Category Archives: Cost Reduction

All Your Peers Are Chasing a Lost Cause — Are You? Part II

In our last post we pointed out that the number one supply management priority in the average organization is the lost cause of cost reduction. This is exemplified in many recent studies and reports, including eyefortransport’s recent “Global Chief Supply Chain Officer Strategy – European Focus” report which has it as the number one priority. But this is a lost cause because inflation is back with a vengeance, food reserves are at fifty — or one hundred — year lows, critical raw materials are in very short supply, and, as pointed out in Supply Chain Insight’s recent report on “Supply Chain Metrics that Matter: Driving Reliability in Margins” report, between 2000 and 2011, 75% of companies in process industries lost ground on margins! In other words, even the mighty are falling — year over year.

For the foreseeable future (and most likely the rest of your supply management career), costs are going up. There’s nothing you can do about it. The best you can do is control the cost increases, and make sure you do it better than your peers. SI truly believes that this will be the difference between your company staying in business and your company filing for bankruptcy.

And you will do this not by focussing on cost, but on cost drivers. What are the main components of the cost? How much does each component contribute to the cost? How much does an increase on a core component increase the overall cost? Where is the greatest opportunity to reign in cost increases through process improvements, requirement reductions (for unnecessary services or needlessly expensive materials)? Where is the greatest risk of a cost increase? What can be done to prevent it? What should be done to prevent it?

This requires your organization to acquire the following competencies:

  • Cost Modelling
    The first thing you need to do is accurately model the cost components — including raw materials, labour, energy, and services.
  • What-if Analysis
    Understand how costs will change if each component increases, decreases, or maintains stability in line with (global) inflation. Be able to model the estimated impact of product, process, or service initiatives on overall costs.
  • Optimization
    The only true way to minimize cost increases and keep costs in check is strategic sourcing decision optimization, because the only true way to minimize costs is to minimize them holistically. Reducing unit costs is pointless if logistics costs double. Reducing labour costs is pointless if quality declines and return and warranty costs triple. Only strategic sourcing decision optimization allows you to see the whole picture and minimize costs across the board.
  • Real-Time Visibility
    You can no longer get away with NOT having real-time visibility into your supply chain, which should go beyond knowing when your order was shipped by your first tier supplier. At the very least, you should have visibility into your suppliers’ suppliers across the board and you should have visibility into any third-tier suppliers who supply critical or scarce raw materials.
  • NPD with the Goal in Mind
    In their “Supply Chain Metrics that Matter: Driving Reliability in Margins” report, Supply Chain Insights shared a great insight — most supply chains are based on functional excellence based on inside-out thinking. Companies are not clear on supply chain strategy and the delineation of the financial metrics that matter. When designing a new product, the goal is not to make the coolest (or most desirable) product, the lowest cost product, or the product you think you can charge the most for. The goal is to make the product that the organization will generate the most profit from — which is a function of margin and profit (and, specifically, the multiple thereof).

So acquire these competencies, and maybe you can stop chasing the lost cause of cost reduction and start focussing on the achievable goal of cost control.

All Your Peers Are Chasing a Lost Cause — Are You? Part I

While I believe that the average company is still chasing the cost reduction myth (as highlighted in eyefortransport’s recent “Global Chief Supply Chain Officer Strategy – European Focus” report, for example), I am having a very hard time understanding why. As SI has pointed out a number of times over the past couple of years (including in it’s recent piece on the Top Ten Things To Do in 2013 To Control Costs), for any organization that has been pursuing any form of supply management over the past five years or so, cost reduction is a fantasy that’s not going to happen within your tenure. Inflation is back with a vengeance — it will be decades, if ever, before we see a return to the 1% inflation rate we enjoyed in the noughts. Global food reserves are at fifty, and in some cases, one hundred, year lows — and the past couple of years have seen riots in the first world over the cost of basic staples (like wheat and rice). And with rapidly increasing global demand, certain raw materials are scarcer than they’ve ever been. In other words, cost reduction is a pipe dream.

Moreover, recent research by Supply Chain Insights LLC (recently released in “Supply Chain Metrics that Matter: Driving Reliability in Margins”) has demonstrated that, for the average company, cost reduction never happened anyway. That’s right! You might have saved millions in those auctions when you had the power, or taken millions out of your distribution chain with optimization, but cost increases across the board ate up those savings in other areas. The researchers found that through analysis of publicly available balance sheet and income statement data [from 2000 through 2011], we find that 75% of companies in process industries lost ground on margins and only 5% of companies improved their positions on the number of days of inventory! In other words, despite all their supply management efforts, relatively speaking, their costs went up.

This isn’t to say that you shouldn’t be focussing on supply management or cost control, with rising, and increasingly volatile, raw material and commodity prices, supply unpredictability, demand unpredictability, and the rate of supply chain disruptions increasing super linearly, cost containment is a must. But thinking you’re going to reduce costs in this economic climate is foolish. The best you will do is control them — and that will be the difference, for many companies, between staying in business and filing for bankruptcy. Literally.

What you need to be focussing on is not cost, but cost drivers and how you are going to maintain visibility into those drivers to help you figure out where costs can be best contained, when your organization will likely have the greatest (or least) advantage in a negotiation, and how much cost certainty is worth. For example, is it worth locking in a one year contract when prices are volatile and possibly higher than the projected prices due to a recent disaster that reduced supply? They could go up if demand increases, but if another source of supply appears in six months, or the backlog of orders is cleared, they could return to pre-disruption levels (which will still be higher than last year).

So how do you do this? We’ll discuss it in part two.

There is a Spend Rule of Three

But the Third Spend Savings may not be for thee.

Backing up, I’m referencing a very interesting article published in SIG’s recent newsletter on “Spend Management’s New Norm: Uncovering Big Third Spend Savings” by Mark Walsh, CEO of FedBid. According to Mark, the best way to slice, dice, and categorize spend is not to get bogged down in category taxonomies, spend thresholds, savings potential, transactional analysis, supply risk, etc. — but to simply categorize spend by the Spend Rule of Three.

Mark defines the “Spend Three” as:

  • Strategic Spend
    the largest category of spend that typically accounts for 80% of organizational spend across 20% of vendors and service providers
  • Catalog Spend
    the smallest category of spend that typically accounts for less than 10% of fixed-price transactions on credit lines, p-cards, and employee expense reports
  • Third Spend
    the middle category of spend that accounts for 10% to 20% of spend that accounts for the bulk of indirect, or tail, spending (in a non-service oriented organization, as indirect and service spend will be much higher in finance and other verticals that don’t produce physical goods)

According to Mark, the greatest savings opportunity will generally be in the Third Spend category as most organizations will have a good grip on strategic spend, where they focus all of their efforts, and catalog spend, where they will have fixed price contracts and where savings opportunities, due to such low volumes, are inconsequential. Specifically, he believes that this category represents an average savings opportunity of 11%, which is not unexpected as it is consistent with recent findings by Aberdeen, AT Kearney, CombineNet, and others over the last few years. But the savings are only there if the spend is not under management, you haven’t spent time strategically negotiating the contract, and the purchase volume is high enough to be attractive to at least one supplier.

The reality is that savings opportunities will not neatly fit into any one category, and will depend on a number of factors. How much you’re paying, the current market price, supply vs. demand, energy prices, requirement flexibility, innovation and creativity, just to name a few factors. For example, that category you’ve strategically sourced five times in the last two years might still be a huge savings opportunity if a new production technology just hit the market that allows a supplier to cut production costs by 20%. You need to do a high level analysis across all categories to identify where the greatest opportunities likely lie, not just focus on the third spend. While there are probably some big savings to be had, the biggest savings lie where you’re spending the most in a manner that’s the most off of optimal. Don’t forget that … and if by some chance you’re not one of the thousands of readers who have already downloaded Spend Visibility: An Implementation Guide a free e-book by Sourcing Innovation and Lexington Analytics that is the definitive book on next level performance, do so today. It’s worth your time.

Are You Going to Be Able to Control Costs this Year?

Costs are rising across categories and verticals and will likely continue to do so. There are a number of direct and indirect reasons for these increased costs, but the most substantial are the following reasons which could collectively rip a supply chain out from under even the largest of multi-national corporations.


1) Inflation is back with a vengeance

Commodity costs are rising across the board. According to the Royal Bank of Canada, the commodity price index increased for the third straight month and hit a five-month high in September. They increased 8.2% since June! Barley and Corn have exceeded the highs of 2008. The price of Live Cattle is almost 50% more than it was just two years ago. Copper is climbing back to its recent high. And these are just a few examples.


2) Market growth is stagnant and, as a result, so is job growth.

Stagnant growth in their markets can limit a company’s ability to increase the breadth of its strategic sourcing activities and get more spend under management, a critical key to cost control. While stagnant markets should be the bugle call for a company to get more spend under management, the lack of resources, primarily due to lack of hiring of new talent and investment in new technology, has kept many companies from expanding the growth of their sourcing efforts. In addition, stagnant market growth means that volume is not going to increase, and this limits a Supply Manager’s ability to negotiate (additional) volume-based savings going forward.


3) There is a widening gap between risk identification and mitigation.

The amount of research on risk and risk mitigation has reached an all time high, but there has been little or no movement towards the identification and implementation of an effective risk identification and mitigation strategy. In 2008, a Marsh survey found that only 35% of organizations self-reported that supply chain risk management was moderately effective at their companies. Stated another way, 65% of companies did not have a risk management program that was at least moderately effective. In 2011, researchers at Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School and Ghent University did a supply chain risk management study and again found that 64% of
the companies have no one responsible for managing supply chain risks! That’s essentially zero improvement in the last
three years!

And these are just three of the reasons (or fates) costs are rising across categories and verticals! For the other four reasons, the seven elements missing from an average Supply Managemnt organization exposing it to these seven fates, and the ten competencies that every Supply Management organization needs to master in order to acquire the seven elements that will allow a Supply Management organization to fend off the seven fates, remember to download the Top Ten Things to Do in 2013 to Control Costs, a free white-paper from BravoSolution (registration required) authored by Sourcing Innovation.

So You Need To Save On Ocean Freight

You could start with these pointers from Inbound Logistics on Reducing Ocean Freight Costs:

  • Consolidate LTL/LCL to FTL/FCL
       (and use 40-foot and high-cube containers)
    It costs almost as much money to run a truck almost empty as it does to run a truck almost full (when you consider that an empty trailer weights around 12,000 lbs or 5500 kgs), so a trucking company has to charge you more on a weight/volume basis if you don’t ship FTL as they might not be able to consolidate someone else’s cargo and lose money otherwise. Similarly, it’s cheaper to ship full containers, and for a carrier to standardized on 40-foot containers.
  • Transload operations to inland destinations
    Once shipments arrive, route them through a transload facility to be repacked and loaded to inland destinations. Avoiding unnecessary warehousing reduces costs and expedites shipments.
  • Make round-trip opportunities available.
    Providing inbound and outbound flows from a location allows carriers to make optimal use of equipment. While it will not be possible from final destinations, especially if shipping direct to stores with transload operations, you can give the carrier outbound shipments from US production facilities / (return) service depots on its return route to minimize it’s costs, and yours.
  • Know the market
    You should know the current market prices for fuel costs, capacity on your lanes, and provider overheads. You should also know total demand. This way you can negotiate a good (fair) deal.
  • Pay carriers on time according to agreed terms.
    Delaying payments only costs your company in the long run. If you don’t, the carriers will likely have to borrow at an interest rate that (far) exceeds any interest you may make keeping the cash in the bank. This means that they will have to build these costs into their fees, which will go up and cost your organization ore over the long run.

Or, you could just eliminate the need for (a significant quantity of) ocean freight (entirely). Let’s face it — 100% savings is WAY more than the 5% to 10% the above will shave off your costs.

How do you do this? Nearsource (or, better yet, Home-source)! In North America, consider Mexico or Brazil. With overseas labour costs and logistics costs climbing significantly year-over-year, for some products, it’s just as economical to produce them south of the equator — especially when you consider overseas labour rates and logistics costs are NOT going down. Now, SI knows this isn’t necessarily possible for all categories (as high-tech requires very advanced production facilities which can’t be thrown up or staffed overnight, for example), but with the exception of high-tech, biotech, and other industries that require a large pool of very specifically educated people and very high-tech production facilities, there’s no good reason NOT to be looking at locales like Mexico and Brazil right now. (And even if the raw materials need to come from overseas, the cost of shipping (refined) raw materials, which are very dense, is much less than shipping final goods, which typically aren’t dense and which require a fair amount of packaging — and which often have lower import duties!)