussions on procurement delays is the value of defining clear turnaround times for each stage of the process and applying them consistently. This helps align expectations and reinforces accountability across everyone involved. Compressing timelines to satisfy leadership or adjusting them without evidence generally undermines the process. If historical records show that a particular procurement process routinely requires seven months, there is little justification for assuming it can be completed in four.

The objective is to plan for what is achievable and to meet the deadlines under our control. For everything else, persistent but respectful follow-up is essential to help other contributors complete their tasks.

Many practitioners can already estimate how long individual processes will take. Nevertheless, pressure to “fast-track” procurement continues. It is useful to remember that fast-tracking is not a procurement method. True emergencies have established procedures designed for urgent situations, and these should be applied when the circumstances genuinely meet the criteria, not simply because a late request is framed as urgent.

Ultimately, understanding historical timelines allows us to plan realistically. With a credible schedule, we can reasonably estimate when contract award should occur and determine the appropriate point at which a procurement should begin, recognizing that some delays will always remain beyond our control.

Given the impact of delays on service delivery, there is ample room for continued research and improvement to streamline processes and increase efficiency.

I would welcome comments from others in the community, particularly those who have experienced delays, or have been held responsible for delays, arising from factors outside their control.