Relational Contracts

"With over 70 years of successful implementation and detailed empirical research behind it, formal relational contacting stands as a compelling approach to commissioning in any field where exact outcomes are hard to predict, tools need continued refinement through practice and members of the supply chain can only contribute effectively to system-wide improvements if they can use shared insights and innovations in a trusted relationship."

The position papers below explore Formal Relational Contracting as a preferred alternative approach to commissioning public services, particularly in complex areas like employment and disability services.

The first paper, "Formal Relational Contracts and Commissioning of Complex Public Services", critiques the limitations of traditional transactional contracts, which rely on rigid terms, competition, and punitive measures, and instead advocates for relational contracts that prioritise trust, collaboration, and shared goals between service providers and commissioners.

The second paper, “Collaborative Commissioning & Formal Relational Contracting – What’s the difference and what are the likely benefits?”, clarifies the conceptual and practical distinctions between collaborative commissioning and formal relational contracting, and considers their potential to improve outcomes in complex human services. Following a submission to the Productivity Commission’s inquiry, Delivering quality care more efficiently, Professor Mark Considine AM and Professor Bruce Bonyhady AM examine these emerging approaches to public service governance. While both seek to move beyond transactional procurement and foster deeper partnerships between governments, providers, and communities, they are often discussed interchangeably.