What Is Wrong With Us: We sign off on value for money before we have even defined it

Value for money should therefore be understood first as a matter of boardroom governance, shaped by the board's strategic intent, interrogated by the relevant committee and returned to the full board as a measurable proposition, long before it becomes a procurement calculation.

Depending on the scale of an organisation's capital expenditure, developing world boards would also do well to consider establishing a dedicated procurement committee of the board, mandated specifically to define value, interrogate major contracts and monitor delivery, rather than leaving this responsibility to whichever committee happens to have room on its agenda.

The board should keep asking whether the price is competitive and the risk manageable, but it should add one more question: what development value will remain once the money has been spent?