Category Archives: Best Practices

It is NOT Direct or Indirect — It is Strategic and Complexity!

Now that we’ve set the record straight on sourcing, it’s not a suite, it’s just sourcing; and optimization, it’s not optimization, it’s strategic sourcing; it’s time to set the record straight on another rampant misconception perpetuated by vendors who make their living off of the ignorance they perpetuate.

It is not direct or indirect — it is strategy and complexity.

The right way to source a category has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is a direct category for your organization or an indirect category for your business. Nor does it have anything to do with whether or not it is a category regularly sourced by your GPO or whether or not the GPO has it under contract.

First of all, as we elucidated in our most recent paper on “Complex Sourcing: Are You Ready”, even the categories that were traditionally seen as the simplest indirect categories are sometimes actually among the most complex “direct” categories that the organization possesses!

Secondly, what is indirect for your organization is direct for another organization, and a supplier in particular. Calling it indirect only masks the fact that, at some point in the supply chain it is a complex direct category and if your supplier, or GPO, is not approaching it correctly, a significant amount of money is being left on the table.

While there are some that would very much like to forget that before the introduction of e-Negotiation (e-RFx and e-Auctions), a number of “indirect” categories used to cost organizations millions — such as tires in automotive, lights in aviation and printer ink in back offices everywhere — this is not the right thing to do. We have to remember that these organizations never understood how much these “secondary” categories were really costing them and that, sometimes, 100% profit margins were the norm, because they often did not have the ability to go out to market like we do today.

Thirdly, while a product organization might see services as indirect as such a category would be labelled as non-core, and, similarly, while a service (or financial) organization might see a product category as indirect as it too would be labelled non-core, if such service, or product, is essential for the organization to deliver the product, or services, the organization profits on to the end consumer, how can such a service, or product, really be non-core?

For example, if successfully selling that next generation cellphone requires augmenting the supplier’s design team with a new design team that can enhance usability above the competitor’s product without sacrificing a low-price point or quality, that is a critical service and should not be treated as a secondary outsourced indirect category. Similarly, if delivery of your big data analytics services requires a specific high-end laptop configuration that can not be easily met by all providers, and a sub-par configuration would result in delays or service degradations, this is not a category that can be thrown over the wall to a GPO either.

In other words, direct or indirect has no correlation to the complexity of a category or its strategic importance to the business and, thus, should not be used to determine the appropriate sourcing strategy. The right way to initially classify a category is to use a basic measure that that captures its strategic importance and its complexity and any category with a measure that exceeds a certain threshold must be strategically sourced. The rest can be sourced using simple spot-buys or other traditional methods provided that they are not too complex, or too strategic in someone’s view, for these traditional methods.

Do You Know the Rules for Ethical Supplier Interaction?

You might think you do, because ethics are just doing the right thing, and doing the right thing is just using common sense to apply your morality to the situation at hand. But do you? For the most part, you probably do but I’d bet there are situations where you don’t. Because ethics aren’t hard and fast like regulations and laws. There are no well-defined lines to push or cross. And if there is no well defined ethics policy at your company, it can be trickier than you think.

This is made clear in Next Level’s Purchasing great express course on 15 Rules For Ethical Supplier Interaction, which is free as part of a premium Next Level Purchasing Association Premium Membership (which is $99.99/year) or $14.99 as a standalone purchase. (SI would strongly suggest the annual membership as you then get access to over 18 express courses, over 100 articles, dozens of archived webinars [and transcripts], white papers, and the salary guide.)

The NLP express course covers bribes, which are usually (but not always) obvious, (personal) relationships, stock ownership, donations, and gifts. Bribes are usually obvious since, under laws like the FCPA (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) and the Modern UK Bribery Act, they are illegal, but sometimes bribes can be hidden in (seemingly) legal transactions and not even appear as a bribe to anyone investigating a purchase decision because the briber and the bribed might have hidden information. For example, instead of offering you $10K or an all-expense paid trip to Hawaii for awarding the business, the supplier might make a large purchase from a business you are the majority shareholder in (and, from which, you would get a large dividend or bonus) at above market rate. From a third party perspective, the supplier made an unrelated business decision to buy its new office equipment from an unrelated company, that just happened to occur before it was awarded the (much) larger contract from your organization. But even though there might not even be a perceived conflict of interest in this situation, there is, because it’s hard to not see a supplier favourably who awards business to a company you control, even if you are making an conscious effort to try and be unbiased. But this is just one example where ethics can get tricky. The short course does a great job of outlining others.

Donations for charitable organizations are less obvious because everyone just wants to help a good cause, and what does it hurt if a supplier makes a decision to support your favourite charity? Well, it depends. How much? Does the supplier expect favouritism for the donation? Will the donation unconsciously bias you toward the supplier? Will there be a perception of bias? It’s tough.

But toughest as all is the question of accepting supplier gifts or meals. A meal is just a meal and a gift with nominal value is just a polite introduction, right? Well, maybe. Is it just lunch to discuss a proposal, or is it a fancy dinner at the up-scale private club at the local sports stadium that just happens to overlook the big game? And what is nominal value? It’s shaky ground, which is made even shakier by the fact that refusing a gift could be considered rude and damage the relationship. What do you do then? It’s a much tougher subject than you first think it is, and the more you examine it, the harder it is to define ethical versus non-ethical behaviour and good business rules vs. bad. This is a subject the course spends a considerable amount of time on and a subject you as a Procurement professional need to spend a considerable amount of time on to really understand the intricacies. At the end of the course, you will have a much better understanding of the, sometimes hidden, ethical dilemmas that you will face on a daily basis and, as a bonus, get a starting list of 15 rules that you can use to jump start the creation of a Procurement ethics policy that will help you and your team to always get it right.

Next Level’s Purchasing course on 15 Rules For Ethical Supplier Interaction is a great course on the subject matter and SI recommends that you check it out if you can get access to it.

Where do you start on your Supply Management Journey?

In our last post on the subject matter, we noted that there is no one platform, just one workflow, and the only way to make progress is to define the one workflow, identify a set of overlapping/integrating systems to achieve the one workflow, identify vendors that can provide these systems, and then select those vendors that best meet overall organizational needs and move forward.

But where does one start? This is a very tough question, and very organization dependent.

  • What does the organization have now?
  • Where is the organization in its Next Level Supply Management journey?
  • What is the talent profile — what is its average and collective IQ, EQ, and TQ?
  • What are the organization’s biggest pain points?
  • What are the organization’s top pressures?
  • What is the organization’s budget?
  • What resources does the organization have available to support implementation and change management?
  • What resources and programs do its current, and prospective, vendors have to help?
  • And so on.

It’s tough. Typically, an organization makes the jump when it’s desperate to get savings, and typically, when doing a systems buy, the organization will focus on the system that is advertised to identify the biggest return. In Supply Management, that’s a true strategic sourcing system that supports complex sourcing as only decision optimization and spend analysis technologies have been repeatedly found to identify year-over-year savings in excess of 10%, with everything else being single digits.

But identification is not realization. In an average organization without the proper processes and systems to support contract implementation, as per a classic AMR series on reaching sourcing excellence, an average organization will only capture 60 cents to 70 cents of every dollar of negotiated savings at the end of the day.

If the organization is not set up to capture savings, it has to start simple. Processes. e-Procurement. SRM to get suppliers on board with processes and programs that will allow it to capture data and insure the suppliers deliver the value they promise without constant monitoring by the buyer. If the organization is set up to capture savings, but can’t identify any, it has to look at more complex platforms or options. However, regardless of the answers to the above questions, it should start simple and work it’s way up the technology and process complexity ladder. The key to success will be adoption, and that will mean not overwhelming those that will be required to adopt the new systems and processes if success is to be achieved.

My Solution Is Not One of The Six Strategic Sourcing Samurai. Am I Screwed? Part II

In Part I we noted that SI understands that it’s last few posts have probably caused a lot of soul-searching and panic among practitioners and fear and loathing among vendors, who don’t have an optimization based Sourcing platform and, in the viewpoint of SI, don’t have a platform that supports true strategic sourcing, and then began to discuss the panic and fear. We then noted that the simple answer was that the average organization was probably not screwed, but the full answer would take quite a bit to preamble to explain — preamble that we’re in the midst of.

We left off noting that SRM is only one way to identify additional value, or, in some cases, reduce unexpected loss. Contact Lifecycle Management (CLM) is another way. Strategic Sourcing identifies savings. Procurement prevents unnecessary overspend. But CLM prevents unexpected loss. The total cost of a good is total landed cost plus utilization/processing cost plus COGS (cost of goods sold) plus return/warranty cost plus reclamation cost at life end. And it’s a total loss if the good is lost. In order to prevent savings leakage, an organization has to manage the lifecycle of the goods being purchased for the length of the contract, especially if returns and payment reclamations need to occur. This is where CLM comes in. It makes sure contracted terms are adhered to, the lifecycle is monitored, supplier relationships are appropriately managed, and, where appropriate, risk is monitored and managed. (For more details, see the Contract Lifecycle Management series over on Spend Matters that was co-written by the doctor and the maverick.)

Then there is sustainability. Finding ways to reduce energy and water consumption, to switch to renewable resources, to avoid suppliers or products that are not in compliance with appropriate regulations (and that could result in the organization being hit with multi-million dollar fines), is also strategic and very valuable.

If the Sourcing platform in use by your organization supports one or more of the above strategic activities, your organization is definitely not screwed as it can use that platform to identify additional sources of strategic savings and strategic value. As will be discussed in a future joint series between the doctor and the prophet, there are many approaches to sourcing and, with the exception of first generation e-Negotiation, each brings significant, unique, advantages that are very valuable.

However, if all the organization has is a first-generation e-Negotiation platform that is nothing more than an RFX and/or e-Auction with a little bit of reporting and a primitive supplier portal, then, at some point, it may find itself screwed. While the first e-Sourcing event on any category will almost always identify (significant) savings, those savings don’t reappear the next time the event is run. The fat can only be trimmed from the margins once, and then the organization has to get strategic to find sustained savings. Fortunately, the majority of providers do not fall in this category, because this means the majority of organization with a sourcing platform can confidently say they made a good choice — and just need to acquire supplementary optimization capability for where it is needed.

The full answer is thus: as long as you are not stuck on a pure first-generation e-Negotiation platform, then you have a platform that will support continued savings identification, cost control, and/or value generation when appropriately used. If you are, then you will need to augment it as soon as possible because, as explained in the last paragraph, from a savings perspective, you need to consider the platform a one-time use on a category basis. By the time you cycle back to the first category in the queue, you will need a more advanced solution.

My Solution Is Not One of The Six Strategic Sourcing Samurai. Am I Screwed? Part I

SI understands that it’s last few posts have probably caused a lot*1 of soul-searching and panic among practitioners and fear and loathing among vendors, so today it’s going to address the panic and fear (but not necessarily the loathing*2).

The short answer is: probably not.
The full answer takes quite a bit of preamble to explain.

First of all, many organizations carry the misconception, often reinforced by traditional analysts and big-X consulting companies, that the only way to find considerable savings, avoid unnecessary cost, and add value is through strategic sourcing. This is only one of many methodologies, and underlying technologies, that Supply Management can use to save money, control cost, and add value. It’s a powerful methodology, but just methodology.

True sustainable savings, cost avoidance, and value generation come from Strategic Supply Management. Supply Management encompasses Sourcing, Procurement, Logistics, Contract (Lifecycle) Management, Supplier Relationship Management, Sustainability Management, and other strategic activities that manage costs and generate value. Thus, strategic sourcing is only activity at the disposal of a Strategic Supply Management organization — and for an organization beginning its sourcing journey, it’s not always the best one.*3

If the organization does not have it’s e-Procurement under control, sometimes the best place to start is with a strategic Procurement process backed by a leading e-Procurement solution (with e-Invoicing and m-way match). Why? Because, as per AMR’s (now Gartner’s) classic series on Reaching Sourcing Excellence, 30 cents, or more, of every dollar of negotiated savings never materializes. If the organization is only capturing 60% of negotiated savings, then what’s the point of using an advanced solution to identify a 5% savings if only 3% of the savings is going to be captured? It would get the same year-over-year improvement if it did a simple e-Auction, identified a 3.33% savings, and captured 90% of it. This is where a great Procurement process, and solution, comes into play — specifically, one that makes it easy for buyers to find contracts, place timely orders (and avoid expedited shipments), see the impact of going off-contract (and be visually guilted into making the cost-effective decision unless there is a strong reason to do otherwise), and use the system (versus avoiding it). With this type of a solution, there will be no off-contract spend because a buyer wasn’t aware of a contract, wasn’t aware there was a more cost-effective product, wasn’t able to figure out how to use the system, etc. There won’t be overspend due to duplicate invoice payments, overpayments due to off-contract rates, or over-payments due to undelivered merchandise with a good m-way match e-Invoicing component. And so on.

However, simply capturing the majority of savings identified in a sourcing event does not guarantee that the organization is capturing all of the savings available to it or controlling spend. For example, the savings quoted is simply the best price that the supplier feels that it can offer today – but that may not be the best price the supplier could offer if it was more efficient. The supplier might not be lean, might be quoting off of an inefficient design (that it could improve through a joint-design initiative), or might have an outdated quality control process leading to a higher rate of defects then is necessary. That’s why great supplier relationship, powered by a leading SRM platform (that, by definition, also captures SPM and SIM data) can also provide great value.

*1 some to say the least
*2 first generation e-Negotiation platform providers are going to loathe SI, but there’s nothing to be done about that — it was their choice to stand still while their peers continued to innovate
*3 bet you never thought that the doctor, the leading advocate of SSDO since this blog went online in 2006, would say that, eh?