Category Archives: Best Practices

The Marketing Spend RFP – Everyone is debating over the death of it — I think it needs to be improved Part I


Today’s guest post is from Mat Langley, a Strategic Advisor and Procurement Executive with 14 years experience in leadership roles in strategic sourcing and category management in Europe, Africa and Asia across Finance, IT Outsourcing and Oil & Gas industries who is currently associated with Shortlist.co.

I want to start with a bold statement — in Procurement, the most challenging group to work with is most often Marketing. Almost every other function in the organization easily identifies the value we aim to deliver. When it comes to who’s really leading, the RFP there shouldn’t be a ‘hot potato scenario’ — we guide, as Procurement experts, and collaborate in a mutual partnership. Marketing, by comparison is still evolving their views on how to collaborate with Procurement. In a late 2014 study conducted by the ANA (Association of National Advertisers), nearly half of all Marketing and Procurement respondents stated that the relationship between them needed to be more collaborative. Nearly 50% of Marketing and Procurement professionals admit that they aren’t collaborating the way they need to in order to deliver maximum value to their brands.

Now, on the flip side, my experience with Marketing colleagues is that they are passionate, energetic and constantly focused on being creative. For Procurement (or Marketing) people reading — I’m guessing you’ve had more than a few debates and I’m sure that debate often centers on how Marketing feels like they’re wearing an RFP straightjacket designed, fitting and sewn by Procurement!

With agencies currently rebelling against RFP’s and even some very high profile CMOs like Linda Boff from GE calling for the ‘death of RFPs’1 — organizations can quickly get themselves in a downward spiral, ‘hot potato scenario’. It’s a relatively simple problem at its root: when Marketers don’t fully collaborate and provide the necessary support at the beginning of the RFP process, someone has to jump in and grab the ball (find the agencies, write the brief and RFP questions, and run the process) — that often ends up being Procurement — which doesn’t always lead to the best results for anyone involved: Marketing, Procurement, Agencies … everyone.

Hot Potato Was Fun as Kids — Not Today

To be clear, no one is at fault here. Marketing hates RFPs because they feel they are old and outdated; in stepping in to assist Marketing with their agency selection, Procurement ends up writing more of the RFP than they should, often using out of date questions; then it gets sent to more Agencies (just in case) because Marketing doesn’t have a short list or have time to find a strong and competitive agency panel; and finally, Agencies are overloaded responding to bloated RFPs and remember above – they’re also hoping that RFPs die. In the end, we’ve all played our part in proving exactly why RFPs are so terrible and ‘out of date’ – and the easy answer is just to kill them — and the tremendous value they can provide to everyone involved.

Now is not the time to kill the RFP (nor is that what we are suggesting) — it’s time to enhance our focus on improving communication, collaboration and building great internal and external partnerships. The marketing industry is changing so rapidly, with new channels and divisions, new technology, broader yet flatter reach requiring even more agility and calls for more focus on driving value out of every dollar spent. It’s an exciting time but also daunting and we need to ask ourselves, if the CMO is struggling to keep pace with this change, how are we going to support and bring value?

Time for more focus on what’s working and less ‘tossing blame around’ — Time to give Marketing the tools they want

Ok, I know that there is no perfect world where Marketing loves Procurement, Agencies love Procurement and Procurement loves procurement workloads… But there are things we’re doing really successfully that we can build upon. In Part II, I’ll suggest three areas the tools we’re implementing need to change to give Marketing what they need.

Thanks, Mat.

1 Marketers: It’s Time to Say RIP to the Media RFP

Procurement Talent Management: How Do You Recruit, Train, and Retain Your Way to Procurement Success?

It’s a difficult question. Top Procurement talent is in short supply, budgets are tight, and between (brain-dead) budget cuts and time constraints, training is that magical activity that you only hear about in fairy and folk tales that begin with the words “Once Upon a Time”.

So just how do you find and bind top Procurement talent in today’s economic landscape? It’s a tough problem, but one that Charles Dominick, Founder of Next Level Purchasing, has addressed in his latest paper on Procurement Talent Management: Recruiting, Training & Retaining a Modern & Awesome Buying Team. (Because the world’s second [or is that third] oldest professions is awesome.)

In this paper, Charles notes that just like there’s more than one way to make a tamale*1, there’s more than one way to go about recruiting Procurement talent, namely, the traditional way and the radical way. Organizations that search for talent the traditional way look for people who

  • have experience in the industry,
  • have Procurement experience, and
  • have experience buying the same categories they will be expected to buy.

There are advantages to this approach in that these people are typically loyal to the industry and want to stay within it (as that is their comfort zone and they like their comfort zone), they can typically hit the ground running, and good matches are likely. However, there are disadvantages to. If you continually replace the Volkswagen Beetle with a newer model, you still just have a Volkswagen Beetle. You don’t have anything radically new, and, as such, are not likely to get the radically new ideas you need to get out of a rut.

But there is another way. Instead of looking for someone who’s good on the traditional paper, look for someone who:

  • has the personality that fits the corporate culture,
  • has influential charisma, and
  • has intellectual potential.

Such a person, as Charles notes, can bring support for increased involvement of Procurement in the enterprise (as they fit, and, more importantly, can schmooze their way into non-traditional, and maybe even scared-cow, categories) and have the bandwidth to learn more advanced skills (and use more advanced processes and platforms to get better results). Plus, as these individuals are out-of-the-box that your team is trapped in, they are likely to bring some new ideas with them. You could find your best and brightest talent this way, or, as Charles point out, you could flop as the hire might not like Procurement or, even worse, while seemingly bright with his high IQ, just can’t adapt to the Procurement way.

There’s no right way, and the doctor would like to suggest that the best approach is often a fusion of the two, where you look for someone who:

  • has a high EQ, as they have to fit in,
  • has an above average TQ, as they have to use modern tools,
  • has at an average+ IQ, as they have to be able to solve problems,
  • has an affinity for the corporate culture
    which doesn’t have to be perfect as their EQ will let them adapt,
  • has experience in a relevant industry
    which might not be the company’s industry; for example, if you need an IT buyer, why not hire someone who used to be an IT account manager, is comfortable with the technical terminology, and knows all the tricks and traps providers will throw at you (and how to avoid those expensive change orders), and
  • has some operational experience
    in Sales, Finance, Engineering or a related area that will allow them to pick up Procurement quickly.

This person, who might be used to a different box, is likely to come with some new ideas, adapt to the organizational culture, learn what they need to know, and have the potential to contribute. Now, there’s still a risk that if they come from Sales account management they won’t like the job, but considering the increased reward that will definitely come from expanding the search box (at a lower risk than the true radical approach), the doctor thinks it would be worth it.

As indicated, the paper also addresses the subjects of training and retention, which are important, but which we’re not going to cover. Even though the section on retention is quite good, as there’s nothing groundbreaking on this topic, we’d rather focus in on the discussion of the traditional vs. the radical approach, as a real understanding of this subject will help you tackle the biggest problem — finding talent in the first place. Training is easy — fight until the budget is re-instated and send your people on courses and/or bring experts in on a regular basis to help keep them current on best practices. (Given the ROI numbers, it should be a no-brainer.*2) And any company that truly wants to retain talent will do the little things that go a long way. But even the best employers don’t always know who to look for. That’s why Procurement Talent Management: Recruiting, Training & Retaining a Modern & Awesome Buying Team is a must-read for any CPO or VP who wants to build the best buying team she can.

*1 We don’t use the other phrase here on SI. (LOLCat does not approve.)
*2 But that’s the problem at many organizations these days, no brains in the higher ups. 😉

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.