Monthly Archives: April 2016

It’s Time To Rev Up Your Procurement Value Engine. But Do You Know How?

Procurement doesn’t exist to just buy stuff. Procurement exists, at least if it’s a modern Procurement organization, to identify and deliver organizational value. Long gone should be the days when Procurement, staffed by the island of misfit toys, existed only to process the paper work that allowed manufacturing to buy the parts it needed or the back office the paper and calculators required to do the day-to-day accounting.

But the identification of organizational value, as long-time readers of SI know all too well by now, is not always straight-forward. Every organization is different, and every Procurement function has a different level of organizational maturity. As per the classic Hackett Hierarchy of Supply, a supply organization could still be at the level of supply assurance, could have moved on to analyzing landed cost, may have begun its entry into the modern era with an analysis of TCO, might be poised to become a leader with a foray into demand management, or, and this is the highest level of maturity, may be focused on the art of value management.

However, delivering value takes more than just realizing that your function is to deliver value. It is understanding what value is to the organization and how Procurement can contribute to it. Simply put, one way of defining value to the organization is whatever allows the organization to increase its revenue potential. (More sales, more market share, more brand recognition and brand love, and so on.) One way of assisting the organization in the capture of this value is to deliver products, services, and knowledge that will assist the organization in strengthening its Unique Selling Points (USPs) or Unique Value Propositions (UVPs) that give the organization the competitive advantage it needs to increase its revenue (or profit) potential.

It is not easy to do, especially since a Procurement organization has to understand not only what it must do, why it must do it, and how it will achieve it, but how to be good at it. Few organizations get demand management under control and step up to the highest level of the pyramid. Fewer still can stay there as they will struggle with the how. And even if they occasionally understand the how, they may never master the art of being good.

If one wants to be good and drive to success, one has to have a vehicle powered by a finely tuned engine that can deliver value lap after lap around the sourcing track. Such an engine must be efficient, effective, and sustainable. Only then will Procurement be able to get good and stay good. So what does such an engine look like, what sort of value will it deliver, and how will it deliver that value?

For the answer, check out the new white paper co-authored by the doctor and the procurement dynamo, sponsored by Pool4Tool, on how to Boost Your Procurement Value Engine. Part I of a II-part series (with Part II coming out in Q3), this paper will give you the insights you need to understand the various levers you have to deliver true value and how you can do so in an efficient, effective, and sustainable manner.

Benchmarks: Blessing or Bane?

Benchmarking, formally defined by Wikipedia as the process of comparing one’s business processes and performance metrics to industry bests and best practices from other companies, are typically presented by consultants as a boon for business managers and a reason to buy their services and/or solutions. After all, if you can’t benchmark, not only do you know how good you are doing (compared to the industry), but you do not know if you are improving or deteriorating, at what rate, and what the potential is.

And all this is true, provided the benchmarks are accurate, apples-to-apples, and actionable. This is not always the case, and when the benchmarks are poorly designed and implemented, definitely not the case. In fact, if the benchmarks are not accurate, they can cost the organization precious time, money, and resources and result in worse, instead of better, performance. And even though you don’t hear about it (as the last thing a Big 6 consultancy wants to do is scare you away from one of their most profitable service offerings — as it takes a long time to design the scorecard, collect the data, and interpret the findings [which translates into a huge number of top dollar billable hours for the House of Lies] — it happens more often than you think, and if you end up being one of the unlucky, you will be cursing benchmarks until the end of your Procurement career (and beyond if the word ever again arises).

the doctor is being dead serious here. Benchmarks (like dashboards) hide at least six serious dangers that can seriously hinder productivity, savings, and innovation. Three of these are very common to internal benchmarks, and three of these are very common to external benchmarks.

One of the most significant dangers of internal benchmarks is hidden opportunities due to false negatives. This often arises when monitoring best-price contracts. A classic example is that of enterprise desktop systems. Considering that technology depreciates the time it hits the market, just like a car depreciates from the time it leaves the lot, the price of these systems should decrease over time. If the benchmark says that the contracted configuration decreased over the 12-month contract by an average of 0.5% a month, for a total decrease of 6%, the buying organization might believe that the vendor is honouring the best-price clause. But if the buying organization isn’t aware that the average depreciation of these systems is 12% to 18% and doesn’t monitor market pricing, the buyer might not know that the pricing should have decreased an average of 1.25% a month, and would have lost 0.75% a month on purchases. If the organization was buying 500 systems a month as part of a phased replacement for 1.5K each, or spending 750,000 a month, that’s a loss of $5,625 a month for a total loss of over $60K, or another help desk resource! (And if all hidden opportunities were this small, it might not be too bad. But this is more of a best-case loss example.)

One of the most significant dangers of external benchmarks is wasted years due to lack of validation. One common example is that of contingent or manual labour spend analysis. For example, consider the analysis of warehouse (contingent) labour across the enterprise. An enterprise could quickly find that its paying, on average, a fully burdened rate of $17 an hour for workers to stuff boxes while its competitors are paying, on average, a fully burdened rate of $14 an hour for workers to stuff boxes. This might lead an analyst to believe that the organization is paying 30% more than it should be and that it should seek out a new contingent labour provider to get costs down, and waste months on RFX and analysis only to find out that the most it can lower its costs from the quotes is 10%. At this point, the analyst might go back and do an analysis of what it would cost to take the labour management back in house (which would require building a Contingent Labour CoE, staffing it, etc.) and still not see a savings when it replaces the outsourced management cost with the internal management costs applied to the total wages paid out. At this point the analyst would give up, or spend even more time investigating the reason only to find out that the organization’s main warehouses are in California, New York, and Massachusetts, the states with the highest minimum wages in the nation, while most of its competitors keep their warehouses in the mid-west / south-west states that only mandate the federal minimum wage of $7.25 (vs. minimum wages north of $10). Benchmarks only capture price and performance tiers, not the realities that led to them.

But these are only two of the six major hidden dangers that can ruin any benchmarking project (and the efforts that they will kick off, for better or worse). For a detailed insight into the other four, download the doctor‘s latest white-paper (sponsored by Trade Extensions) on The Dangers of Benchmarks and Trend Analysis (registration required) today. You need to know these inside out before even looking at a benchmark (which, when improperly constructed and improperly interpreted, can be just as deadly and dangerous as a dashboard).

Claritum – Medicine for the Procurement Soul, Part II

As per part I, while Claritum might sound like the latest miracle drug for the sinus, it’s really the latest miracle drug for Procurement — and when SI says miracle, it’s because, properly used, it really does work.

So what does Claritum cure? As per Part I, Claritum is the cure for SOOM. (SOOM, not VOOM.) Spend Out Of Management. How does it cure this? By providing a platform for spend not typically captured by the traditional Sourcing or Procurement platform so that the spend can become spend under management. This way, unless it’s spend that has to be made off site (at an event, during travel, etc.), or the buyer wants to keep the spend out of the system (because he doesn’t want the preferred product or wants to hide what the spend truly is for as long as possible), it can be made through the system that supports a process to get the right product or service at the right price.

Claritum provides a consumer shopping site solution that can be offered by the organization’s Procurement department, their service provider, or GPO. This shopping solution offers the traditional product catalogs that you will find on consumer sites like Amazon and competing provider catalog sites. It also contains standard rate-card service requisitions that you will find on (contingent and service) labour management platforms. Plus, it contains (the ability to create) template requisitions for all standard tail-spend categories, which can be searched and added to the “cart” as easy as standard catalog items. And, as expected, it contains free-form RFX ability for buyers to requisition anything not already covered. Basically, everything that can be bought through a platform can be bought through the platform and the only spend that should not be captured is on-site T&E spend (tickets for travel can be requisitioned through the platform, and the senior buyer responsible for T&E can process the request, create the PO, and then there is a PO to match the p-Card payment to) and on-site event spend, which should be a very low amount of tail-spend.

Now, this might not sound that special, as providers like IBX and Deem offer a lot of this capability, but this is just the surface of the Claritum platform. First of all, the Claritum platform was designed with multi-organizational use in mind and can be administered by a GPO who manages contracts for multiple clients, who can customize the catalog and offerings to the need of each client individually. Second, the RFX management process, which is tightly integrated into the catalog, is very deep and the requisitions can be set-up to make sure the right requests go to the right buyers and then the right approvers, and the right buyer can select the right suppliers, manage the process, select the winner, and send it back to the requisitioner who can then complete the process (and confirm the need) by adding the award to the cart, and checking out, which sends the request to the proper approver(s). Third, the API allows the platform to be integrated with all organizational ERPs, AP systems, and supplier catalogs, to make sure the right data gets into and out of the system. And fourth, and this sets it apart from all its competitors, it has the ability to manage stock inventory within the platform. Items come from the stock-room (or supplier store-room) first before requests for new shipments are made. And that stock-room inventory, including automatic replenishment rules, can be managed by an internal inventory manager, the GPO, or the vendor, depending on where the stock is located and who is (contractually) required to manage it.

Considering that many big organizations use GPOs or service providers for at least a portion of the tail-spend, it only makes sense to have a platform that can be managed by those same providers for the portion of tail-spend they manage. The Claritum platform is the only one that SI has seen that truly has these three components. The buyer store. The deep sourcing and procurement platform (which can be internal to Procurement, external in the GPO, or managed jointly). And the full featured supplier portal.

So if you want to get your tail spend under management, the doctor recommends that you check out the Claritum platform today. It really is worth a close look, even if you already have a S2P platform, because the extensive API will support integration and the ability to capture organizational spend outside of Procurement is the next big savings opportunity in many organizations. And if you have the choice of platform, Claritum is the one that should be Stuck With You.

Technological Sustentation 92: Data Loss

As we said before, this is the information age and data is the life blood of the company and the supply chain that powers it. The financial chain is powered by data. Encrypted bits over secure channels control the flow of currency. The physical flow of goods is dictated by data. The people controlling the goods and finances communicate through data packets. And losing any of this data is a serious damnation. Not just because data is lost but because, as per our technological damnation post on data loss,

  • lost intellectual property data is a loss of competitive advantage,
  • intrusions that result in lost or stolen data are hard to trace, and
  • even if the intrusions are traced, loss is hard to recover.

Moreover, even if an organization wants to prevent data loss, it requires

  • very powerful, expensive, digital vaults and
  • loads of security training, awareness, review, and enforcement.

So what can an organization do?

First of all, figure out what data is needed, and, of that data, what data needs to be protected. Not all data is critical, and not all is even needed, and the amount of data that needs to be encrypted is typically much less than the entire kit & caboodle. While many organizations do not protect enough data, especially considering the amount of data that should be protected under privacy laws, those that take data protection seriously protect too much. They take a military approach and everything is protected until reviewed and released.

The only data elements that should be protected are

  • personal data
  • (raw) financial data (even if the company is public)
  • true trade secrets (proprietary designs, upcoming marketing plans, etc.)

Bids for commodities or lanes are not trade secret, or all that private. Most carriers give the same bids out over and over again, and some even on public platforms like FreightOS. Purchases might seem trade secret, but the reality is that if the components are imported, the import data is public. Sales can be figured out from public records too. Sales and marketing plans become public the minute they are implemented. Designs become public the minute they are patented. Even though encryption can theoretically be applied to all data, the reality is that once data leaves the secure server, there’s no way to keep it secure. So what do you do?

1. Identify the subset of data that truly has to be secure.

All employee and personal data. Raw financials. Designs under creation. But not public bids, designs that have been patented, or processed financials for public release.

2. Identify the systems necessary to process that data.

And find web-based systems that allow for all parties that need access to the data to access it through the system over the ‘Net. Make sure the data never has to leave the system for the parties that need it to do their jobs and then make sure that only senior administrators or officers of the company can actually export that data. Make sure the systems support distributed real-time failover to backup instances so that they are always available.

3. Make sure all access to data that needs to be secure is logged.

There should be complete audit trails, replicated to external back-ups accessible only by bonded administrators and senior directors of the company.

4. Make sure all of the data is backed up externally using the highest level of encryption available.

It’s not just the audit logs that need to be stored off site, it is the critical data as well. While one site might be taken offline, and even compromised, the chances of multiple geographically remote sites being taken offline or destroyed simultaneously are slim to none.

5. Make sure all exported data is watermarked.

Using embedded and hidden watermark algorithms. It’s easy to embed watermarks in most document formats, and while it’s also possible for hackers to remove them from non-image files, it’s not easy and if no one knows the watermark is there …

While even the strongest encryption can be theoretically hacked, and any exports stolen, if the right infrastructure is set up, the risk of data theft is small and the risk of complete data loss almost zero. But one has to carefully plan and set up the right infrastructure, or just like a middle aged man, the organization may find it’s hair today, gone tomorrow.

Claritum – Medicine for the Procurement Soul, Part I

While Claritum might sound like the latest miracle drug for the sinus, it’s really the latest miracle drug for Procurement — and when SI says miracle, it’s because, properly used, it really does work better than expected.

So what does Claritum cure? SOOM. (Not VOOM, SOOM!) Spend Out Of Management. How does it cure this? Before we can answer that, we have to identify the main types of SOOM.

If Spend Under Management, SUM, is typically spend that is (strategically) sourced or requisitioned/ordered through the e-Procurement system (by way of a catalog, punch-out, requisition, or spot-buy) and tracked then SOOM is, simply put, everything else. What does this everything else look like?

  • maverick spend
  • one-time buys (for promotions, special projects)
  • print/packaging
  • Travel & Expense (T&E)
  • Event
  • MRO
  • Marketing Services
  • Uniforms and Apparel
  • Furniture
  • office products / consumables
  • low-dollar services and temporary labour
  • unique needs not met by current suppliers
  • misc. p-Card spend, including the strip club bill

Essentially, it is the “tail” spend of the organization (especially if it shows up on the p-Card of a certain executive or salesperson). In an above-average organization, this will typically be 20%-ish of spend. In a below-average organization, with a lot of spend managed by various departments and a lot of maverick spend, this could be 40%-ish of spend.

In other words, SOOM is everything Sourcing hasn’t sourced and Procurement can’t manage. Why can’t Procurement manage the spend? Let’s take the examples one by one.

  • one-time buys (for promotions, special projects)
    there is no RFX template, so the system is just by-passed
  • print/packaging
    thesystem isn’t set up to handle print jobs, so the staff just goes to staples or office depot
  • Travel & Expense
    there is no T&E platform support, so everyone just uses their own credit cards and expenses a month to three later because it’s easier
  • Event
    event management has unique requirements, and so is done offline
  • MRO
    service calls are unplanned, parts are bought as needed, and janitorial supplies are too insignificant for sourcing
  • Marketing Services
    marketing statements of work and account management requires special support, not in a standard RFX, so the tool is again bypassed
  • Uniforms and Apparel
    sizes, colours, etc. aren’t on the standard RFX, and it’s one time, and it’s easier to order through the supplier site, so that happens
  • Furniture
    it’s a one-time buy, so just go to the furniture store, put it on the p-Card
  • office products / consumables
    there’s no simple reorder form, so it’s simple to just have the accounts manager ship and bill you the monthly order and pay on the p-Card
  • low-dollar services and temporary labour
    it’s easier to call up the temp labour agency or the consultancy of choice, have them send the resource, and bill you later than try to go through the process
  • unique needs not met by current suppliers
    since the system isn’t set up for supplier discovery, you do the web search, have a few chats, find a supplier you feel comfortable with, have them ship the products, send the invoice, and then you instruct AP to pay it upon goods receipt
  • misc. p-Card spend, including the strip club bill
    for anything non-standard, if the p-Card is accepted, it is easier, especially if it’s spend you want to hide the spend until it’s too late for the organization to do anything about it (and there is a process that allows you to do so)
  • maverick spend
    for anything the buyer wants to break the rules for

In other words, the main reasons Procurement can’t manage the spend are:

  • the buyer doesn’t want the spend managed,
  • the process doesn’t support the spend, or, primarily,
  • the Sourcing and Procurement platform(s) don’t support the spend.

And that’s the kicker. Most platforms have been designed to capture the strategic or high-volume spend and customized to that, following the 80/20 rule under the assumption that most of the savings is in the top 80% which has the volume leverage and supplier relationship leverage. And while this is mostly true, especially since advanced sourcing can save an average of 10%, indicating that there is 8% potential savings, this 8% savings is only achievable over a 3 year timeframe, as most organizations only strategically source about 1/3 of their spend annually. In other words, an average organization repeatedly sourcing the same spend only saves about 3% annually. What goes unnoticed is the bottom 20% of spend which, due to lack of analysis and effort, typically contains an overspend of 10% to 30% (with an average overspend in the 15% range). This is significant. 15% of 20% is 3%, about the same as an organization pushes to the bottom line with strategic sourcing. And this spend is made every year, and this savings, if the spend could be managed, is available every year. If I’m losing out on 50% of my savings, I Want A New Drug!

So if you had a platform designed for this tail spend, which supported the right processes needed by the individuals who contribute to tail spend, most of this spend could be captured. And that’s what the Claritum platform is designed to do – capture all of the tail spend that buyers throughout the organization need to make. How does the Claritum platform do that? Come back for Part II.