Category Archives: Best Practices

Why Create RFP Hell?

Over ten (10) years ago, over on the LawMarketing Blog, Larry Bodine asked “Why Go to RFP Hell?” in response to a fellow lawyer who asked how her firm could get more RFPs for legal work from corporations. This question is as relevant today as it was then.

As Mr. Bodine quite astutely noted, RFPs are onerous chores leading to hideous events where clients get the chance to dictate terms, chisel down your fees and turn you into a fungible commodity. Nobody wants to be fungible. Moreover, RFPs were liked to competing to be the first to be hanged.

Why? RFPs were typically 50-page monstrosities divided into a dozen sections that required a complete history of relevant litigation, minority hiring statistics, alternative fee arrangements, financials, references, industry knowledge, and so on — all to make a short-list. At which time, if the firm was not considerably better than the incumbent in the eyes of the buyer, they would not see a penny. It is a hell.

A hell unnecessarily created by buyers who believe that they cannot even consider a supplier for an event before they know everything there is to know, even though a single piece of information can disqualify the supplier from consideration before any negotiations ever begin.

This is not a good thing to do. A company with a reputation for putting its potential suppliers though RFP hell is not one that many suppliers will want to deal with. The more a supplier’s peers complain about RFP hell with Company X, the fewer are the suppliers who will even acknowledge the existence of an RFP from Company X. As the word of RFP Hell from Company X spreads, the only suppliers that will respond to an RFP from Company X are those that are desperate. Those in bad financial shape, those without a stable customer base, and those with a bad reputation. These are not suppliers you want to deal with.

If you need to cast a wide net to find new suppliers, start with an RFI that only requests enough information to determine whether or not an RFP response from a supplier can be seriously considered. And before this RFI is issued, make sure to understand the category need in detail and what the absolutes are and that the RFI addresses each absolute. If multi-lingual support is an absolute, if a platform that encrypts 100% of data is an absolute, if a company with a headquarters in a country where it can be held responsible and liable for its products is required, or if a company with a factory with certain equipment is required, the relevant questions should be asked in the RFI. You should never ask a supplier to complete a 50-page RFP until you are sure the supplier can meet every absolute requirement. You can ask them even if their chances, based upon their initial RFI response, are less than 1% (as long as you make the award criteria, and weightings, abundantly clear), but not if their chances are known to be zero. (With complete requirements, award factors, and weightings clearly known, a supplier should be able to determine its own chances and determine whether or not its investment of time is worth it.)

And then, make sure that if you need a supplier to complete a lengthy RFP, that the RFP is well written. For details on how to write better RFPs, see the ongoing series over on Spend Matters Plus (membership required) by the anarchist, the maverick, and the doctor, of which 3 parts are already up.

  • I: Intro & Issues
  • II: Requirements
  • III: Provider Secrets

Have We Reached B2B 3.0 Yet? Part 7: Category Management Excellence

In the series so far we have:

  • defined the basics of B2B 1.0 in Part 1
  • defined the basics of B2B 2.0 in Part 2
  • defined the basics of B2B 3.0 in Part 3
  • defined the (basic) requirements for a B2B 3.0 Sourcing platform in Part 4
  • defined the (basic) requirements for a B2B 3.0 Procurement platform in Part 5
  • defined the (basic) requirements for a category management application in Part 6

in an attempt to determine whether or not we have reached B2B 3.0 yet. To that point, we haven’t reached a conclusion yet, stating that we needed to figure out just where we were in relation to where we should be and what B2B 3.0 really is. Plus, we’re still not ready to address this question because B2B 3.0 has to enable category management excellence, and this goes beyond just building the basic technical capability to support category management that was defined in our last post.

More specifically, while the requirements of:

  • multi-dimensional category taxonomies
  • global virtual “product” masters
  • centralized master data management
  • centralized risk (and compliance) management
  • supplier development and innovation program management
  • real-time on-line collaborative category plan creation

are necessary conditions for category management excellence, they are not in and of themselves sufficient conditions. Why? First of all, simply creating categories by lumping similar products into groups based on some arbitrary characteristic (such as proximity in the UNSPSC taxonomy) is not true category management, so it’s more than just taxonomy support – it’s the right taxonomy. Similarly, centralizing data in a global product master is pointless if that master cannot be used to accurately and informatively analyze category spend. Centralized risk and compliance management is good, but only if the right information gets back to the right systems that are used day-in-and-day-out by people in the field (that certainly aren’t using the Supply Management source-to-pay platform). Program management is good, but only if it is the right program being managed. And the plan has to be a strategic plan that generates value, not a tactical plan that just keeps the wheel turning.

As such, the platform also has to enable:

  • true category spend analysis
  • market analysis
  • forward-looking category requirements
  • linkages between the external customers, sourcing, and internal customers
  • deep workflow linkages with SRM and S2P

And it has to support the best practices that get result. For deep insight into what those are, we recommend the three-part series on Getting a Grip on Category Management by the doctor and the maverick over on Spend Matters+ (membership required).

Part 1: A History Lesson
Part 2: Some Basic Approaches
Part 3: Advanced Approaches

Why You Need MROaaS

Yes, you need MROaaS. Everyone needs MROaaS. ( But don’t tell your boss you need MROaaS, spell it out, because we all know what she’s likely to hear when your tongue trips over this one. 😉 ) Next to T&E (not T&A), it’s probably the biggest tail-spend savings opportunity in the enterprise. And it deserves to be addressed.

MROaaS, short for MRO-as-a-Service, which is itself short for Maintenance-Repair-and-Operations-as-a-Service (which is very unsexy when you say it this way), is, for large organizations that need to maintain a lot of inventory on hand, the biggest overlooked outsourcing opportunity in the business. Inventory is costly (and many estimates put annual inventory overhead at 25% of product cost). But not having the right inventory at the right place at the right time is even costlier. (Downtime leads to lost production and, ultimately, lost sales which is very costly when you still have to pay the day-to-day overhead, including your employees’ salaries.) And MRO is often the biggest consumer of long-term inventory (because the majority of goods for sale will move in and out within a few months, or even a few weeks, while MRO inventory could shit on the shelf for two years). So inventory optimization alone is a good reason to have good MRO.

But that’s not the only reason to have good MRO. The reality is that, in an average organization:

  • over 20% of inventory on the shelf is excess and/or obsolete
  • fill rates for most MRO storerooms are closer to 75%
  • there is supplier “lock-in” even where alternative sources of supply exist

And the losses mount quickly.

But these aren’t the only problems organizations face. Most also have to deal with

  • recall inventory not getting identified and then being used when it shouldn’t (which creates hazards)
  • significant expediting when a part is out of stock and it is needed yesterday
  • inefficient returns management when the wrong part gets shipped or a part is identifies as bad six months (or three years) down the road (when it might not even be returnable)

And the losses continue to mount.

But with good MRO:

  • excess and obsolete inventory can be reduced by up to 90% (or more)
  • fill rates can exceed 95%
  • alternative sources of supply are easily identified
  • recall inventory is immediately identified and returned
  • expediting becomes the exception rather than the rule
  • returns are properly handled in a timely fashion

And the organization stops bleeding red.

And this is why the organization needs good MRO. But why does it need MROaaS. Slowing down the cash hemorrhage is one thing. Improving the organization’s overall health is another. Good MRO can add value in a lot of ways. In addition to the inventory optimization that will see the results above, it can also provide:

  • proactive shipment monitoring to insure the right shipment is made at the right time
  • lean process improvement to take time and cost out of the process
  • supplier consolidation to allow for more volume-based cost reduction opportunities and more time to focus on each supplier
  • supplier development programs to insure that supplier performance improves over time

And this is just the tip of the iceberg a good MRO program can provide. But a typical organization, which never gets to the MRO tail-spend, is not an expert in MRO. It’s not even a novice in MRO management in most cases. This is where MROaaS comes in. For the most part, the only organizations that are true MRO experts are those that provide MROaaS. And since it takes true expertise to go from cost reduction to value generation, you need MROaaS.

And if you are still not convinced, the doctor and the maverick have put together a detailed four-part series over on Spend Matters on the subject that should provide all the education you need on why MROaaS is something that has to be considered if MRO spend is a significant part of the organization’s tail spend. Parts I and II are already up and available here:

  • MRO as a Service (Part 1): Embedding Procurement as the Value Engine
  • Unpacking and Applying the Value Streams of this Model: MRO-as-a-Service (Part 2)

Why You Need Mass Adoption Of An Optimization-Backed Sourcing Platform

Last week, in our post on why Higher Adoption is Where the True Value of Optimization Lies, we emphasized the importance on not just having optimization, but an optimization-backed sourcing platform that can be used by the most junior of buyers. We focussed on the efficiency, time savings, and value such a platform would bring, but didn’t give you any hard numbers. While the hard numbers will be hard to come by, SI expects that the savings that hit the bottom line from such a platform will increase by at least 150% over using stand-alone optimization, and more than likely will double what an organization would see if it just used a regular strategic sourcing platform without optimization. We know that 2.5X is not a very impressive number when vendors go around talking about 10X ROI, but the ROI that vendors promise is relative to the cost of the platform, not the ROI relative to the organization’s bottom line, and that’s what really counts.

The reality is that, at the end of the day, after COGS, depreciation, taxes, etc. are factored in, a good Procurement organization might only take 2% off of the bottom line. This doesn’t sound that impressive, unless the organization is a 10B organization where 2% is 200M, in which case it’s knock your socks off impressive. Now imagine if that same Procurement organization could increase the straight to the bottom line savings by 150% and show a bottom line savings of 5.2%. That’s another 320M in annual savings for a total savings of 520M! That’s buy everyone on the Sourcing team a custom made Jaguar savings because no other initiative is going to take that much off the bottom line.

But you don’t have to be a 10B organization to see the impact. Imagine you are a small mid-size organization with only 100M in annual spend. Instead of seeing an average year-over-year impact of 2M, you’d see 5.2M. If a fully burdened FTE is 200K and you had a small Procurement department of 5 people managing your spend, the department’s ROI would go from 2X to 5.2X in a single year, and that is quite significant.

So where are these, quite conservative, numbers coming from?

  • A Best In Class Organization has 80% of spend under management (Hackett, Gartner, etc.)
  • A Best in Class Organization will strategically source approximately 1/3 annually (due to resource restrictions) (Crowd Wisdom approximation used by many vendors)
  • A Best In Class Organization with stand-alone or hard-to-use optimization capability will only put the top third of complex, strategic, or high volume spend through the organization (Generous crowd wisdom approximation based upon SI’s interaction with optimization vendors)

As a result, (at most) one-third of one-third of four-fifths of spend gets optimized on an annual basis, or about 9% gets optimized using strategic sourcing decision optimization and the full extent of its capability.

However, if the organization has an optimization-backed sourcing platform that is configured for one-click evaluations and automatic weighted auction awards for low-cost / standard categories,

  • 98% of spend can be under management (as it can flow through the platform as easy as it can flow through an auction or spot buy RFP),
  • one half of that can be sourced annually due to efficiency gains
  • and all of this spend will be subject to optimization.

This means that about one half of organizational spend, or about 48% of spend, can get at least partially optimized on an annual basis. In other words, an organization can subject 5x its spend to optimization on an annual basis.

The net result is that an organization that adopts an optimization-backed sourcing platform that can be used by every buyer will see at least 150% more savings hit the bottom line every year. Why?

If we look at the numbers:

  • the average return from Procurement at a world class organization is 4.7% (Hackett Group)
  • the average return on tail spend (which is never strategically sourced) is 7.1% (Hackett Group)
  • the average return from SSDO on a strategically sourced category where the full power of the solution is enabled is 12% (Aberdeen)

This leads to the following (where we assume 20% of spend is “tail spend”):

Traditional:
09% using SSDO @ 12.0% savings = 1.0% savings
18% using SS   @ 04.7% savings = 1.0% savings
TOTAL = 2.0% savings
 SSDO Platform
38% using SSDO @ 12.0% savings = 4.5% savings
10% using SSDO @ 07.1% savings = 0.7% savings
TOTAL = 5.2% savings

Now, mileage will vary among organizations, but this example should make it pretty easy to see that optimization is a huge value driver that will have a significant impact on your bottom line when it is widely deployed.

So if you want to know what to look for in an optimization-backed sourcing platform, download Optimization: Higher Adoption is Where True Value Lies (registration required) today and find out what you need to take optimization from a success to a smashing success in your organization.

Two MUST READS on SpendMatters UK!

Today’s post is being pre-empted with a request to go and check out two great posts published yesterday over on SpendMatters UK that:

  • echo a point that SI has been screaming for years and
  • echo another point that has been pointing out for years to anyone who would ask


Post 1: The True Cost of Screwing Your Supplier

In “The True Cost of Delayed Supplier Payments” on Spend Matters UK, Nancy clearly explains just how much money you will save by extending supplier payments by 30 days on £1.2M annual spend against how much opportunity cost you will lose. An organization might think it will save a very pretty penny on the cost of capital by doing this, but the reality is that all it will save are a few copper pennies that the average CFO wouldn’t even bother to bend over and pick up if they were all dropped in front of him in a platinum-lined wicker basket.

The post works through the savings calculation in detail and the net result (with a cost of capital of 5%) is a whopping annual savings of £417! That’s right, over the course of a year you won’t even save enough to pay the consultant who forced this hare-brained scheme upon you. (Heck, you won’t even have enough to cover the executive lunches where the consultant pitched this hare-brained scheme upon you.) On the other hand, the organization loses a £60,000 benefit they could have gained from SRM (as well as any benefits they were getting as a customer-of-choice, as you’re no longer a customer-of-choice once you screw a supplier like this for no reason).


Post 2: “Made in X” – Legalized Piracy!

In ‘”Made in Nigeria” Public Procurement Policy Will Simply Lead to More Corruption’ on Spend Matters, Peter clearly explains how this new “anti-corruption” policy is just going to lead to more piracy at home (as if there isn’t enough piracy on the seas and over the internet as it is). You see, with the insistence that the government must buy local, and especially where there’s only a handful of suppliers, you’re just going to see cartels forming among the local suppliers for the purposes of colluding to double and even triple prices.

And this is the problem with any “Made in X” public procurement policy that insists that the government always buy local – for any category where the supply base is small enough, unless the product is a commodity that is sold in a local office supplies chain or store where public pricing can be easily tracked and monitored AND the government has a law that says the public sector cannot be charged more than the private sector MSRP or something similar, the public sector price is going to be significantly more than the price on the open market.

SI strongly recommends you check both of these posts out as both of these posts were, literally, between the posts.