We all know the Kraljic matrix is broken, and that it has been broken for a while. As Jason Busch starts off in his article on how Supply Management Must Become Exact Purchasing, Kraljic was right at the time, but it’s time to come back to where we started. And, more importantly, recognize that the Kraljic Matrix was designed as a starting point for supply management to think critically — and Supply Management was supposed to evolve from there. But it never really did.
Sure we got the Purchasing Chessboard by Kearney to supplement a host of seven step methodologies, procurement game plans, new techniques for managing indirect spend, lean supply management, and a slew of techniques from every niche consultancy to enhance your supply, and category management, strategies, but almost all of these are based on the classic 2 * 2 Kraljic matrix with refinement.
In his post, Jason, who rightfully says that procurement at scale is not one-size-fits-all tells us that answer is Exact Purchasing, or more specifically, The Exact Purchasing Quadrant, where he tries to map cost influence vs contract-and-supply complexity because Kraljic told you what a category is when he mapped profit impact vs. risk / complexity, but he didn’t tell you what to do with it. According to Jason, if you have:
- low cost influence and low complexity, you transaction capture
- low cost influence and high complexity, you govern the relationship
- high cost influence and low complexity, you manage market risk
- high cost influence and high complexity, you architect the cost
And Jason’s mostly right. Depending on the category in question, you’re generally going to apply one of those approaches.
Jason doesn’t stop there. He tells you that the thread that ties all four of these together is data at the core. And he’s right. Without a data-based (not necessarily database) approach, you’ll never effectively manage, and thus never effectively purchase, a category. Moreover, Jason does a great job at telling you what the core data is, where it resides, and where it could sit in your next generation enterprise Supply Management Solution (SMS). But he falls short when dictates the velocity, because that depends on the criticality. And even worse, the depth of data required depends on the criticality — which can also change the quadrant a category falls in!
For example, while packaging, print & marketing, and NPD are definitely strategic (Kraljic) cost architecture (Busch) categories for some companies (i.e. CPG, Advertising Agencies, and Manufacturers), they are tail-spend for other companies (i.e. Retail Store, Luxury Brands, and a Services Consultancy).
Jason’s improved approach still fails because it suffers from the same fallacy as the original Kraljic matrix — that complexity and risk are a single dimension. They’re not. Complexity is a factor of the product or service that you design and is an internal dimension that you have complete control over. Risk is a factor of the external environment that impacts your ability to create and deliver the product or service and depends on the financial stability of your supplier, the geopolitical situation in which it operates, the trade routes that exist between your supplier and your location, your supplier’s supply chain, and everything else in between — these are all factors you can’t control. Furthermore, it’s not profit impact (Kraljic) [which is short term] or cost influence (Busch) [which depends on spend], but criticality, which is measured in value impact [and what happens if the buy is unprofitable, of poor quality, or unavailable]. A category with zero savings potential can risk a 100M product line if your products can’t be completed without it (and we’ve seen this many times over the last two decades as critical sensors or single-sourced components shut down automotive lines or lack of RAM [from the decennial plant fires] or custom control chips [from trade slow-downs or insufficient production] greatly impacted personal computer / laptop or game system production — costing major brands hundreds of millions of dollars).
The reality is that Supply Management / Exact Purchasing / Get My Stuff (and Git-r-Done) is NOT a 2 * 2 matrix. It’s a(t least a) 2 * 2 * 2 pocket cube (and a 3 * 3 * 3 cube in large Enterprises) that is different for every organization where you take into account:
- complexity – low (med) or high
- market risk – low (med) or high
- criticality – low (med) or high
And as you progress from the lower left of the cube (where all dimensions are low) to the upper right of the cube (where all dimensions are high), you’re simultaneously following a three-dimensional path down a bi-furcating decision tree that takes you from non-critical items where you are simply managing as transactions to highly strategic items that you are cost architecting to the best of your ability, monitoring at least weekly, and alerting the category manager to on every major market event. In the middle, you will deal with your leverage and bottleneck items using well-timed market events to mitigate risk and managed relationships to ensure smooth supply, with the depth, and velocity, of the data correlated to the criticality of the item to your operation.
You do that, and you’ll finally be on the road to Exact Purchasing.
And I’ll leave it to Jason to work out the details of the starting cubic, as he’s so intent on fixing Purchasing (now that he’s semi-retired and can pontificate on the philosophical of purchasing).
(And once Jason does that, I’ll tell you how execution differs between small, medium, and large enterprises because “strategic” doesn’t mean the same thing at different levels, there is no one-size-fits-all platform, and, after a lack of operational readiness [which THE REVELATOR will happily fill you in on], this is likely the second biggest reason new technology acquisition projects fail in our space.)