As we all know, the last year has been all about the M&A frenzy as the big try to get bigger by gobbling up any player with any modules they don’t have or any player with customer bases in a region they aren’t in, and doing so in a manner that doesn’t always make sense to analysts. As the doctor indicated in his post last month on Surviving a M&A: The Customer Perspective, acquisitions should lead to synergies and do so from a customer, solution, and/or operations perspective.
Preferably, an M&A should culminate in synergies of all kinds. Why? An M&A that doesn’t synch on an operations perspective doesn’t reduce overhead costs, and that means you don’t get any economics of scale, which is something all the traditional textbooks say is the first thing you should look for. If there are no customer synergies, then there are no cross-sell or up-sell opportunities, and that’s typically the next thing the textbooks say you should look for.
And, especially in our space, if there are no solution synergies, then a lot of money is wasted, as the point of the acquisition should be to build a better, or at least, a more complete platform. Otherwise, one company is paying a lot of money for something that will just get tossed in the bit bucket because supporting non-synergistic platforms gets too expensive too fast and the non-synergistic pieces will get sunsetted faster than the sun in Alert, Nunavut in late February.
So why doesn’t the recent M&A Frenzy make a lot of sense to the doctor? Not only has a fair amount of it been lacking in obvious synergies, but a lot of it has been to simply expand platform offerings, without focussing on the power of the solutions being bought or how the acquisitions will help the platform.
The past year has seen the acquisitions of traditional catalog providers and leading spend analytics and optimization providers. In some cases, the power is limited … and in other cases the power is limitless. But in the majority of cases, to date, the integration has been pretty limited. It’s been more or less just plugging a module into a whole without an analysis of not only the power of the solution but how the solution could enhance the rest of the platform in new and innovative ways.
For example, let’s take optimization. Just plugging it into a S2P platform is pretty good, especially given the dearth of optimization solutions on the market today, but is it great? How do you take an offering to market that the market will understand is better than the other leading vendors which have optimization? After all, if it’s just the same process — construct RFI, send it out, get data, pump into model, get result, make award, push into contract management — what’s better from the perspective of an average Joe? But if you have an advanced Procurement solution, can plug it into the catalog and analyze not only the cost, but the total cost if the order can be piggy-backed on other orders from on-contract suppliers who can add it to forthcoming shipments, give you contract-level discounts, etc. that’s value. And if you are looking to assemble a standard kit for a new hire, can run all the various combinations and determine which variant is best over a given time frame, that’s value too.
And a catalog solution can enhance sourcing if it supports punch-out and integrated search and anytime a buyer is considering sending out an RFI, can be integrated to identify current market pricing and source suppliers from the data within the catalog and in punch-out sites. If the buyer compares this pricing to current pricing, this can let the buyer know if going to market will likely be good (if market pricing is significantly less than current organizational pricing) or bad (if market pricing is significantly higher and the best option is just to extend the contract with the incumbent if pricing will stay about the same).
At the end of the day, Procurement is about generating value — and if the platform addition doesn’t generate additional value, what’s the point?