4. Under
Developed
Developing
Operationally
Efficient
Best In
Class
Contract
Processes
Not well defined or
documented; inconsistencies
in request to negotiation to
renewal processes
Defined but lack proper
documentation and
standardization; no central
intake and management
function exists
Align with technology and
are well defined and
documented; centralized
intake and process
management
Continue to evolve based on
dashboards with KPIs and
on-going feedback loop
Contracts
Team
Operate in non-standardized,
ad hoc manner; manage
contracts in personal
environment (local drives,
shared drives, Outlook)
Templates and process exist
but users lack training and
consistency of use; few reports
used in managing of work;
handle requests from variety of
sources with no priority
mechanism
Trained on process and
tools; work in a consistent
manner; increased efficiency
through proactive
management; utilizing and
maintaining sophisticated
clause library
“Centers of Excellence”
around tools and process;
moved past “sign and file”,
and looking backwards at
contract success and failure,
and forward at risk
management and value
maximization
Contracts Tools
and Technology
No defined contracts
technology strategy; various
point solutions lacking
enterprise-wide benefit; no
standard clause library
Department wide tracking of
work, but not in best in class
systems (tracking in
spreadsheets or home-grown
databases); clause library and
templates may exist, but are
not maintained
Using best in class
technology that automates
workflows, and provides
insight into contract
performance; automatic
notices for key dates and
events
Utilized to fullest capacity,
allowing for: client self-
service, electronic
signature, risk identification,
maximizing
renewal/renegotiation
windows, and compliance
monitoring
HBR Contract Maturity Model
Proprietary and Confidential. Not to be shared or distributed without the permission of HBR Consulting.
