Cost Management is what thought leaders and analysts have been talking about for 25+ years in Procurement (and is something that has been discussed on SI since its founding in 2006), but not something that is typically realized.

It’s more than just strategic sourcing, contract [lifecycle] management to capture the agreements and obligations, e-procurement, and 3-way matching for cost assurance (and obtainment), but rarely does an organization even achieve these (and that’s why up to 30 to 40 cents of every negotiated savings dollar never materializes).

It’s even more than including Procurement in NPD and NPI (which is where 80% to 90% of the cost is baked in), or in supply chain / logistics network (re) design, which still isn’t the case in the majority of organizations.

It’s a fundamental organizational realignment from traditional budgeting, pricing, forecasting and spend planning based on historical spend and revenue to dynamic budgeting, pricing, forecasting and spend management based on real-time market data as categories come up for sourcing or renewal, internal organizational spend increases or decreases (on hires or fires; internal development projects; assets are acquired, fully paid off, or divested) where budgets are defined based on real-time market data and updated forecasts when a sourcing event is kicked-off, pricing is adjusted based on actual costs and expected market tolerance to standard margins/mark-ups, forecasts are re-run using advanced curve fitting models with the most recent data, and spend planning is adjusted based on all of the prior updates.

The “when a sourcing event is kicked-off” is the key — not when it’s planned, when it needs to happen because the company has decided to introduce a new product, accelerate a planned event due to an expected demand or cost increase, or a supply chain disruption has necessitated emergency replacement of supply.

The harsh reality is that if a chip or RAM factory was just wiped out by a natural disaster or fire (which happens about once a decade), prices are going up. Doesn’t matter what you spent last year, this year is a whole new type of ball game — especially if supply routes become cut off and your only options are longer sea routes, air routes, or new (already overloaded) suppliers in new regions that aren’t cut off.

And any savings or cost avoidance success needs to be measured against the average market price at the time.

But, as pointed out by this article in Supply Chain Digest on how to get From Supply Chain Cost Cutting to Cost Management, this is not what happens every time a market shock hits, executive pressure rises, and the organization is told to take costs out fast.

As the article continues, the danger is not the mandate itself. It is what repeated, reactive cost-cutting does to the supply chain’s long-term health. It can lead to diminishing returns on cost cuts, weaken operational effectiveness, and narrow options the next time volatility strikes.

And it’s all due to a hidden problem with the traditional approach. Namely static budgets create the wrong conversation. Because, when supply chain performance is judged primarily against an absolute dollar budget, leaders often get pulled into debates about compliance instead of outcomes and, even worse absolute-dollar metrics can also steer attention toward the biggest cost line items, even when those costs enable profitable growth.

According to the author, the solution is to ditch static dollar budgets, assess performance through an adaptive lens that aligns with margin assessment, and report costs as a percentage of revenue. Which is great advice, but doesn’t really help you transition the organization to being cost management (vs the current method of cost mandating that is completely divorced from reality and regularly results in organizational failure) focussed.

That’s where the Busch-Lamoureux Exact Purchasing model comes into play. When you align around exact purchasing, and segment your spend into the pocket cube, you realize that for all of your high complexity, high risk, and/or high impact categories, you need to either architect the cost model and the supply chain around it, monitor market conditions in real time (and possibly trigger [re]-sourcing events as a result), or continuously monitor input pricing as well as the price points an average consumer will pay across your markets at different volume levels and adjust your cost and revenue model accordingly.

You no longer plan around fixed costs and prices for the next year, that never happens, but around evolving market realities. And if your price point adjustments are limited, then you know you need to scale back on service commitments, marketing during a downward market trend (when consumers don’t have time to buy), or overpriced sales personnel just adding to expenses with no identifiable return. i.e. Spend is reallocated as appropriate to keep the organizational profitable and productive during extreme events or market conditions while other companies can’t adapt due to lack of category management structure and organizational alignment around what is actually being bought as they still operate off of a spreadsheet that represents a fictional model of non-reality.