Monthly Archives: November 2010

There’s No Such Thing As Savings!

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: There’s No Such Thing As Savings. And I’m glad to say that I’m finally not the only one screaming it. As per this recent editorial in the CPO Agenda on “an escape from the tyranny of savings”, the problem with savings — whereby procurement is executed properly and there is early engagement, demand challenge, functional specifications, and diligent supply-market analysis — is that there are none. The more preparation that is done, the narrower is the range of offers from candidate-suppliers. The more radical the procurement solution, the less it fits a standard unit-price-difference calculation.

In other words, when a procurement department is well run, it will generate less of the head-turning savings that CPOs are obsessed with. So there is actually a perverse incentive not to change at all, and to manage spend badly. Because, as I’ve said many times before, savings is just money you shouldn’t have spent in the first place. That’s why “savings” quickly disappear after a company runs all its top spend categories through an open reverse auction for the first time. Once a company is getting market price, there are no more “savings” on the unit price. The only “savings” left are in efficiencies, and once an optimization is run to optimize the network, there are no “savings” left in the buy. The only option left is to go back and reengineer the product to reduce production and/or raw material costs. Then when that’s done there are no “savings” left. Success is then measured by controlling costs and preventing the inevitable rise to previous levels of excess that always happens when a category is put on the back burner and unmonitored. (That’s why “saving” consultancies can come back and revisit a spend category every three to five years and find “savings” when, in reality, there shouldn’t be any if they did the job right the first time and the category was properly monitored at contract renewal time.)

I understand that a Procurement Department still has to track and report its progress against a standard performance metric, but it definitely shouldn’t be savings. In the past I have recommended “cost avoidance” as a possible metric, but the CPO agenda article offers another recommendation which, if properly implemented, might be better. The author suggests using a “Procurement Control Index” which is to be developed by applying the following five criteria against each relevant procurement category:

  1. Is there a policy that describes how staff approach suppliers, what their financial authorities are, and what kinds of goods and services they may buy?
  2. Is there a procurement strategy document that is developed and agreed jointly with the ultimate budget-owner?
  3. Is there compliance with policy and strategy?
  4. Are current contracts and delivery performance actively monitored and managed?
  5. Are there improvement targets for assessing compliance, delivery performance and user satisfaction?

If the appropriate measurements are defined with respect to each question, for example:

  • % of categories with policies
  • % of categories with strategies
  • % of categories where policies are followed
  • % of contracts that are actively monitored
  • % of categories where improvement was seen

and these measurements are combined into a single perfect procurement metric through straight-forward multiplication, then a good measurement of overall procurement performance would be whether or not the PCI increased over time.

Of course, if this is too much, you could always start with Charles’ cost indices over on the Purchasing Certification Blog, but I’d hope the ultimate goal is a more comprehensive metric that applies organization wide.

Share This on Linked In

Best Practices Must be Adapted for Maximum Benefit

In a recent article over on the Supply Chain Consultants site, Harpal Singh asks if “best practices are always best”. It’s a good question, because the answer is no, or at least not if you blindly follow the advice of your competitor.

While every company executes similar functions — HR, Legal, Marketing, Product/Service Development, and Supply Chain — every company has differences that make it distinct. As a result, no process or practice can be expected to work out of the box without some tailoring.

For example, company X’s cost saving strategy might be reducing the number of shipments by using the available storage space in buildings they own (and which would otherwise go unused) to achieve that goal while company Y’s cost saving strategy might be JIT shipments because they don’t own any storage space and rental costs in local warehouses are quite high. As a result, while both might be standardizing on the same inventory management system to achieve inventory improvements, the systems would have to be configured differently.

Similar scenarios can be imaging in supplier selection (depending upon the desired characteristics of the supplier), carrier selection, and joint product development. While there will be lots of similarities (as both should be using e-Sourcing, e-Procurement, modern web-based IMS/WMS applications, etc.), there will be lots of differences in the nuances of the implementation. However, that does not mean that you can sweep someone else’s best practices under the rug, because if they come from a big, successful, global corporation like Apple, GE, Sony, P&G, or Unilever, there’s a lot of meat on the bone and you just have to figure out how to get the right cut.

For more tips on how to make best practices work for you, check out Harpal Sing’s article.

Share This on Linked In

Procurement – Why we really matter!

Today’s guest post is from David Furth, VP of Marketing at Hiperos. David has been in Procurement for over 20 years and has held senior positions at Perfect Commerce, BasWare, RightWorks/i2, and Deloitte Consulting.

Procurement is on the verge of experiencing its next major transformation. During the past ten years, the emphasis has been on optimization – leveraging spend, improving the sourcing process, and becoming more efficient across all aspects of the P2P and Order-to-Cash value stream.

As a result of these improvements, companies now rely on suppliers, outsourcers, and other third parties more than ever. A fact now recognized by C-level executives, boards of directors, and regulators, alike. Why? The increased reliance on these third parties has occurred without implementing the same level of control or having the same level of visibility that was in place when the work was being performed internally. The result is increased risk to company performance and brand reputation.

As a result, forward-looking procurement leaders are transforming their organizations. They still maintain the same obligation to keep costs down. But they have added the responsibility to continuously assess risk, pre- and post-award, and introduce integrated processes and controls across their companies to mitigate that risk by working closely with other functional areas, business lines, and geographies. During the next few years, procurement will be looked upon to provide important guidance around how key external contributors to their companies’ value chains are managed.

This is why more and more procurement executives are stepping forward to introduce a consistent method for managing providers across a wider breadth of their extended enterprise. These executives recognize that just because the contract assigns responsibility/liability for just about “everything”, this does not absolve their companies from the responsibility of ensuring each provider is living up to all contractual obligations. This requires implementing management control programs that actively monitor both performance and compliance to help ensure suppliers are meeting all their obligations.

This is an enormous responsibility that requires consolidating requirements across a large number of stakeholders, communicating expectations to all providers, collecting information and documentation about current status, and collaborating with providers to remedy issues when shortfalls are identified.To be successful requires a new attitude, a thoughtful approach, buy-in from key stakeholders, and the appropriate technology. Despite the best of efforts, responsibility or risk cannot entirely be outsourced.

So, when you consider the consequences of suppliers failing to meet their obligations, regulators handing out fines for poor oversight of third parties, and investors losing confidence in your brand, it is not surprising to see real action taking place. The past few years have made it abundantly clear, it is not a good strategy to expect that a great contract will get you great results, ensure providers follow the law, or prevent them from acting unethically. Therefore, it is imperative to have the appropriate level of controls to mitigate to the appropriate level of risk. This has not been the traditional way of thinking, but that is rapidly changing.

Thanks, David.

Share This on Linked In

Should You Be Sharing the Risk?

A recent article in the Supply Chain Management Review on “procurement risk management: what it takes to be a leader”, which correctly states that risk is part of business, noted that, even though procurement has become a frequent topic in the risk management conversation, few companies are translating their trepidations into formal procurement risk management capabilities. Considering that risks have grown considerably in recent years and that at least 7 in 10 companies will experience a major disruption this year, with almost 9 in 10 experiencing some form of disruption, this is not good. Risk management needs to be front and centre in supply chain planning.

But is that enough? Let’s say you put it front and centre, identify your top ten risks, and outline your risk mitigation and/or recovery plans for each risk. Classic thinking would say you’ve done a great job, but have you? If it’s a natural disaster, you’ve probably done all you can do since it’s an event that no one has any control over. But what if it’s a production line breakdown at a key plant of a sole-source supplier? Have you done everything you can? Maybe there’s nothing you could have done to prevent it, but, chances are, there was something your supplier could have done to prevent it.

And maybe they would have if they had more incentive — which leads me to believe that the leaders identified in the referenced 2009 Accenture Study who insist on risk-sharing clauses and back-to-back contracts might be on to something. If both parties agree to share risks, and the costs associated with such risks, both parties are more likely to be alert to risk signals and to take action before a minor interruption becomes a major disruption. If both parties are serious about risk, it’s the right way to go.

Share This on Linked In

For an Alternative to the Ariba Supplier Network, Don’t Overlook Ketera

Ever since Ariba decided to hike their already hefty fees, there’s been a lot of chatter about the Ariba Supplier Network on and off the blogs, including a great piece on An American Editor, reprinted here on SI, on the harbinger of getting paid.

Since that time, SpendMatters has been covering multiple Ariba Supplier Network Alternatives, including Hubwoo, Basware, and OB10, but has not made a peep about Ariba’s smaller competitor further down the valley. Now, Ketera may not be as big or loud as Basware, Hubwoo, or OB10, but they have a fairly solid offering and one advantage the other guys don’t have — a very low price point, which is critical for the SME market who can’t afford $20,000 a year just for the privilege of transacting online, which is not even close to new technology anymore.

The Ketera Network is a lot bigger than one might think. While they haven’t reached a Trillion dollars in transactions yet, 50 Billion is nothing to scoff at and with over 100,000 buyers and over 1 Million suppliers, it has reached a respectable size and is still growing.

And, most importantly, it’s very cost effective. It’s essentially free to try, as a seller can list for free using their Amazon-like model and pay 3.5% of the sale, and as soon as the seller closes in on $7,000 in sales, the seller can upgrade to the premiere membership which, at $25/month or $250/year, costs the seller less than pennies on the dollar, and quickly becomes a much more affordable alternative than the ASN at the $16,130 mark. For example, even though (to the best of my knowledge) Ariba limits the transaction fees they charge a seller to $20,000 a year, a seller has to do 1.29 Million in business before the cost drops below 15.5 basis points.

The following table should help an organization evaluating their options put the networks in perspective:

Network Ketera Network (KN) Ariba Supplier Network (ASN)
Service Level Sponsored (Private Buyer Catalogs) Public Listing (Amazon-Like Model) Premiere Membership Standard
Service Cost Free 3.5% of Sales 250/year 0.155% of Sales, up to $20,000
Good When only selling via private catalogs to KN buyers doing less than $7,143 of public sales doing more than $7,143 of public sales doing (considerably) more than 1.29M of sales per year with Ariba buyers

And the following table should help an organization understand the relative costs of the KN Premiere Membership vs. the Standard Ariba Supplier Network Membership:

 

Cost Per Dollar of Sale
Sales Volume KN ASN Winner
10,000 0.02500000 0.01550000 ASN
16,130 0.01549907 0.01550000 KN
100,000 0.00250000 0.01550000 KN
1,000,000 0.00025000 0.01550000 KN
1,300,000 0.00019231 0.01538462 KN
10,000,000 0.00002500 0.00200000 KN
100,000,000 0.00000250 0.00020000 KN
1,000,000,000 0.00000025 0.00002000 KN

 

The Ketera Network may not be right for everyone, but it’s something every SME should definitely investigate.

Share This on Linked In