Category Archives: Best Practices

What Procurement Processes Should Be Automated?

The big push in Procurement Automation is typically the automation of invoice processing: automatic matching, verification, and when possible, payment because paper-based invoice processing in an average organization can cost $30 or more (with some estimates that paper-based invoice processing can cost an organization as much as $60). But when an organization switches to automated invoice matching, processing, and payment with a best-of-breed system that can automate processing the 85%+ of invoices that are problem free can reduce invoice processing costs to somewhere between $3 and $8 an invoice, depending on the system and the overhead costs.

And while this cost savings is great, it shouldn’t distract from the other cost savings opportunities that can come from automating other procurement processes, which eat up valuable time and resources. In this post we will discuss three other areas of Procurement that should be automated.

Requisition Approvals

Not every requisition needs a manual review. A requisition for a standard office supply reorder from the office manager, a requisition for a standard setup for a new hire, or a requisition for standard travel expenses for a pre-approved conference can all be automatically approved if the expenses are within the expected range and budgets are not exceeded. A requisition system that supports the definition of rules that can allow requisitions to be auto-approved can save the organization a lot of time and resource energy.

Automated MRO re-orders

A system that can support the definition of minimum stock levels, maximum stock levels, and perfect re-order levels can allow stock to be automatically re-ordered when a threshold is met. This negates the need for an MRO clerk to regularly check inventory levels and compute re-order levels.

Supplier Profile Maintenance

Supplier profiles need to be kept up to date to enable the organization to contact the right people, select the right locations, keep track of current products and services, and make payment. People change roles, and jobs, office locations move, products get discontinued, and so on. Keeping this information up to date takes a lot of time and effort – with a good portal, that reminds suppliers of their need to auto-update, suppliers can maintain their information, upload insurance certificates and certifications, and provide the organization with requested information on an as-needed basis.

Good Procurement systems automate the tactical and allow procurement professionals to focus on issues, not paper pushing.

Category Aggregation – How Far Do You Go?

Category Aggregation is one of the tried-and-few methods for spend leverage in Procurement — aggregate a bunch of items, go to market simultaneously, and demand big discounts for big awards. The first time a significant category of significant size is aggregated, and offered up, the organization will see savings … often significant savings.

But does the spend have to be aggregated to get the savings? Let’s examine the likely reasons why a supplier will offer up savings.

  • They were making a fat margin and could give it up.
    For example, maybe a healthy margin for the industry, unbeknownst to your organization, is 10% and they were making 15% (because of internal efficiencies or collusion that prevented you from knowing the true margin). In this case, they would be happy to sacrifice 5% to triple their business.
  • What’s lost on unit is made up in volume.
    If volume allows them to not only maintain their profit level but potentially increase it, they are likely to go for it.
  • Big orders allows them to get discounts on raw materials.
    Smarter suppliers may realize that the more volume they can commit to, the better prices they are likely to get and offer discounts based on projected cost savings on raw materials.
  • Big orders allows them to operate more efficiently.
    Some suppliers might have plants that operate most efficiently at large volumes, and will take slight margin cuts to maintain peak production level (and enough cash flow to pay the workforce without expensive “payday” loans).

If you look at these reasons, it would seem that the best way to get better savings is through aggregation as this is the only way to make the buy more enticing. But is it?

Not necessarily. Let’s start with the fact that suppliers might be willing to give you price reductions if they get price reductions. You could always give them price reductions from the get go by buying raw materials your organization uses a lot of across categories at prices better than smaller suppliers could get and, as part of every bid, noting that they will have access to necessary raw materials at a reduced cost when serving your organization. They can pass this savings on to you as part of their bid.

You can also engage your best engineers and production consultants to create detailed should cost models that take into account market pricing on raw materials, labour rates, energy costs, and average production line maintenance costs, tack on a fair margin, and use this information as leverage in negotiations in conjunction with open book costing requests. You can ask not only for a price breakdown, but compare it against expected prices and see which suppliers are trying to keep the wool over your eyes, eliminate them, and work with those focussed on win-win cost reductions. (You’ll allow them to maintain a healthier than average margin if they cut your costs by using your lower cost supply, optimizing production runs, and implementing the lean process improvements you dictate.)

You can guarantee them a certain revenue in the following year if they meet performance targets. (For example, if they maintain an on-time delivery of 90%, a defect rate of under 2%, and costs are maintained, in 12 months you will guarantee their annual revenue will increase by 50%.) Now, you might think this is hard to do, but with an optimization-backed sourcing platform, you can dictate minimum award requirements in a scenario, or determine impact across a set of scenarios, and pick the categories where an additional award will most benefit your organization.

You can allow them to specify optimal order sizes based on their factory. For example, if they produce 10,000 units a day, you should order multiples of 10,000 at a time — otherwise, they might have to switch dies, etc. during the day and take down the production line while staff are still on the clock. Tying order sizes to production runs means that they only have to reset the production line once a day, before or after a shift, and the supplier can keep their overhead down.

Aggregation is not always necessary, but sometimes it does make sense. Why do three sourcing events for essentially the same product or service? Especially when you can do one, implement one or more of the above strategies, and potentially identify more value than your peers. In other words, you should aggregate when it makes sense, and be aware of the “6 Critical Success Factors for an Aggregation Approach”, as summarized by the public defender, but not depend on this strategy or overuse it.

Platforms are Needed to Accelerate Procurement Agility – But Don’t Overlook the Offline Contributions

Over on Spend Matters UK, the public defender wrote a great post on “Why Platforms are Needed to Accelerate Procurement Agility” and discussed how the digitization of our everyday lives through cloud-based services served up over the internet is arguably the single greatest consumer trend of the modern era. In this post, he noted that the digitization trend has also worked its way upstream into B2B value chains and since businesses don’t want to be “digitally disrupted” by others they are searching for new supplier capabilities they can serve up as new customer-facing services.

This is a great use of digitization capability where it makes sense, but it’s not just online agility that is needed, it’s offline too. And this is where modern platforms can make the most impact.

Consider the NPD/NPI lifecycle. Right now, what typically happens is engineering works in their own little world designing a product, and when it’s mostly done, they contact procurement to help them find sources of supply and qualify their preferred manufacturing houses. This is typically done in CAD/CAM software, disconnected from everything, and can be a slow process.

Initial design might have to be slow, but the fact that its disconnected can really slowdown the NPI cycle. If design is not plugged in to the rest of the enterprise, and Procurement cannot be involved from day one, the engineers might choose discontinued parts, work with unfavourable suppliers, or even work on features that are not desired by the majority of current customers.

Then there is sourcing. Without advanced knowledge, Sourcing will not only need ramp up time to identify sources of supply, but might be stuck trying to source materials in limited supply that have a locked in price higher than the organization can afford if it wants to meet cost targets. Early involvement can help Engineering understand where the cost is and select the right design options when it has a choice.

Then there is inventory and manufacturing planning. Procurement needs to be plugged into marketing and sales to accurately estimate demand, and have to be in tune with supplier production capacities and shipment times to make sure orders are placed on time and stock-outs can be addressed quickly in times of demand surge.

The only way NPD/NPI time can be minimized is if the process goes smoothly. The only way this can happen is if Procurement is involved from the beginning and can connect with each impacted department in the organization at the right time and can communicate with suppliers quickly and consistently. This can only be done with a modern platform and illustrates why platforms are truly needed for Procurement agility.

True Savings Can Only Be Identified through Multi-Factor Optimization

A recent guest post from a vendor-employed guest contributor over on Spend Matters said to “Calculate Your True Savings Using Predictive Analytics”. While the doctor agrees predictive analytics can often give you a good data point as to projected savings, the reality is that it’s not always as accurate as you would like to believe and typically does not capture your best savings opportunities.

Why? Before we discuss the guest post, which did have some good points, we have to note that most predictive analytics algorithms work on trending and statistics on historical or market data, and while this can be highly accurate (95%+) the majority of the time (95%+), because market data is only historical and typically does not include data points on new (not yet introduced or announced innovations), detailed cost breakdowns on consumer / market prices, or operational insights into hidden inefficiencies whose correction can do more than shaving a few points off the top.

Going back to the post, the author states that if you use a Savings Regression Analysis (SRA) model based on multivariate regression of past-realized savings for a given subcategory to compute the savings potential under current market conditions, the target computed will be realistic, achievable, and likely mirror what you will do (despite the savings targets you set).

And this statistically based model will work if it is the same buyer (group) employing the same strategy on the same market base under similar conditions, but what could happen if a new buyer comes in that totally redefines the demand and the market strategy, or the market conditions have suddenly changed from supply shortage to supply surplus, or new production technologies could revolutionize production and trim overhead 20%? In this situation, this type of model will be significantly off.

Now, anything you can do to better predict savings is a positive, because, as the author points out, this allows for

  • better cash flow management (as you will better know your costs)
  • time to market optimization (as you will know the best time to source if you have leeway)
  • goal setting (as you won’t be trying to achieve the impossible)
  • performance management (as you can track against a realistic goal)

But while predictive analytics give a good data point, the best data point is when you use your market intelligence to build good should cost models, use optimization to minimize transportation and incidental storage and sales (and even taxation) costs (when sourcing globally), and use six sigma analysis to see if there is any opportunity to take cost out of a supplier’s overhead production cost. Going into this level of detail may indicate that while the product cost is likely to increase 1% this year (and explains why the predictive software says only 2% savings should be expected after heavy negotiations), an extensive analysis could show that a transportation network redesign could shave 3% and lean process improvements at your supplier could shave 2%, meaning that a cost reduction of up to 7% could be achieved with the right footwork (which is something the predictive model will never tell you). So use the predictive algorithms to establish a baseline, but never, ever stop there.

7 Secrets to Creating Supply Risk Management Leverage – and 3 More You Might Need

A recent pro-piece on “7 Secrets to Creating Supply Management Leverage” over on Spend Matters Pro [membership required] by the prophet and the maverick highlighted 7 strategies that an organization can be successful in risk management in the light of recent events that include, but are not limited to: the Hanjin Shipping bankruptcy, the Zika Virus, and the East Coast Oil disruptions.

The first three are a must.

1) You must aggregate your data.

No performance improvement, in or out of risk management, can happen without data and the process and performance visibility it brings. For more insight, and tips, into this, see the pro piece.

2) You must standardize your processes through collaborative means.

You can’t take a mish-mash random approach to risk identification and management — it must be coherent, cohesive, and collaborative. Otherwise, for every risk you prevent, two will slip past undetected.

3) Tuning — and minimizing — false positives and false negatives.

False positives are common, and the real risk is the false negatives, right? Wrong. False negatives pose a big risk, but for many companies, false negatives pose a bigger risk because, in order to minimize the possibility of false negatives, the organization will tune the system to let as many weak possibilities slip through in order to make sure no significant risks escape. However, in doing so, what will inevitably happen is that the number of false positives will increase significantly. You might be thinking, so what? Quick review eliminates them. Well, it does, but, over time, the risk reviewers become numb to, and tired of, the false positives and slowly, but surely, turn up the thresholds. Eventually they are raised so high that the false negatives increase and big risks slip in.

The next 4 are important, and most organizations will need to do at least 2 of them, and you can read the prophet and the maverick‘s piece on 7 Secrets to Creating Supply Management Leverage for more details, but here are a few you might also need.

8) Payment and Receipt Monitoring

Supply disruption in critical parts and goods is one of the worst supply chain disasters an organization can experience because an inability to sell the primary product line will result in a significant drop in revenue. Supply disruptions happen for a number of reasons, some of which are preventable (like not ordering from a supplier about to go bankrupt), some of which are not (like a natural disaster).

The best way to detect an issue is in delivery and invoicing monitoring. A supplier that is on hard financial times will submit invoices extremely promptly, follow-up quickly, re-submit on or before the deadline, and often take less than desireable early payment discounts. If they are at the point where they can’t even afford to get the credit to buy the goods and labour they need to make and ship your products, shipments will start to be late. Or maybe quality levels will drop and reject rates will rise. All of this can be detected early on with good internal data monitoring.

9) Impact Event Definition and Real-Time News Monitoring

Once your data is aggregated, and your supply chain mapped, you not only know your sole source suppliers (that need to be duplicated), but you also know your choke-points (where any number of events could impact your supply chain) and primary supply regions. (Just because you’re buying American doesn’t mean 80% of the raw materials aren’t coming from China!) You can easily define these regions, and the most likely supply chain impacts (port strikes, natural disasters, etc.) and then set up news and event monitoring to alert you to any event that could potentially impact your supply (including events that would impact two levels down the supply chain, which would cause a ripple event up). Now, its true that these are only so accurate and you might get a lot of false positives, but its better to quickly eliminate a few dozen false positives and get real time visibility into a critical component supply shortage in three months then find out there is no available supply left when a delivery date is missed.

X) Supplier Development

Let’s face it, the 7 steps in the prophet and the maverick‘s pro piece and the 2 steps above are good, but the best risk management you can do is instill the same commitment to risk monitoring, management, and prevention into your supply base (who will also do their best to push it down). A+ risk management can only do so much if your suppliers are C+ students at best.