Category Archives: Cost Reduction

While Reverse Auctions Are Not Evil, They Are Not Salvation Either!

Despite the frequent misquoting of the work of Dr. Bob Emiliani, which is regularly used to slam reverse auctions (see Spend Matters), reverse auctions are not evil, and, used on the right category at the right time, they can provide a company with double digit savings.

However, despite the claims that appear to be made in this recent ChainLink Research article on “broadening the scope of reverse auctions”, they are not salvation either. While it’s true that some companies have proven that e-auctions can generate double-digit savings year after year, this doesn’t mean that your company will see double-digit savings, and, as pointed out in a brief history of optimization, sometimes reverse auctions result in cost increases, which can be significant.

Not only does the comprehensive auction have to be conducted properly to be successful, but the following has to be true if the company is going to see meaningful savings:

  1. There must be enough serious competition in the market.There should be three or more suppliers who can meet the company’s need at an acceptable quality level and who are willing to actively (and aggressively) compete for the business.
  2. There must be true savings potential.The company must collect index and benchmark data and determine with reasonable certainty that it’s current price is significantly higher than the (expected) average market price.
  3. The company must be ready and able to commit to the winner.If not, this will damage the company’s reputation and drive away those suppliers who could (potentially) work with the company to find ways to decrease cost.

If these basic criteria are not met, you will not see (significant) savings, and the auction will likely be a waste of time at best.

Share This on Linked In

You Say You Know How To Do A Make-vs-Buy Analysis. Are You Sure?

Should you make or should you buy? It’s a difficult question that requires a detailed analysis. Consider the example of a car engine. Do you source each major assembly — the engine, the frame, etc.; or do you source sub-assemblies — the carburetor, the fuel injector, etc; or do you source component parts — the throttle body, the choke pull-off, etc.; and so on. Do you build the final product in house from the major assemblies, or do you have a first tier supplier do it, or do you have one first tier supplier assemble the major assemblies from the sub-assemblies and send those assemblies to another first tier supplier who will assemble the car, or do you chose one of a thousand other supply chain models that can also get the job done?

The figures below hint at the complexity that needs to be considered to truly arrive at a best solution. The best, and most cost-effective, scenario will depend on the particular strengths and cost efficiencies of each supplier in the supply chain.

Engine Complexity

The only true way to find the best, and most cost-effective, scenario is by way of decision optimization with integrated make-vs-buy analysis capability that can span a multi-level Bill of Materials (BOM). While most SSDO (strategic sourcing decision optimization) platforms do not yet support this capability, it is a good bet that most of tomorrow’s will. To find out what other capabilities are forthcoming in the world of decision optimization, visit BravoSolution‘s website, fill out a short 8-field registration form, and receive your free, exclusive, copy of The Future of Optimization, a new Sourcing Innovation white-paper with groundbreaking insight on eight directions that strategic sourcing decision optimization is likely to take in the decade ahead.

Share This on Linked In

A Hitchhiker’s Guide to e-Procurement: Invoices, Part II

Mostly Harmless, Part XI

Previous Post

In the last post, the invoice was defined as well as some of the associated data requirements. This post will address the associated challenges with invoice processing, some associated best practices, and the benefits that could be expected from an appropriate e-Procurement solution that was flexible and efficient in its processing of invoices.

Common Challenges

  • Purchase Order Partitioning

    The line items on the invoice can relate to one or more purchase orders … but which items go with which purchase orders? If an invoice is for a large shipment of hundreds of line items, this can be a challenge.

  • Billing Validation

    Were all of the items ordered? Were they received in acceptable condition? Are they at contracted or otherwise agreed to rates? Do any discounts apply? Are there early payment discounts to be taken advantage of?

  • Duplicate Detection

    Is this invoice unique? Is each line item a unique billing against received goods?

Best Practices

  • Automatic Acceptance / Import

    The system should be capable of automatically receiving invoices from suppliers and automatically accepting them (conditionally) if no reason for automatic rejection is found.

  • Automatic Uniqueness Validation

    The system should automatically match each line item of the invoice against the indicated and/or outstanding purchase orders and automatically reject the invoice if it, or any part of it, is determined to be a duplicate of an already submitted, and (conditionally) accepted, invoice. This notice should automatically be sent to the supplier, along with the reason for rejection.

  • Automatic m-Way Matching

    As soon as an invoice is received, it should be matched against any and all relevant goods receipts, purchase orders, and contracts to make sure that all goods were ordered, received, and billed at contracted rates. If unacceptable errors are found, the invoice should be automatically rejected. If only minor (billing) errors are found, the invoice should be accepted with modifications. If one or more items are under dispute, the invoice should be conditionally accepted and a note made that it can not be paid automatically until the dispute is resolved and that manual intervention will be required if this resolution does not occur before the due date. If one or more line items can’t be matched, the invoice needs to be flagged for manual review.

Potential Benefits

  • Reduced Overspending

    Automatic uniqueness validation insures that duplicate payments are not made, automatic m-way matching prevents overpayments, and automatic flagging of invoices under disputes prevents payments for unacceptable merchandise.

  • Faster Payments

    Invoices that are determined to be problem free can be queued for payments according to the payment terms. Automatic payments can prevent interest charges or reduced goodwill on the part of the supplier.

  • Greater Savings

    The prevention of duplicate payments, overpayments, and payments for goods not yet accepted, the ability to take advantage of early payment discounts, and increased supplier goodwill all contribute to greater savings.

Once the invoices are accepted, it is time for final reconciliation of (conditionally) accepted invoices and invoices that are marked for manual reconciliation (due to one or more problems that are not cause for automatic rejection), which is the subject of the next post.

Next Post: Reconciliation, Part I

Share This on Linked In

A Hitchhiker’s Guide to e-Procurement: Invoices, Part I

Mostly Harmless, Part X

Previous Post

A (sales) invoice is a commercial document issued by a seller to a buyer that indicates the products, quantities, and prices for products and services the seller has provided to the buyer. An invoice indicates that the buyer must pay the seller according to payment terms. While the purchase order is the most important document to the buyer, as it outlines what the buyer is willing to buy (and at what price), an invoice is the most important document to the seller, as it represents money due to the supplier for goods and services rendered.

An invoice is generally the result of a purchase order, but the relationship is not necessarily one-to-one. A supplier might fulfill an order with multiple shipments (especially if some items are not immediately available) and invoice after each shipment, indicating that there can be many invoices corresponding to one purchase order. In addition, a supplier might fulfill multiple purchase orders at once, if the orders were small (and the supplier is responsible for all shipping charges over an agreed amount), indicating that there can be many purchase orders corresponding to one invoice.

Like a purchase order, an invoice must contain a significant amount of information, including items delivered, associated SKUs, billing rates, adjusted rates, reasons for adjustments, corresponding purchase order(s), corresponding goods receipt(s) (if available), invoice date, delivery dates, unique identifiers, taxes, tax codes (state vs. federal vs. VAT etc.), descriptions, billing address, payment address, contacts (for disputes), and payment terms.

In addition, it must contain any information required for m-way matching, to insure that only the items that were ordered and delivered are paid for, and only at contracted rates, and adjusted rate calculations if line-item or global discounts apply (because a volume threshold was reached, because the buyer opted to pay early to take advantage of an early payment discount, or because the supplier agreed to a discount to resolve a dispute).

Furthermore, just like the goods receipt must be representable in a universal (e.g. XML) format that can be accepted by all of the systems that require it, so must the invoice, as the buyer may need to return the invoice to the supplier after adjustments (subject to contract terms and/or agreements that resulted from a dispute resolution) are made.

Thus, when a buyer is evaluating an e-Procurement system, extra attention must be paid to the invoicing capability as it not only has to support m-way matching (with contracts, purchase orders, and goods receipts), but support revisions and automated communications with the supplier. Some of these topics will be addressed in more detail in the next post.

Next Post: Invoices, Part I

Share This on Linked In

Saving on Systems Integration Costs

If you’ve ever bought an enterprise system, you know that the sticker price is usually only a small fraction of the total cost of ownership and that the implementation and integration costs can dwarf the sticker price by an order of magnitude. As a result, integration costs often present supply management with an opportunity to save six or seven figures. But how? Especially when 70% of enterprise projects fail to deliver on their initial promise?

In a word, planning. According to several experts in the field, the most common problems that arise when companies set out to integrate procurement, distribution, warehousing and communication systems come not in executing their plans, but rather in conceptualizing them. The reality is that if your plans are good enough, you can get a junior team fresh out of an India technical school to implement them successfully*. But if the plans aren’t good enough, you might as well take that money to Las Vegas, because those 10% odds of success are better than the odds of your project succeeding.

Not only do you need a shared view of success at the enterprise level, as discussed in this article on “drawing the lines on system integration”, but you need a detailed plan that describes what systems will be integrated, what modules will be linked, what data will be exchanged, what functionality will result from the integration, and what success cases look like. Coding is rarely the challenge. It’s usually knowing what to code.

* Unfortunately, the doctor has never seen plans this good. It is possible to create them, but it seems that companies never spend enough time in the planning stage anymore …

Share This on Linked In