Whichever Moron Decided that “Touched Spend” Was a Good Metric Should be “Touched” Out of a Job!

Last week over on Spend Matters, the maverick pointed out that there is a new benchmarking metric being collected by CAPS Research called “touched spend“, which is supposedly defined as a new metric to encapsulate sourceable spend and managed spend … and then some. Specifically:

  • Sourceable Spend
    All company-wide external purchases that could be sourced by supply management (whether they currently are or are not). Does not include such items as taxes, fees, legal judgments or charitable contributions.
  • Managed Spend
    Purchases made following policies, procedures or commercial framework developed by the supply management group.
  • Touched Spend
    Total of all spend that has been bid, negotiated, indexed or influenced in any way by the supply management group during the reporting period.

The first two metrics, appropriately defined (using the definitions provided by the maverick, are quite good, but the latter, not so much. the maverick points out that it could use a “little” touch-up, and, in particular, the word “influence” should be removed. As influence could refer to any policy/procedure/system/tactic/whim put in place by Procurement but executed by someone else, who might have a completely different definition or interpretation of the policy/procedure/system/tactic/whim and source using a methodology that would not be approved by any Procurement personnel under any market (or mental) condition.

But that alone wouldn’t make the definition meaningful. There’s still that word “indexed“. Just because you “index” something doesn’t mean you actually take, directly or indirectly, any action to actually manage, or even influence, the spend. The index can be completely ignored by anyone doing the actual buying. Or, worse yet, interpreted as “the minimum” one should pay (instead of the maximum) and lead to all sorts of problems.

And even though what remains after removing the words “influence” and “indexed” is a decent definition of a spend metric, it shouldn’t be called “touched” spend because that just conveys a definition so loose that anything qualifies.

If we examine the definition of touch, which is to come so close to (an object) as to be or come into contact with it, then my way, your way, anything goes tonight. You sent a policy to an end user, they half read it. The spend was touched! You passed an engineering manager in the hall, gave him a tip on a metals category, that he may or may not have taken into account, the spend was touched! You compiled an index that no one looked at … hey, they spend was touched! Because, in each case, you came so close that you could have come into contact with it … even though you did squat. See how stupid this metric is. How blazingly stupid. If you report this metric to any CFO with half a brain (and the vast majority have a full brain, by the way), your credibility is shot … forever.

It’s just too damn easy to touch too much.

And that’s why whichever moron that decided touched spend was a good metric should be touched, where, to be specific, we use the other definition of touch that is to handle in order to manipulate, alter, or otherwise affect, especially in an adverse way where we define “adverse way” to mean shown the door.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>