Monthly Archives: October 2023

ERP at the Center of Sustainability and Human Impact?

ERP Today recently ran a brief editorial insight entitled ERP at the Center of Sustainability and Human Impact which caught my eye because ERP is generally not at the center of anything that is not manufacturing but yet should be at the center of sustainability data because it’s the ONE system that should be accessed, or at least be accessible, organization wide. However, in most organizations, all it stores is the manufacturing / order data, purchase orders, and invoices.

The article states that, within some organizations, they are providing the financial clarity to drive meaningful environmental and human impacts, however it only lists TWO (2) (Blue Marine Foundation and Oracle), and the doctor‘s experience, which is similar to other analysts he’s worked with, is that, for the vast majority of companies, this is JUST not happening.

Why? A few reasons, but the main ones are:

  • most ERPs don’t store complete financials; they’ll store POs and Inventory, but the complete financials will be in the organization’s AP/I2P/P2P systems
  • most ERP’s don’t store/calculate ANY sustainability data and
  • most ERP’s weren’t/aren’t configured to store ANY sustainability data

This means that, for an ERP system to provide financial clarity around meaningful environmental and human impacts, an organization needs to

  • integrate it’s accounting systems with the ERP and push all invoices and payments into the ERP
  • get subscriptions to third parties with the sustainability data and push that into the ERP after
  • updating the ERP configuration to store all of the relevant data around sustainability and responsibility that the organization wants to track

And while this will be doable with most modern ERPs, it could be expensive and force an organization to use another platform, such as a modern SRM (Supplier Relationship Management) platform as its core sustainability and responsibility platform instead. But it would be nice if the ERP could be the one platform that at least stores all of the organization’s golden records, because data warehouse, lakes, and lakehouses aren’t the answer (as all they do is duplicate data and make it harder to find the single source of truth) — the answer is a central source of sustainability and responsibility data that is, or could be, accessible organization wide so everyone can know the impacts of their (financial/supply) decisions. And while it could be the ERP, given the sheer cost of any customization work on any of the big ERPs, the doctor doesn’t think it’s very likely.

Procurement Performance is Relative …

… and, specifically, good Procurement performance is relative to how bad you’d be doing without a good Procurement department.

A recent article on the Supply Chain Management Review on how Procurement Costs Increase, But Top Performers See Increased Advantage which quoted a recent study from The Hackett Group, really drives the point home.

The recent Hackett study, which found that Procurement costs did increase in 2023 and now comprise 74% of total spend, as compared to 69% in 2022, for Digital World Class organizations, also found that these organizations did much better compared to peer organizations where costs increased from 89% of total spend in 2022 to 93% of total spend in 2023. In other words, Hackett found that world class organizations spend less overall while also operating at 21% lower cost than their peers and 32% less staff.

In other words, a good Procurement department staffed with educated and experienced buyers will save the organization more than it spends on the Procurement department, while keeping its overall costs below its peers. This means that any organization with a world class Procurement department can not only keep its prices below its peers in a cost conscious consumer environment, but also increase its organizational sales while its peers struggle to hold onto an existing customer base.

It may be hard to see the value of a leading Procurement department when you don’t have one, but these Hackett numbers should make it abundantly clear. 21% lower cost, and spend, on average than peers is substantial. This means that even though your spend will go up year over year in an inflationary environment, the rate of increase will be much less than your peers, giving you a significant advantage. Furthermore, if your organization acquires and installs the right affordable tools, as chronicled in our series on how much should you pay for Source-to-Pay, including our article where we explicitly said Yes Mid-Markets, 120K is More Than Enough for Source-to-Pay!, you can see multi-million ROIs in the 8X to 26X range, depending on your annual spend and Procurement maturity level (that determines how much spend you can push through the platforms).

In other words, while you can never put an absolute value on cost and Procurement value as that depends on constantly changing market conditions, you can put a relative value on best-in-class Procurement operations, and that value is 21% better than peers. Twenty One Percent. Think about that the next time Procurement asks for more senior buyers to put more spend under management or better platforms.

How Do You Sustain Sustainability When True Value is Long Term …

… and the brunt of the cost is short term?

AlixPartners recently published an article over on Mondaq on how The Fourth Dimension In Strategic Sourcing, Sustainability, Can Drive Value which caught our attention because Sustainability can drive value, but most organizations under cost pressures, which are rampant in our current inflationary economy, don’t choose the sustainable option as it’s typically a higher expense in the short-term.

Moreover, the big value is investing in suppliers that invest in new technologies that will be more sustainable in the long run. However, due to the cost of implementing these new technologies, the up-front costs are higher as the suppliers have to stay in business until the new technologies start to deliver returns. For example, the following are major improvements to sustainability:

  • suppliers utilizing, investing in, or building their own renewable energy grids (solar, wind) to avoid using the energy produced by the local coal/oil burning plants
  • suppliers re-designing production lines and methods to minimize waste (through cutting of metal, processing of food, etc.) and to ensure any waste they create can be used as an input to another production line (melting and re-fab of metal scraps, animal feed, etc.)
  • suppliers investing in their own water purification technology to re-use water in the manufacturing process
  • suppliers investing in product redesign research to minimize use of scarce rare earth minerals/metals and to increase use of reclaimed minerals/metals
  • suppliers investing in reclamation technology to maximize recycling of products created with metals/minerals

… and the following, highlighted in the article, are minor improvements …

  • sustainable supplier selection as everyone is going to try and secure the most sustainable supplier of the lowest cost suppliers, leaving less sustainable suppliers or more sustainable suppliers at a higher cost that the CFO/CEO will not let Procurement pay for the majority of organizations (the small, sustainable, suppliers cannot massively scale overnight)
  • eco-friendly packaging and waste reduction as this is not new and many organizations are already be doing this to the extent eco-friendly packaging is available
  • energy-efficient products and services as this is not new either and as companies replace end-of-life products, they have been choosing more energy efficient products for a while now with the increase in energy prices over the last five to ten years, and the truth is that this is usually a small dent on their total energy footprint
  • carbon footprint reduction as that is the goal, not a specific action that can reduce carbon footprint, and. most importantly, significant reduction requires significant investment (reducing travel and forcing the CEO to give up the private jet and fly first class only goes so far)
  • collaboration and reporting because while you need to understand your footprint, and sometimes shaming goes further than incentivizeation, reporting doesn’t actually increase sustainability unless action is taken …

IF PE firms, with billion dollar funds, won’t actually invest in supply chain (which includes sustainability) improvements, because you typically don’t realize the bulk of the value until you (significantly) pass the five (5) year mark, how can you expect short-term thinking CEOs and CFOs, trying to impress Wall Street or attract PE funding, to actually put their money with their big mouths are and invest in true sustainability?

If you have answers, we’d love to hear them — comment on the LinkedIn post.

Strengthening Supply Chains is Simple …

It just takes proper people, planning, processes, and platforms. But let’s backtrack.

Forbes recently ran an article on how companies can improve supply chain management to strengthen business operations in 2023 which gave some great advice on various ways a business can improve their supply chain management, which included the following suggestions:

  • align partnerships to prepare for supply chain disruptions,
  • prioritize Learning & Development when it comes to automation in quality-focussed procurement, and
  • look ahead

… and these are really great suggestions, but they skip the starting point — and if an organization does not start off right

  • you’ll never be able to align the wrong partnerships,
  • no Learning & Development program will deliver fast enough if your people don’t have the right educational and experiential background, and
  • looking ahead will be impossible without the right platform.

You see, before you can jump into partnerships and learning and development, you have to go back and make sure you get the basics rights.

  1. Define proper procurement processes, including what will be strategically vs. tactically purchased, this will help you
  2. Hire the right people with the right backgrounds for the categories — not necessarily experienced buyers, but possibly experienced engineers with the insights to know what is needed, what makes a supplier who can meet the needs, when the cost models/quotes are accurate, etc. as it’s often easier to teach an engineer proper purchasing than teach a business grad the basics of electrical engineering
  3. Select the right platforms, which will allow you to qualify and select the right suppliers with whom you can build productive partnerships and
  4. Build the right models, which will allow you to do proper predictive analytics for demand, supply, and related planning

When you get the foundations right, it’s easy to build on those with partnerships and advanced training (to make your good buyers even better), but if you don’t have the foundations right, any attempts to polish partnerships and buildup better buyers will be for naught. (For more on foundations, see past articles on this blog, including The 39 Part Series to Help You Figure Out Where to Start with Source-to-Pay.)

Just a Reminder You Get What You Pay For With Second Rate Market Research

While it might not be easy to look at the non-subscriber / non-client prices of a Gartner and Hackett research report or the cost of an annual subscription and say “yeah, it’s worth it“, we’d like to remind you that you get what you pay for and when you pay for cut-rate advice from a generic Indian Research Firm staffed by people who clearly don’t know anything about the Procurement Market and who hire PR people who think it’s a good idea to push their press releases to a website that got its name from a misspelling of Sheldon Cooper’s catch-phrase (from the Big Bang Theory), you’re paying for advice that, if followed, will cost you many times more than what you paid for that “research” when you follow the advice and make disasterous decisions.

So what kicked off this rant? This press release on Benzinga.com by 360 Market Updates on the e-Procurement Tools Market that proclaims to know How the Market will Witness Substantial Growth in the upcoming years. Research over the last decade from Hackett, Gartner, and Spend Matters — where the doctor was a Lead Analyst for six (6) years — have consistently found, and predicted, year over year growth in the 8 to 12% range, at best, across all areas of Source to Pay, a rate that’s no better the consistent predictions of about 11% CAGR for the broader enterprise software market for the current decade, and in some cases worse.  (Note that the doctor is calling out the press release, not the firm.  He’s not going to bother researching yet another firm that offers yet another cookie-cutter report with no clear value if there is no clear press release or website on that value.)

In other words, while steady, consistent growth is expected, it’s not substantial growth under any interpretation and it’s on par with enterprise software as a whole, at best.

But even worse, if you believe the press release, it’s apparently based on a completely random, entirely mismatched, set of “e-Procurement Tool Vendors” which demonstrates almost ZERO understanding of the global Procurement Tools market.

First of all, if you include all of the Procure-to-Pay vendors, there are over 100. SI has listed the majority of them in Parts 7 and 33 of it’s 39 Part Series on where to start with Source-to-Pay where it listed over 70 e-Procurement companies and over 75 Invoice-to-Pay and Accounts Payable companies. Their press release only lists 15 companies but …

… doesn’t seem to recognize that e-Sourcing, e-Procurement, and Supply Chain Management are not the same thing at all, and one of the vendors included is Delta e-Sourcing whose primary offerings are baseline e-Sourcing/tendering and supplier management and offers only baseline e-Procurement, compared to Medius which offers Procure-to-Pay (Procurement, Invoice Management, and AP Automation). Even worse, it contains Archlet that is an analytics-backed Sourcing Platform with Decision Optimiation and which DOES NOT OFFER ANY e-PROCUREMENT TOOLS.

… isn’t up to date. It lists LetsBuyIt.NET GmbH as one of the 15 vendors (and if you’re saying who?, you’re not alone because it doesn’t exist anymore). LetsBuyIt.Net is now eBidToPay Schweiz, and has been for nine (9) months. (So is this a recycled report from 2022 or 2021?)

… includes a big vendor that doesn’t even sell a Procurement Application anymore! It lists IBM corporation as the first provider, and while IBM acquired Emptoris in 2011, it began to sunset it in 2017 when it worked out an agreement with SAP to migrate all the Emptoris customers to the SAP Ariba platform!

In other words, if the press release is accurate, then this report, like many of the two-dozen plus low-cost reports you can buy from the two-dozen plus Indian Market Research firms that have popped up over the last two decades, would be more-or-less complete rubbish and you’d be better off taking that $6K and sending two of your top buyers to a major Procurement event where they can hear from experts, network with peers, and learn something actually valuable.

And if you need REAL market insight into current vendors and their platform capabilities, and the Gartner/Hackett reports don’t meet your needs, you can always go direct to the experts (like the doctor or Xavier and Bertrand* at Spend Matters, who the doctor has publicly recommended in his list of analysts and consultants he recommends when he’s not the best expert to help you). Yes, you may have to pay a few K per day, but you get targeted advice to your organization which is worth ten times (or more) what you pay because it’s based on decades of research and experience that allows the analyst/consultant to give you the best targetted advice for your organization while filtering out the market information that is relevant to you.

* Bertrand could be the last great analyst in our space! Take advantage of this while you still can … after all, it’s not the analyst firm. It’s the analyst!