Category Archives: Best Practices

What’s Your SRM Index Score?

Supplier Relationship Management is a key component of good strategic Procurement management. Good SRM can contribute to lower costs and higher organizational value through higher quality, great reliability, value-add, and innovation that an organization might not achieve otherwise. But how does an organization know how well it’s doing?

One way is to benchmark against its peers. While this will not necessarily tell an organization how good it is doing compared to how well it could be doing, it will tell an organization how well it is doing against its peers, which provide a baseline of how good it could be doing.

So, considering most organizations keep this data private, how do you figure it out? One way is the State of Flux SRM Index. Over the last seven years, State of Flux has collected and analyzed detailed SRM data on over 1200 global companies across the six different dimensions of business drivers, stakeholder engagement, governance & process, people & skills, information & technology, and relationship development & culture.

If your organization takes the SRM Survey (closes July 1, 2016), State of Flux can automatically assess your responses against its database and compute an index score for your organization and instantly let you know if your SRM is undeveloped, developed, established, or advanced. In addition, should your organization desire (and should multiple individuals in different departments complete the survey), State of Flux will also give you a free SWOT analysis on request.

Supply Risk Management Can Not Be Siloed

In our post on Playing With Fire, we indicated that your supply chain was full of hidden risks, ready to materialize unexpectedly at a moment’s notice and bring your supply chain to a crippling halt as your bank account bleeds dry trying to deal with the damage. Risks that, in many cases, could be mitigated and prevent the organization suffering and, in some cases, losing 100 Million to fines alone.

Why? Because the average organization is not spending the time and resources required to properly manage risk, or if they are, they are not managing risk appropriately. There are a number of reasons for this, including:

  • Lack of Resources
    most organizations do not have enough people with the right expertise to effectively manage and monitor supplier sustainability efforts, and sometimes this is because there just isn’t the budget for the resources
  • Lack of Time
    most of the skilled resources in an organization barely have the time to do their jobs properly, and since risk management is hardly ever anyone’s primary job, it typically becomes a side issue
  • Lack of Immediacy
    even though there may have been hundreds of smaller incidents in the supply chain that resulted in small fines, unexpected cost increases, disruptions, and minor brand damage, if no single incident has been severe enough to get the C-Suite’s attention, something else will always be higher priority
  • Lack of Cohesion
    most risk management and sustainability efforts grow organically over time as different functions encounter risks, regulations, or sustainability objectives that need to be addressed — this results in a fragmented approach to risk management that is inefficient and ineffective

But regardless of the reason, fragmented risk management does not work. It’s the biggest reason that many organizations are losing millions, if not billions, of dollars a year due to supply chain incidents (that could have been caught or significantly reduced with effective supplier management). With every department running off in their own direction, no one knows what is, and is not, being done. And that’s a problem. But it’s one that can be addressed. How?

Check out Sourcing Innovation’s latest white-paper on Why Sustainable Supply Risk Management Cannot Be Siloed: Lessons From Leaders Who Beat the Odds, sponsored by Ecovadis, for the answer.

e-Auctions — Savings Machine or Inflation Nightmare?

When e-Auctions were first released, they were heralded as the saving grace that Procurement was waiting for because early efforts, in the early 2000s, were always a smashing success with double digit percentage savings on almost every category and endless praise and admiration for the Procurement organization, and their astuteness in the selection of an e-Auction provider to help them find more savings than the organization knew existed.

But mature organizations know that the glory days didn’t last. The next time the auction was run on the same category, double digit percentage savings became low single digit savings, which, if the organization was lucky, barely covered the cost of the pay-per-use auction platform and the services around it. Then, a few years later, when the third auction was run, costs increased, sometimes substantially in the double-digit percentage range that almost equalled the savings found the first time around. The savings machine became the inflation nightmare — run an auction, spend more money.

Auctions were dropped like a hot potato, old-school muscle was broken out of retirement, and in a few organizations, Procurement returned to the dark ages. But now, with many mid-market companies able to afford next generation sourcing suites where pay per use starts in the four digit range and can be put on a P-card and where unlimited use starts in the mid-five figure range (and not the high six figure range), auctions are making a comeback, and the cycle is starting all over again.

But this time, those of us who have been in the game for over 15 years know how the story ends, and can honestly tell you Auctions are not a saving grace. They are an out-of-control spend nightmare.

To understand this, one has to understand why auctions worked in the first place.

  1. The outsourcing and rightsizing crazes of the 80s and 90s pushed more and more spend out, while oversight remained the same, and this resulted in less and less oversight on the majority of categories. As a result, suppliers could keep inflating their margins because of “inflation”, “oil price increases”, “minimum wage increases”, etc.
  2. The lack of market knowledge resulted in most organizations not knowing the breadth of the competition or the true production costs.
  3. The lack of e-Platforms meant that most organizations could barely handle 3-bids and a buy with the usual suspects each time contract renewal went up.

It was the perfect profit storm for suppliers. But with the introduction of auctions:

  • Suppliers could self identify and the buyers knew the extent of the marketplace.
  • Hungry suppliers with efficient processes could afford to offer the product at cost + 10% whereas long-term suppliers who believed they had no competition got fat and lazy and needed 1.3 x cost + 10% to remain profitable. (Also, desperate suppliers could offer for perceived_cost in the hopes of using the award as a loss leader for future business.)
  • Running the auction on line in real time gave hungry and desperate suppliers auction fever and they often bid the majority of their margins away. So where there were 40% margins, there were 30% savings.

But here’s the thing. With respect to savings, Auctions didn’t do anything. Exposing market truths isn’t identifying savings. Reducing margins isn’t identifying savings. And hastening the process isn’t identifying savings. The same “savings” could have been identified with an RFX.

Especially when those margin reductions hurt the supplier. A supplier that is suffering has to increase margins or go out of business. And inflation is back, so if the supplier is at rock bottom pricing, and the costs are going up, what is the supplier expected to do? Bid less and go bankrupt?

Savings is identifying better products, better processes, more innovative suppliers, better delivery schedules, and fat that can be trimmed to reduce cost. Savings isn’t about reducing a supplier’s fair margin to nothing.

And this lack of ability to deliver true savings is just one of the many problems with auctions. To find out the rest, download Sourcing Innovation’s latest paper on The Dangers of e-Auctions today, sponsored by Trade Extensions, before one of the big problems brings your supply chain to a screeching halt.

Don’t Let Tail Spend Take You For a Tail-Spin!

Download Sourcing Innovation’s new white paper on An Introduction to Tail Spend — and why you need a technology-based solution (registration required) today (sponsored by Claritum) and find out how tail spend could be keeping an additional 3% of revenue from hitting the bottom line (and, depending on your industry, and its margins, reducing your profit potential by up to 50%).

The first thing that the paper does is define just what tail-spend is. It’s more than just the “tactical” (or “nuisance”) spend in the lower-left quadrant of the famous 2*2 Krajlic matrix, which describes the traditional strategy of “purchasing management” to manage non-critical abundant supply that can be sourced locally in a de-centralized manner for maximum efficiency. And it’s less than any transaction less than $200,000 which is how Accenture describes tail spend.

Tail spend is essentially that spend that shouldn’t be put through a rigorous sourcing project, because the ROI that would be obtained is not enough to warrant the effort. If the ROI is not at least 3x, the spend just needs to be appropriately managed. Maybe that’s a low bid auction. Maybe it’s the cheapest product or service in a vetted catalog. Maybe it’s the preferred item from a catalog (or even strategic) supplier to increase total spend and negotiate additional volume based discounts.

It’s not leaving it up to whomever to do whatever whenever with whomever they like. When tail spend is not managed, the following can happen:

  • rebates and discounts can be lost
    when contracted volumes are not met
  • process costs can increase
    as tail spend invoices, often submitted through fax and e-mail, continue to increaseas tail spend will inevitably expand over time (and it will increase with no accompanying or referenced purchase order)
  • liability risk increases
    when service vendors without appropriate insurance are contracted
  • reputational risk increases
    when junior buyers buy from a supplier with a poor CSR record
  • supply risk increase
    when junior buyers buy from unstable suppliers
  • non-compliance risk increases
    when mandated MWVDBE vendors or fair-trade vendors are bypassed
  • (personnel) fraud risk increases
    as buyers can put charges on p-Cards with little or no documentation (and submit the same receipt 3 times over 6 months)

In other words, tail spend needs to be managed, but it can’t be managed until you understand what it is and how it should be dealt with. This is where Sourcing Innovation’s new paper on An Introduction to Tail Spend — and why you need a technology-based solution (registration required) today (sponsored by Claritum) comes in. It will help you understand what tail spend is, why it is important, how you can manage it, and the value that can be extracted from good tail spend management.

How Does Your State of Flux Measure Up?

Your SRM (Supplier Relationship Management) is in a state of flux. It’s a fact. Policies are undocumented. Processes are not automated. Critical interaction data is not captured. And the majority of your employees interacting with your suppliers on a daily basis cannot even identify five of your top ten strategic suppliers. (Finance might hazard a guess, but while dollars spent is an indicator, it’s not a guarantee.)

A strategic supplier is any supplier that supplies products and / or services that are critical to your operations and that cannot be easily replaced by going out to bid to one of three suppliers in the next state. The supplier might get 1 Million annually and might get 100 Million annually. And if you want the best value from that strategic supplier, you have to be a customer of choice.

How do you become a customer of choice? Good SRM. How do you get good SRM? Good processes, and good platforms. That’s why it’s quite appropriate that this year the annual State of Flux research report is centered around technology. In particular, State of Flux will be researching the use of SRM technology globally, the benefits achieved, and implementation best practices for commercial success.

As with previous years, the 75-question survey takes about 20 minutes and all respondents get a free copy of the annual report, released at the end of October. This report has traditionally been the most extensive research on SRM on the global market and is well worth the time investment.

This year, as a bonus, State of Flux will immediately provide all companies that take the survey a benchmark ranking of how well they are doing against their peers based upon the eight years of survey data they have collected and a standardized ranking system that they are able to use. (And if multiple parties from your organization in different roles complete the survey, they will even augment that benchmark ranking with a SWOT analysis.)

The survey is open until July 1, 2016. Take the survey here.